19th Parliament · 1st Session
Mr. Speaker (Hon. Archie Cameron) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 261
Mr. TRELOAR presented a petition from certain citizens of New South “Wales praying that action be taken to secure by a referendum of the people an extension of the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers to enable the passing of legislation by the Commonwealth Parliament to control prices.
Petition received and read.
page 262
– Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the Parliament will have an opportunity to discuss the terms of the proposed peace treaty with Japan before this country is committed in any way whatever?
– That matter will, of course, be considered by the Government when it arises.
page 262
– I direct a question to the Minister for Health in relation to cortisone, about which he made a statement to the House yesterday. I understand that the full supply of cortisone that the United States of America will give us will be obtained by the Government and that to avoid any competition six or seven firms will handle its distribution. I understand, also, that to avoid abuse of the use of the drug, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians will handle the actual distribution to the patients. I should like to know what procedure should be adopted by patients receiving treatment in the Royal Hobart Hospital and other hospitals. Will supplies of cortisone be made available to the hospital, to be used at the discretion of the surgeon superintendent, or will it be necessary for him to submit each case to the college ? How will the cost be met?
– It will be necessary for the surgeon superintendent to apply to the representative of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in Melbourne or Hobart and . inform him whether the hospital authorities are prepared to accept the conditions under which the cortisone will be made available. The drug itself will be free of duty. The cost of the drug will be borne by the importers.
page 262
– I ask the Minister for Health whether, under the Government’s allegedly free medical scheme for pen sioners, subvention members of friendly societies, that is males over 65 years of age and females over 60 years of age, who previously obtained medical treatment and medicine free, are now being asked to pay through their friendly societies for medical attention? Has a different and more limited and cheaper formulary been arranged by the Department of Health and the doctors in respect of pensioners, thus affording an opportunity to chemists to charge pensioners for a wide variety of medicines? Have the members of the Minister’s union the British Medical Association, decided by ballot to charge a fee of 5s. for calls to attend pensioners after 6 p.m.? Are these the facts which apply to the Minister’s much-advertised free medicine scheme for pensioners, which is paid for from the proceeds of the social services tax that is levied upon the workers ?
– Order ! The honorable member must not import comment into a question.
– Discussions are now taking place between the New South Wales Government and the Australian Government concerning the State Government’s subvention for friendly societies with a view to winding up the subvention and enabling those societies to come within the Australian Government’s general scheme. Friendly, societies in New South Wales are still operating their own scheme. The fee of 5s. for calls to attend pensioners after 6 p.m., to which the honorable member has referred, will be made at the discretion of doctors in instances which they do not consider to be urgent. I point out that that fee is only half the amount of the fee that is charged in similar circumstances under the Tasmanian Government’s free medical scheme under which doctors may charge an after-hours foe of 10s. 6d. for surgery consultation and a fee of £1 ls., plus mileage, for domiciliary visits. Under the Tasmanian scheme, doctors have the right to make that charge if they so desire. Provision for charging .a fee of 5s. for calls after 6 p.m. has been made as the result of discussions with not only the doctors but also the representatives of the friendly societies, which, for many years, have had a similar arrangement, as it is believed that that is the only way to prevent doctors from being imposed upon and of enabling medical attention to be obtained in all cases of emergency.
page 263
– By way of preface to a question that I address to the Minister for Health relating to distemper in dogs, particularly sheep dogs, and the shortage of veterinary surgeons, I point out that distemper is very prevalent amongst dogs in parts of Victoria. Distemper can be prevented by immunization with serum containing a living anti.distemper virus. Under the present regulations, the Director of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will supply this serum to veterinary surgeons only. Furthermore, as there is an acute shortage of veterinary surgeons in Victoria some medical practitioners ave willing to give this treatment. Will the Minister consider amending the regulations to permit the Director of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to supply medical practitioners with this serum on their request in instances in which the services of veterinary surgeons are not available?
– In Victoria, the distribution of the virus for treating canine distemper is governed by regulations made under the Victorian Veterinary Surgeons Act.
– The serum is obtained from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.
– The serum is made at those laboratories. This matter generally was discussed by representatives of the Chamber of Agriculture of Victoria, and the Council of the Australian Veterinarians Association in Victoria. Those bodies have laid down certain rules having regard to the fact that as the virus is a living virus it may set up infection. For that reason the distribution is restricted to those who are best able to take precautions against the risks involved. However, if it is thought that doctors are willing to give the treatment I shall take up the matter in the appropriate quarter in order to ascertain whether the course that the honorable member has suggested can be followed.
page 263
– During the last sessional period of the Parliament several questions were directed from this side of the House to the Minister for Health concerning the epidemic of poliomyelitis, which was then confined within narrow limits but which has now became a national epidemic. Will the Minister inform me whether the Commonwealth Department of Health regards itself as being in any way concerned in steps taken to control or limit this epidemic? If it does, will the right honorable gentleman say what is being done by that department or state whether the departmental health officers regard the epidemic as being merely a matter for the various State governments?
– If the right honorable gentleman’s memory is accurate, he will remember that I previously stated that this matter had been brought to the notice of the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is a body representative of State and Commonwealth Governments, as well as of the universities and research professions generally. That council made a recommendation on the manner in which the matter might best be handled. That recommendation was designed to endeavour to secure further action by the State governments. The terms of the recommendation were made known to the State governments and it was found that they were neither anxious nor able to provide extra research officers. I do not think that reports have been received from all of the States, but as a result of the replies that have recently been received, and in order to ensure greater research activity, I have called together the leaders of the National Health and Medical Research Council, Sir Macfarlane Burnet, Professor H. Dew, of Sydney, and Professor H. Ward, of Melbourne, to meet me in Sydney on Monday next.
– When will some action be taken?
– Order! The Minister should ignore the interjection.
– I consider that.no words can adequately express the extraordinary capacity, industry, diligence and self-sacrifice that the various research officers of the States have displayed in dealing with poliomyelitis during the last three years. Some of their research activity has received very high commendation from many parts of the world.
page 264
– I address to the Postmaster-General a question in connexion with the application at present before his department for the granting of additional commercial radio licences for various parts of Australia, but my particular request relates to the need for radio licence^ in the Manning River Valley, New South Wales. Is the PostmasterGeneral yet in a position to make a statement concerning the progress of investigations and the possibility of granting such licences?
– There is, of course, in Australia a large number of applicants for commercial radio licences. I understand that there are approximately 1,000 such applications on the records at the present time. Among those applications I notice that there are 30 separate applications from Taree, so I do not know what “the position will be there if one licence should be allotted. The fact is that under the International Radio Agreement, 106 channels are available for commercial or for medium wave broadcasting in Australia, for both commercial and national stations. Of those 106 channels, 98 have been allotted. The remainder are reserved mostly for national regional stations to be established in areas where the community is, at the present time, not adequately served. However, in respect of commercial broadcasting licences, my department is examining the situation having in mind the possibilities of the sharing channel system. ‘For example, a station at Canberra may share a channel with a station in north Queensland or Western Australia, because there would not necessarily be interference, provided that the power of each station is kept relatively low. We must also take into consideration the broadcasting facilities in New Zealand, because what we do here and what is done there affects radio reception in both places. We are under agreement with New Zealand in respect of these various channels, but we are examining the possibility of granting additional commercial licences for stations of relatively low power in various centres. Taree will receive consideration among the many other places concerned, when any determination is being made. However, I inform the honorable gentleman and the many other honorable members who are interested in this subject and have made representations to me about it that only a relatively few additional licences can be granted, and that there are about 1,000 applications for them.
page 264
– Will the Minister for National Development state whether it is a fact that rabbits infected with the virus myxomatosis take from twelve to sixteen days to die? If that is so, what action -has tihe Government taken to prevent rabbits which contract the disease from being caught and sold for public consumption? Will the right honorable gentleman indicate whether the DirectorGeneral of Health has taken action to acquaint all persons who trap rabbits for public consumption how to detect those which are carrying this disease? In view of the fact that the disease has spread to districts north of Newcastle, and as rabbits form part of the staple diet of the residents of the Newcastle district, will the Minister inform the House in what way it is proposed to safeguard the people against the consumption of diseased rabbits?
– I believe that the honorable gentleman has been misinformed about the period between the infection of a rabbit with myxomatosis and its subsequent death. It is very much shorter than the twelve to sixteen days stated by the honorable member. The control of rabbits infected with myxomatosis is the function of the State governments concerned and not of the Commonwealth. The symptoms of myxomatosis are very easily seen. I do not think that the fears of the honorable gentleman have any basis.
page 265
– I direct a question to the Minister acting for the- Minister for the Interior. In view of the fact that the Government recently withheld approval to a bill passed by the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory, thus causing the bill to lapse despite the fact that the voting in favour of it in the council was unanimous as the government-nominated members, as well as the elected members, considered the measure desirable, will the Minister inform the House whether ho does not consider that action such as I have mentioned considerably weakens tho standing of the Legislative Council of the Northern -Territory f In view . of that recent action to which I have referred, is it the intention of the Government to abolish the council?
– I shall reply to the last part of the honorable member’s question first. No consideration has been given to the abolition of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory, and I have no intention of moving to abolish it, at least until I have had another opportunity to examine conditions in the Territory in general. Abolition of the council is not under consideration. The council is an advisory body only, insofar as any’ legislation that it passes is subject to approval by the Minister for the Interior or the Minister acting for him in his absence. The legislation to which the honorable member has referred provided for the establishment of legalized starting-price betting at Darwin. The matter came before me almost as soon as I assumed office. What is done at Darwin, can have application to the Australian Capital Territory and to other Commonwealth territories, and so, because of the possible general effect on Commonwealth territories of legalizing startingprice betting at Darwin, I have withheld approval of the measure until I have had time to examine its implications further.
page 265
– Will the Minister acting for the Minister for the Interior say whether the Commonwealth has any arrangements for the -maintenance, in each of the various States, of a single electoral roll under Commonwealth supervision? If so, do these arrangementsapply to Queensland? If not, has any effort been made to establish a joint electoral roll in Queensland under the direction of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer in that State? I also ask the Minister why the number of names on the Commonwealth rolls in Queensland is so much smaller than the number on the Queensland State rolls.
– The Commonwealth has an arrangement with a number of States for joint . Commonwealth and State electoral rolls. In Tasmania, for example, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer conducts the State elections, and the boundaries of the federal divisions and State electorates there are the same.
-Order ! The Minister is getting outside the scope of the question.
– The honorable member asked me what joint electoral roll arrangements existed in the various States, and I am explaining to him what these arrangements are. The Commonwealth has an arrangement with New South Wales under which the Commonwealth maintains the roll entirely, but the State conducts its own elections and appoints its own electoral officers. There are joint Commonwealth and State rolls in Victoria and South Australia. The only two States which are outside that arrangement are Western Australia and Queensland. The Commonwealth electoral authorities have made approaches to both of these States over a long period of years for the establishment of a joint roll in each State on the same basis as that which exists in the other States, but so far those approaches have not been successful. The honorable member asked why there were fewer names on the federal roll than on the State roll in Queensland. The probable reason is that a name is not deleted from the State roll unless the electoral officer is satisfied that the person has either left the ‘ State or has been enrolled elsewhere. In the case of the Commonwealth roll, however, the electoral registrar has power to remove a name as soon as he is satisfied that the elector has left the division, and it is then the responsibility of the elector to see that he is enrolled elsewhere. The Commonwealth electoral authorities would be glad to join with the State authorities in Queensland and Western Australia in the preparation and maintenance of joint electoral rolls.
page 266
– I desire to ask a question of the Minister acting for the Minister for the Interior about those ex-servicemen who are trying to set themselves up as tobacco-growers at Clare, in Queensland, under the war service land settlement scheme. The Minister will recall that I have written and telegraphed to him on a number of occasions about the values placed on properties without locality. The ex-servicemen believe that those values are unduly high, and I agree with them. They are much higher than the values which the men were led to expect when they took over the land. The honorable gentleman has said that the matter is one for adjustment between the Commonwealth and the State, and that be has not been able to obtain satisfaction from the Government of Queensland. Can he now tell me whether there is any prospect that the Queensland Government will agree to the writing down of the values as recommended by the investigating committee? Has he any other information on the subject that I can pass on to the ex-servicemen concerned ?
– I acknowledge the frequent representations made to me by the honorable member for Herbert on behalf of the tobacco-growers at Clare. Representations have also been made by other members of the House and by members of the Senate. Some ex-servicemen are already settled at Clare, and others will be settled there in the future. The first ten men wore settled under conditions which called for the use of inferior material in the construction of buildings, and the employment of costly and unskilled labour in some instances. The settlers complained that buildings were badly constructed of second-hand fibro sheets and timber, that the roofs leaked, and. that stove recesses were made of rusty iron. It was also stated that barna for the curing of tobacco leaked, so that their crops were in danger of being destroyed. The Australian Government and the Queensland Government jointly agreed to the appointment of an investigating committee, which consisted of thu Director of War Service Land Settlement for the Commonwealth, the Deputy Director of War Service Land Settlement in Queensland, an engineer of the Main Roads Commission in Queensland, and the Assistant Commissioner of Irrigation in that State. That is to say, the members of that committee were two Commonwealth and two Stale officials. They investigated the complaints of the Clare settlers mid agreed that there was great justification for them. They recommended a writing down of the cost of the farms by approximately £9;”>0 a farm The cost of establishing the first ten farms at Clare was about £3,600 a farm, and of the second 30 farms, approximately £3,700 a farm. The difference between the cost of the first and the second lot of farms whs only n matter of a few pounds, hut I under stand til n t there was a very grave distinction between the quality of the structural improvements on the first lot and tin: second lot, and the first settlers claimed that they were prejudiced thereby. The committee of investigation recommended the writing down of the cost of the first ten farms by an amount of approximately £9.600. 1 examined the relevant documents and conferred with the officers of the War Service Land Settlement Division, and, taking into consideration the recommendations of that committee, I intimated to the Queensland Government that tha Commonwealth would agree to meet 50 per cent, of the cost of such writing down, which would involve an amount of approximately £4,800. I signed the necessary approval last November, but, to date, no agreement has been reached with the State government. In fact, it has absolutely refused to share in the writing down. I am still negotiating with the State Premier and the Minister for Lands, hut their genera’ point of view is that the values of those properties should not be written downThey can give their masons for that opinion, and, indeed, they have expressed them to me, but I do not propose to restate them here. The fact is that if the Queensland Government says the word, the Commonwealth is prepared to hear 50 per cent, of the cost of writing down, as recommended by the committee appointed by both Governments.
page 267
– Can the PostmasterGeneral inform the House of the present position regarding the supply of rural automatic telephone exchanges? Is he aware that difficulties are being experienced in country centres at the present time in maintaining the existing system of telephone exchanges, even with the limited hours of operation, and that the installation of rural automatic exchanges will overcome such difficulties? Are any rural automatic exchanges of this type being manufactured in Australia, or are all of them imported? It would greatly assist if an indication could be given of the number of that type of exchange which the department expects to receive this year, and also the programme for their installation during the same period.
– I appreciate the importance of the question which the honorable member’ for Darling Downs has asked relative to the installation of additional rural automatic exchanges. It is one means by which we can overcome the isolation of many people in country districts, who now have an extremely limited telephone service. Since I assumed office, I have given this matter a great deal of encouragement in the department, and orders have been placed overseas for approximately 650 such exchanges. They are not manufactured in Australia, because the local manufacturer would not consider it worth his while to tool up for the purpose of making such a limited number. But it is most difficult to obtain the numbers that we need from the United Kingdom. We imported about 100 of them last year, and we expect to get about 200 this year. They are being installed as fairly as we can apportion them in the several States, and in the country districts, but we cannot go ahead any faster than we can obtain equipment from overseas, or than we are able, in some instances, to provide buildings to house the equipment. With a view to overcoming the problems in very small districts, we are experimenting with ten-unit automatic exchanges, but, at the moment, that work is definitely in the experimental stage. We hope that within about six months’ time we shall have sufficient knowledge of those units to enable us to proceed to install them. If we are able to go ahead in that way, the use of such exchanges will not necessitate the provision of special buildings, because they can be installed in a small shop or similar place. However, I assure the honorable member that the matter is not being neglected.
page 267
-I again direct attention to the length of questions asked in this chamber and of replies made by Ministers. To-day each question and reply has virtually amounted to a speech. In the half-hour that has elapsed since the House met, only seven or eight questions have been asked and answered. Last year we reached the stage of dealing with 40 questions an hour. We must revert to that rate. Honorable members should study the Standing Orders governing questions. Too many questions contain comment and debatable matter, and some are of such a character that only a Minister with an encyclopaedic knowledge could possibly answer them.
Mr. Calwell interjecting,
– Order! The honorable member for Melbourne must not make observations on the qualities of Ministers.
page 267
– I understand that, last year, plans for the construction of the Walch River dam were developed by the Queensland Government. Has any progress been made with the plans, and has an application been made by the Queensland Government for financial assistance from the Commonwealth in the construction of the dam?
– The Queensland Government has been reconsidering the Mareeba-Dimbulah, or Walch River dam scheme. I understand that its investigations are now almost completed. The Australian Government has not received any application for assistance in connexion with the scheme. If, after plans for the project have been finalized by the Queensland Government, an application is received by the Commonwealth, it will be given the usual consideration.
page 268
– Is the Treasurer- aware of the fact that the Commonwealth has granted to universities an amount smaller than that estimated by the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee to be sufficient for minimum needs? Is the right honorable gentleman aware that, as a consequence, the Council of the University of Melbourne has had no alternative but to raise the fees of students? Does he agree that such a result is an unhappy circumstance, and that because university education should be viewed as a social and not as an individual problem, its proper solution is to abolish university fees? Is the right honorable gentleman prepared to consider making such a course possible ?
– The question asked by the honorable member is based on wrong premises. Students’ fees at the University of Melbourne were increased before the Commonwealth proposal was formulated and put to the States.
– That is not so.
– It certainly is so. It is of no use for an honorable member to ask a question if he intends to answer it himself. The matter of university finance has been generously and sympathetically considered by the Australian Government, and proposals have been placed before the States. Those proposals are under consideration by the States at the present time.
page 268
– I desire to make a personal explanation. Yesterday, during my temporary absence from the House, statements were made in the House that I have been acting in some way in this chamber on behalf of, or in the interests of, the Communist party.
Government Supporters. - Hear, hear!
– I perceive by the “ Hear, hears “ coming from the Government benches that it is certainly necessary for me to say something about this matter. I give those statements an absolute denial. That charge is completely and absolutely untrue. To call it untrue is insufficient. If it does not spring from an honest mistake it can only come because of the suggestion or imputation in it, as the outpouring of a distorted mind or a black or malevolent heart.
page 268
In committee: Consideration resumed from the 8th March (vide page 249).
The bill.
.- The Opposition is agreeable to the bill being taken as a wholebecause its provisions are short, and all are interrelated. There are provisions in this bill of which I desire to make a short summary. The second part of clause 3 is new. Under the existing law the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has the power to make an order of injunction against a contravention of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The proposed legislation, which is of a kind that has never been in force before, gives the court power to make an injunction. The word used in the act is “enjoin”, which means “to grant an injunction”. The court is to be given power of injunction in respect of a breach or non-observance of a term of any order or award. This is not formal and it has nothing to do with the decision of the High Court except insofar as the Government must fear from the reasons of the High Court judges as contained in their judgment, that the word “ enjoin “ applies only to breaches of the act. The power of injunction is normally extended to breaches of any term of an order or award. Proposed new sub-section (2.) of section 29 is a completely new departure. It gives the Australian Government, through the Attorney-General, power to apply to the court for orders under paragraphs (b) or (c) of section 29. The Government, under the provisions of this measure, if it becomes law, may intervene between employer and employee for the purpose of seeking such an order. That has never before been permitted; it is completely new. I want to do away with the theory that this bill represents an attempt to do only one thing.
I turn to clause 4, which seeks to add new section 29a to the principal act. Sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 29a seeks to give the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, in terms, the same power to punish contempts as is possessed by the High Court. That has never been the position previously. The powers of the High Court are very extensive. Under the statute and the High Court rules and orders, the High Court has power to administer interrogatories, make persons charged with contempt give answers on oath, and so forth.
I direct the attention of the committee to the following words in the proposed new sub-section: - whether in relation to its judicial powers and functions or otherwise.
The powers of the High Court are entirely judicial. It is sought to give the Commonwealth Arbitration Court power to punish contempts, irrespective of whether it is acting as a judicial body or acting in its arbitration jurisdiction. The law has never been expressed in that form before. There is not the slightest reason why the court should have such a tremendously wide power. In the case of proceedings before the High Court, there is a possibility of appeal to the Privy Council against an order of the court, because it is a judicial body, but in the case of proceeding before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court no such appeal is possible.
– Have there been any appeals to the Privy Council from decisions of the High Court in contempt proceedings?
– Many appeals from decisions in contempt proceedings have been taken to the High Court.
– When was the last appeal made to the Privy Council against a decision of the High Court in contempt proceedings ?
– Appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council can be made by leave of the Privy Council at any time. In appropriate cases, the Privy Council has power to grant leave to appeal. Some of the leading cases on the law of contempt are decisions of the Privy Council in appeals from decisions of courts throughout the British Empire. The High Court has seldom invoked its contempt jurisdiction, but the right to apply to the Privy Council for leave to appeal remains.
Sub-section (3.) of proposed new section 29a is the essence of the bill, because it seeks to give the Commonwealth Arbitration Court power to punish, as a contempt of the court, any act or omission although a penalty is provided for it elsewhere in the act. It has been said that the punishments and sanctions for which the act in its present form makes provision are inadequate, and that the Government wishes the court to have wider power to fine and imprison. I sum the matter up by saying that contempt proceedings are not the proper process for enforcing orders or awards. They should be enforced in the ordinary courts. .The only object of making this proposed new section a permanent feature of the industrial jurisprudence of Australia would be to punish, in this vague and indefinite manner, acts by unionists in the nature of strikes. There is not the slightest doubt about that. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) has practically admitted it. No provision is to be made for appeals.
I have pointed out previously that, wherever this type of jurisdiction i& exercised there is a danger of injustice. In the United States of America, the use of the injunction in labour controversies has been studied in great detail and in an authoritative manner by Mr. Justice Frankfurter .and others. I quote from an article written by them in the Law Quarterly Review. They point out five features of this process of injunction under equity jurisdiction followed by contempt proceedings. First, they refer to the following statement by the Chief Justice of America:: -
Contempt proceedings are mi generis because they are not hedged about with all the safeguards provided in the bill of rights for protecting one accused of ordinary crime from the danger of unjust -conviction
Secondly, the authors refer to the weakened prestige of the judiciary due to the exercise of its equitable power - that is the injunction power - in labour controversies. Thirdly, the article states -
Further experience with the injunction has not softened this feeling. It has become still more exacerbated.
Then there is the following quotation from the remarks of Mr. Green, the conservative president of the American Federation of Labour : -
I say to yow gentlemen that I know of no procedure in America that is fanning the flame of discontent to a greater degree than this misuse of the equity power.
That is the injunction power. Mr. Justice Brandeis is then quoted, and reference is made to what was done in the United States of America to limit the power of the courts in regard to injunctions and contempt. That is a matter that might well be considered by the Government in relation to strikes for which punishment is provided by the act. The Minister may say, ““What does a fine of £10, £20 or even £100 amount to ? “ The fact that, in the light of the reduced purchasing power of money, those penalties may be inadequate, is beside the point. The object of. this bill is to make punishable acts that are already punishable under the sanctions provided in the act. No court should have this broad unlimited power. I am not reflecting on the individual judges. I merely say that the power is too wide to be invested in a court that will have no supervising appeal body. The court will be dealing not only with its own orders. It will he dealing largely with orders by conciliation commissioners which it has had no hand in drafting, and the significance of which may not always be clear to it. A close consideration of the details of the bill bears out all that has been said about it from this side of the House. I am sure that the Minister regrets this retrograde step. It is a procedure which, if used, can only be discriminating and partial, or inclined to substitute the coercion of law for conciliation in a jurisdiction in which penalties should be of minor significance. I submit that our opposition in principle to the measure, is supported by a detailed examination of its clauses.
.- Although my electorate has no waterfront and no coal, the people whom I represent, like others throughout Australia, have been held to ransom by a small coterie of individuals who are seeking to control this land. The right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) claimed that no court should have the power provided in this measure. It is significant, however, that neither he nor any colleague of his in this chamber, has taken exception to the power of a small junta in this country to bring industry to a standstill. The power contemplated in this measure is aimed at countering the unauthorized use of power by that junta. This measure can obviously be linked with the situation in this country to-day. The Australian Labour party is controlled by an outside body. The Commonwealth Arbitration Court appears to be in a similar position. There must be respect for any authority that is charged with the task of making decisions and the Opposition will be failing in its duty if it persists in its support of groups of individuals who seek to set themselves higher than the law of the land. The Government is doing no more than to seek power to enforce the findings, orders and awards of the arbitration authorities. Honorable members must decide whether they favour the law of this land or not. If one believes in the law of the land as made by this Parliament then one should support it. If the law cannot be enforced with the -penalties at present available then it is the duty of the Australian Government to see that penalties are such that they can be enforced in order that the people of the Commonwealth may be protected.
During the five years that I have been in this Parliament I have never heard so many trivial arguments brought forward by honorable members of the Opposition as they have brought forward on this occasion. The right honorable member for Barton in particular tried to advance a proposition which would result in persons being able to avoid obeying the law of the land. As he has occupied a place in very high legal circles I am amazed, to say the least, at what he has said. The people of Australia must be protected. The Commonwealth Arbitration Court has certain authority, not because there are certain employees or employers who need certain concessions, but in order that employers and employees may obtain certain awards. When those awards are made, if the law of this country is to be obeyed, they must be adhered to.
The right honorable member for Barton has said that appeals are not permissible under arbitration law. Surely he knows the position in relation to appeals against decisions of a conciliation commissioner. When the leader of the last Government introduced the bill concerning arbitration matters he was continually asked by the Opposition to provide for some right of appeal but he steadfastly declined to do so. It is amazing to me that the right honorable member for Barton should favour people who are disrupting the industry of Australia. Surely the issue is very clear. The people of Australia realize the position with which they are faced. In Victoria, it is likely that there may be a three day working week in industry. Are honorable members of the Opposition prepared to put up with this kind of sabotage or are they going to assist in tightening and bringing into force the law of the land that is administered in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court by those who are appointed by this Parliament ?
I was surprised that the right honorable member for Barton should have advanced such an argument as honorable members have just heard. In every other law of the land the penalties meet the case. The present penalties of £10 or £20 in respect of an individual and £100 in respect of an organization are completely inadequate. If a person parked a car on the wrong side of the street in Melbourne or Sydney and did not pay the fine imposed as a result, the penalty he would have to suffer would be much more drastic than those which have been provided in the existing arbitration legislation. Yet these penalty provisions have been designed for the punishment of persons who can bring about a disastrous industrial situation bordering on chaos which could jeopardize the future of this great nation at a time when, as honorable members have been reminded by the Prime Minister, the nation must have its guns ready and its industry prepared. The people of Australia could do nothing else but condemn any government or opposition that took the line of resistance that has been advocated by honorable members of the Opposition.
– I am surprised at the attitude adopted by honorable members opposite in this matter. After all, the principal purpose of the bill is to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I know that for many years a large number of men in various unions have been anxious to revert to the old method of settling disputes by strike action instead of availing themselves of industrial arbitration, and for many years I have consistently opposed advocates of direct action in the Transport. Workers Union. The contention of those who oppose arbitration is that they do not get a fair deal under industrial arbitration. My contention has always been that if the members of a union have a just claim or a grievance they should apply through their unions to the arbitration courts, where they have a full opportunity to put their case before an independent authority. Similarly, the employers have an opportunity to put their case before the tribunal, which, after proper consideration, makes a decision on the matter.
We all know that the real reason for the introduction of this measure is thai, strikes have recently occurred on the waterfront and in the -coal-mining industry. Let us consider ‘briefly the facts surrounding those strikes. Do honorable members opposite honestly contend that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court was requested by the employers in the waterfront industry to alter the number of hours of work of waterfront employees to compute the hourly rate of payment? No. such request was made by the employers. If the employers had wanted to alter the number of hours of work of their employees in computing the hourly rate of payment they had every opportunity to put their case before the court.
– The honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) could not have been present when I dealt with that matter last night. If he had been here and had been paying attention, he would have noticed that the transcript of the judicial proceedings from which I read, specifically stated that the employers had availed themselves of that opportunity.
– That may be. However, the fact remains that men employed on the waterfront are very bitter about the treatment they have received, and they are particularly concerned about the introduction of this legislation. They want to know what the Parliament intends to do to protect their interests against unfair and irregular decisions by judges of the court. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) does not need this legislation to deal with the waterside workers. Only a week ago the Government invoked the Crimes Act in order to make a certain proclamation. It is quite clear, therefore, that the Government and the Minister have ample power to deal with this dispute without the passage of this legislation, and I challenge the Minister to deny my assertion. In fairness to the honorable gentleman, I must say that before invoking the Crimes Act he gave the waterside workers every opportunity to approach the court.
Different considerations apply to tho coal-miners’ dispute. Members of the Labour movement will never acquiesce in the application of duress to workers to worsen their conditions of employment.
– What about upholding the law?
– The honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) refers to upholding the law. I have yet to learn that the Coal Industry Tribunal had the right or the power to alter the conditions of employment in the coal-mining industry by offering to confer some benefit on the coal-miners in return for some extra effort on their part nor do I consider that he was morally justified in doing so. If Mr. Gallagher, who is the Coal Industry Tribunal, wants the coalminers to comply strictly with his orders, he himself should adhere to the regular procedure in these matters. In other words, the tribunal should have had before it a formal application to vary the conditions of employment in the industry, and it would then have heard the evidence of all parties before it made a decision. Mr. Gallagher did not do that. What is the position of the coal-miners to-day? Nobody deplores more than I do the constant succession of strikes in the coal-mining industry. I consider that many of those strikes should not be held. However, that would not justify my acceptance of a measure like this, which will cover every union organization. Every man who has had anything to do with workers in industry knows that, from day to day and week to week, occasions arise when men cannot go to work. A serious illness may occur in a man’s family, for example. One often hears a man say, “ I had to miss work yesterday because my wife was very ill. I had to rush to the hospital and do many other things and I could not possibly come to work.” Under the terms of the so-called incentive system that has been introduced into the coal-mining industry by the Coal Industry Tribunal, any miner who absents himself from work for such a good reason will lose the additional £2 bonus for the fortnightly pay period during which the absence occurs. No provision is made in that determination for cases of emergency such as I have mentioned. Yet the ‘Government and its supporters talk about obeying the law and assure us that the arbitration tribunals are just ! Any arbitrator who could give a decision like that which was announced by Mr. Gallagher could scarcely claim to be a just man. That determination provides that no excuses for absence from work shall be valid. The only exception is enforced absence from work because a mine has been closed down. Sickness and other grounds cannot be taken into account. Supporters of the Government profess to stand for arbitration and declare that they want to enforce the powers of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The Labour party stands for arbitration, but-
– If it suits the Labour party to do so.
– The honorable member does not know anything about the matter. If he had the slightest knowledge of the subject he would realize that, if the bill becomes law, unions that want to evade its provisions will have only to withdraw from the court in order to achieve their object. If that happens, the court will have no power over them. The legislation will he null and void. Unions that have been de-registered have been able to gain, for their members wages and conditions of employment which other unions have not been able to gain through the court. I warn the Government to be careful on this issue lest it ‘be hoist with its own petard.
– Is that a threat?
– No. Instead of having some means of controlling the unions, it will lose control altogether because the organizations will remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the court. The honorable member for Mallee talked about waterfront employment and fines of £20. I recall what happened as the result of a waterfront hold-up at Port Adelaide. The arbitration tribunal fined the men, but the employers paid the fine for them so that they would return to work. The employers knew very well that ‘the very infliction of a fine would lead to the protraction of the dispute instead of a settlement. Therefore, they paid the fine in an underhand way so as to conceal from the people what had been done. The Government says that it intends to penalize men for not working. As other members of the Opposition have stated already, it will not be able to force the workers to accept anything to which they object.
The Government talks about developing a spirit of co-operation between employers and employees so that they will respect each other and work together in harmony. The application of the provisions of this bill, under which men may be gaoled or fined for contempt of court, will merely intensify industrial trouble. I understand the difficulty with which the Government is faced. It told the people that it could settle industrial disputes and that the Labour party could not do so. I am sure that the people would give a different answer if the question were put to them now.
– Order ! The honorable member must refrain from making a second-reading speech at this stage.
Mr. McCOlM (Bowman) [11.35].- I am a trade-union member and have been so for a considerable time, and I firmly believe in the principles of trade unionism. The trade unions have done good work in the past. I believe that, in the two recent instances of major industrial disturbances, the arbitration authorities concerned gave grounds for great dissatisfaction on the part of tradeunion members. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that members of the miners’ federation and the waterside workers’ federation had justifiable cause for complaint against the decisions that had been given by the arbitration authorities in relation to them. But that does not mean that for a moment I uphold the attitude that was adopted by those unions in going on strike at the present time for something that could be gained by having the matter amicably settled by the court, as I believe it will be. I congratulate the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) for the very considerable forbearance that he has shown in dealing with this matter. He has had to withstand very considerable pressure from different directions, and I believe that the policy that he has carried out will lead to a successful termination of these disputes. We are told that the present arbitration system is upheld by honorable members opposite. However, they should realize that the court should have some method of enforcing its decisions, particularly in view of the phase that the country is now entering. I do not believe that honorable members opposite want to see the Crimes Act invoked every time there is an industrial disturbance, although as matters stand that is practically the only means the Government has to deal with industrial disturbances, particularly in the vitally important coal-mining industry, and on the waterfront.
Our defence situation is so critical that the Government- cannot longer tolerate disputes which are striking at the very heart of our defence preparations. I do not consider that that point needs greater emphasis. The ‘ object of the proposed amendments is to give to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration power to enforce its awards. Honorable members opposite contend that the Government is aiming to cripple the trade unions. That is complete and utter nonsense. If the Government wanted a straight-out fight with the trade unions, and wished to cripple them in every way, there would be nothing to prevent it from keeping the Crimes Act in force for a long time, thereby hindering the trade unions and possibly provoking a very great industrial crisis. However, I know that this Government is sincere in its desire to co-operate with the trade unions, and I think that in their hearts honorable members opposite realize that that is so. Doubtless many of them are ashamed of the humbug that has been talked in this chamber to-day.
.- At least the honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm) has admitted that the present disputes in the coal industry and on the waterfront have an industrial basis. That is some progress in answering the arguments of some of his colleagues that these disputes were Communistinspired. He has admitted that there is merit in the complaints that the men have made against the decisions of both tribunals. According to some of his colleagues, these tribunals are infallible bodies, whose decisions should be accepted without question. They consider that, under pain of the most severe penalties, the men should be compelled to work under the conditions laid down by the various tribunals. I shall put this matter quite plainly to the committee.
The honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) ha3 referred to observance of the law. But there is no law in this country at present which compels any man to accept any employment to which he is directed, and to work under conditions laid down by any tribunal if he regards them as unsatisfactory. Every individual has an inherent right to choose his own employment and to decide whether the conditions offered to him are acceptable or otherwise. The Government aims to establish a system of industrial conscription. There is to be no limitation of the penalty that the court may impose in order to force a man employed on the waterfront to accept waterfront employment under the conditions laid down, even though he may regard those conditions as unsatisfactory to him, and likewise to compel men engaged in the coal-mining industry to accept work in that industry under conditions that they regard as unsatisfactory. The honorable member for Mallee has referred to chaos in industry as a result of industrial disputes. It is well recognized that those disputes bring much misery, not only to the men who are on strike, but also to their families. Consequently, men rarely strike unless they believe that they have a just cause for striking and until they have exhausted every other means in order to have their grievances rectified. They know when they go on strike that their families will have to suffer as a result of loss of income. Has the honorable member for Mallee ever protested in this chamber against groups of primary producers withholding their produce from the market in order to enforce the payment of higher prices by the consumers? Has he ever levelled any criticism, or asked the Government to take action-
Order ! The honorable member’s remarks have nothing to do with the clause.
– With all due respect to you, Mr. Chairman-
– Is the honorable member for East Sydney reflecting upon the ruling of the Chair? If he is not prepared to confine his remarks to the clause, he will not be allowed to continue.
– I rise to order. The arguments of honorable members opposite are not consistent, and in some respects they have supported action which has been referred to by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward). I submit that that is a. fair and relevant argument.
– It has nothing to do with the clause before the committee. The honorable member for East Sydney is attempting to make a second-reading speech. I shall not permit a secondreading speech to be made during the committee stage.
– Although I do not agree with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I accept it because you happen to be in a position of authority. There have been many occasions in this community when people have banded themselves together to defy the law and to regard the welfare of the community as of secondary consideration. They have used their numbers to corner foodstuffs and other commodities in order to extract higher prices from the consumers. Yet no action against them has been demanded by honorable members who to-day seek to take action against workers because they find their terms of employment unsatisfactory and unsuitable to them. I contend that the object of this legislation is to get round the decision of the High Court. Honorable members opposite have stated .that the penalties provided in- existing legislation are inadequate. It is not a crime in this country for workers to refuse to accept the conditions of employment offered to them but by this measure the Government is seeking to place such workers in a criminal category. They are to be accorded treatment that is not meted out to the worst criminals in the community. If a criminal is convicted of an offence he has a right of appeal. If this legislation became effective workers could be imprisoned for unlimited periods if either the courts or the Government wanted to take extreme action. Legislation of this kind has been tried in this country over many years and it has failed. Honorable members from New South Wales will recall the Wade coercion act and also that an anti-Labour government in that State “ bit the dust “ when it went to the country at what was known far and wide as the Peter Bowling leg-irons election. No government, either by parliamentary action or through tribunals that may be established, can force intolerable conditions upon organized labour in this country. In respect of the two disputes that have caused the Government to introduce this legislation, the Government has become hysterical. It has stampeded. It has failed utterly to govern the country effectively. The chaos that exists in Australia now is due not to any action that has been taken by any section of the workers, but entirely to the fact that the Government has failed to carry out its election promises. The present dissatisfaction in the community and unrest in industry are evidence of the fact that the workers have been compelled to agitate for higher wages.
– Order! If the honorable member does not desist from making a second-reading speech at this juncture I shall ask him to resume his seat.
– He is protecting the “ Comms “.
– I could reply to that interjection.
– The honorable member should ignore the interjection.
– I shall; and I wish I were in a position to ignore the Chair too. The Government’s continual cry that the Communists are-
– Order! As the honorable member is persisting in making a second-reading speech, I ask him to resume his seat.
Motion (by Mr. Ward) put -
That the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. WARD) be further heard.
The committee divided. (The Ch airman - Mr. C. P. Adermann.)
AYES: 36
NOES: 51
Majority
15
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
– The right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) made three points which call for answers. First, in respect of clause 3, he endeavoured to contest the Government’s argument that what it has set out to do under this measure is to give to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court authority which it possessed prior to the passing of the 1947 act and which, indeed, we believed it possessed after the passage of that legislation up to last Monday when the High Court gave its judgment in this matter. The right honorable gentleman pointed out that this amendment extends the injunction power beyond contraventions of the act to breaches of awards and orders. All that I say to him by way of reply is that while obviously our amendment does go beyond the language of the act as it now stands, it does not go beyond what the Government believes to be the purport of the act and, indeed, what the Full Court of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, in a majority decision, interpreted that section of the act to mean.
The second point of criticism made by the right honorable gentleman was that we have put in a new provision which gives power to .the Attorney-General to intervene in this injunction process. I remind him, although I do not consider that any explanation is necessary in his case, because he will know from his study of industrial legislation that there exists,’ both in Federal legislation and in State acts, provision for the Attorney-General, whether it be of the Commonwealth or of a State, from time to time in the public interest to intervene in industrial proceedings, that in the act which he himself presented to this Parliament in 1947 authority was given for intervention by the AttorneyGeneral in the public interest in any matter before the court affecting the four reserved powers, or on the hearing of any matter involving interpretation derived from the court’s exercise of its reserved powers. That principle was therefore recognized by the previous Government. It was also recognized by the State of New South Wales, where the Labour Government included, in sections 78 and 79 of its Industrial Arbitration Act, provision for Crown intervention. In the Queensland Industrial Act provision is made in section 69 entitling the Crown to intervene in the public interest, if it so desires.
The third point raised by the right honorable gentleman was that the legislation before the House proposes to confer unlimited power for the punishment of contempt. That, perhaps, brings me to the heart of the matter in connexion with testing the sincerity of the Opposition in its dealings with this legislation. It is true that no limitation upon the power of the court to deal with contempts, whether of the court itself or arising from breaches of injunctions, is written into the act. The reason for the absence of any limitation should be obvious to the right honorable gentleman. He himself constituted the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, quite deliberately, as a superior court record. I am not aware that it is possible to find anywhere a superior court of record which has had placed on it by statute limitations on the powers which it can exercise under its contempt authority. The Government did not write in any limitation because, under British jurisprudence, it baa not been the practice to do so in relation to superior courts of record. I put this directly to the Opposition, and I suggest to the people of this country that lt is a very real test of the sincerity of the Opposition in this matter, that it does not regard as adequate the sanctions that now prevail under the arbitration legislation. 1 am quite certain that it is fully conscious of the challenge to orderly community life in this country which is presented to us to-day by industrial lawlessness, and particularly by industrial lawlessness inspired and directed by subversive Communist leadership. If the community has the right to be protected against that kind of attack-
– Is not this a secondreading speech?
– No. I am coming to the details of the provisions before the House, and I issue this invitation to the Opposition: If it considers that any of the provisions now before the Parliament for consideration go too far, but at the same time agrees that there should be some strengthening of the hands of the Commonwealth, an opportunity is now presented to it to take some action. If the Opposition says that it is too late at this stage of the deliberations of the committee for it to present its views in detail, I point out that once this legislation has been passed in this House it will go ,to another place. If the Opposition believes that any clause is objectionable, such as the contempt power clause, because no limitation is placed on the penalty that may be imposed, the Government invites it to say, first, whether there should be any limitation of penalty and, if so, what the limitation should be. Secondly, we invite it to say whether there should .be any limitation of time of operation of those provisions and, if so, what that limitation should be. In addition to that, if the Opposition says, “You are out to strike at communism “, I remind it that in .this country only certain industries are controlled by Communists. If it bo desired to limit the operation of these provisions to Communist-controlled industries, it has the opportunity to place its views before the Parliament in a constructive, helpful and co-operative way in an endeavour to meet this joint problem which the Government is facing on behalf of the community as a whole. Unless the Opposition is prepared constructively to face the kind of problem which the Government has sought to remedy in the legislation now before us, the public can form its own judgment concerning where the Australian Labour party stands when this country is required to face industrial lawlessness, as it is at the present time.
.- The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) commenced his remarks by questioning the sincerity of the Opposition, and then asked for its co-operation. The Australian Labour party and the industrial workers of this country have no faith and no confidence in this Government and are, therefore, not prepared to co-operate in any way with the Government in its underhand methods of attacking the organized trade unions of the country. There is no doubt in the world that this plea for the co-operation of the Opposition is a kind of death-bed repentance on the part of this fascist-minded Government. I say to the Minister that penalties for breaches of awards, are already covered by the existing laws. What the Government wishes to do is to smash every trade union’s fight against an award or against conditions which it considers unacceptable. It, by subterfuge, desires to place unionists in a position where they can be dealt with for contempt of court. No appeal is provided against conviction for such an offence. It is wrong for the Minister to say that the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) knows full well the motive of the Government in not restricting the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. There has not been any suggestion during this discussion that a limitation should be placed on the power of an arbitration court to impose a penalty for contempt of court. What the Opposition says is that industrial offences are not matters that should be dealt with on the basis of contempt of court. I suggest that it is merely a subterfuge to try to take away from the organized workers of this country the right to say what terms of employment they regard as acceptable in any industry. I tried, on two previous occasions, to deal with the hypocrisy of members of the Government in speaking of the inadequacy of the sanctions that are already provided under the existing law. A member of this Government was convicted of a breach of an industrial law.
– Order! The honorable member must not impute improper motives to, or reflect upon, other honorable members. I ask him to withdraw his remark.
– It is a statement of fact.
– Order ! That is a reflection on the Chair.
– I did not mean to reflect upon the Chair. If I did so reflect I withdraw.
– The honorable member reflected on the Chair and I ask him to withdraw the reflection.
– I withdraw any reflection that the Chairman may have thought I made on the Chair, but no reflection was intended.
– The honorable member may now continue with his discussion of the clauses.
– I rise to order.
– There is no need for a point of order. I was proceeding to remind the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) that we are really discussing the rights and the powers of the court in regard to contempt, and I ask him to confine himself to such matters.
– It may be in certain circumstances, but I have just pointed out to the honorable member for East Sydney what the points under discussion in the clauses are, and I ask him to keep to those points. Clauses 1 and 2 are formal only, clause 3 deals with the powers of the court, and clause 4 deals with contempt. I ask all honorable members to keep to the two points covered by clauses 3 and 4.
– I rise to a point of order.
– Is it on the same subject ?
– It is on the bill before the committee. I take it that the bill is to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That fact raises a consideration of the whole act, and the subjects dealt with during the course of this debate have been not only the penalties for contempt or other breaches but also the general subject of industrial unrest, the adequacy of present penalties and, in fact, the whole subject generally. Is it not in order for the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) to deal in a similar way with the subject?
– The honorable member for Perth (Mt. Tom Burke) has had much experience in the Chair. He knows quite well that an honorable member may not make a second-reading speech at the committee stage. I ask the honorable member for East Sydney to deal with the clauses before the committee.
– May I deal with the arguments advanced by the Minister ?
– Yes.
– The Minister issued a challenge to the Opposition to show that the sanctions provided by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are inadequate and invited the Opposition to make some suggestions. I am endeavouring to show that members of the Government, instead of regarding the penalties as being inadequate, have on occasions appealed to the court for a reduction of penalties imposed upon themselves, because they regarded them as being excessive. Therefore I say that as the Minister has imported these matters into the debate members of the Opposition are entitled to answer him.
The honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm) made it quite clear that he does not share the opinion of the Minister that the present industrial lawlessness in this country is solely due to the activities of the Communists, because he admitted that the decisions given by the tribunals in the waterside workers’ case and the coal-miners’ case give the watersiders and the miners just grounds for taking action for securing an adjustment of their grievances. He said that what he objected to was the particular action taken by the men to have their grievances rectified. Members of the Labour party say that that is a matter solely for the judgment of the men, and I remind honorable members opposite who talk hypocritically about a Communist minority being responsible for these two disputes, that the men themselves at mass meetings determined by overwhelming majorities to support the decisions of their leaders. Let me make this quite clear, because it is quite obvious to the members of the Labour party.We recognize that the Communist party in this country is a political organization. If Communists can gain an advantage for their party by some means or other they will do so. But it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that Communists are responsible for all the industrial unrest in Australia. Wherever workers have to live in the conditions in which they are living in this country to-day they become dissatisfied and unrest and strikes follow. You will never eliminate strikes in this country by using strong-arm methods against the workers, because when you attempt to use coercion against the workers you will find that they will close their ranks. When they doso and realize that their interests are being endangered by a fascist-minded government, then the Government, and not the trade union movement, will be destroyed.
I say to the Minister that we do not trust this Government. We know that it is failing to carry out the wishes of the majority of the people and that the people are hungry for an opportunity to destroy it because they know that it has failed them and has caused chaos in this community. We are not offering the Government our co-operation because we do not believe that it sincerely wants to establish a stable economy in this country or to carry out the promises that its supporters made from the hustings at the general election in 1949. Therefore I say in conclusion that the Opposition will oppose this coercive antilabour legislation in this chamber, and when the measure goes to the other chamber it will get the short shrift thai it deserves. This legislation is the declaration of war upon the organized workers of this country that I declared it to be in the few moments that I was permitted by Mr. Speaker to address the chamber during the second-reading debate. It is a declaration of war upon the workers of this country, and organized workers of Australia will accept the challenge. When the decision is given it will be the Government that will be destroyed, and not the trade union movement.
Question put -
That the bill be agreed to.
The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)
AYES: 51
NOES: 37
Majority . . 14
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Motion (by Mr. Holt) - by leave - put -
That the bill be now read a third time.
The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)
AYES: 51
NOES: 36
Majority . . . . 15
AYES
NOES
Question soresolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
page 280
– I desire to make a personal explanation.
– Does the honorable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented ?
– Yes. Earlier to-day, the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) made statements in this House that certainly referred partly to myself and-
Honorable members interjecting,
– Dr. Evatt-
– Order ! The honorable member may not refer to another honorable member except by the name of his constituency.
– The right honorable member for Barton made the accusation that certain persons did not sincerely believe certain statements that were made in this House yesterday in relation to associations with the Communist party.
– I rise to order. I submit that the statement of the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) to which the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) objects was merely an expression of opinion, which certainly does not entitle the honorable member to make a personal explanation on the ground of misrepresentation. I further submit that, under the Standing Orders, a personal explanation must be made immediately after the speaker who made the statement to which exception is taken has resumed his seat.
-Order ! If the submission of the honorable member for
Perth. (Mr. Tom Burke) is correct, the right honorable member for Barton was out of order earlier this morning-
– Of course he was; but that does not alter the point.
-Order! I allowed the right honorable member for Barton to make a personal explanation. If the honorable member for Mackellar considers that he has been misrepresented, he has the same right to make a personal explanation.
– The right honorable member for Barton made the accusation that I did not sincerely believe in certain statements that were made in relation to hi3 association with the Communist party and its policies. So far as I am concerned, that accusation is false. I inform the House that not only do I sincerely believe in the truth of my statements on this matter in the House yesterday, but also that they were made only after a careful examination of Dr. Evatt’s activities-
– Order ! I again remind the honorable member that he must refer to another honorable member by the name of ‘his constituency.
– I apologize. I repeat that my statements on this matter in the House yesterday were made only after a careful examination of the activities and associations of the right honorable member for Barton, stretching back over many years.
– I rise to order. I should like to know whether the honorable member for Mackellar is in order, under cover of a personal explanation, in repeating charges that he made in the House yesterday.
-Order ! The honorable gentleman asked for leave to make a personal explanation, and I granted it in accordance with the Standing Orders. But the honorable gentleman must confine his remarks to the point on which he claims to have been misrepresented.
– Not only do I hold those views sincerely; but, in addition, I formed them only after a careful examination of the right honorable gentleman’s activities and associations stretching back over many years, and on the basis of the views that I have consequently formed as to his character-
– Order!
– Not only do I believe in the truth of my statements, but I also hold it to be in the public interest that they should be made. I have no proof that the right honorable member for Barton has ever been a member of the Communist party, and I have never accused him of so being, but I do accuse him of having had a long association with Communists and of having too often adopted the policies and tactics which stem from Communists’ interests.
-Order! I ask the honorable member for Mackellar to confine his remarks to the points on which he claims to have been misrepresented. He will not be in order in repeating what he said in the House yesterday.
– Very good, sir. My views on this matter were given yesterday under privilege, but I do not think it necessary that they should so remain. I propose, therefore, immediately upon the adjournment of this House, to proceed to the steps outside Parliament House and there to read, free of parliamentary privilege-
– I rise to order. I submit that the honorable member for Mackellar, in making a personal explanation, is not in order in stating what he proposes to do after the House adjourns. I also suggest that his remarks are completely out of order, because they form no part of a personal explanation.
– I rise to order. I desire to take the matter further, since the honorable member for Mackellar has issued a threat. It would be pointless for him to make such a statement on the steps of Parliament House without an audience. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is your intention to use the powers that reside in the Chair to enforce a local ordinance that prohibits gatherings within a certain distance of Parliament House.
– Order! So far as I know, I have no authority outside the four walls of this House.
– I can tell you that you have.
– Order ! I do not accept the honorable gentleman’s advice. I have found it hopelessly inaccurate in the past.
– You are not entitled to reflect upon an honorable member.
– Order! The honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) will resume his seat. I have made no reflection.
– You are not entitled to reflect upon an honorable member.
– Who has reflected upon an honorable member?
– You have.
– I do not mind the honorable gentleman’s objection. He may sustain it if he can do so.
– You are not entitled to reflect upon an honorable member.
– Order! If the honorable member for Lalor does not cease, I shall name him.
– I do not mind.
– I name the honorable member for Lalor.
– Bring out your swastikas.
– If the honorable member for Lalor wishes to apologize to t he Chair, I shall hear him.
– I apologize, because I should like to hear the end of this.
– Order! That is not an unconditional apology.
– I apologize unconditionally.
Honorable members interjecting,
– Order! I want to make it perfectly clear that it is one of the well-known standing orders of this House that when Mr. Speaker is on his feet, all other honorable members shall remain silent and seated. On this occasion, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley) and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) were arguing across the table. I am entitled to expect a little consideration from an occupant of the treasury bench, and an occupant of the front Opposition bench.
– I beg your pardon. The Minister and I were not arguing.
– Then, I do not know what you were doing.
I have only two things to say to the House. One of them is that, so far as I know, my jurisdiction as Mr. Speaker does not extend outside the walls of the Parliament. What the honorable member for Mackellar or any other honorable member cares to do outside Parliament House is not my business but his business. Another point was raised about the making of personal explanations. An honorable member said that a personal explanation should be made immediately the matter complained of arises. That is not in accordance with the relevant standing order, which reads -
By the indulgence of the House, a Member may explain matters of a personal nature, although there be no question before the House; but such matters may not be debated.
This morning, when the right honorable member for Barton made a statement, and a few minutes ago, when the honorable member for Mackellar made a statement, there was no question before the House.
– On the ruling that you have just given, Mr. Speaker-
– Order! If my ruling is to be questioned, the objection must be put in writing.
– I merely proposed to point out-
– Order! I cannot hear the honorable member for Dalley unless his objection is put in writing.
– Then I shall put my objection in writing.
– Write it in German, and the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Spender) will be able to read it for you.
– Order !
– Or he can get his German brother-in-law to interpret it.
– Order ! The honorable member for East Sydney must cease interjecting.
– In conformity with your direction, Mr. Speaker, I submit in writing my motion of objection to your ruling. I move -
That, in view of the fact that the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) did not seek or get the indulgence of the House to make a statement, the Speaker was in error in permitting him to make the statement.
-Is the motion seconded ?
– I second the motion.
– You, Mr. Speaker, by quoting standing orders to which, apparently, you have not given consideration, have been hoist with your own petard.
– -Chair !
– I am entitled to criticize a ruling given by the Chair. It must be obvious to all honorable members that the simple fact is that the honorable member for Mackellar did not seek the indulgence of the House. Seeking the indulgence of the House is not the same as obtaining the call from the Chair. When an honorable member asks for the indulgence of the House to make a statement he seeks the unchallenged permission of the House to make the statement. On the standing order which you quoted, Mr. Speaker, your ruling was entirely wrong. The honorable member for Mackellar did not seek nor did he obtain the indulgence of the House to make his personal explanation. He was permitted to speak merely because he had caught Mr. Speaker’s eye. He then made a statement which he should have made immediately after the honorable member to whose words he objected had concluded his speech. Only then was he entitled to make a personal explanation. If an honorable member neglects to take the opportunity to make a personal explanation at the appropriate time he must obtain the consent of the House to make it at some other time. Standing Order 63, which you, Mr. Spender, quoted, relates to an honorable member who has obtained the indulgence of the House to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for Mackellar did not obtain such indulgence, and, for that reason, your ruling was completely wrong.
– The honorable member for Dalley (Mir. Rosevear) has disagreed with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and has sought to interpret the Standing Orders somewhat in the fashion in which ho interpreted them when he himself was in the chair. If there is validity in his argument, the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) had no right to make a personal explanation this morning.
– I do not question that.
– When the right honorable member for Barton rose to make his personal explanation this morning the honorable member for Dalley did not question his right to do so; but the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), having obtained through you, Mr. Speaker, the proper authority in the House, leave to make a personal explanation, the honorable member for Dalley contends that he should not have been permitted to proceed because he had not obtained the indulgence of the House so to do. Nothing could be more farcical than an argument of that description. The honorable member for Dalley has said that all the honorable member for Mackellar did was to catch Mr. Speaker’s eye. That, I submit, is what each of us has to do if he wants to speak in this chamber, to ask or to answer a question, or to make a statement. Following the normal procedure, the honorable member for Mackellar caught Mr. Speaker’s eye and asked for permission to make a personal explanation, whereupon Mr. Speaker asked him whether he claimed to have been misrepresented. The honorable member for Mackellar replied that he had been misrepresented. As no honorable member objected at that stage Mr. Speaker gave him permission to proceed. The silence of honorable members at that point was a clear indication that the House consented to the honorable- member’s request for permission to make a personal explanation. As soon as he had begun to do so honorable members opposite, realizing that his explanation would be embarrassing to the right honorable member for Barton, used every subterfuge under the Standing Orders and the forms of the House to prevent him from completing it. I submit that Mr. Speaker’s ruling was entirely justified and that it should be upheld by the House.
– This is an occasion, Mr. Speaker, on which a ruling given by you has been made the subject of a hostile motion. This seems to be one of the occasions on which, Mr. Speaker, you could wish to be saved from your friends.
– Order ! I do not want to be saved from anybody.
– In view of the remarks made by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony) I think I am justified in making that statement. I have the right to be heard in silence. The Chair has no right to interrupt while I am addressing it.
-Order! That is a gross reflection on the Chair.
– It is not a reflection on the Chair. May’s Parliamentary Practice upholds my right to be heard without interruption.
– I am sure that May does not uphold the honorable member’s contention that he has such a right.
– Then it is all right according to Calwell. The question is, what is meant by the phrase “Ry the indulgence of the House”? The PostmasterGeneral contends that it means merely catching Mr. Speaker’s eye. That is the easiest way to obtain an indulgence that I know of and at least it is not theologically right.
– Order ! The honorable member must observe the Standing Orders and the usages of the House.
– In my view “the indulgence of the House “ means the consent of the House, and not a wink or a nod from Mr. Speaker, as the PostmasterGeneral has suggested. The question is whether or not Mr. Speaker put to the House the question whether the honorable member for Mackellar should have leave to make a personal explanation. If the granting of the indulgence of the House does not involve requesting honorable members to indicate whether or not they are prepared to listen to an honorable member, the words in the standing order on which you rely to support your ruling, Mr. Speaker, should be. struck from the standing order. The honorable member for Mackellar indicated that he desired to make a personal explanation, whereupon you, Mr. Speaker, asked him if he claimed to have been misrepresented. The honorable member replied “ I do “, and thereupon proceeded to make his explanation.
Honorable members were not invited to indicate whether or not they desired to hear him. The honorable member then proceeded to repeat charges which he had made yesterday, and he finished his oration with a histrionic flourish by indicating that, at a later hour this day, he proposed to take certain action.
-Order! The honorable member is getting completely away from the terms of the motion.
– The honorable member for Mackellar obtained your consent, Mr. Speaker, and not the consent of the House, to repeat charges, which he concluded with a threat. His statement could by no means be regarded as a personal explanation.
– Order !
– The issue is not whether or not the honorable member’s personal explanation was in order, but whether or not he obtained the indulgence of the House to make it. Not by any tortuous or devious methods of argument, nor by any twisting of words on the part of the Postmaster-General, who, in any event, has no knowledge of the Standing Orders, can the fact be disguised that the permission of the House was neither sought nor granted to enable the honorable member for Mackellar to make his personal explanation, and, therefore, Mr. Speaker, your ruling was completely wrong.
– Before the debate proceeds further, I wish to clear up one or two matters. It has been my practice in the past, and it will be my invariable practice in’ the future, that when an honorable member seeks leave of the House to make a statement to ask whether leave is granted. When an honorable member has risen in his place, has claimed that he has been misrepresented, and has expressed a desire to make a personal explanation, I have never asked the House to give him leave to do so, and I do not think that the Standing Orders require me so to do. When an honorable member claims to have been misrepresented and asks for leave to make a personal explanation, and no objection is raised, the absence of objection” is sufficient authority for Mr. Speaker to direct him to proceed. In my experience in two Parliaments over a period of 24 years that rule has invariably been followed, and I do not propose to alter it.
– Mr. Speaker-
– Order ! The honorable member for Melbourne has already spoken to the motion.
– I take a point of order. The statement that you have followed the procedure adopted by me when I was Speaker is totally incorrect.
– Order ! I have never at any time attempted to follow the precedents of the honorable member.
– You, Mr. Speaker, mentioned your membership of two parliaments.
– I referred to a State Parliament and a Commonwealth Parliament in which I took part.
-i am not responsible for your rulings.
– I rise to support the motion of my colleague, the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear). Half an hour ago when dealing with a previous motion, Mr. Speaker, you deliberately asked the House, “ Is leave granted ? “ According to the ordinary forms of the House, the motion, which was for the third reading of a bill, required the leave of the House. You said in that case “ Is leave granted ? “ You did not assume, in the absence of an objection, that leave was automatically granted. That brings out the force of the contention of the Opposition upon this motion of objection to your ruling. Under the Standing Orders leave must be granted before a motion can be submitted in such circumstances. It appears to honorable members of the Opposition that this attempted personal explanation is a misuse of the forms of the House in order to obtain later an audience for the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth). That is a gross reflection on. the House, and a misuse of the Standing Orders. We say that that ruling cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as being in conformity with the Standing Orders, which state that a personal explanation in circumstances such as these may be made only by the indulgence of the House. Judged according to practice, the Standing Orders and parliamentary procedure throughout the British Empire, the motion before the House is completely justified and should be carried. Mr. Speaker was entirely wrong in allowing this personal explanation procedure to be used to circumvent the forms of the House;
Motion (by Mr. Gullett) put -
That the question benow put.
The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)
AYES: 45
NOES: 36
Majority . . . . 9
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Question put -
That, in view of the fact that the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) did not seek or get the indulgence of the House to make a statement, the Speaker was in error in permitting him to make the statement.
The House divided. (Mb. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)
AYES: 35
NOES: 47
Majority…… 12
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 286
Motion (by Mr. Fadden) proposed -
That the House dp now adjourn.
– Order !
– I suggest to the Government that the privilege of replying to those charges and insinuations should have been given to the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) before the motion for the adjournment of the House was proposed.
– If the right honorable member for Barton rose, I did not see him. I am sorry if I missed him. Did the right honorable gentleman rise?
– No, but I rise now.
– I call the right honorable member for Barton.
– I rise to a further point of order. I point out that the proceedings of this House are no longer being broadcast, and therefore, whatever the right honorable member for Barton may have to say now, will not be given the Australiawide broadcast that was given to the remarks of the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth).
– I rise to speak on the point of order. I shall be repeating my statements, free of privilege, outside this House.
– Order! The honorable member will resume his seat. The position is that the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) has moved for the adjournment of the House. The right honorable member for Barton has just admitted that he did not rise to seek the call before that motion was submitted.
– In a statement that I made earlier to-day I made my position perfectly clear. I then said that the charge was absolutely false, and I repeat that now.
– Order ! The only question now before the Chair is -
That the House do now adjourn.
.- I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that an early meeting of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee be called to consider the need, on special occasions, to extend the period during which the proceedings of this chamber are broadcast. I am sure that you will see the fairness of my submission. I am not concerned at the moment with the merits of what the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) may have said about the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) ; I leave that aside for the moment. The fact remains that whatever he said did not receive the broadcast coverage that was given to the remarks of the honorable member for Mackellar to-day. The remarks of the right honorable member for Barton which the honorable member for Mackellar regarded as offensive and in relation to which he made a per~sonal explanation to-day were not broadcast but, by a rather strange set of circumstances, between the passage of a certain measure this morning, and the motion for the adjournment of the House, while the House was still on the air, the honorable member for Mackellar was able to secure an advantage that was not enjoyed by the right honorable member for Barton. If to-day’s procedure is to be the regular practice, I suggest that consideration should be given by the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee to the advisability of extending the broadcasting period so that any honorable member who is attacked personally while the House is on the air, will have an opportunity to have his reply broadcast, whether or not the motion for the adjournment of the House has been moved. Such a reform would remove the cause of much unpleasant disputation.
.-Since the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) has been in this Parliament we have repeatedly witnessed the unseemly spectacle-
– I rise to order. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) has already spoken on the motion for the adjournment of the House.
– No, he raised a point of order.
– I am sorry.
– The honorable member for Mackellar has repeatedly attacked leading members of the Australian Labour party as well as other members of this Parliament by seeking to link them with the Communist party. These vik and personal attacks should, I consider, be investigated by a committee of this Parliament and, if they are found to be unjustified, appropriate disciplinary measures should be taken. The honorable member for Mackellar is a disgrace to this Parliament.
– Order ! The honorable member for Grayndler is quite out of order, and he has been a member of this chamber for long enough to appreciate that fact.
– I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I strongly resent the completely unfounded charges that have been made by the honorable member for Mackellar, whose own record will not bear investigation.
– Order !
– The honorable member’s constant attacks do little credit to himself or to the Government of which he is a supporter. Certainly they do not raise the prestige of this chamber in the eyes of the people of Australia. I personally believe that there is much to be said for the contention that one hears made frequently in this chamber in interjections from this side of the House that the honorable member for Mackellar should be in a cage or a mental asylum.
– Will the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) repeat outside the precincts of this House the statements he has just made?
– The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) has raised the question of giving to an honorable member of this House against whom a personal attack has been launched during the broadcasting of our proceedings, the right to have his reply to that attack broadcast. I remind him that while he was Speaker of this House he permitted vile and vicious attacks to be made by Ministers upon members of the then Opposition during the first 35 minutes of question time, but did not allow the victims of such attacks to reply to them or to make personal explanations until that period had expired. Thus, on days on which the proceedings of the House of Representatives were not on the air except for the evening re-broadcast of the first 35 minutes of question time, the replies to those vicious attacks did not reach the ears of the public. At that time, I directed attention to the unfairness of that practice and the Parliamentary Proceedings BroadcastingCommittee ultimately decided that questions or answers to which objection was taken and which subsequently became the subject of personal explanations should be excised from the re-broadcast of questions. I agree with that principle. However, so far as the attack made by the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) on the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) is concerned, I emphasize that the honorable member for Mackellar was elected to this Parliament on the same terms and conditions as every other member. The Parliament is a place of free assembly and free speech, and whether or not honorable members opposite like the viewsof the honorable member for Mackellar, and whether or not we like the views of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), each of those honorable members is entitled to express his opinions so long as his form of expression does not transgress the rules of debate. I contend that the attack made by the honorable member for Grayndler on the honorable member for Mackellar far exceeds in viciousness and personal recrimination, the statements that he attributed to the honorable member for Mackellar. Any one who seeks to make such charges should first set his own house in order.
– Never since I came into this House, Mr. Speaker, have I made a personal attack on any honorable member. I have always made my attacks on political grounds. I think very highly of the suggestion of the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) that when such matters are raised they might be investigated. Insofar as I can do so, I shall give to the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) the opportunity to have an investigation made, not by this House, but by a judicial tribunal for which I have no doubt he would have the highest respect.
– Two points have been raised to which I shall now reply. I inform the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) that a meeting of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee will be held next Tuesday. I inform the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) that if he or any other member of the Opposition has any grievance against the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), the Standing Orders provide ample means of having the position rectified.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 288
The following papers were pre sented : -
Commonwealth Public Service Act - Twentysixth Report on the Commonwealth Public Service, for year 1949-50.
Ordered to be printed.
Commonwealth Bank Act - Appointment Certificate -R. E. Plumridge.
Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for - Department of Civil Aviation purposes - Essendon, Victoria.
Postal purposes - Newcastle West, New South Wales.
Public Service Act - Appointments - Department -
Repatriation - M. Cooper, H. A. McCrae.
Works and Housing - I.S. Bickerstaff, W. A. Brosnan.
Public Service Arbitration Act - Determinations - 1951 -
No. 1 - Commonwealth Public Service Artisans’ Association.
No. 2 - Association of Railway Professional Officers of Australia.
No. 3 - Non-Official Postmasters’ Association of Australia.
No. 4 - Australian Journalists’ Association.
No. 5 - Federated Public Service Assistants’ Association of Australia.
No. 6 - Common Rule re Sick Leave.
No. 7 - Australian Broadcasting Com mission Staff Association.
No. 8 - Hospital Employees’ Federation of Australasia.
Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Notice of variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 7th March, 1951.
House adjourned at 1.16 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 March 1951, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1951/19510309_reps_19_212/>.