Senate
3 September 1909

3^rd Parliament · 4^th Session

1. Senate
2. 3^rd Parliament
3. 1909

---

• QUESTION
  • PRINTING AND ADVERTISING
• QUESTION
  • S.S. WARATAH
• ELECTORAL BILL
• CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL
• SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL
• PRINTING COMMITTEE
• ADJOURNMENT
  • Navigation Bill - Electoral Bill

---

The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2994

QUESTION

PRINTING AND ADVERTISING

Prison Labour

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

– Some time ago the Senate made an order for the preparation of a return showing the cost of printing and publishing Hansard and the Gasette and the cost of Government advertising. A considerable time has elapsed since the order was made, and as there is no sign of the return being laid upon the table, I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if he will kindly look into the matter?

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

– I shall make inquiries, and if the honorable senator will repeat his question . nest week, I shall be able to give him an answer.

Senator HENDERSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I beg to ask the Minister of Trade and Customs whether, in accordance with the promise made by him on the 25th August, he has ascertained if it is a fact that Commonwealth printing is being performed in Fremantle prison by prison labour?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– My honorable friend has not allowed me too much time to get the desired information. At present I can only tell him that instructions were given at once for inquiries to be made, and that they are proceeding.

page 2995

QUESTION

S.S. WARATAH

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister of Trade and Customs yet in a position to tell the Senate whether the arrangements in contemplation regarding a search for the steamer Waratah have reached finality?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I am sorry to say that they have not - mainly because of the difficulty in securing a steamer.

Senator Lynch:

– Time is everything just now.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I realize that, and we are doing all that we can by cablegram.

page 2995

ELECTORAL BILL

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to parliamentary elections.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 2995

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL

Motion (by Senator Colonel Neild) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section four of the Customs Tariff 1906.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 2995

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 2nd September, vide page 2935) :

Clause 8-

If the Comptroller-General, after taking steps to ascertain the views of the employer and seamen, certifies -

that any scheme of compensation, benefit or insurance for the seamen of an employer, whether or not the scheme includes other employers and their seamen, provides scales of compensation not less favorable to the seamen and their dependents than the corresponding scales contained in this Act, and

where the scheme provides for contributions by the seamen - that the scheme confers benefits at least equivalent to those contributions, in addition to the benefits to which the seamen would have been entitled under this Act, and

that a majority (to be ascertained by ballot) of the seamen to whom the scheme is applicable are in favour of the scheme, the employer may, whilst the certificate is in force, contract with any of his seamen that the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the provisions of this Act, and thereupon the employer shall be liable only in accordance with the. scheme, but, save as aforesaid, this Act shall apply notwithstanding any contract to the contrary made after the commencement of this Act.

Amendment (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That after the word “ scheme,” line 23, the following new paragraph be inserted, “ and (d) that the scheme is financially sound.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– Last night the Vice-President of the Executive Council pointed out that it was not desirable to delete this clause, because certain employers might initiate very good schemes for the benefit of their employes. I understood that the very reason for the introduction of the Bill was that no reliance can be placed upon the benevolent intention of employers in that direction. Up to the present moment they have had a full opportunity to act, and it was because they neglected to do their duty that the Bill was brought in. The Minister cannot assign any other reason for its introduction than to insure that a satisfactory and equitable scheme shall be initiated to compensate seamen for injuries sustained in the course of their employment. So far every scheme of this kind which has been initiated within “Australia has been an absolute failure. The Minister cannot point to a single instance where success has been obtained. Is it reasonable, then, to expect that a workable scheme such as is contained in this Bill is likely to be superseded by any scheme which employers might institute? The principle of contracting out is a most dangerous one to allow. If the clause is passed, the possibility is that the men would be compelled to join a scheme against their will. It is quite true that at the time it was initiated a majority of the employes in any employment would father the scheme, . but it should be remembered that seamen sign on to a vessel for only a limited time, and are continually changing from vessel to vessel. What would be the position of the men who would take the place of the original members of a scheme of the kind contemplated by this clause? Suppose that an ocean steam-ship company desired to establish a scheme. Their employes at the time would have by a majority to consent to the formation of the scheme, and so put themselves outside the provisions of the law. But they would be continually changing from one vessel or company to another, and the result would be that their successors could have no say in the matter at all. Applicants would be faced with the alternative of joining a scheme in which they did not believe, or going without employment. We know that men, seamen as well as others, are driven to search for employment by stern necessity. They may have a wife or children, dearer to themselves than all else in the world, and suffering absolute want. In a case of that kind there would be compulsion upon the men to accept a scheme which otherwise would not be acceptable, in order that they might gain a livelihood. This Parliament should not subject any men to compulsion of that sort. The scheme contained in the Bill is a justifiable and satisfactory one, otherwise, I presume, it would not have been fathered by the Government. If it is a justifiable and satisfactory scheme, that is all that is required, and we need not compel the seamen on out coasts to be at the beck and call of any company. The real object which, I think, is behind the clause is to destroy unionism, to create dissension and bickering, to compel the men to look rather to their employers for the safeguarding of their interests than to the provisions of the law. The only reason for the introduction of the Bill is that hitherto employers have not satisfactorily safeguarded their men’s interests. Undoubtedly, the Bill should be made to apply to every seaman trading on our coast. No loophole for escape should be left, and every employer should be made amenable to the law. I hope that Senator Millen will concede the demand which has been made for the abolition of the clause, which is not only useless, but an ugly excrescence on an otherwise good measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the following new sub-clause be inserted : - (1A.) If under the scheme there are insufficient funds to meet any claim equal to that which would but for the scheme have been payable in accordance with the scales under this Act, the employer shallas between himself and the seaman employed by him, be liable for the difference between the amount available for such claim under the scheme and the amount the seaman would have been entitled to under this Act, and the’ difference shall be recoverable as a claim under this Act.

My amendment provides that if a claim be made against any compensation scheme and there be insufficient money in the scheme to meet that claim, the employer shall be liable to the extent of the difference.

Senator St Ledger:

– Is he not liable under the Bill ?

Senator PEARCE:

– No.

Senator St Ledger:

– A claim could be made against him and if he could not satisfy it he could be made insolvent.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is not so. According to Ruegg’s Employers’ Liability and Workmen’s Compensation under the Imperial Act, which contains a similar provision to that under consideration, in the event of any compensation scheme becoming financially unsound the claimant cannot recover from his employer any balance to which he may be entitled for injuries received. I understand that the Government have no objection to my proposal. But even if it be adopted I shall not be reconciled to the clause. At the same time if a majority of the Committee intend to provide for the initiation of compensation schemes we should at least insure that those schemes shall be kept financially sound or that otherwise the balance of any liability under the Bill shall fall upon the employer.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– Itrust that the Committee will not seriously consider the advisableness of amending the clause, and that it will be deleted.

Senator Pearce:

– If we intend to retain the clause why not endeavour to improve it?

Senator HENDERSON:

– I hope that we shall not burden the Bill with conditions which are new and far fetched, and the only effect of which will be to lessen its efficacy.

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA · FT

– The honorable senator wishes to remove all possibility of benefit being conferred upon the seamen.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Does the honorable senator really think that I. am so simple that I do not appreciate the relationship which exists between employers and employes? I unhesitatingly say that up to the present moment employers have not exhibited any extreme generosity towards their employes, otherwise this Bill would have been absolutely unnecessary. It. has only been brought forward because employers have hitherto callously regarded the necessities of their workmen in the matter of being paid compensation for injuries received during the course of their employment. This clause, if agreed to, will practically nullify the remaining provisions of the Bill.

Senator Macfarlane:

– No.

Senator HENDERSON:

– All the facts of history are against the honorable senator. I admit that I could cite several cases in which employers have treated their workmen very fairly for generations. But whilst that statement applies to a limited number of employers there are many hundreds who’ are entirely out of touch with their employes, and who have no sympathy with them, whatever. Let me point to the shipping combine as an illustration. A large number of the persons connected with that combine reside in the Old Country. In the very nature of things what sympathy can exist between those . persons and their employes ? I hope that the clause will not be retained for the reasons which I have advanced.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I desire to extend complete freedom of action to men who are engaged in seafaring work. From time to time we have heard a good deal from honorable senators opposite in reference to freedom of contract, and I believe that they are stubborn believers in that principle. I make bold, therefore, to claim their assistance in granting freedom of action to our seafaring men. I am opposed to this clause root and branch. I regard it as an excrescence upon the measure. It appears to me that its object is to enable employers to compel their employes to subscribe to. compensation schemes in order that their opportunities to form trades unions may be destroyed. In introducing this Bill the Vice-President of the Executive Council declared that he would invite assistance from all quarters of the Senate with a view to making it as perfect as possible.

But for reasons known only to himself he is not prepared to look with a friendly eye upon suggestions emanating from a certain section in this Chamber. I say that we should give our seamen complete freedom of action.

Senator Gray:

– The honorable senator does not desire to ‘do that.

Senator LYNCH:

– If Senator Gray had been compelled to work for his living as some honorable senators have been, he would have found that under a provision of this kind, if he did not join any scheme which had been initiated by his employer he would be obliged to walk the plank ashore. Under the clause employers will have power to initiate compensation schemes for their workmen and to coerce the latter into joining them. The VicePresident of the Executive Council has affirmed that it would be very unfair not to permit small employers in struggling circumstances to band themselves together for the purpose of forming compensation schemes under this provision. But where are the steam-ship owners in Australia who are in struggling circumstances?

Senator Millen:

– I did not refer to the steam-ship owner as being in that position. But this clause will apply equally to the owner of a small fishing boat.

Senator LYNCH:

– The owner of such a craft is at liberty to insure his employes against accident.

Senator Turley:

– Is the owner of a small fishing boat likely to initiate a compensation scheme? (

Senator LYNCH:

– Certainly not. The maritime industry in Australia is conducted by large companies. .It is not correct to say that these companies are in struggling circumstances. The shipping industry is in the hands of powerful corporations, which are quite capable of looking after their own interests. I appeal in support of my amendment to those honorable senators who are eternally cackling about the preservation of freedom of action. I appeal to Senator Gray, who professes to be a believer in the liberty of the subject. Idle talk is of no use in connexion with this matter. We have had concrete illustrations of the action that has been taken by a powerful shipping company with reference to a scheme of insurance. The company to which I refer for a number of years made it a condition of employment that workmen should belong to a certain society, even against their will. If they did not join, they could not secure employment.

Senator Gray:

– What company was that?

Senator LYNCH:

– The Union Steamship Company of New Zealand, which formed a compensation scheme on the lines contemplated by this clause.

Senator Macfarlane:

– To benefit their seamen.

Senator LYNCH:

– The honorable senator would contend that everything done by such a company towards its employes was for their benefit. I desire to secure freedom of action for our maritime population, and to enforce under the authority of the law a principle for which honorable senators opposite have been very fond of raising their voices. The amendment I shall move will afford some measure of protection to those who are forced to earn their livelihood at sea. Under it, if it is made a condition of employment,, directly or indirectly, that men shall join a scheme, they will be able to complain to the Comptroller-General, whose duty it. will be to ascertain whether the facts are as stated.

Senator Millen:

– That is already provided for in the Bill.

Senator LYNCH:

– It is provided for in a very defective manner, and one which does not meet with my approval. What the Bill provides is that it shall not be expressly stated in a scheme that men shall be compelled to join. But we know the artfulness of some employers, and how easily they could get round such a provision. While it is quite true that if it is set forth in black and white that belonging to a scheme is a condition of employment, such a scheme will be declared void, there are, nevertheless, other ways by which a ship-owner can attain his object. My desire is to meet a contingency of that kind. I therefore move -

That the following new paragraph be inserted in sub-clause 4 : - or (e) that the acceptance of the scheme is made a condition of employment directly or indirectly.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– Statements are being made here to the effect that the Union Company of New Zealand compel their men to join such a scheme as is contemplated under this clause. I have just communicated with the manager of the company, who informs me that the scheme referred to was started in New Zealand for the benefit of the employes. It was simply a mutual benefit society, to provide for cases of accident. It was not, however, considered necessary to apply the scheme to Australia, except men who joined in New Zealand wished to continue under the scheme when they came to this country. But, as a matter of fact, I am informed, no compulsion was exercised in any form. Men were never compelled to join the scheme. It is against the law of New Zealand.

Senator Lynch:

– What rot !

Senator MACFARLANE:

– The scheme was formed for the benefit of the employes, but it is now practically in abeyance.

Senator Guthrie:

– A man received” twenty-four hours’ notice if he did not join.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– :Mr. Mills assures me that that was never so. I have no personal knowledge, but I communicated with the best authority, and I have stated the assurance given to me on the point. Any honorable senator can get this for himself.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I have not the slightest objection to the amendment proposed by Senator Lynch ; on the contrary, I welcome it, and rather regret that the honorable senator proposed it in such terms as he did. He assumed that the action taken by me, and by those who support the clause, is due to lack of sympathy with the workmen. The debate on the clause throughout has turned on the point as to whether” or not the inclusion of the clause might place in the hands of an employer an instrument of tyranny. But sub-clause 3 provides that no scheme shall be certified to by the Comptroller-General if it contains an obligation upon the workman to become a participant in the scheme. It further provides that there must be a provision to enable any workman to withdraw if he pleases. Senator Lynch’s amendment goes a little further, and sets out that if the acceptance of a scheme is made a condition of employment, it shall be null and void. The amendment, therefore, deals with the man who seeks employment, not with a man already in employment. If the amendment is adopted, we shall. I think, have sufficiently safeguarded all present and future workmen from the evils upon which my honorable friend has dwelt.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I shall, of course, vote for an amendment which proposes to protect workmen who may be induced to join a scheme of the kind contemplated. I know, however, how ineffectual the provision will be, because, as I stated yesterday, no man is discharged on the plain ground that he will not join a scheme. Take a company like the Union Company. A man was not discharged because he would not join the scheme which that company formerly had in operation. A man is not told what he is discharged for. He is merely told to take twenty-four hours’ notice. If he asks the reason for his discharge, his employer can tell him that he is not bound to give any reason. Seamen are being discharged daily in Melbourne, and in other ports of Australia, without any reasons being given them.

Senator Millen:

– What inducement is there for an employer to force an employ^ to take advantage of a scheme when, if he does so, it must cost the employer more?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– When the great maritime strike took place in 1890 it was seen that the object in establishing these schemes was to break up the unions. The Union Company of New Zealand established their benefit scheme at that time, offering men inducements to leave their unions in order to join their scheme.

Senator Millen:

– Is a friendly society designed with the object of defeating .unionism ?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– A friendly society is a different thing altogether. The British Shipping Federation has to-day in operation a scheme, in connexion with which they promise, in the case of a man’s death, to make a contribution to his family. In carrying out their scheme they perpetrate one of the worst acts of tyranny it is possible to imagine. Before a seaman is allowed to ship he is brought up for medical examination. He is compelled to strip for the purpose, and he is branded after the examination.

Senator St Ledger:

– That surely is an assault at common law ?

Senator Gray:

– Can the honorable senator prove that?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– That is absolutely happening to-day in the ports of London, Liverpool. Swansea, and Cardiff.

Senator Gray:

– What does the honorable senator mean by branding?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– What does Senator Gray mean by it? The men are compelled to keep a book showing their record.

Senator Macfarlane:

– Showing their character.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– No; the character given them by some irresponsible individual. In this connexion also, a most cowardly thing takes place. The person giving the seaman his character is not reponsible for the character he gives. There are three grades recognised - “ Very good,” “Good,” and “Decline to report.” The person giving the character “ decline to report,” which is recognised throughout the world as a bad discharge, is not made in any way liable for the consequences of his action. My point is that it is impossible to safeguard this provision in any way, because the employer is not bound to give any reason for discharging a seaman. Men can be discharged, with twenty-four hours’ notice, at the place where they sign articles, and in other ports by merely laying the ship up for twelve hours.

Senator Millen:

– Why should the owners want to get rid of their men ?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– They very often desire to do so. Men may refuse to be parties to the employer’s scheme.

Senator Millen:

– Why should the employer force men to join his scheme, when to do so must cost him more money ?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The unions are established . for the protection of the men. We say that we shall provide a fund from which, in the event of shipwreck, a sailor will receive compensation for loss, and from which there shall be paid funeral donations. Then the ship-owners say that they will also provide a fund from which compensation and funeral donations will be paid. They come into direct competition with the unions.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel Cameron. - Why should they not? Why should the unions have a monopoly of the business?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The unions have not a monopoly. Why should we assist the employers rather than the unions?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel Cameron. - Why should the unions try to secure a monopoly ?

Senator Lynch:

– Why should a man be compelled to do what he does not wish to do?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– We have done everything we could by our legislation in the past to prevent unions doing what honorable senators opposite now insist employers should have the right to do. In the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill honorable senators insisted that provision should be included under which if unions had certain objects in view they should be given no preference.

Senator Walker:

– Why should they be given preference?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Why should honorable senators opposite now try to pass this Bill in such a way as to give preference to employers, when they denied preference to unionists in dealing with the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill ? Why did we pass a provision in dealing with the Patents Bill only the other day, giving lawyers the right to recover costs they had been unable to collect in the past? On further looking into the point I raised yesterday. I am more convinced than ever that by taking advantage of this contracting-out clause a seaman will forfeit all his legal rights. If he does not contract himself out of the law under this clause, he will be able to choose whether he should try to recover damages under this Bill, under the Employers Liability Act, or at common law. I find that Ruegg makes the definite statement that a man who joins a scheme contracts himself out of his rights under the Employers Liability Act and at common law.

Senator Trenwith:

– I think that special provision is made in the Employers Liability Act to avoid that.

Senator Turley:

– That was Ruegg’s first opinion, but he found that he made a mistake, because the Courts decided against him.

Senator Millen:

– If there is any doubt on thepoint, we can clear it up in this Bill.

Senator St Ledger:

– We could insert a provision giving the seaman recourse either at common law or under the Employers Liability Act.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– He will have that right under the Bill. He can claim compensation under this Bill under the Employers Liability Act or by a suit at common law, but if this contracting-out clause is agreed to and a seaman agree to abide by the conditions of an employer’s scheme, he will have no right then to go into a Court at all to look for compensation.

Senator St Ledger:

– We can make it clear that he shall have the right.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– How can we make it clear if he agrees to abide by the conditions of the employer’s scheme? No lawyer in Australia will challenge Ruegg’s authority on the Workmen’s Compensation or Employers’ Liability law.

Senator Millen:

– Let me direct the honorable senator’s attention to paragraph b of sub-clause 2 of clause 6, which we have passed -

A seaman shall not be entitled to recover compensation both independently of and also under this Act; but subject to this paragraph this Act shall not affect any civil liability of an employer under any other law.

Senator Turley:

– There is exactly the same provision in the English Act, and yet the Courts have decided against the sailor.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I am aware that if a man elects to bring his case under the Employers Liability Act, and fails, he cannot afterwards make the claim under the Seamen’s Compensation Act. But he does not lose his right to a civil action. A man may be employed as a boilermaker in a boiler shop on the Yarra bank. If he is sent to work on board a ship and an accident occurs to him there through no fault of his employer on the Yarra bank, he will still have an action against the ship-owner. I repeat that a seaman will be deprived of all his legal rights by contracting out of the law under this clause. There will be an inducement given to the employer to say, I will give you more by my scheme than the Act provides for,” because he knows that if the seaman is a party to his scheme, he will be relieved absolutely of any liability through an action at law, the seaman having plainly said, “I am going to accept these terms as against the terms in the Act.”

Senator Trenwith:

– Suppose we provide that such a contract is illegal?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– If that is done, then there is no use for the clause.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– IfI understood the Minister aright, he said in the early part of this discussion that persons who availed themselves of a scheme would have another remedy. But I hold in my hand a judgment which was given in the Old Country, and inwhich it is laid down very clearly that any employe who availed himself of the advantages of a scheme has ipso facto no remedy except the compensation provided by that scheme. In their work on the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, Parsons and Allen say, at page 28 -

In case of Taylor v. Hamstead Colliery Company, a workman who had joined a scheme duly certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies under section 3, sub-section 1, of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1S97, received fatal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the personal negligence of his employers, or of some person for whose act or default his employers were responsible. After the workman’s death, his legal personal representatives brought an action to recover damages under the Employers’ Liability Act 1SS0. Held, reversing the judgment of the Divisional Court, that_ the contract bv the workman that the provisions of the scheme should be substituted for the provisions of the Act was an exercise of the option given to him by section 1, sub-section 2 (4), of the Act to claim compensation under the Act, and was a bar to the claim for the recovery by his representatives of damages under the Employers’ Liability Act 1880.

The significant portion of the judgment is the statement that the very fact of a man having joined a scheme bars his representatives from claiming compensation under the Employers Liability or other Act. It shows that any persons who think it wise to join a scheme under this Bill will be placed in a. much worse position than will those who elect to maintain their liberty.

Senator Millen:

– Unless we make a provision to the contrary.

Senator LYNCH:

– Quite so. I am glad to hear that the honorable senator does not object to such a provision, because otherwise the clause would place those who joined a scheme in a most disadvantageous position.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– - It appears that we have got into the discussion of an issue which is apart from the amendment immediately before the Committee. The amendment, as I understand it, is designed to secure immunity from a danger with which workmen are confronted very frequently, and that is that obnoxious terms are made a condition of employment.

Senator Turley:

– That is not stated.

Senator TRENWITH:

– No ; but the point is that Senator Lynch is trying, and I think rightly trying, to secure to workmen immunity from that disability.

Senator Turley:

– And the honorable senator knows how effectively it can be done.

Senator TRENWITH:

– Whether we can afford relief is, after all, apart from the question. Senator Lynch is making an effort to do it, and the Minister, I arnpleased to hear, is in accord with him. The clause already provides that if a scheme discloses that acceptance of it is made a condition of employment, it shall not be registered

Senator Henderson:

– The honorable senator’s experience should teach him at once that that is a mere pretext.

Senator TRENWITH:

– Whether the amendment of Senator Lynch will be effective or not, we ought to endeavour to secure some means which would effectively prevent such conditions from being imposed. From, a long experience, I know the very great difficulty of achieving the end. But if we make the imposition of such conditions a nullifying factor, if it can be proved, we shall have done something. I think that we ought to accept the amendment, if possible.

Senator Henderson:

– It will be difficult to prove it.

Senator TRENWITH:

– I know that it will be difficult, but there have been instances where proof has been forthcoming. It is a monstrous thing that a number of men who are weak should be left in the position that they may be compelled, bv their necessity, to contract themselves out of benefits which ought to be secured to them. We ought to congratulate ourselves that the Minister in charge of the Bill has readily expressed his willingness, if the necessity can be shown, to render that impossible.

Senator Guthrie:

– We have shown the method.

Senator Turley:

– Why not leave out the provision for “ contracting out “ ?

Senator TRENWITH:

– In this clause there is no provision for contracting out. There is an alternative, which must be operative. A man is not to contract out of any advantage which he may get from a scheme. But the clause empowers a man to contract out of the Act for a greater advantage than it confers.

Senator Guthrie:

– lit allows a man to contract out of the Act, and out of his work.

Senator TRENWITH:

– The Minister has said that if that is so he is prepared to insert a claude, which can be suggested, to prevent that possibility.

Senator Henderson:

– He has al read v agreed to .do that, but it is a useless scheme.

Senator TRENWITH:

– That declaration of the honorable senator seems to imply that there is no possibility of making an Act of Parliament effective.

Senator Henderson:

– Certainly not, as the honorable senator knows. There is no possibility of making an. Act with such a condition applicable to employment.

Senator Turley:

– Did the honorable senator’s employer ever give him a greater advantage because he belonged to an organization? I have often heard him express himself to the contrary here. .

Senator TRENWITH:

– The honorable senator is assuming that any alternative scheme must necessarily be one antagonistic to some scheme which he has in his mind. I do not share that view. I think it is quite possible to devise a scheme which is mutually beneficial,, and which may be more beneficial than any schemes provided in the Bill. What I want to achieve - and the Minister too, I believe - is that, however advantageous other agreements may be, unless they operate, a seaman shall have recourse to this measure as a remaining alternative.

Senator Guthrie:

– If the provision in the Bill is not good enough, make it better.

Senator TRENWITH:

– I do not think that the scheme provided in the Bill is as good as some of us would like. But it is an enormous advance upon anything that has been done so far.

Senator Turley:

– Independently of this clause, it is a very good Bill.

Senator TRENWITH:

– The amendment seems to be necessary to make the clause as it stands completely effective, and I congratulate Senator Lynch upon having proposed it.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– At the present stage I do not care to discuss the merits or demerits of the clause. On the one side, it is urged that it cannot do harm and may do good, while on the other hand it is urged practically that it must do harm and cannot do good. I think it is agreed that if it is retained it may operate with a different effect in different instances.

Senator Guthrie:

– Hear, hear.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am glad to have that concession, for I ask for no more. Let us assume that the clause is not going to apply in precisely the same way in every case, that, if it is applied, there may be a variation in its effect. In the interests of peace I suggest that the words subject to regulations to be made by the GovernorGeneral,” be inserted after the word “ may,” in line 47 of the clause. If that amendment is made then every agreement will have to be submitted to Parliament for its approval or disapproval. That will enable every member of Parliament to freely criticise the conditions of any voluntary scheme. And it will, I think, bring to light the truth or otherwise of many of the strong and somewhat harsh statements which have been made as to the possibilities under the clause.

Senator Guthrie:

– That is provided for now, because every scheme has to be referred to the Comptroller-General of Customs.

Senator CLEMONS:

– No; when the Comptroller-General issues a certificate the matter will end.

Senator Turley:

– Why not require an annual report to be made ?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I prefer to give to each House of the Parliament that full control which it can exercise under the power to review a regulation. I trust that my suggestion will be acceptable to the Minister and the members of the Opposition.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– - 1 am afraid that Senator Trenwith is not familiar with the legislation of other parts of the world, otherwise he would not declare that this clause, which relates to contracting out, is a great improvement upon existing legislation. I maintain that this measure is nothing more nor less than a slavish copy of the Imperial Act, which has been operative for two or three years. The people of Australia certainly expect this Parliament to improve upon legislation which has to run the gauntlet of the House of Lords. I know the history of contracting out in the Old Country, and I am sure that if Senator Trenwith were familiar with it he would not be anxious for us to repeat the blunders which have been made there.

Senator Trenwith:

– The honorable senator is in error in charging me with having supported the clause. I discussed only the amendment.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– We cannot effectively amend a provision which is intended to permit employers to evade the whole of their liabilities under the Bill.

Senator Trenwith:

– There is nothing to prevent us from agreeing to the amendment, and subsequently excising the whole clause if we choose to do so.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I hope that we shall have the assistance of the honorable senator in doing that. Senator Guthrie has already quoted cases which show that the best intentions of the Imperial Act in connexion with contracting out have been absolutely defeated. Why should we repeat the mistakes of that Act by slavishly copying it? I hope that the entire clause will be eliminated.

Senator Gray:

– The honorable senator does not trust the men?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– If the House of Lords can produce a greater fossil than is the honorable senator, I should like to see him.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator must confine his remarks totheclause.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Then I wish that Senator Gray would not indulge in such reckless statements. Upon every occasion that legislation has been enacted in regard to contracting out, it has failed. For that reason, I hope that the clause will be rejected.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– I have no objection to the amendment of Senator Lynch, but it reminds me somewhat of a “ chip in porridge.” It will not accomplish much good, nor will it do a great deal of harm. I could not repress a smile when I heard Senator Trenwith declare that we should leave the door open to employers to assume greater obligations for the benefit of their workmen than they will be compelled to do under this Bill.

Senator Trenwith:

– I did not say that we should do so. I said that such a thing might occur. But I was then discussing the amendment.

Senator TURLEY:

– The experience of the honorable senator himself satisfies me that employers never assign a reason for refusing to employ a man or for discharging him. Was the honorable senator himself ever told that he was refused employment because he belonged to a trade union? I have been discharged upon various occasions, not because I could not do my work or because I was not sober, but simply because “my services were not required.” Whv ? No reason was assigned, but I know perfectly well that the real reason was that I happened to be a member of a trade union. Senator Trenwith himself has told me that he has walked the streets of Melbourne until he was almost barefooted, in a vain endeavour to secure employment, simply because he was a unionist who had taken an active part in organizing unionism. Senator de Largie reminds me that only this morning a report is published in the newspapers to the effect that a man who has taken a prominent part in organizing the Bread Carters Union, and who, in his official capacity, has been called as a witness in. severalcases in which employers have been convicted of breaking the law, is today unable to secure employment. As a result, he is compelled to appeal to his mates to assist him to live until he can obtain work in some other avenue of industry. That is the sort of thing which will occur under the operation of this clause. As I pointed out last night, there is a great difference between the position of men who are employed in the Australian mercantile marine and that of men who are engaged in occupations ashore. A seaman may be employed by one steam-ship company to-day and by another company a month hence. He is constantly changing his ships. Very few seamen continue in the employment of one company for more than six months. Under this clause, if a seaman refused to join a compensation scheme which had been initiated by the company by which he was temporarily employed, he would, undoubtedly, be discharged. Very few such schemes would not demand some contribution from the seamen. He goes up for his first month’s money. He says, “ My wages ought to be so and so,” but he receives less. He- is told, “ We thought you were going to belong to the scheme.” If he says, “ I don’t care to belong to the scheme,” they pay him his full wages, but the next day the mate or the engineer says to him, “ I think you had better take twenty-four hours’ notice.” No reason is given.

Senator Trenwith:

– Is that an argument against the amendment?

Senator TURLEY:

– The amendment is neither useful nor harmful. Those who have been connected with unionism know full well how these matters are worked. A man is not told that he is being sacked for a specific reason. He is simply told that his services are not required.

Senator Trenwith:

– Sometimes he is told why.

Senator TURLEY:

– I have never known a case where a man has been sacked deliberately because he was a unionist.

Senator Millen:

– Two cases have recently occurred in Sydney, in one of which an employer was fined£10 for that very reason.

Senator Guthrie:

– That employer will not do it again !

Senator TURLEY:

– He was a very peculiar employer, if he gave as a reason for sacking a man that he was a unionist. No such case has come under my personal notice. But there are certain places, as Senator Trenwith knows, where it is useless for a man who belongs to a union to apply for employment. Perhaps hemay be taken on if he is not known to belong to a union. But if, two or three days afterwards, he is discovered to be a unionist, he is told that the firm are about to reduce hands, and his services are no longer required. Perhaps some scab gives him away. He knows very well why he is sacked and has to walk the streets. ‘ He is sacked, and his wife and children have to suffer, because he has dared to be a man.

Senator Gray:

– Can the honorable senator give instances ?

Senator TURLEY:

– I can give scores of instances. I have been so treated myself. I have felt the pinch because I dared to stand up- and express the opinions that J held.

Senator Gray:

– How many years ago was that ?

Senator TURLEY:

– Only a. few years ago ; but it really does not matter whether it occurred yesterday or years since.

Senator Gray:

– It matters very much.

Senator TURLEY:

– I went through the maritime strike in 1890. Senator Trenwith went through the same experience with me. He knows the poverty and distress that existed at that time. He, with me, saw a place where the unions were doing their best to provide food and shelter for those who had neither. He remembers the time* when Mr. Brennan was secretary of a union, and when a large institution was hired and hundreds of pounds were spent to provide food and shelter for those who came along.

Senator Gray:

– That was years ago.

Senator TURLEY:

– There is no difference between 1890 and 1909 j except that to-day the organizations are much stronger and more powerful. Prior to the 1890 strike what were we told ? I remember the visit of a big ship-owner from the Old Country, a member of the firm of Gray, Dawes, and Company, who were largely interested in the Australian United Steam Navigation Company. He visited the seamen’s organizations, complimented the men on their physique, and on the conditions of employment they obtained, and complimented the ship-owners upon the class of men they were able to obtain in Australia. He said he only wished that ship-owners were able to obtain similar men in the Old Country. But six months afterwards we were in the throes of that big fight in which Senator Trenwith took so worthy a part. The ship-owners were then cutting down the wages of seamen and firemen by one-fifth.’ and were endeavouring to make worse the conditions of employment of every man in their service.

Senator Guthrie:

– They were also preventing officers from organizing the men.

Senator TURLEY:

– Not only did they do that, but they endeavoured to prevent the men from joining organizations which had been built up after years and years of hard work. Only lately have the seafaring population been able to get back to the conditions that existed before that time. Senator Trenwith has referred to the weakness of some men in relation to (heir fellows. But there may be conditions that make a man seem weak. He may have a wife and children at home who are suffering the pangs of hunger unless he is prepared to work under conditions of which he disapproves. That is the sort of thing that makes a man weak, who would be quite as good a man as any others if he could follow his own course. I know what it is to be without employment for weeks together. A man in that position, when he goes out in the morning, does not follow the main streets and walk along with his head erect. He goes down side streets because he is ashamed of his - condition, and low in spirit from being without work for so long. I shall vote for the amendment ; but at the same time I say frankly that it does not matter one bit whether it is put in the Bill or not. I know the object that Senator Lynch has *ri view. He wants to protect the interests of the men. But he knows quite well that a man who is’ dismissed because he will not join a scheme will never be told that that is the reason. I recollect an instance where I tried to ascertain how it was that I could not secure employment under a certain office. I had taken a fairly prominent part in unionism, and had spoken in public about matters which .were of interest to my fellow workmen. I was puzzled as to why employment was refused to me, because I knew that I could do the work and as well as any who were engaged. There was a man who was a boss at the time, but with whom I had worked years before. He had got on a little. I said to myself, “ He is a friend of mine, and will probably tell me whether any instructions have been issued that employment is not to be given to me.” I said to him, “ Look here now ; have you received any instructions from the office that you are not to give employment to me?” He assured me definitely that no such thing had been mentioned to him. I thought, nevertheless, that it was strange that, though I went there every day, the same thing occurred. As I continued to get nothing to do, I said to a man whom I knew in the office, ‘“It is very funny that I have been trying to get work here for a considerable time but have not been successful. So-and-so informs me that no instructions have been given from the office so far as I am concerned. Will you find out whether that is the case?” He said, “ I can get to know, and will tell you.” I said, “You may depend upon it that I shall not mention the matter to any one.” Two days afterwards he came to me and said, “Look, Harry, it is of no use for you to go down to the place. Instructions have been definitely given from the office that you are not to receive employment.” That is an example of the way men are treated when they are known to be prominently connected with unionism. It is because we know of these things that we feel so strongly. As I said last night, it is the poverty of men. which compels them’ to accept conditions of which often they do not approve.

Senator Millen:

– In this case conditions better than those imposed by the Bill.

Senator TURLEY:

– No, conditions which are not less favorable than those secured by the Bill. I remember the VicePresident of the Executive Council saying that we are not the only people who have been in the condition which I have described. I know that perfectly well. I believe that nearly every senator on this side of the chamber has been treated as I have been for his connexion with unionism. Several honorable senators opposite have found themselves in the same position. Because we are in better circumstances now we ought not to forget the experience which we have gone through. That is the consideration which weighs with me when I say that, while I have no objection to the amendment being inserted, it will be absolutely ineffective.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– Honorable senators opposite are really in danger of proving that the Labour party as a body have neither soul nor brains, although they claim a monopoly of both. If honorable senators were wise they would see that this clause offers some scope for the exercise of broad human sympathies which, in spite of all they say, do exist. The clause also offers some opportunity for the adoption of more skilful financial arrangements which seamen should be given a chance to take advantage of. Honorable senators opposite would deprive seamen of the possibility of being advantaged by a desire on’ the “part of their employers to make friendly arrangements with them and by the skilled financial knowledge of their employers. I repeat that the action of our honorable friends opposite is calculated to prove that the Labour party as a body is without either soul or brains, though claiming a monopoly of both.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I have been waiting, patiently to hear some amendment proposed which would improve this clause. So far I have waited in vain. Senator Lynch has admitted that the amendment he proposed would only patch up a very bad job. The only amendment suggested which I think would be of any value is that mentioned by Senator Clemons to give Parliament an opportunity to review the conditions of any scheme or agreement, entered into between a seaman and his employer. The admission that such a review might be necessary is also an admission that unfair treatment might be meted out to seamen. The best thing we can do with the clause is to strike it out. I agree with the Minister that we should be progressive in our legislation. I have admitted that the Bill will supply a long-felt want in providing some measure cf compensation for a class of workmen who have so far been neglected. Employes in other trades and callings can take advantage of Workmen’s Compensation and Workshop Acts. This is the first attempt made to consider the interests in this respect of the men who go down to the sea in ships. But if this contracting-out clause is retained I am very much afraid that this measure will be retrogressive rather than progressive. The Vice-President of the Executive Council last night told the Committee that this is not a contracting-out clause. But he will find that it is so described in the marginal note, and if it is retained the utility of the Bill will be destroyed. If employers’ schemes offered seamen more favorable terms than are provided for under this Bill, there would be no necessity for the measure. I do not wish to repeat statements which other honorable senators have made, but I may say that I have had some personal experience in connexion with the operation of the English Act of 1896 of the dangers to which workmen are exposed from contracting-out clauses. Senator Turley put the position very forcibly when he spoke of the poverty of the employe. A seaman desirous of obtaining a berth on a ship has two options. He can agree to the employer’s scheme or starve. He may have some one dependent upon him, and even though he should be a provident man, saving as much as he cam from his wages, he will have little margin left to enable him to tide over a long period of unemployment. If he is not a provident man the chances are that after a few hours ashore he will have dissipated the few shillings he may have accumulated during a previous voyage. In either case if this clause is agreed to, the seaman will be compelled to accept the conditions of an employer’s scheme if he desires to secure employment. I have no desire to reflect upon the employers of Australia. I know that there are many good employers in the Commonwealth, but there are a few who are unscrupulous. We know that it is the practice to hand over these compensation cases to the insurance companies. There is no reason why a small employer should not insure his workmen as well as a large employer can. One of the advantages of a workmen’s compensation law is the cheapening of litigation. Under the Employers’ Liability Act, and in defending a claim at common law, an employer is allowed to plead contributory negligence. But under a workmen’s compensation law he cannot enter that plea unless there is glaring evidence that the injury to the workman was caused by his own wilful misconduct.

Senator Vardon:

– How can wilful misconduct be proved?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It has already been proved in some cases.

Senator Vardon:

– The man would be a fool who would wilfully put his hand into machinery in motion.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– He would; but there are cases on record in which it has ton said that men have done so. Senator Guthrie, last night, mentioned a matter which is worthy of the serious consideration of the Committee. The honorable senator quoted a recognised authority to the effect that a seaman who is a party to an employer’s scheme practically signs away his rights of citizenship. I do not “think that the Minister has rebutted that contention. Senator Pulsford has just described this clause as offering scope for the exercise of very skilful financial arrangements. I think the honorable senator might more appropriately have said that it offers scope for wily -financial arrangements. Honorable senators on this side have had cause to dread the skilful financial arrangements of employers.

Senator Vardon:

– They are a bad lot !

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not say so. But I do not hold a brief for them. If in this matter I hold a brief at all it is for the seamen. The difference between honorable senators on this side, who have been through the mill, and honorable senators opposite, who in their younger days may have had a similar experience, is that we remember our experience whilst they have entirely forgotten theirs.

Senator Vardon:

– The honorable senator’s experiences have been very few, judging by his age.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I may tell the honorable senator that I started fighting in the industrial world at a much earlier age than he did.

Senator Vardon:

– I started at ten years of age. At what age did the honorable senator begin?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I started at twelve years of age, so we are about on a par in that respect. Nevertheless, I have had some bitter experiences of the operation of contracting out provisions. In common with other members of the party to which I belong, I have been victimized. I shall not relate my experiences of this character, because it is unnecessary to do so. They are of everyday occurrence. I repeat, that if we desire that seamen shall derive any benefit from this Bill we shall reject this clause. If the clause should become law in its present form all our time and energy in connexion with this Bill will have been wasted.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– When Senator Turley was speaking on the question of the boycotting or black-listing of men for having taken a prominent part in an agitation, Senator Gray refused to believe that anything of the kind was practised to-day.

Senator Gray:

– As a rule it is not practised. For every illustration which the honorable senator can give on one side, 1 can cite an illustration on the other.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The day on which the capitalists abolish the boycotting of workers will be the most serious day of their lives) because then they will be turning away the goose which lays the golden eggs. They can afford now and again to make an example of a rebellious spirit, of a man who is manly enough to stand up for his rights. For the information of Senator Gray I propose to cite a glaring Case of boycotting which is reported in today’s Age. It would be quite unnecessary for me to furnish the information if the honorable senator were not dead to all that is going on. A remarkable case came before the Trades Hall Council no later than last night, and the report is headed, “ Alleged boycotting of a workman.”

Senator Gray:

– “Alleged boycotting?”

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Surely the honorable senator does not want the newspapers to omit the word “ alleged “ and so run the risk of a libel action. The extract reads as follows : -

Alleged Boycotting of a Workman.

A report was made to the Trades Hall Council last night by Mr. Fleville (Bread Carters’ Union) that a member of his union, Mr. T. Mottram, had been victimized by the Master bakers and the Federated Employers. Apparently he was on the “ black list,” as no one would employ him.

Mr. M. Strahan : He must have been indulging in heroics.

Mr. Fleville said the union considered the employers’ action was due to the fact that Mr. Mottram had been very outspoken at the Trades Hall Council meetings, and in connexion with union matters generally. He asked for the consent of the council to circularize the unions for financial aid for Mr. Mottram.

Mr. H. Maynard said the Bread Carters’ Union had had occasion to prosecute certain master bakers, and Mr. Mottram had been an important witness. Now, whenever he applied for a billet, he was turned away.

The report was referred to the executive committee.

Senator Gray:

– What boycotting is proved there? No facts to support such a charge are given.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I have cited an instance of undoubted boycotting, which was discussed in Melbourne so recently as last night, but apparently the honorable senator is quite unconscious that boycotting is practised to-day.

Senator Gray:

– The honorable senator has cited no facts to prove that boycotting has taken place.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– T have quoted the facts, but, no matter how strong a case may be, the honorable senator will not admit that boycotting is taking place. I suppose that I would have to produce Mottram before the honorable, senator would give any credence to my statements. No matter how glaring a case may be cited, he refuses to recognise that boycotting is proceeding. He is so dead politically that upon a man of his calibre the citation of facts has no effect. It is very much like throwing water upon a duck’s back. No matter what proof in support of our contention is submitted, the honorable senator adheres to his erroneous view. -The case I cited is sufficient to prove that boycotting is carried on, and if this measure is passed in its present form, it will give an incentive to further boycotting. It will afford to employers an opportunity to escape from the responsibility of compensating their injured workmen-. By simply initiating a scheme, a scheming employer will be able to get level with any man who objects to do what he wants.

Senator Chataway:

– A man would have to get as good terms out of a voluntary scheme as he would get out of any scheme provided in the Act.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I prefer ‘that it should be stated, in black and white, what advantages men may expect to obtainunder the Act. I want to secure a tangible system. We do not need to tax our memory very much to recall a recent case in which boycotting was resorted to by the Melbourne Tramway Company. In connexion with that company there is a sick fund, to which every employe contributes. The employes were told that if they connected themselves with any trade union they would lose their employment, and their contributions to the sick fund. Some men did lose their employment, while others were reinstated on the understanding that they would have no connexion with trade unionism. Yet, in the face of these facts, Senator Gray wants honorable senators on this side to say where boycotting or blacklisting is practised.

Senator Gray:

– Is this the only case which the honorable senator can give?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– From to-day’s Age I have quoted the latest case of boycotting, and yet the honorable senator refuses to acknowledge that it is a fact.

Senator Gray:

– In that extract, there is nothing to show that it is a fact. It is merely an opinion.

Senator Guthrie:

– Was not the case of the tramway men a fact?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am afraid that’ the honorable senator, being Gray by name, looks through grey spectacles, and will not see what is patent to every oneelse. I have furnished proof which anyreasonable person would accept, and, as hewill not accept that, I am obliged to comment upon his lack of capacity to see facts which every one else can see. In this; Bill, I refuse to leave an opportunity for that sort of thing to be repeated. I feel quite satisfied that, unless Senator Gray saw the possibility of a loophole being left to the employers to escape from their responsibility, he would not be so enthusiastic a supporter of the provision as he is.

SenatorMillen. - That is a cowardly thing for the honorable senator to say.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am stating a fact, and honorable senators opposite know it-

Senator Millen:

-I rise to order, sir. The honorable senator insinuated that honorable senators on this side are supporting the clause knowing that it purposely furnishes a loop-hole for employers to escape from their liabilities, and when I objected to the insinuation, he said that he was stating a fact, and that we all knew it. I ask that the words, being offensive, shall be withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the words are considered by the Minister to be offensive, I ask Senator de Largie to withdraw them.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I withdraw the words to which exception has been taken. I have given two cases in support “of our statement that boycotting is practised, but that is not sufficient to satisfy Senator Gray. First, I cited the case of Mr. Mottram, which was brought before the Trades Hall Council last night. Secondly, I cited the recent case of the employes of the Melbourne Tramway Company, who were boycotted. Every reasonable person, in fact, every person except Senator Gray and perhaps Senator Millen, admits that in those cases boycotting did take place.

Senator Gray:

– In regard to the case of the tramway men, I never said a word to which the honorable senator could take exception.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am glad that the honorable senator is now alive to the fact that boycotting is taking place, but apparently until a particular case was cited, he was not conscious of its existence. I am satisfied with having made a convert of him.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– When the amendment was moved, I had the temerity to object to the clause, or any amendment of it, as I felt that the provision, if enacted, would be quite useless. At that time I was not in possession of the exact terms of the amendment. But now that I have seen it, I am not surprised at the action of the VicePresident of the Executive Council in accepting it. I credit Senator Lynch with being sincerely desirous of improving the position occupied by our seamen; but in submitting this proposal, he has fallen into the grievous error of adopting the identical language which employers themselves have frequently adopted, and which has proved a source of contention in thousands of cases throughout Australia.

Senator Pulsford:

– The Labour party will have to “ fire out “ Senator Lynch.

Senator HENDERSON:

– There is no danger of that. Although Senator Pulsford had the audacity to suggest that Senator Lynch possesses neither brain nor soul, I would much prefer to follow the sound advice which emanates from the latter than to follow Senator Pulsford.

Senator de Largie:

– The statement made by Senator Pulsford is the kind of statement that is frequently made by honorable senators opposite, and that they are never required to withdraw.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Exactly. I am so used to the intolerable twaddle that is talked by Senator Pulsford that I have become utterly indifferent to anything which he may say. It would be almost impossible to prove that a condition governing the employment of a seaman was the acceptance of any compensation scheme which might be put forward by their employers. About seven years ago a plan was incubated, at the works upon which I was employed, for the purpose of getting rid of some obnoxious trade unionists, myself included. In order to accomplish this object a ballot was taken, under the pretext that out of the 150 men employed there it was necessary to dispense with the services of ninety. But, unfortunately for the employers, it transpired, after the ballot had been taken, that I was amongst the sixty whose services were to be retained. Consequently it was discovered, a few days later, that it was necessary to dispense with the services of fifteen others. A second ballot was accordingly taken, and, of course, I was numbered with the victims. Almost immediately the proprietors of the works began to re-engage the men who had been discharged, taking particular care to exclude only those whom they had really intended to get rid of when this happy expedient was first resorted to.

Senator Gray:

– That was a cowardly and mean action, and I think that it constituted exceptional treatment.

Senator HENDERSON:

– It appears to me to be hopeless to induce honorable senators opposite to alter their intentions with regard to this clause. But it is reasonable to answer one or two statements that have been made during the discussion. It has keen said that cases which have been cited happened long ago, and were not likely to occur again. May I, by way of illustration, cite a case such as might occur on the very day after- this measure became operative? Every one will remember the McKay Harvester case. Representatives of the manufacturing firms came up to this building and lobbied members of Parliament for the express purpose of assuring us that certain things would be done for the wage earners if certain things were also done for the manufacturers. The things which they wanted done for themselves we agreed to. Parliament acquiesced in their desire. But the moment after the manufacturers turned round and repudiated every promise they had made in respect to the workers. They tried, through the instrumentality of the law - and successfully - to prevent the worker from getting his just due. As those things have happened quite recently, is it not possible and probable that they would happen again if a. measure such as this afforded an opportunity ? Our idea -in opposing the clause is not simply to object to a provision that the Government have brought forward. I unhesitatingly say that that consideration is not what inspires my opposition. I have cited a case to some honorable senators in which I myself was made a- victim. A place was absolutely kept open for me for months, with the idea that when I had finished a certain term, which was known to be coming to an end, the new situation might be offered to me. It was expected that I should be willing to work under conditions of which I did not approve. But I had made up my mind that I would walk my legs off up to my knees before I would accept the conditions that were offered. What has happened to many of us personally might happen to us under the provisions of this Bill. It is therefore easy to understand why. we offer such strong opposition to the clause. The VicePresident of the Executive ‘Council told us that he intended to propose something that would prevent the possibility of objectionable practices creeping in. If he can succeed in that direction, he certainly will be expert in drawing up fast binding conditions. But I am of opinion that the only safe method will be that of wiping out the entire clause, with the object of making the Bill work as I am sure Senator Millen intends it to do, namely, to provide simply that compensation should be granted for disabled seamen. If we do that we shall be on safe ground. But if we trifle with the question by agreeing to provisions which will nullify the principle of the Bill, the whole measure will become inoperative and our labours will be useless.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– The party to which I belong advocate the striking out of the clause under discussion. The Minister, on the other hand, . says that amendments can be made in it to meet the objections which have been raised. If the Minister can suggest how it is possible to amend the clause so as to provide effectively that an employer shall not discharge a man because he will not contribute to a scheme that has been approved by the ComptrollerGeneral, our opposition will be to a large extent disarmed. But I am as certain as I stand here that such an amendment cannot be made. An employer will not give a reason for discharging a man who refuses to contribute to a scheme. I believe that the Minister is doing his very best to make this a workable measure. We are trying to help him. But we have had experience, and we say plainly that there is no possible way of amending the clause so as to prevent ari employer from discharging a man if he will not join a scheme. If the Minister has any suggestion to make we shall be prepared to give consideration to it. This subject has occupied the attention of the Imperial legislature. An Act was passed by the Imperial Parliament in 1902, entitled “ an Act to prevent compulsory membership of unregistered shop clubs and thrift funds and to regulate such as are duly registered.” The governing section of the Act provides that -

It shall be an offence under this Act if an employer shall make it a condition of employment that a workman shall discontinue his membership of any friendly society.

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator say that we cannot do that in this Bill?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– We can easily do so much, but we can not thereby get over the real difficulty. Whether the English Act has been effective I do not know. I’ am simply pointing, out that the Imperial Parliament thought it necessary to impose penalties on employers who interfered with their workmen in this respect. Another provision of the Act penalized an employer who insisted that any workman should not become a member of any friendly society other than the shop club or thrift club. The difficulty is to draft a provision to meet a case where an employer really discharged a workman for not contributing to a scheme, although giving no reason for so doing. I hope that the Minister will make some suggestion if he cannot see his way to withdraw the clause.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– This is the third day on which we have addressed ourselves to the problems surrounding this clause. I take no exception to the length to which the discussion has extended, because I acknowledge that the clause contains a principle, on which honorable senators hold strong conflicting views. But we are all naturally anxious that there should be no unnecessary delay in the passing of a Bill of this character. I have taken advantage of an opportunity to have a few words with Senator Pearce, and in order that we might learn the sense of the Committee on the clause, I have undertaken that pairs will be found for honorable senators belonging to the other side who, because of illness which we all regret, are unable to be present to-day. I am not at all oblivious of the force of the arguments directed against this clause. I ask the Committee to accept my assurance that in the attitude I have adopted in discussing it my sole object has been to make the Bill as perfect as possible for the purpose for which it is designed. If the Committee do not agree to the clause, I need not bother further about it, but if it is agreed to I give honorable senators opposite my assurance that I will place myself in communication with the Parliamentary Draftsman, and see whether it is not possible, as I think it is, to devise some machinery which would prevent the untoward results which they anticipate might arise from the inclusion of such a provision in the Bill. I shall not only consider the objections which have already been urged, but if others should be brought forward later on I shall be only too glad to treat them in the same spirit as I have treated those which have already been advanced. After that explanation of what I am prepared to do, I trust that the Committee will consent to go to a division on the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Question - That the clause as amended stand part of the Bill - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 13

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 9 to 19 agreed to.

First Schedule -

Scale and Condition’s of Compensation.

Provided that the amount of any weekly payments made under this Act, and any lump sum paid in redemption thereof, shall be deducted from such sum……

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– The Committee, in dealing with clause 5 struck out paragraph a of that clause, and the measure as amended applies to all seamen, no matter what their rank or what salary they may receive. The scale provided for in the schedule is based upon conditions existing in the Old Country.

Senator Millen:

– No, the scale represents an increase of 33 per cent, on the English scale.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The minimum of ^200 provided for,- is an increase of only £50 upon the minimum provided for in the English Act. and it does not cover the difference between the wages of a master or chief engineer engaged on the Australian coast and the wages paid to similar officers engaged on the English coast. Really the compensation to be paid should be left, as the Minister has himself put it, for a jury to decide. We should insert a minimum sum and leave the maximum in each case to be decided by the arbitrator.

Senator Millen:

– Whatever we do we should try to avoid litigation

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Most of these cases will be settled by arbitration, and if we fix a minimum and leave the maximum to arbitrators, we shall be doing what is right. I move -

That the words “ but not exceeding in any case Four hundred pounds “(paragraph a 1.) be left out.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– There is force in the contention that we should consider whether the scale of compensation proposed represents a sufficient increase upon the British scale to cover the difference in wages in Australia as compared to those paid in European countries. I submit, however, that the way to overcome the difficulty is not that suggested by Senator Guthrie, which I can show would open up a very profitable field for litigation, but to alter, the figures as they appear in the schedule in whatever way we think necessary. Unquestionably, one of the principal objects of this Bill is to avoid litigation, but if we leave the amount of compensation .an open question, we shall encourage litigation. Naturally, just as happens now with railway accidents, there is a percentage of cases settled out of court, -but in every case the injured person or the representative of a person who has been killed asks for a very large sum, in most cases larger “than that which would be obtained from a jury, but the result is litigation.

Senator Turley:

– In Victoria they are not allowed to ask for a very large sum, because a limit is fixed.

Senator MILLEN:

– I know of no law human or divine which would prevent Senator Turley from asking for a large sum. A person to whom a claim is presented will always be under the temptation to pay more than he ought legitimately be called upon to pay in order to avoid litigation. If we introduce a ‘minimum and provide no maximum we shall introduce all the trouble which has marked previous legislation of this kind. Whatever the amount of the maximum may be, certainly let an amount be fixed, so that it will be possible for the representatives of a deceased person to make an exact claim.

Senator Turley:

– Take the wages of officers, and see what it would come to.

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not wish to discuss the details. If Senator Guthrie intends to persevere with his amendment, I ask honorable senators to reject it.

Senator Turley:

– Seeing that we have left out clause 5, can the honorable senator suggest an amount as a maximum?

Senator MILLEN:

– Now my honorable friend is introducing another factor. He seems to suggest that we should grade the amount according to the salary paid to the individual.

Senator Turley:

– That is a principle of the Bill ; it provides for no more than three years’ salary to be paid.

Senator MILLEN:

– That is a principle so far as compensation for injury is concerned, but in the Bill I can see nothing which says that when a man is killed there shall be a grading of the amount of compensation. I do not pretend to suggest that any amount which may be paid in compensation for the death of a seaman is ample consolation to his family for the loss which they have sustained. It can never be regarded in that light.

Senator Pearce:

– How do the amounts in this Bill compare with the amounts in the State Acts?

Senator MILLEN:

– In Great Britain the maximum amount of compensation is ^300 ; in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, and Tasmania, .£400; in South Australia, .£300; and in New Zealand, ^500. I suggest that the provision be allowed to stand as it is with the amount fixed at £500, instead of ^400. That is, I think, as liberal a concession as can be expected from the Parliament of to-day, bearing in mind that for the first time we are throwing upon the shipping industry an entirely new burden.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Senator Millen) agreed to-

That in section1, paragraph a, sub-paragraph 1, the word “Four” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ Five.”

Senator Pearce:

-Is not a similar amendment required to be made in paragraph b?

Senator MILLEN:

– I have circulated an amendment to strike out any limit, and if the amendment is carried the compensation will continue to be payable as long as the injury lasts.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I move -

That after sub-paragraph a (i) the following words be inserted : - “ Provided further that if the seaman leaves any dependents under the age of fourteen years wholly dependent upon his earnings, the amount of compensation shall be increased by a sum equivalent to five per centum of the aforesaid amounts in respect of each such child.”

I ask honorable senators to make a radical distinction between a seaman who has a large family depending upon him and a seaman who has no such encumbrance, as a family is sometimes called. I recognise that in a Compensation Act this is an innovation, but I would remind honorable senators that in the case of friendly societies a distinction’ is made between members who have a family depending upon them and other members. So far as the contribution is concerned, all the members of a friendly society are placed on the same plane, but in the case of medical attendance a married man enjoys the advantage of getting such attendance free.

Senator Vardon:

– No, he has to pay.

Senator Trenwith:

– A single man pays more for medical attendance than a married man does.

Senator LYNCH:

– I think it will be admitted generally that when a person with four or five helpless youngsters depending upon him is stricken down he should receive larger compensation than a man who has no such responsibility to bear. I hold the view that those who are taking an earnest step in the direction of providing population and incurring the responsibility of raising a family should be treated quite differently from those, who for reasons of their own refuse to render such valuable service to their country. In the practice of friendly societies, a distinction such as I propose to make in this schedule, is drawn between a married man and asingle man. If a married man happens to lose his wife the society comes to his rescue and contributes a certain amount towards her burial expenses, but for obvious reasons a single man does not get a like benefit, if that term may be used. In regard to the burial of a wife and the provision of medical assistance and medicine for his children, a married man is specially treated.

Senator Pearce:

– If this amendment is made no married man need apply.

Senator Trenwith:

– It would have that effect in some degree.

Senator LYNCH:

– Let me remind Senator Pearce that the schedule as it stands provides for rejecting married men, because the very provision we are considering so places the employer that he will escape giving higher compensation to a single man than to a married man.

Senator Turley:

– Not necessarily, because he may have dependents other than children.

Senator LYNCH:

– In this part of the schedule it is laid down that in the case of a single man with any dependents the employer is only called upon to pay his expenses within certain limits. A direct inducement is there offered to ship-owners to employ single men, because in that case they would be called upon to pay burial expenses to the amount of only£30, whereasin the case of a married man thev might be called upon to pay any amount up to £400. Surely it must come home to the minds of honorable members, in view of his greater responsibilities, that a married man is entitled to receive greater consideration than a single man.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I ask Senator Lynch to consider a little further what the effect of this proposal if adopted would be. As Senator Pearce interjected, it would really be a warning that married men need not apply. Surely a ship-owner who was looking for seamen would be inclined to give preference to those who in the event of an accident would cast a lighter financial responsibility upon his shoulders.

Senator Lynch:

– But the same inducement is held out in the schedule as drafted.

Senator MILLEN:

– My honorable friend wants to multiply that inducement. It appears to me that in industrial matters there is a great danger run in differentiating between single men and married men. The compensation for accidents should be based” on quite other considerations. In Victoria a little while ago a decision was given on an appeal from the determination of a Wages Board. An attempt was made there- to differentiate between the wages to be paid to a singleman and those to be paid to a married man. It appeared to me to be fundamentally unsound. If this amendment were made it would give a sort of legislative sanction to the idea that the compensation is to be paid, not according to the work which men did, or the injury which they sustained, but according to the number and state of their dependents.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– And marriage is a luxury, is it not?

Senator MILLEN:

– It will become so if this amendment be adopted. I would further point out to Senator Lynch that under his proposal it will be extremely difficult to determine the rates of insurance payable in the cases ofa large number of men.

Senator Lynch:

– But that task has to be undertaken under the Bill inits present form.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator’s statement is scarcely correct. It is easy enough to ascertain whether a man is married or single, but to ascertain how many children are dependent upon him is a very much more complicated task. The number may vary.

Senator Lynch:

– What about striking an average ?

Senator MILLEN:

– Then every time that an employer wished to take an open policy it would be necessary for him to ascertain the average number of children claimed by the members of his crew. I would also point out that there is now less necessity for this proposal than there was previously, because of the amendment which we have just adopted, the effect of which has been to increase the amount of compensation that is payable. That amendment makes the Bill a little more liberal than it was. I propose to remove the limit regarding the period over which the payment of compensation should extend, and, under all the circumstances, I think that Senator Lynch might verywell withdraw his amendment.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I quite admit that there is something of a rather experimental character embodied in Senator Lynch’s amendment. At the same time it embodies a very proper principle. I have long considered that the single men in the community escape obligations which ought properly to attach to them. We frequently penalize married men by taxation and in other ways.

Senator Walker:

– Does the honorable senator believe in a tax upon bachelors?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I know that any such proposal is frequently received with a great deal of hilarity. But there is a very serious side to the question.

Senator Millen:

– I should be rather sorry for the future of a man if he married merely to avoid the payment of a bachelor’s tax.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– If the principle for which Senator Lynch contends be introduced here itcannot do much harm. The same principle underlies the schedule in its present form. Under the Bill as it stands, seamenwho have the largest number of dependentswill most certainly stand the least chance of securing employment. I grant that that trouble will be rather intensified by the adoption of the amendment. But I think that it is high time we recognised in our legislation the principle for which Senator Lynch is fighting, and any opportunity of doing so I cordially welcome. If Senator Walker chooses to propose a tax upon bachelors he will find me supporting him.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I wish to point out to Senator de Largie that it is not quite correct to say that the Bill recognises the principle for which Senator Lynch is contending. It really asks this question, “ Has a seaman any dependents, or has he none?” That is the broad distinction which it draws. If a man has no dependents upon him no claim for compensation can arise under this Bill. The measure is quite silent upon the question of whether he has only one dependant or twenty dependants. Senator Lynch wishes to grade the compensation that will be payable to an injured seaman according to the number of dependants he may have. If he is going to do that, ought his proposal to be limited to the number of children that a man may have?

Senator Lynch:

– Yes.

Senator MILLEN:

– Suppose that a man has an aged father or mother dependent upon him.

Senator Lynch:

– They are already provided for.

Senator MILLEN:

– Where?

Senator Lynch:

– Under the general term of “ dependants.”

Senator MILLEN:

– But there are other dependantsthan children. For example, under Senator Lynch’s proposal a man with one child and a mother would receive the rninimum amount of compensation payable; whilst another individual, with no mother but two children, would be entitled to more than the minimum amount. My honorable friend must see that unless the- grading principle were applied to all dependants, irrespective of whether or not they_ were children, his action would not result in the attainment of uniformity.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– Let me put a case to the VicePresident of the Executive Council. Let us suppose that a seaman is partially or totally injured during the course of his employment. We all know that the wages paid to seamen upon the Australian coast average about £7 per month, or 32s. weekly. Now, in the second portion of this schedule it is proposed that the amount of compensation payable to a seaman who is partially or totally injured shall represent 50 per cent, of his average weekly earnings. In other words, he would be entitled to about 16s. a week, no matter what encumbrances or responsibilities he might have.

Senator Trenwith:

– That is the amount to which he would be entitled from this source only.

Senator Millen:

– To that amount must be added the cost of his maintenance.

Senator LYNCH:

– Does the Bill provide for that?

Senator Millen:

– Yes. T think I am correct in saying that there is already a de- “cision upon the point.

Senator LYNCH:

– The Vice-President of the Executive Council in urging the rejection of my proposal used an argument which to my mind is not very sound. He urged the withdrawal of my amendment on the ground that we have already increased the maximum amount of compensation payable to .£500. But in my judgment that sum will very rarely be paid, for the reason that the maximum will be seldom reached. I submit my proposal in the interests of those who have to face a much more severe struggle than have the single men of the community. I urge it in the interests of equity, and with a desire to encourage population by making the conditions of life easier for those who have a number of children dependent upon them. It has been urged that the adoption of my proposal would intensify the difficulty of accurately assessing the amount which would be payable in case of injury to a married man as against injury to a single man. But I would point out that that difficulty is already embodied in the Bill. It is true that my amendment would make it more difficult to determine what.the average rate of insurance would be in the case of a man who has a large number of dependants. But I think that we can alford to do that. In the interests of public policy, I believe that we should do it. I have no desire to embarrass the Government ; but I maintain that we ought to provide for those who are taking on life burdens as against those who are not. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has argued that my proposal would open up a large field of controversy by requiring the value of the labour that is performed by a married man to be assessed as against the value of the labour that is performed by a single man. But that is not the question. We are now dealing, not with the value of the labour performed by a married man, but with the necessity which exists for providing for the dependants of married men who happen to be called from this “ vale of tears.”

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– It appears to me that the principle underlying this proposal is an unsound one. In assessing the services rendered by any man, the principle which we should lay down ought to be based upon the assumption that he has a large family to maintain. I think it is a*i unsound principle to differentiate as to whether men are married or single. Marriage should not be looked upon as a luxury, as some person is said to have declared it to be. I think it is a natural and proper condition of humanity, and. all our calculations should be based upon its fulfilment. To insert in a humane and just legislation of this character the principle proposed would be extremely unwise from that point of view.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– The principle involved in Senator Lynch1 s amendment is a sound one. The whole point is that the money due on account of a fatal accident has to be left to the dependents of the deceased.” If those dependents are under fourteen years of age, in all probability they will be unable to do anything for themselves. Those over fourteen years of age would to. some extent be able to help themselves. A woman with a family under fourteen years of age is a more deserving subject for assistance than a woman with a grown-up family, because the latter would be only partly dependent upon the husband’s earnings.

Senator Millen:

– We” might further grade matters, by saying that some women are capable of battling along by themselves and others are not.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I think that Senator Lynch’s amendment draws a fair line.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– Senator Lynch has raised the question whether “earnings” under this Bill would be limited to money. I express the opinion that what a man earns is not merely limited to the sum paid to him in cash. I find that the word “earnings” has been the subject of more than one decision in Great Britain. I take this passage from Ruegg’s book on Workmen’s Compensation, which Senator Guthrie has often quoted -

The workman’s earnings may include not only cash payments, but other things, the value of which is capable of being calculated in money, such as clothes, board, and lodging, or articles which, under his contract with his employer, he is entitled to receive in return for his services.

Again -

In the case of Pomphrey v. Southwark Press certain dicta of the Judges in the Court of Appeal appear, showing that the value of tuition given by an employer to an apprentice is of too vague a character to be taken into account as earnings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In the same case the opinion is expressed that “earnings” are not necessarily confined to money. By the rules of a colliery company sixpence a week was deducted from the wages of each miner for lamp oil supplied by the employer. The lamp oil was a necessary expense incurred by the workman to enable him to earn the wages he actually received. In a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897, the arbitrator refused to make any deduction on account of the sixpence a week retained by the employers for the lamp oil. The Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator was right.

Senator Lynch will see thai each of these cases goes to show that not only is a man credited with earning the amount paid to him in cash, but that all that he receives is part of his earnings. In one case it was held that the uniform supplied to a guard was part of his earnings.

Senator Lynch:

– The term should be “ gross wages.”

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– The word “wages” does mean the amount actually paid to a man for his labour; but “earnings” is a different thing. That is the word used throughout this Bill. In view of the cases which I have mentioned, there is no room for doubt that the practice followed will be to determine not only the wages paid, but the total earnings the person affected had to his credit.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I think that the sympathies of all of us are with Senator Lynch, and I do not see any difficulty in reconciling his amendment with the principle laid down by Senator Trenwith. This is not a Bill to say that so much compensation shall be paid, irrespective of condition. The Bill does provide for a graded compensation according to dependents.

Senator Millen:

– If there are no dependents, no compensation ; if there are one or twenty dependents, there is compensation.

Senator PEARCE:

– But Senator Lynch must recognise that an employer, or an insurance company to whom the employer offers a risk, will take into consideration, in determining the value of the risk, the number of married employes in the industry. 1 have a fear that if this amendment is inserted, it may lead to a differentiation being made against married men. I can give an instance as to what I mean, which will show that I am not speaking without cause. We have a Workmen’s Compensation Act in Western Australia. It applies to British subjects only. There is a well defined feeling amongst the miners’ unions that one of the reasons leading to the employment of aliens is the belief of the mine-owners that they thereby escape the risks of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I have heard that urged by members of our party in Western Australia as one of the reasons inducing employers to substitute aliens for white miners, and there is consequently a movement to make the Workmen’s Compensation Act cover other than British subjects. My reason for quoting that instance is this : If we insert the amendment, the effect will be to lead to an added liability where a married man is employed. There will be an inducement to ship-owners not to employ a married man, because of the greater risk thereby incurred.

Senator Lynch:

– There is a direct inducement already.

Senator PEARCE:

– But there is a rough and ready way of differentiation inthe one case, and not in the other. The employer can say, “I know that if I employ none but unmarried men I shall not incur this liability.” But in the other case he would have to make individual inquiries to find out whether employes had people dependent on them or not. In the one case he would have to ear-mark merely a class, and to say that he would employno married men. In the other case, he would have to investigate every individual employe’s circumstances, and find out whether he had dependents. It would be much more difficult to do that than to say. “ When we engage crews we will not employ any married men.” I feel that a marriedman is entitled to more compensation than a single man, but I have a fear that if we agree to the amendment we shall make it moredifficult for a married man to get employment.

Senator Clemons:

– If we vote for the amendment, the married man may miss both the work and the compensation.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I have a fear thatif we load up the measure with such an amendment as that suggestedwe shall do mischief. There is a great deal of force in what Senator Pearce has said, that employers unwilling to take extra risk would secure themselves against it by confining their employes as largely as possible to the class of unmarried men. We do not want to give our bachelors another excuse for not getting married. I feel with Senator Lynch that a married man with a family is entitled to more compensation, if he happens to be injured, than a single man would be, but I do not see how the principle can very well be carried out. We should encourage men to get married by other means.

Senator Millen:

– Can the honorable senator suggest a form of encouragement that would be useful in certain cases?

Senator STEWART:

– I can suggest the sort of encouragment that would have appealed strongly to me. If we can provide opportunities for young men to earn a good living early in life, I have not the slightest doubt that they will follow the dictates of nature at as early a period as possible, and get married. My honorable friend, Senator E. J. Russell, who is sitting near me. and who has been through the mill, says,” If you give the young men the incomes the girls will see to the rest.” I cannot support the amendment. I do not think there is anything to be gained by inserting it. I hope that Senator Lynch will withdraw.it. The effect of it will be to add to the difficulties of administering the Bill, and it will probably place hindrances in the way of married men getting employment. I am not the man to do anything like that.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted (Senator Lynch’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 4

NOES: 21

Majority … … 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I move -

That the words “ fifty per centum “ in paragraph (b) be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ two-thirds.”

This provision deals with the compensation to be paid in case of total incapacity for work as the result of an injury. Suppose a seaman’s wages are £7 per month. That would be about 35s. per week, and half that amount would scarcely be sufficient to pay his doctor’s expenses. I might inform the Committee that in this respect the German law is more liberal than is this Bill.. It provides for 662/3 per cent. of the average weekly earnings, and it has been teported that the provision works well. My amendment would certainly be a departure from the Imperial Act, but it would be a departure which, I think, is justified in the circumstances. Later on, it will be found that in the schedule a boy under twenty-one years of age might receive £100, although the limit under this part of the schedule is fixed at£1 per week. I think honorable senators will agree that 50 per cent. of 35s. would not be sufficient.

Senator Millen:

– Why 35s. ?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I am taking a fourth of a monthly wage of £7.

Senator Millen:

– Something is allowed for food, and in order to arrive at the total wages paid, it is usual to add 10s. per week to the cash payment as the allowance for board and lodging.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I should consider such an allowance a very liberal one as applied to deep water ships. I think honorable senators must agree that the amendment I propose is reasonable.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of Executive Council · Free Trade

– It is all very well for Senator Guthrie to appeal to me for sympathy with his request that two-thirds of the average weekly earnings should be allowed, but a little later some other honorable senator may rise and propose an increase of the limit of the weekly payment. That would also have to be taken in conjunction with the amendment I have circulated to strike out the limit as to time. Individually considered, each of these proposals might represent but a small concession, but, taken together, it will be seen that they would represent a considerable advance on what was originally proposed in the Bill. Before we decide to accept Senator Guthrie’s amendment, I should like to know what the honorable senator proposes to do when we come to fix the limit of the weekly payment.

Senator Guthrie:

– We have not come to that yet. I have an open mind on that.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am afraid that my honorable friend has not an open mind on that. If it is agreed that the weekly payment should be two-thirds of the average weekly earnings, will honorable senators be satisfied to allow the maximum weekly payment to remain at £1 ?

Senator Lynch:

– No, certainly not.

Senator MILLEN:

– If increases are to be proposed at each of these stages, we shall be imposing a considerable additional burden upon the shipping industry. It, is unnecessary for me to say that I am in entire accord with the’ principle of the Bill, but in introducing a new principle of this kind, there is some little obligation upon us not to thrust too severe an additional burden upon the industry.I might not have so much objection to accepting the amendment now proposed if I had some assurance that other amendments foreshadowed would not be proceeded with. I ask my honorable friends opposite to be as frank with me as I have been with them, and, before we agree to Senator Guthrie’s amendment, let me know what other amendments they intend to press.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– We realize that compensation in Australia should be at a considerably higher rate than under the English Act.

Senator Millen:

– I have conceded that.

Senator Clemons:

– Why ?

Senator TURLEY:

– Because the cost, of living is higher here, the standard of living is higher, and on that account higher wages are paid on the coast of Australia than on the coast of England. It is proposed in paragraph (b) of clause 1 of this schedule that the amount of compensation, if total or partial incapacity of work results from the injury, shall be a weekly payment during the incapacity not exceeding 50 per cent. of the average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months. If we take a seaman’s wages at £7 per month, and add the value of board and lodging, 50 per cent. of his weekly earnings would run to more than the limit of the weekly payment of £1 provided for in a later part of the paragraph.

Senator Clemons:

– The honorable senator does not propose to stop at £1 per week.

Senator TURLEY:

– No.

Senator Clemons:

– I am afraid honorable senators will run the risk of making the Bill top-heavy.

Senator Pearce:

– I think it would be better to allow the 50 per cent. to stand, and raise the limit of the weekly payment.

Senator TURLEY:

– Unless both are increased, it certainly would. I think that the maximum weekly payment should not be less than 30s. per week.

Senator Millen:

– If honorable senators opposite are prepared to allow the 50 per cent. to stand, I shall be prepared to accept 30s. instead of£1 as the maximum weekly payment.

Senator Clemons:

– That is a fair thing.

Senator TURLEY:

– I would rather leave the per centum than have the limit of£1 a week.

Senator Millen:

– Let the percentage stand, and make the limit 30s. a week.

Senator Guthrie:

– On that promise I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the words “One pound,” (paragraph b) be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ Thirty shillings.”

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I have given notice of an amendment to increase the weekly payment to £2.

Senator Millen:

– Cannot the honorable senator accept my amendment as a reasonable compromise?

Senator LYNCH:

– No. I do not think that the amount is quite enough, because in Western Australia it is fixed at £2.

Senator Millen:

– But does not the State Act contain a limit upon the total liability ?

Senator LYNCH:

– I believe that it does.

Senator Millen:

– In this Bill no limit is fixed.

Senator LYNCH:

– In the State Act the limit is a fair amount. Unless the amount of the weekly allowance in this schedule is increased, we shall have the anomaly of a man who met with an accident on a wharf getting £2 a week, and a man who met with an accident on a ship in the stream receiving only 30s. a week.

Senator Millen:

– Yes. When the former man has been paid a certain number of weekly payments, which amount to£400, he can get no more compensation; but so long as the disability of the other man continues he will be paid 30s. a week.

Senator LYNCH:

– In my opinion a weekly allowance of 30s. is rather low. It would be a fair thing to fix the. amount at £2.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Millen) agreed to -

That the words “and the total liability of the employer in respect thereof shall not exceed Four hundred pounds “ (paragraph b) be left out.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Free Trade

– At the point where the last amendment was made, I have given notice of a proposal to introduce the following provision : - and if at any time the seaman is entitled to an old-age pension from the Commonwealth, not to exceed during that time an amount which together with the weekly rate of the pension will make up Thirty shillings……

The object I had in view in circulating the amendment was that inasmuch as the Commonwealth has taken upon itself the responsibility of paying an old-age pension, it ought not to throw upon an individual industry that obligation. Take the case of a seaman who is entitled to an old-age pension at the age of sixty-five years. If he is not injured at that age he has a claim against the Commonwealth, and the mere fact that he is injured ought not to relieve the Commonwealth of that claim. We ought not, merely because a man is injured, to thrust him as a pensioner on the industry, when in regard to his uninjured brother the Commonwealth accepts the re sponsibility. If a man is entitled to receive a weekly allowance of 30s. from the shipping industry, and to draw an old-age pension of 10s. a week, to the extent of the old-age pension he should relieve the claim against the shipping industry.

Senator Turley:

– Has this amendment been circulated?

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes, but in view of the hour at which we have arrived, I do not propose to submit it to-day. I merely ask honorable members to consider it during the adjournment. My proposal could make no difference to the injured seaman, because he will get the same compensation. The only point is as to whether he ought not to be fined to the extent of his oldage pension - whether, when he arrives at the age of sixty-five years, the sum of 10s. ought not to be derived from the Commonwealth.

Senator Guthrie:

– Under the Old-age Pensions Act he would not have a claim.

Senator MILLEN:

– I wish to provide that the moment he gets his old-age pension of 10s. a week he shall be entitled to draw that amount less from the shipping industry. I hope that the wording of my amendment makes that intention clear ; but if it does not it can be re-drafted.

Senator Lynch:

– Would there not be a difficulty under the Old-age Pensions Act ? Is not the maximum income to be £1 from all sources?

Senator MILLEN:

– In this Bill we can make a provision to meet that objection. In drafting my amendment, I fixed the amount of the weekly allowance at£1, but, in view of the amendment just made, that amount will have to be increased to 30s. I am not wedded to the words of my amendment.

Senator Henderson:

– The question is, Will the amendment conflict with the form of the Old-age Pensions Act ?

Senator Pearce:

– The gross income of an old-age pensioner must not exceed £1.

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not propose to ask the Committee to deal with the amendment to-day. Since it has been put in print I have been considering whether it fully carries out my view. Certainly if any doubt is involved, it will be competent to safeguard any restriction in the Old-age Pensions Act.

Senator Guthrie:

– Will it not be necessary to make an amendment in the body of the Bill, and not in the schedule?

Senator MILLEN:

– It may be. At any rate by Wednesday next I shall endeavour to have an amendment drafted to meet the case.

Progress reported.

page 3019

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Report (on motion- by Senator Hender son) adopted.

page 3019

ADJOURNMENT

Navigation Bill - Electoral Bill

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– Can the Vice-President of the Executive Council state whether the Government intend to proceed with the Navigation Bill, or to keep it on. the noticepaper and slaughter it at the end of the session ?

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I assume that if the Minister does not intend to proceed with the Navigation Bill, he will ask honorable senators to deal with the Electoral Bill which he introduced to-day. In view of the state of the noticepaper, I ask him to arrange for honorable senators to be supplied with copies of the Electoral Bill, so that its provisions may be studied during the adjournment.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– Senator Guthrie is aware that the Navigation Bill is a very important measure, and whether it will be proceeded with this session will, of course, depend upon the state of public business. Up to the present it has been thought desirable to take measures which there was more prospect of getting placed on the statute-book at an early date.

Senator Guthrie:

– None is more urgent.

Senator MILLEN:

– No, but owing to their brevity there was a prospect of dealing with them more rapidly. In reply to Senator Pearce, I may state that the Electoral Bill will be distributed to-morrow, and those honorable senators who are going away from Melbourne to-day might leave a direction for copies to be forwarded to their address. On Wednesday next, it is intended to move the second reading of the Bill. Perhaps it will assist honorable senators if I mention that it is merely a machinery Bill, which is found to be necessary by the experience of the electoral officers.

Senator Henderson:

– It does not involve the alteration of any principle of the electoral law?

Senator MILLEN:

– The Bill does not deal with what may be regarded as principles. It is one for consideration in Committee rather than in the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.59 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 September 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1909/19090903_senate_3_51/>.