4th Parliament · 1st Session
The President took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers : -
Public Service Act 1902. - Documents in connexion with the promotion of Mr. George Henry Gatehouse to the position of Chief Clerk, 1st Class; Mr. John Lawrence Cantwell to the position of Examiner, 2nd Class; Mr. James Joseph Maher to the position of Examiner, 3rd Class ; and Mr. Cyril Lempriere Westbrook to the position of Examiner, 4th Class, Clerical Division, Auditor-General’s Office, Melbourne.
Lands Acquisition Act 1906. - Wyong, New South Wales : Post Office. - Notification of the Acquisition of Land for Site.
Defence Acts 1903-1904 -
Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of the Commonwealth -
Amendment of Regulation 71. - Statutory Rules 1910, No. 68.
Amendment of Regulation 14. - Statutory Rules 1910, No. 69.
Financial and Allowance Regulations for the Military Forces of the Commonwealth. - Amendment (Provisional) of Regulation 98. - Statutory Rules 1910, No. 67.
Excise Act1901. - Tobacco Regulations. - Cancellation of Regulation 1,and substitution of new Regulation in lieu thereof. - Statutory Rules 1910, No. 71.
Seamen’s Compensation Act 1909. - Provisional Regulations. - Statutory Rules 1910, No. 70.
– I wish to ask the
Vice-President of the Executive Council a question without notice. I understand that the first business to be considered to-day is the second reading of the Northern Territory Acceptance Bill. I notice on one of the walls of the chamber a large map, which, I presume, has been placed there for the information of honorable senators. If that be so, it ought to be an accurate map. As a matter of fact, it is not an accurate map. It shows the railway line from Townsville to Cloncurry as going through Winton, when, as a matter of fact, the line does not go through Winton, or pass near that town at all. I notice, also, that the map is not drawn to scale. I should like to know by whose authority so inaccurate a map has been placed here for the information of honorable members?
– In answer to the honorable senator’s question, I may say that I did not draw the map. I may add that even the accuracy of the Ten Commandments is sometimes disputed. I shall make all inquiries necessary to see that any irregularities in the map referred to are explained.
asked the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. We have no information as to the importations of the particular firm referred to. Ithas not been the practice to charge duty on portraits.
asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
If, as indicated by a reply to a question by a member of another House, the Commonwealth Postal Department is considering the advisability of running a special motor car to carry the Inter-State mails from Launceston to Hobart on arrival of the Melbourne boat on
Sundays, will the Department consider the advisability of distributing mails to the towns en route ?
– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -
The delivery of mails at towns en route will be included in any arrangement made for carrying Inter-State mails from Launceston to Hobart on arrival of the Melbourne boat at the former on Sundays.
Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Defence Act 1903-1909.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Debate resumed from 10th August (vide page 1313), on motion by Senator McGregor -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [3.9].- As I moved the adjournment of the debate after Senator McGregor had moved the second reading of this Bill, it devolves upon me to say a few words upon it. I think there is no difference of opinion as to the desirability of the Commonwealth taking over the Northern Territory. It comprises an area of nearly 600,000 square miles, and is a very large and practically uninhabited portion of Australia. It has many valuable rivers, and there are places on the coast at which a foreign Power might obtain ingress and secure a foothold in positions from which it would probably involve a vast deal of trouble and expense to dislodge an enemy. The subject-matter of the Bill is covered by the terms of the agreement under which we are invited to take possession of this Territory. Honorable senators will bear in mind that, although South Australia has had control of the Northern Territory for a great number of years, she has never been able to make a success of the task she undertook in the government of it, although she has spent a great deal of money in the effort to develop it.
Senatorvardon.-That is not unreasonable.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [3.39]. - I do not think that any of us, and certainly not those who are more intimately connected with South Australia, have any reason to complain of the initial attitude which my honorable friend, Senator Gould, took in the view which he with so much force placed before the Senate; nor do I think that there is any dis pute that from the broad, national standpoint, it is desirable, in the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole, that this great tract of country, which is almost one-fifth of the area of Australia, should be directly under the control of the Commonwealth. I do not, and never did consider, that it is any objection to the attitude of South Australia - although there has been a good deal of carping criticism to that effect - that she has not succeeded in making the Northern Territory populous, or, so to speak, blossom as a rose, rich with the produce of the undoubted mineral wealth which it possesses. I am not at all sure that the other States have quite overtaken all the development which is possible within their boundaries. I am one of those who are inclined tothink that some of the larger States might very well be divided, that those portions which they are unable to effectively control might very well be declared Territories of the Commonwealth, and that when they reach that stage of population and wealth which would entitle them to be regarded as States, they should be admitted as States of the Commonwealth. Therefore, I do not attach the slightest importance to criticism such as. that which my honorable friend has just used in respect to South Australia not having made a success of the Territory. Success is a vague term, and success within the meaning of what I have indicated has not been possible for a population of 300,000 or 400,000, who, to use a common expression, have perhaps “ bitten off more than they can chew.”
People forget that this great continent is very nearly as large as the whole of Europe, which contains fourteen or fifteen nations, and to use it as a reproach or as an objection to an agreement or a bargain of this character, that South Australia, with her 300,000 or 400,000 people, has not done all that she might or could have done, is simply to utter, I shall not call it claptrap, as it comes from my honorable friend, whom I esteem very much, but remarks which are utterly beside the question with which we are concerned.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON.Because we want to generously share it with the other States. The honorable senator is like others who desire to have the Northern Territory annexed to Queensland, to have all its riches in the possession of that State, and its produce brought down to Brisbane, always subject, of course, to the claims of some of my honorable friends from Sydney, who think that that is the port to which the produce of the Territory should come. I do not intend :to occupy the attention of the Senate on the question of the desirability and importance of the Territory being an integral part of the Commonwealth as a Territory, and not as part of the State of South Australia.
Senator Gould was quite right in saying that there is no difference of opinion on the broad national question of the desirability of taking over the Territory. 1 do not believe there is a member of the Senate who holds a different opinion. Nor is there any difference of opinion that the Territory, if it is taken over by the Commonwealth, should be transferred subject to the charge upon it.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON.Perhaps; but it is not so with regard to this particular railway. Putting all that on one side, I say that, so far as regards the taking over of the Territory on the one hand, and accepting the liability on the other, there is not one ha’porth of reward proposed for South Australia. She would not make one farthing of profit out of the bargain. We are all agreed upon that. Rut do honorable senators not think that she is entitled to make some little profit out of it?
Commonwealth was the initiator of this project. She approached South Australia, and asked that State on what terms she would be prepared to hand over the Territory. South Australia replies, ‘ ‘ All that we desire is that you will complete the grand trunk railway, which’ we have already begun, through to Port Darwin.” That is all ; and that, as far as I am concerned, I hold to. I shall decline to be a party to handing over the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth unless it be part of the bargain that the Commonwealth shall construct that trunk line between the north and south. I am quite willing, as far as the route is concerned, that it shall be anywhere within 500 or 600 miles east or westf the twenty-sixth parallel. I am quite willing that the best route shall be ascertained within the area. But, speaking for myself, I will not depart from the condition that the railway must be wholly within the Northern Territory. There is one point as to which I agree with my honorable friend, Senator Gould, and that is that there seems to be a little ambiguity as to whether the language of this Bill would permit the line to deviate into Queensland or New South Wales, or out of the Northern Territory. I am glad that Senator Gould has called attention to the point. I consider that it should be made perfectly clear. If honorable senators desire to vote for this Bill on the assumption that the stipulation in question shall be satisfied by taking the railway eastward into Queensland or New South Wales, the Bill ought clearly to say so. On the’ other hand, if they desire that the railway should be wholly within the Northern Territory, the Bill should say so.
Port Augusta line. The real terminal points are Port Augusta and Port Darwin.” Then, when the point was put more specifically by Mr. W. H. Irvine, “ Under this agreement, will the whole of the railway have to be within the Northern Territory? “ Mr. Groom said, “ That is so, according to the strict interpretation of the agreement; but the South Australian Government take a more liberal view, and contemplate the possibility of having to cross the Queensland border.” That is a matter of concession, which has nothing to do with the agreement. Then Mr. Watkins said, “Is it not mentioned in the agreement that the line must be on the South Australian land?” Mr. Groom replied, “ That is what I say the agreement strictly seems to contemplate.” In the Senate, Senator Best, who introduced the Bill here, affirmed that view, and declared -
I wish to point out in this connexion that the route of the railway is not determined according to the terms of the agreement further than that it must be within the east and west limits of the Territory.
Senator Givens interjected, “ And must end at a given point.” That is my view of the terms of the agreement. But that stipulation is rendered a little doubtful by the language of the Bill. I think the agreement in terms makes the point clear, but the Bill itself leaves it a little doubtful.
At the time of such surrender authorize by legislation the Commonwealth to do all that is necessary to enable the Commonwealth to make surveys, acquire the necessary lands, and to construct or cause to be constructed a railway in South Australia proper from any point on the Port Augusta railway to a point on the northern boundary line of South Australia proper to connect with that part of the transcontinental railway to be built in the Northern Territory from Port Darwin southwards to the northern boundary of South Australia proper.
Those words are not in this Bill.
The agreement is by this Act ratified and approved.
Debate (on motion by Senator Givens) adjourned.
Debate resumed from12th August (vis page 1477), on motion by Senator McGregor -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [4.26].-I did not anticipate that this debate would have been resumed this afternoon, and, consequently, I amtaken at a disadvantage. It was introduced as a Bill which dealt principally with machinery, but in the form in which it has reached the Senate it contains some very far-reaching provisions which should receive very full and fair consideration at our hands. We all realize, of course, that it is the duty of the Parliament to make our industrial legislation as workable as it can be made, so long as we keep clearly within our constitutional powers. Matters which were discussed and settled on certain lines in 1904 are being entirely altered in this Bill. There is no necessity to debate the position of unions, or the way in which industrial powers should be brought into existence, because we have recognised that it is necessary to enable industrial associations to place their views before the public in the way which they consider desirable in the interestsof the community at large. But we are getting more and more into this position : that the. only persons to be considered are those who belong to unions. When an investigation is made, it will be found that the preponderance in number is greatly in favour of the men who do notbelong to unions. In introducing the Bill, Senator McGregor pointed out that it is the men of the most ability, the most energy, and of the most far-seeing views who are in the unions, and who have been the means of bringing unionism into its present position. Our people have long since regarded the existence of unions as a very legitimate state of affairs.
Provided that no such organization shall be entitled to any declaration of preference by the Court when and so long as its rules or other binding decisions permit the application of its funds to political purposes, or require its members to do anything of a political character.
And further, provided that no organization shall be entitled to appear before the Court to oppose an application for preference by any organization so long as its rules or other binding decisions permit the application of Us funds to political purposes, or require any of its members to do anything of a political character.
It will be seen that the section deals with employers as well as with employés, and does not extend to organizations having political purposes as a portion of their aims and objects. What the phrase “ political purposes “ does not include is defined - “ Political purposes “ in this section does not include obtaining or maintaining provisions applying to all persons in any particular industry, without discrimination as between those who are and those who are not members of an organization, with respect to the regulation of the following matters : - (i.) Preservation of life and limb. (ii.) Compensation for injuries or death. (iii.) Sanitation. (iv.) The sex and age of employees. (v.) The hours of labour. (vi.) The remuneration of labour. (vii.) Protection of salaries and wages. (viii.) Other conditions similarly affecting employment.
It is provided that these organizations shall not be used for political purposes, but the Act specifies certain matters which are of moment in connexion with the employment of workers, and allows to the unions the freest possible hand in those respects. If there are any similar matters which it is necessary to add, then there will be no objection to include them in the section. But why should any organization which is established for the purpose of securing employment, obtaining decent wages and working conditions, and settling industrial disputes, have the right to say, “ No man shall come into this union unless he has a particular brand upon him”?
– Order! The honorable senator will have anopportunity to put his views before the Senate.
– The honorable senator has given me a reply which I have often heard. It is said by some persons that if preference is not given to unionists, the chances are that they will be boycotted by employers if they go before the Court. I can see the force of that argument, but I contend that we have no right to go a step further and say that a man who does hot. choose to join a union shall not be allowed to earn his living. If a hundred men in a union go before the Court, and the conditions are such that it is just to give preference to them, well and good ; but you have no business to turn round and say that no other man shall be allowed to engage in that occupation unless he becomes a member of a union if it requires him to support the parliamentary candidate whom it may select.
– That is not correct.
– I ask the honorable senator to carry his mind back to the time when the Shearers Union made it a sine qua non of admission to that body that a man should subscribe to a rule binding him body and soul to the parliamentary candidate selected. This preference would have been taken away had not the union seen fit to modify the rule so as to give every decent, respectable man an opportunity of becoming a member of it, quite apart from his political views.
– They did alter the rule.
– Yes, but now honorable senators on the other side want a law which will free them from all such difficulties. In the first instance what did they propose in regard to this very Bill ? They brought in a provision that preference should be granted to unionists, thereby taking all discretionary power from the Court. They advocated that if a union applied to the Court to settle certain disputes and troubles which they might have with their employers, preference should be granted to them irrespective of all other considerations. Fortunately the Bill has not come up to the Senate in exactly that form, because it does leave a certain amount of discretion to the Court, although it appears to be limited in a very marked degree. This clause, as originally introduced, provided that the proposed new section 40 should read - “40. The Court, by its award, or by order made on the application of any organization or person bound by the award, may prescribe a minimum rate of wages or remuneration, and in that case shall, on the application of any party to the industrial dispute, or of any organization or person bound by the award -
As it appears before the Senate, it has been altered in such a way as to leave the granting of preference at the discretion of the Court.
– Is this the clause which gives the Court power to consider “ the welfare of society “?
– Yes. Sub-section 2 of the proposed new section 40 reads -
Whenever in the opinion of the Court, it is necessary for the prevention or settlement of the industrial dispute, or for the. maintenance of industrial peace, or for the welfare of society, to direct that preference shall be given to members of organizations, as in paragraph a of sub-section1 of this section provided, the Court shall so direct.
Under the proposed new section 40, as originally introduced in this Bill, the grant of preference was really left entirely to the sweet will of organizations appearing before the Court, and the Court was given no power to consider whether it was right that an award of preference should be made or not. In the early days of the operation of the Arbitration Act in New South Wales, Mr. Justice Cohen construed the permission to the Court to grant preference into almost a direction from the Legislature that preference should be granted, unless in very exceptional cases.
– So it ought.
– A very wise interpretation.
– Under the section which it is proposed in this clause to repeal, the Court, by its award, may prescribe a minimum rate of wages, and make provision for a lower rate in the case of employes unable to earn the minimum wage, and may also -
There is some elasticity in the law as it stands to-day, but it would be entirely removed by this Bill, which would prevent the employment of any person who did not belong to an organization where an award of preference had been granted. That is a very important matter, because it is quite possible, though there might not be many such cases, to conceive that a man who, for one reason or another, objected to join an organization, although a very skilful tradesman, might be debarred from employment under the provisions of this Bill, whilst the elasticity of the existing Act would enable his case to be met.
SenatorW. Russell. - I never belonged to a union.
– The honorable senator has never had occasion to belong to one ; he has done remarkably well without belonging to a union. The existing section goes on to say -
Provided always that, before any preference to members of organizations is directed as aforesaid, the President shall, by notification published in the Gazette and in such other publications, if any, as the Court directs, specify the industry and the industrial matter in relation to which it is proposed to direct such preference, make known that all persons and organizations interested and desirous of being heard, may, on or before a clay named, appear or be represented before the Court ; and the Court shall in manner prescribed hear all such persons and organizations so appearing or represented.
That is another provision which we are here asked to repeal. Under this Bill the Judge of the Arbitration Court is called upon to deal with an industrial dispute from the point of view of the particular organization appearing before him. It may represent 200 or 300 men engaged in an industry which gives employment to 20,000 or 30,000 men. No man who is not a member of the organization appearing before the Court, or employer who is not cited to appear in connexion with the dispute, will have any opportunity of knowing what the organization seeks to obtain, or, if they know, of coming forward to state their views. They would have no locus standi in the Court. I ask honorable senators to say whether it is right or reasonable that men engaged in the great industries of the country should be bound by conditions which will materially affect them when they are given no opportunity to make known their views or submit arguments against the proposal made. I put it to the people of the country whether it is fair that a man should have to be bound by the decision of a Court, come to behind his back, and without his having the slightest knowledge of the conditions proposed to be applied to the industry in which he is engaged.
– They certainly will not be to his detriment.
– An organization appears before the Court, which canonly deal with the claims submitted to it. The President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court will not be omnipotent, but he would need to be to do justice under this Bill. It has been strongly urged that the President will represent the community generally, but, unfortunately, the general community is about the last body considered by the organization in dealing with these matters. An organization claiming that the cost of living has been increased, appeals to the Court for an increase of wages from10sto 12s. per day. The Court hears the views of the members ofthe organization, and of a few employers in the industry. It may consider the weight of evidence to be on the side of the organization, and give an award of preference at the rate of pay asked for. But if the whole body of employés and employers engaged in the industry were given an opportunity to make their views known to the Court, and submit the evidence which they could adduce with respect to the conditions of the industry, its expenses, returns and difficulties, the Court might considerably modify the decision come to in their absence. In section 40 of the existing Act there is this further proviso -
And, provided further that no such preference shall be directed to be given unless the application for such preference is, in the opinion of the Court, approved by a majority of those affected by the award, who have interests in common with the applicants.
This safeguard is to be taken away, and it may be that a dozen men, or a. score, will secure an award of preference against the interests of hundreds engaged in the same industry. Honorable senators opposite profess to believe in majority rule, but, in industrial matters, they are content that a minority appearing before the Conciliation and Arbitration Court should be given the right to bind a majority.
– But whether the employés are members of the union or not, will not their interests be common ?
– To a certain extent that may be so, but it is not right that an award should be given against the majority of those engaged in an industry. Under the existing Act, in certain circumstances, unionists are entitled to certain privileges, but not at the expense of the whole community, or of all others interested in the same industry.
– The main object sought to be achieved is the prevention of strikes.
– We need not argue that, as we are all agreed that, in a fair and reasonable way, strikes should be prevented, if it be possible to prevent them.
– Will they ever be prevented ?
– That is quite another question.
– The party on this side are trying hard to prevent them.
– They have not done so yet.
– I am afraid that honorable senators opposite have yet much to learn. There is a provision in section 40, of the existing Act, under which, if the Court directs that preference shall be given, it may subsequently suspend or qualify the direction as it thinks fit, if the rules of the organization are burdensome or oppressive, or do not provide reasonable conditions for admission to, or continuance in membership, or if the organization has acted unfairly or unjustly to any of its members in the matter of preference.
– They never do.
– Then why repeal this provision of the existing law, if, as the honorable senator says, the organizations have no burdensome or oppressive rules, do not enforce unreasonable conditions of admission to, or continuance in membership, and do not act unfairly to ‘any of their members? The honorable senator must have had his ears closed to the statements which have been made on this subject from time to time. The Government are proposing to repeal a law which has hitherto worked fairly and reasonably, and which must commend itself to every unbiased mind. An honorable senator interjected that the object was to put an end to strikes, but, in doing so, all should be treated justly and alike. We could put an end to strikes if we had gaols large enough in which to confine every man who strikes. No honorable senator would contend that that would be a proper way in which to deal with a strike.
– Mr. Wade takes that view.
– He does not ; but I am not concerned about fighting Mr. Wade’s battles for him. He is well able to do that himself.
– He needs all the assistance the honorable senator can give him.
– The Government are, in this
Bill, proposing to do away with reasonable and proper safeguards. Honorable senators are aware that a work entitled Australia’s Awakening has been written and. published by a gentleman who occupies a very prominent position in unionism in this country. The writer gives an extraordinary recipe for the making of good unionists. Honorable senators will, no doubt, recollect the story he relates of a non-unionist desiring to go to work. The first thing the unionists did to him was to duck him. The object was to see whether they could not bring him to understand the value of unionism. When one ducking did not serve, a second was tried; and, after a third ducking, as the writer of the book humorously says, they discovered that the method adopted was an excellent one to impresspeople with the correctness of the principles of unionism.
– The honorable senator should give us the other side of the story, if he wishes to be fair.
– Senator Long can do that for himself, later. Will honorable senators contend, in view of the adoption of such a practice, that unions provide reasonable conditions for admission to their organizations ? Theprovisions of the existing Act at least protect a man’s liberty of action to a certain extent.
– Men have not had much liberty of action hitherto.
– I think that, on the contrary, the honorable senator must agree that, on some occasions, there has been a great deal of licence, let alone liberty of action, exhibited. I know that one Judge, in reporting upon certain cases that occurred in New South Wales, described the condition of” affairs existing at one time in that State as being practically civil war. The Government are proposing an alteration of the law in connexion with the granting of preference to unionists, and are doing away with the safeguards provided in the existing Act for the protection of men who do not desire to become unionists, and they are further proposing that people may have judgments given behind their backs in matters in which they are directly interested.
-The safeguards in the previous measure made it useless.
– My reply to that interjection is that men have a right to be heard in matters in which they are deeply concerned. I ask honorable senators opposite to bear in mind that the President of the Court may be Mr. Jones to-day, but Mr. Black to-morrow, and I ask them, also, whether they would be willing to take any Judge from any of our existing Courts and give him power, as President of the Arbitration Court, to deal with all industrial matters as he thinks tit.
– The Judges are themselves unionists.
– Every man of a reputable character can obtain admission to the union to which the honorable senator suggests the Judges belong, if he will give his time and attention to the study which will enable him to pass prescribed examinations as a test of his mental qualifications.
– A man is not allowed to work under that union unless he does so.
– That union does not tell its members to vote for its political candidate.
– The Labour unions do not do so, either.
– The Shearers’ Union sought to do so.
– Look at the stand taken against Mr. Justice Higinbotham for the part he took in the 1890 strike.’
– We have nothing to do with that now. lt may be that men who have taken a prominent part in connexion with public” matters have failed to obtain the recognition to which they have been entitled, but that has nothing to do with the Bill before the Senate.
– It shows the attitude of mind of some people.
– I say that the proposed alteration of the existing law is an alteration for the worse, and is not in the interests, not merely of a particular class, but of the “whole of the people primarily concerned in an equitable law on the subject..
– Has not the honorable senator confidence in the Arbitration Court ?
– I have every possible confidence in the Court ; but I would ask the honorable senator whether it is because he has no confidence in the Court that he proposes to assist the Government in doing away with certain guiding principles contained in the existing Act ? Are honorable senators opposite prepared to leave any dispute between employ^ and employer to be dealt with by a Judge in any way he thinks fit? Some of these provisions will require a good deal of consideration before we know what they mean. Paragraph b, of clause 2, contains a definition of “ Industrial dispute.” It provides that an industrial dispute means a dispute extending beyond the limits of any one State, and includes a dispute in relation to employment in an industry carried on by the Commonwealth or by a State, or by any public authority constituted under the1 Commonwealth or a State. This definition, therefore, purports to bind a State. Railways are managed by the States of Australia. Some time ago an application was made to the Arbitration Court by the railway employes. We know> the fate of that application. Ultimately, the case found its way to the High Court, which held that the attempt to control a State was ultra vires. Yet we find a definition, having the same object, included in this Bill. Whether honorable senators consider it desirable or not that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court should have such controlling powers, how unwise it must be to attempt to assume such powers when we have before us the judgment of the High Court, -showing that we do not possess them. The provision to .which I have referred appears to be beyond our powers under the Constitution. A State is entitled to carry on its own functions, and to pay its employes as it chooses. It is not, nor should it be, within the power of the Commonwealth to dictate to a State as to the amount of money it should provide for its services. We cannot reasonably do what we are purporting to do by this Bill. We have always to bear in mind that our position is, in many respects, very different from that of other Federations. Take the Dominion of Canada. The powers of the Federal Government there are absolutely different from burs, and are based upon different principles. Under the Canadian Constitution, the provincial Governments are really under the control, and subject to, the authority of the Dominion Government. But in Australia the States are sovereign States. They have absolutely the same powers as the Commonwealth in its- sphere with reference to all matters which are not specifically handed over to the Commonwealth under the Constitution. Why should we make a farce of our legislation by attempting to pass an enactment which the-
High Court has already told us we have no power to pass? This is a serious blemish from the stand-point of any person, no matter what his views may be with regard to the broad principles enunciated in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1904. Again, it is provided in this Bill that the certificate of the Registrar is to be conclusive with regard to certain specified persons being members of specified organizations. I do not take so much exception to that provision as has been taken by other honorable senators, because I realize that we want to free the Arbitration Court, as far as possible, from technicalities, such as may arise from time to time. And I should like to direct particular attention to clause 8, which provides for a power of amendment in connexion with industrial disputes. Under this clause, the Court may, at any time before the determination of an industrial dispute, allow the amendment, on such terms as it thinks fit, of a plaint. And there is also power for the Court to grant relief, although such relief has not been formally applied for. I recognise that those are valuable provisions from the point of view of those who desire to get rid of technicalities in the Arbitration Court. I* quite agree with that desire. Possibly, it may please honorable members opposite to see a lawyer assuming that attitude. But that brings me to the provision in regard to the representation of parties by counsel. Section 27 of the principal Act is to be amended by eliminating from it the power at present held by the President of the Court, to permit the parties to be represented by counsel.
– Would that prohibition apply to appeals to the High Court from the Arbitration Court?
– No. The original Act provides that an organization may _ be represented by one of its members or officers, and that any party not being an organization may be represented by an employ^ of that party; but that no party shall, except by consent of all the parties, or by leave of the President, be represented by counsel or solicitor. It is now proposed to eliminate that provision as to the leave of the President, and to provide that it shall be within the power only of the parties themselves to consent to the representation of each side by counsel, solicitor, or paid agent. The value of leaving in the words “ by leave of the President ‘ ‘ is this : Many complicated matters, involving law as well as fact, have to be dealt with by the President of the Arbitration Court. There is no Judge who ever sat on a Bench who would not gladly welcome the assistance of counsel when intricate facts were involved. It is impossible for any Judge to be absolutely possessed of full knowledge on every point that may be raised in connexion with a dispute. The Judge may be a good case lawyer, thoroughly acquainted with all the decisions that have been given by the various Courts; but, even so, he may not have in mind all the cases which counsel might be able to bring before him to assist him in arriving at a judgment. Again, arguments may be adduced by counsel from various decisions, or matters may be put from a different stand-point from that which the Judge would be inclined to take. It, therefore, becomes extremely desirable that, the Judge should have the assistance of skilled men whenever he thinks it desirable. I have been asked whether I have confidence in the President of the Court. I have the highest possible opinion of the gentlemen upon our Bench. I believe that their training has been such that they have but one object in view, and that is to act fairly and impartially with regard to all matters that come before them. There are great traditions attaching to the Bench which have been handed down to the present generation of Judges. They desire to live up to those traditions. Of course, the Bench has occasionally been disgraced by men who have not so-lived. But such cases are very exceptional. Our Judges, I am satisfied, desire to be guided by the best traditions. And for that very reason they will- welcome the assistance of counsel in order that cases may be laid before them in the clearest possible manner. The principal Act did not permit employes to be harried by employers through the engagement of counsel or attorneys. Employers had no power to introduce professional men of their own volition. Counsel could only appear when both parties were desirous of having skilled assistance, or when the Judge thought it desirable that they should be represented. If the President of the Court gave such a direction in a particular case, we mav depend upon it that he did it for good reasons - probably because he considered the matter involved to be of such importance that it was necessary to have counsel to assist him in coming to a conclusion. It will be a great mistake to omit the provision in question from the principal Act. Of course, if counsel may not appear, paid agents ought not to be allowed to appear.
– Would the secretary of a union who was in receipt of a salary be regarded as a paid agent?
– If unions which have paid secretaries may depute these men to represent them, there will be an easy way of getting round die law. Unions may pay men as secretaries big salaries to represent them before the Arbitration Court. It is on all grounds a very grave mistake to rob the Court of the power of getting any assistance which may be thought desirable.
– The Court is. not very likely to want assistance, because disputes will deal willi matters of fact.
– But, notwithstanding that, there are many cases in which points of law arise. Honorable senators opposite have advocated the conferring of all sorts of powers upon the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. They would make it paramount over all the States in connexion with industrial matters. But, fortunately for the States, the law at present does not allow that condition of things to exist. The Commonwealth Court may not be invoked unless a dispute extends beyond a particular State. How is it possible for one man sitting in Melbourne or in any other city of Australia to know the local circumstances prevailing all over the Commonwealth? The climatic, geographical, and social conditions in one State are absolutely different from those in another.
– Surely the conditions do not differ very much.
.- Indeed, they do. The Judge of the Arbitration Court, in giving an award, has to take into consideration the cost of living, not only in Melbourne, but in the Northern Territory.
– Cannot the honorable senator go elsewhere than to the Northern Territory for a comparison?
– Well, there are vast differences in the cost of living between Melbourne and North Queensland. Moreover, a man may be able to work for ten hours at a stretch in Victoria, whilst five hours would be sufficient in Northern Australia. Then there are necessarily differences in wages depending on the differences in cost of living.
– Does not the Judge give different awards as to wages ?
– But here we are taking from the Judge the power to get assistance to enable him to arrive at an accurate conclusion as to what was in the mind of Parliament when the legislation in question was passed. He will have to construe the law as best he can. He is not to be bound by the law of evidence, but is to decide everything according to equity and good conscience. Do honorable senators think that there is any one man who is able, in a vast country like this, to decide satisfactorily in all cases that are brought before him, and without legal assistance to ascertain what the mind of Parliament was? I have pointed out that in regard to one question this Bill proposes to express the mind of Parliament emphatically. I allude to the question of preference. The Commonwealth High Court may interpret the provision of this Bill in that regard as being unconstitutional, but, at all events, it is evidently the desire of Parliament that preference shall be granted. I hope that the “Government will find die law, as amended, more satisfactory to work than it appears to be at present. One great complaint against this legislation is that there has been only one class recognised as being entitled to relief or consideration, and that is the wage-earning class. Naturally everybody desires to make his conditions as favorable as possible, but these trade organizations represent only a limited number of the wage-earning class. I do not suppose that a fourth, perhaps not a fifth, of the wage-earning class belong to the trade unions. By establishing an aristocracy in Labour, the trade unions seek to interfere with the ‘rights of the nonunionists. No man will put his money intoan industry which is dependent upon labour unless he can see his way to get a fair return on his capital and skill, so that we have to consider the employer as well as the employed But there is also the vast mass of the people to be considered - the consumers. As we raise the cost of the production of goods, so we raise thecost of living to every one, and, of course, rents, also, must rise. Indeed, the prices of everything must go up. The larger the wage which an employer is called upon to pay, the larger the return which he must get on his investment. My honorable friends on the other side can only go so far and no farther. They should never forget that there is such a thing as killing the goose that lays the golden egg. If they are going to raise the cost of carrying on industries beyond a reasonable figure, then the man who erects a house must ask a larger rent in order to get a reasonable return on the increased cost of construction.
– If the honorable senator went to a country where1s. a day is paid he would find out the difference.
– The honorable senator need not have made that remark, because I am only warning the members of the Labour party against the probable effects of this legislation. Possibly they do not care about our warnings, but we on this side have to consider what will be the ultimate result of this legislation. It may on its face appear to be very seductive and alluring, but it may prove the very reverse. And I speak as one who believes in men being paid a good wage for their labour.
– The honorable member’s line of reasoning is that low wages mean prosperity.
– It is possible for honorable senators, by this legislation, to raise the cost of everything to such an extent that they will destroy the very objects which they are attempting to achieve. I believe in men being paid good wages for their work. I believe that a man who is paid a good wage does much better work than a man who is underpaid. A man should always receive a good wage for his work, and give good value in return.
– Does the honorable senator believe that marriage is a luxury for only the rich?
– I think that every man ought to be in a position to marry. If the honorable senator is referring to a certain remark which was made some time ago, that a Judge has not to take into consideration anything more than the individual, I do not agree with it. A man ought to have an Adequate wage on which to maintain a wife and family, and give them a decent education. We must always act within reason. Honorable senators on the other side may depend on it that a great many of the criticisms which they hear hurled against Bills which they are in accord with are made with the very best intention, and that is to make them perfect, just, and equitable to every man, woman, and child in the community. We cannot legislate for one class without taking into consideration how our legislation is likely to react on other classes.
– I am surprised that no honorable senator on the other side who professes, and who no doubt has a great interest in the measure, has chosen to reply to the speech of Senator Gould. I am really astonished to find that the Bill is being treated in this way by its supporters. I think I am entitled to say that on a measure which is of equal importance to wage-earners and to capitalists, large or small, who are engaged in industries, the other side should have paid, if not to us, to the important question itself, the courtesy of assisting us to understand the probable application and effect of this proposed legislation. Perhaps, knowing that they have the numbers, they think that that is a sufficient reason why the Bill should be forced through the Senate without any assistance being rendered by them to us.
– Did I not speak on the Bill ?
– If the honorable senatorthinks that when he speaks no little dog, not even myself, should bark, then, of course, I shall sit down; but our parliamentary institutions do not yet admit even of the honorable senator posing as a “ Sir Oracle,” so that when he speaks, not only shall nobody bark but nobody shall even speak.
– The honorable senator said that nobody on this side spoke.
– The honorable senator introduced the Bill in a fairly brief but, so far as it went, comprehensive speech. I beg to protest, for what it may be worth, against the attitude taken up by honorable senators on the other side. So long as this is a deliberative body, surely measures are entitled to be considered from the various points of view from which they may present themselves to honorable senators.
– We do that in the caucus.
– Quite so.
– Would any words from this side of the Chamber alter the honorable senator’s intention to vote against the Bill?
– I am asked by interjection to say whether any explanations or observations from the other side would alter pur views on this measure?
– No, the honorable senator’s personal views.
– Why did not the honorable senator wait a while before he rose to speak t
– I waited’ until the President’ was putting the motion for the second reading of the Bill. There was no sign of an honorable senator on the other side wishing to speak. I shall not admit that any observations from honorable senators on the other side, who have given very careful consideration to this important question, would not alter my opinions. I hope that the other side will meet us in a similar spirit, and that in regard to any observations which we may make, and which may have the weight of argument in them, they will be open to change their views.
– If the Age cannot move the honorable senator, how can we ?
– I shall not obtrude that delicate and sore subject into this discussion. I may have to deal with it in another way. I take it that both sides of the Chamber are anxious to bring to the solution of this very great, question the highest intelligence, combined with the knowledge obtained by observation of industrial operations, and of the effect of this class legislation. I have publicly placed before a larger audience than even this Parliament a desire for further information on a most important social experiment which will try to achieve two objects. One is to improve the conditions of the worker, and, while doing that consistently with equity to the capital on which industry must largely depend, to see if we cannot find, if not a new paradise, at least some vistas through which we can make the conditions of life of the worker and of society somewhat higher and better than they have been. I deprecate strongly every insinuation that there is any party in any Parliament which has a monopoly of that social sympathy which begets a desire to lift the masses on to a higher level, and whatever criticism may be offered in our own Parliament from any side and from any point of view, it would be well to assume that the critics are not animated by class hostility and do not speak from a purely class stand-point. Further, I object to it being insinuated that because we subject measures of this kind to criticism or controversy, which is more or less intended to sift them to the very bottom, we are necessarily hostile either to the principles of the measure or to the advancement of those whom its provisions are intended to benefit.
– The honorable senator belonged to die Fusion party which put on the gag.
– I object to these interjections, and to the raking up of class prejudices on an occasion’ when we are rightly subjecting an important measure tr> criticism. When you’ find persons repeatedly proclaiming to the world at large that unless you see eye to eye and line to line with them, without the alteration of evena comma or the dotting of an “ i,” in your heart you are an enemy of the great body of workers* you are reminded of the Pharisee who assumed to himself that, because he always stood to the letter of thelaw, he was better than others who wereteaching higher principles of life. Any such conduct shows a bad spirit on thepart of those who advocate this Bill. I ask honorable senators to assume for a moment that while we are criticising its provisions we are just as honest in our sympathy with regard to its main object, and just as sincerely desirous to do for al! classes of workers what they wish to do for a particular class, consistently with the welfare of society and of the country at large, as they are.
– Will the honorable senator now get back to the Bill ?
– The interjections, sir, have led me a little off the track. I think that the Senate should listen withsome interest and attention to the discussion of the great principles involved in themeasure.
– On an important measure, sir, the Senate should be properlyconstituted. [Quorum formed.]
– It is frequently urged, with the intention of gibing at those who criticise these measures, that this legislation is reform. The principal Act was introduced as reform legislation. The intention of _ the reformers, as expressed in that Act, is being made more clear now, and all the time those who are in favour of this kind of legislation are assumed to be in favour of reform and advanced legislation, and, by an almost necessary inference, those who criticise and oppose this Bill are assumed to be Conservatives, and opposed to reform. I wishto inform the Vice-President of the Executive Council that, with respect to preference to unionists, the original Act and theamendments proposed upon it represent, if not letter for letter, certainly in spirit, a resurrection of a whole mausoleum of. slabs of legislation from a dead, despotic and barbaric past. What do we know historically about, this class of legislation, giving a single individual power to fix wages, and immense powers generally over labour and industry? Where do we find the origin of it all, and almost word for word the rules and regulations which control and regulate the conduct of various kinds of workmen ? We must trace the records of the industrial history, not of five hundred or one thousand years ago, but of three thousand or four thousand years ago, to find the origin of these tilings. Therefore all the critics, newspapers, and others, who brand those who venture to criticise these measures as being Conservative and opposed to reform legislation, use terms which are so misrepresentative of the actual facts that one wonders that in using them they do not turn pale or green. I wish it to be understood that, in opposing this Bill, I am opposing provisions for the origin of which we must look to the past, and the principles of which were rejected in the last half of the nineteenth century. As has been admitted by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, and as a most cursory glance through the Bill will show, it is proposed to enlarge the powers conferred upon the Arbitration Court under the present Act. And this leads me to an objection I have to the Bill on principle.
– Not on interest?
– There is very little interest taken in the matter, apparently, by honorable senators.
– I direct attention to that fact, and I think there ought to be a quorum. [Quorum formed.]
– There are two methods of dealing with industrial disputes which have been considered very exhaustively in Australia. One is that of compulsory conciliation and arbitration under the Federal jurisdiction, limited by the terms of the Constitution. Another is to be found in the establishment of Wages Boards. Both seek to attain the same end ; but the object of one is to bring, as far as possible, industrial operations under one Federal tribunal, while the other is based upon the idea that the State Parliaments, having almost supreme and sovereign powers within the boundaries of the States, nave the right to set up their own machinery for dealing with industrial disputes in the full light of their knowledge of local circumstances. The two principles are being made in this Bill tq conflict one with the other.
– I think we should have a quorum present. [Quorum formed.’)
– Those who know the history of this Bill are aware that the Government have recognised that, in introducing it, they have transgressed one of the principles of the Constitution. We who subject this measure to criticism, and some objection, recognise that if there are two conflicting jurisdictions dealing with the same matter, sooner or later one must be supreme, and must oust the other. I believe that I do not misunderstand the Bill, or misrepresent the intentions of the Government, when I say that it is their object to give the Commonwealth, so far as they can under the Constitution, supreme power to deal with industrial matters as against the States. Further than that, I believe that it is the intention of the Government to so test the powers of this Parliament under the Constitution in order that, if it is found we have not supreme control over all industrial operations in Australia, they may ask for such an amendment of the Constitution as will give us that power. While some of us have watched patiently, and in the different States have, to some extent, encouraged the idea that Wages Boards established by the State authorities should have supreme jurisdiction over industrial matters within the States, we now see a movement by legislation which can have no other effect, and which, I believe, is intended only to have the effect of’ destroying, or weakening as much as possible, the work of the Wages Boards. Prior to Federation, the State Parliaments endeavoured to regulate and control industrial operations. They adopted the principle of Wages Boards as against the principle of compulsory arbitration and conciliation; and I have no doubt that the measure with which we are now asked to deal will, sooner or later, bring about a conflict between the States and the Commonwealth. If there is to be one tribunal established to deal with industrial questions, let me ask what tribunal is better able to determine the conditions that should prevail in any industry than the tribunal set up by the State in which the industry is carried on ?
– The honorable senator forgets the Conservative Legislative Councils.
– Let me remind Senator W. Russell that it is honorable senators opposite who are Conservative in this matter. It is they who are digging up the past, and we, who are asking that they should carefully consider what they are doing, are really on the side of reform. The State Parliaments have supreme power over all industrial operations, except those which may involve a dispute extending beyond the limits of any one State. Under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has really but a very limited power in the industrial sphere, whilst the State Parliaments, acting strictly within the* limits of their jurisdiction, possess immense power in controlling industrial operations in Australia.
– Some of the States have not yet adopted any of this legislation at all.
– There is only one State in the Commonwealth in which legislation of this kind has not been passed. We have found that, by political pressure, or what is stronger and all-compelling, the pressure of public opinion, the State Parliaments have been induced to make some experiments by which industrial peace and efficiency may be secured, and in all but one of the States tribunals have been set up which are in a position to deal with these matters thoroughly and completely.
– I ask the honorable senator to discuss the principles of the Bill. It does not deal with the powers of the States.
– Might I point out. sir, with all respect, that, inasmuch as the Bill proposes to give greater powers to the Arbitration Court than are given under the existing Act, and may possibly involve a diminution of the powers of the States, I am not out of order in referring to the powers of the States.
– I think that we should have a quorum present to hear this argument. [Quorum formed.]
– Might I suggest, sir, as another reason for the argument I have used, that it is proposed to include in the original Act the public servants of the different States. Such a proposal may reasonably be said to involve an invasion of the powers of the States, and would justify argument at some length.
– Inferentially the honorable senator would be at liberty to argue that that might involve an interference with the powers of the States, but my complaint is that the honorable senator has not touched upon the principles of the
Bill since he commenced to speak. So far as I have been able to understand him., he has not been dealing with the provisions of this Bill.
– I thought that I was entitled to refer at some length to the possibility of a conflict between Commonwealth and State legislation on thu matter, and unless you distinctly rule me out of order, I propose to continue my argument, and I hope I shall be allowed the liberty which has been largely extended to honorable senators in dealing with *his matter.
– On the second reading the honorable senator should discuss the principles of the Bill as an amendment of the existing Act. He is aware that it is submitted as an amendment ‘of an Act which is now upon the statute-book, and the question whether it is a constitutional proposal or not does not arise.
– May I be permitted to say that, in connexion with certain of the amendments proposed, some question of Commonwealth and State jurisdiction may arise. For instance, the proposed power to deal with industries established by a State is one which, as I have already said, might involve the jurisdiction of the two authorities. If Senator St. Ledger were to confine himself to the discussion of such matters, I think he would be in order.
– I do not wish to prevent the honorable senator from referring to such matters at all. But he was discussing the question from the point of view of the constitutionality of the Bill. That is what I objected to.
– I shall accept the suggestion which has been made, and confine my remarks more closely within the scope of the Bill. Let me say that, inasmuch as it is proposed in this Bill to give greater powers to the Court, in making an award of preference to unionists, it must be admitted that that involves the constitutional question. Therefore I beg to give the warning that honorable senators opposite will find themselves upon this matter in conflict with the Constitution. Where, I ask, is it distinctly laid down in the Constitution that preference shall be given to unionists? Our legislation on this question is based on a paragraph in section 51. That provision is confined strictly to the settlement of disputes. I can find in it no allusion to preference. Where do the Government find it enacted that preference can be declared? The VicePresident of the Executive Council, instead of meeting this difficulty, skimmed over it in such a way as to suggest that he felt unable to cope with it. Those of us who are familiar with the records relative to the framing of the Constitution know that the paragraph relating to conciliation and arbitration occupied the Convention for a long time. It was considered because of the fact that an industrial dispute of great magnitude had threatened disaster to Australia. The Convention knew the injury inflicted on Australia by reason of industrial conflicts’. They therefore desired to give power to the Federal Parliament. But they went no further than to declare that the Commonwealth Court should have power to deal with a dispute extending beyond the limits of any one State. The framers of the Constitution were quite well aware that a section of trade unionists commonly called Socialists desired to have preference to unionists declared. That demand has been made for a long time. On the other hand, some trade unionists were not in favour of the principle of preference. At all events, the framers of the Constitution knew what the principle of preference was. They knew the conflicting views entertained regarding it. But they refrained from mentioning preference in the Constitution for obvious reasons - because if preference to unionists were to be given the State Legislatures had power to grant it completely.
– Will the honorable senator ask leave to continue his speech tomorrow ?
– Why should he not finish it now?
– I shall be happy to ask leave to continue to-morrow.
Leave granted ; debate adjourned.
Motion (by Senator McGregor) pro posed -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Defence to a telegram which I received last night. It is from Perth, Western Australia, and reads as follows -
Sending contingent Kalgoorlie ten days’ time. Scheme in columns west August eighth. Local military officers refuse loan equipment on grounds Board opposed. Will you try secure influence Minister. Advise at earliest. - simons.
The sender of the telegram is Mr. J. J. Simons, who is President of the Board of Directors of the Australian Natives Association, Western Australia. He is also secretary of the Young Australians’ League Tours Committee, an organization which has organized several tours, not only to various parts of Western. Australia, but to the eastern States. Tours for boys have been successfully conducted, and tours for girls are now being organized. The Defence Department has been asked to assist in this movement by lending rifles, &c.,inordertotrainour “ young ideas how to shoot.” But it appears that some difficulty has arisen in connexion with the contemplated tour of the western gold-fields. The military authorities in Western Australia have refused to lend equipment that has hitherto been lent. Therefore, I desire to ask the Minister of Defence whether he will take steps in the matter, and see that the facilities which have hitherto been granted in connexion with lours of this description shall be granted on the present occasion? If not, I should like to know what reason is adduced by the Defence Department for its refusal?
– What were the facilities that were granted?
– I think the Defence Department was asked to lend rifles, to enable the boys to compete with boys in other States.
– Are they cadets?
– Many of them are.
– Does the honorable senator want rifles lent to boys who are not cadets ?
– I would not have the Defence Department decline to lend a rifle to a boy for such a purpose.
– No rifles are concerned in this particular request.
– I do not think that the matter at issue just now is one of rifles. I have brought it forward in order that the Minister of Defence may make publicly a reply to my question.
– The matter that Senator Needham has brought forward has come before me in the shape of a telegram from the Commandant of the Military Forces in Western Australia. He informed me that he had declined to comply with a request that was made to him to lend military equipment, and asked for instructions as to what attitude he was to take up.
I have indorsed his action. I have been compelled to take up that position, not because of this particular request, but because a practice is growing up, not only in Western Australia; but throughout the Commonwealth, of various organizations - boy scouts, Sunday schools, quadrille parties, bazaar committees, and so forth-which are concerned in organizing tours, picnics, and the like, applying to the Defence Department for the loan of equipment. The Department has been asked to lend such things as tents, mattresses, knives, forks, and spoons, and a’ variety of other things.
– Can I get such things for electioneering purposes ?
– This practice has grown until it has become really a serious abuse. While I was Minister of Defence in the previous Fisher Administration, while Mr. Joseph Cook was Minister, and again during the second period of my administration, complaints have come from the military authorities regarding the growth of the practice. They have complained that they never could tell in what state they would find their equipment owing to its having been lent. They never knew how much equipment they had available for military purposes. Of course, the various bodies that have borrowed equipment in this manner undertook to -make good any damage, but honorable senators must be well aware that if you lend a tent or . a mattress very often, although no specific damage may be done, at the same time the continual lending leads to deterioration. In this way the property of the taxpayers, which has been purchased for defence purposes, has been seriously impaired. The particular organization alluded to by Senator Needham is not, as he seemed to me to indicate, connected with the Australian Natives’ Association, although the gentleman whose name has been quoted is connected with that body. It is an organization of boys and their parents, which has taken up the very laudable idea of organizing tours to various parts of Australia. The organization is at present engaged in arranging a tour of the gold-fields. The Defence Department has been asked to lend such articles as knives, forks, spoons, and one or two other things which 1 forget for the time being. Of course, the Department has these articles in store. But they are there for the purposes of the annual camps and for any week-end camps that may be held. Honorable senators may know that week-end camps are frequently held in connexion with corps in various parts of the country. It has sometimes been found, after a weekend camp has been arranged, that the equipment was deficient because it had been lent to some private body. I have come to the conclusion, therefore, that the time has arrived when an end should be put to this practice. To show that there is no prejudice, I thought it best to commence putting an end to it in connexion with an affair in my own State. I have therefore directed that, unless otherwise, ordered, the military authorities are not to give leave for the use of military equipment for private institutions.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 August 1910, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1910/19100817_senate_4_56/>.