6th Parliament · 1st Session
The President took the chair at 11 a.m.,and read prayers.
page 1405
– I ask the Minister of Defence whether the statement in the Melbourne morning press of yesterday about the discovery, in the residence of a naturalized German resident, of guns, ammunition, soft-nosed bullets, and other materials of that kind is substantially correct, and if so, why the name of this gentleman should be withheld from the public, in view of the fact that the names of reputable firms have been published in connexion with raids made on their premises, many of which resulted in revealing nothing that justified suspicion?
– I have read the statement in the press, which is not a report from the Defence Department, but a statement made by the newspapers. The other statements to which the honorable senator referred were given by the Defence Department. In this case I have asked for a report on the paragraph, but I have not yet received it.
– There is no reason for keeping his name in the background 1
– I do not know that he -actually exists.
page 1405
– Has the attention of the Minister of Defence been drawn to the following cablegram in last evening’s Melbourne Herald, purporting to have been published in the Times -
London, Wed., 1.35 a.m.
British journalists, the Official Press Bureau announces, are to be given permission to visit the front.
Will the Minister consider the desirableness of sending, with further Expeditionary Forces, an Australian war correspondent, seeing that this cablegram indicates that correspondents are to be allowed to go to the front, and seeing also, I may . add, the result of the sending of one correspondent already, in the work which we are having served to us through the newspapers of this very date?
– The paragraph referred to is the statement of a newspaper. Some time ago the Government asked the War Office whether permission would be given to war correspondents to go to the front, and the reply was that they would permit one war correspondent for Australia to go to the front, provided that he was indorsed by the Government. Subsequently a war correspondent was appointed. Then the War Office were asked whether they would allow other war correspondents to go to the front with subsequent contingents, and they recommended that that should not be done. We have had no intimation of a change of opinion on their part. The second cablegram, I may say, came only a week or so ago, but, in view of the statement in the Press, we will communicate again with the War Office to see if they have altered their decision.
page 1405
Preference to Unionists : Carpenters - Conduct of Firemen.
– Has “the attention of the Minister of Defence been drawn to the following paragraph in the Melbourne Argus of this date -
NAVAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES.
Carpenters make Complaint.
Serious trouble is brewing in connexion with the carpenters who are engaged in fitting up the troopships at Williamstown, and to decide on action a mass meeting will be held at Williamstown to-day. The chief grievance is that the employment is so arranged that many, of the hands are made to work overtime while others are put off. No fewer than 200 men were told on Wednesday niqht that they would not be again required. The majority of the dismissed employes were married men, and it is stated that they represented capable carpenters. The whole of the men employed by tho Naval Department in connexion with the troopships are unionists, and the bulk of them are members of the Amalgamated Carpenters Union. They assert that the work is so arranged that in one instance during the week no fewer than 41 carpenters were compelled to endeavour to work in a space 40 feet square. On Tuesday last the men comprising the night shift were asked to continue on without sleep during the whole of the next day. They further assert that preference is given to incompetent hands, and that the position of one foreman carpenter has been given to a butcher, who was allowod to sign on as a carpenter.
Will the Minister find out for me whether the statement is correct, and whether the word “ carpenter “ has such a wide definition that a butcher can be engaged ?
– I have not seen the paragraph in question, but the honorable senator’s statement is a sufficient intimation to me that it is in the newspaper. The Naval Department are not employing carpenters or any one else in fitting up troopships at Williamstown. The vessels are being fitted up by the State Government under contract with the Federal Government.
– Is the Defence Department paying the cost incidental to the fitting up of the troopships, and if so, have the Federal Government given an intimation to the State Government of their policy, namely the employment of unionists as against non-unionists? Of course the employment of unionists necessarily means the employment of competent men to do carpenters’ work, and not the employment of a butcher to do the work of a carpenter.
– In the conditions governing all contracts laid down by the Defence and other Commonwealth De-. partments it is provided that the local rate of wages and labour conditions prescribed by any statutory authority, Federal or the State, should be observed by the contractor. There is no stipulation in a contract that preference shall be given to unionists.
– Is there anything to give protection to unionists in regard to Government work which is let by contract, and if not, why?
– The protection given to labour in the contract is that the award of a State Wages Board or Arbitration Court shall apply in every case and if there is no such award the Minister may attach to the contract the award of a neighbouring State in that or in a similar trade. In Government contracts, there is no stipulation in regard to preference to unionists.
– May I ask a further question in respect to this work which is being done by the Victorian Government for the Defence Department ? Although it is specified in the contract that the conditions laid down by an arbitration award shall be observed, it is quite within the powers of the State Government, under this contract, to em- ploy whom they like, provided that they pay the wages laid down in the arbitration award. That is to say, under the contract they can employ a butcher to do carpenter’s work, provided that they pay him according to the award of the Arbitration Court.
– That is so.
– That is rot.
– Referring to the original question, is the Minister not aware that carpenters are frequently referred to as “wood butchers “?
– Is the Minister of Defence yet in a position to state the result of the inquiry into the conduct of certain firemen on a troopship employed to convey the Expeditionary Forces north?
– The inquiry has been proceeded with, but I have not yet received a report from the special magistrate.
page 1406
– Can the Leader of the Government here give the Senate any information as to when, either definitely or approximately, we may expect a new issue of ten shilling notes, for which, according to an answer given by him to an honorable senator a few weeks ago, special or new dies were being prepared?
– I will have an inquiry made and endeavour to give the honorable senator the desired information at a later hour.
– If it is not too late, may I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether it will be possible to have, instead of the words “ Ten shilling note” on the notes, the words “ Half pound note,” because then there would not be any doubt as to the value ?
– Lb. ?
– We say “Halfapound “ and “half-a-sovereign “ - why should we not say “ Half-a-pound “ ? The present wording is confusing.
– I understand that the dies were to be prepared some time ago. I am also given to understand - I am not quite sure that this is authoritative - that there is to be printed on the notes, in red ink, the words “Halfsovereign,” which will probably meet the objection of the honorable senator.
page 1407
The following papers were presented : -
Public Service Act 1902-1913.- Tenth Re port on the Public Service by the Commissioner.
War, European. - Documents respecting negotiations preceding the war published by the Russian Government.
page 1407
asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -
– The answers are -
page 1407
Press Reports
asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -
– The answers are -
page 1407
Motion (by Senator Findley) agreed to-
That three months’ leave of absence be granted to Senator Blakey on account of illhealth.
page 1407
In Committee(Consideration resumed from 3rd December, vide page 1292).
Clause 67 -
Schedule II. of the principal Act is amended by inserting after the word “ shipwright “ (wherever occurring) the words “ or ship’s carpenter.”
Schedule proposed to be amended -
II.(Scale of Crew).
Steam-ships. (Passenger steam-ships carrying not more than ten passengers and cargo steamships.)
All vessels over 800 tons net register to carry a shipwright. . . . . (Passenger steam-ships carrying more than ten passengers.)
All vessels over800 tons gross register to carry a shipwright…..
Sailing Ships.
All vessels over 600 tons net register to carry a shipwright…..
Amendment (by Senator Russell) again proposed -
That all the words after the word “ amended “ be loft out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ by omitting the word ‘ shipwright ‘ (wherever occurring) and inserting in lieu thereof the words ‘ qualified shipwright or ship’s carpenter.’ “
– When this matter was under consideration yesterday, the Minister proposed an amendment, which he said would meet the case until the two bodies of workmen concerned had arrived at a common understanding. But in the event of their not arriving at a mutual agreement, I ask him whether he will provide for the issuing of certificates of service to the men who are to-day employed on these vessels so as to insure their retention in their present positions? We are not certain that the two bodies of workmen concerned will arrive at a common understanding, and in such, circumstances why should we leave it open to the employers, acting, perhaps, under the influence of the shipwright’s body, to discharge men who have been filling positions on these vessels for half a lifetime? Whenever a similar change has been contemplated, the position of those who have rendered faithful and efficient service has been taken into consideration. I am anxious that no departure should be made from that practice.
Senator MCDOUGALL (New South Wales [11.25]. - I was not present when the Assistant Minister moved the second reading of this Bill. But I intend to oppose the amendment, because the insertion of the words “ship’s, carpenter “ will clothe the captain of any messel with power to put an incompetent man into that position. I believe that a shipwright on a ship should be required to pass an examination in his calling just as an engineer is required to pass an examination in his calling. When all goes well on a vessel the carpenter’s life is a simple one. But when disaster overtakes her, there axe thousands of lives dependent on the ability of the carpenter to cope with watertight compartments, sluice doors, &c. A shipwright or ship’s carpenter is practically the ship’s architect. He must be familiar with every door on the vessel for the preservation of human life, and lie must lav his plans accordingly. The insertion of the words proposed by the Assistant Minister would permit the captain of the vessel to install anybody as a ship’s carpenter, because the term “ship’s carpenter” is not denned. As a matter of fact a ship’s carpenter may be anybody or nobody. An ordinary individual may be able to do the little alteration that is required on a vessel in periods of fair weather, but when disaster overtakes her, in the interests of the passengers and crew, the services are required of a man who understands every portion of the vessel. I make these remarks because I desire to safeguard the travelling public. As one who has had a lifetime’s experience of shipbuilding, I say that it is most necessary that a competent man should occupy the position of a ship’s carpenter. Nobody, save one who thoroughly understands the construction of a vessel from keel to truck, should occupy that post.
In the interests of the travelling public, I hope that the amendment will not tie carried. The paragraph which I read to the Senate this morning will give honorable senators a clear idea of what may be done under the word “ carpenter.” That paragraph says -
Preference is given to incompetent hands, and the position of one foreman carpenter has been given to a butcher, who was allowed to sign on as a carpenter.
That shows conclusively that the term “ carpenter “ means anybody.
– The butcher may have been a carpenter.
– He is not » competent man, otherwise exception would not have been taken to his employment. Had he been a carpenter he would have been a member of the union. This butcher may be sufficient of a carpenter to enable him to do the little work which is necessary in the fitting up of troopships. But if he were employed in that capacity when a storm arose at sea, and the horses were being driven from end to end of the vessel, as I have seen them driven, I venture to say that he would not be able to cope “with the situation. At such times the services of a qualified shipwright are required. I trust that the Committee will not agree to the amendment. I am surprised that the Minister should have submitted such an amendment, because I know that he assisted in passing the section in the existing Act which is intended to prevent loss of life at sea through the employment of incompetent men as ships’ carpenters.
– I indorse what Senator McDougall has said, and support the attitude he has taken up. The shipwright is the man who should be employed for this kind of work. It would, in my opinion, be wrong for the Committee to agree to the amendment, but I am prepared to vote for it in the meantime in order that while it is under consideration in another place a further opportunity may be afforded to the Minister, and the two organizations concerned in the question, to consult as to the best means .of making up their differences of opinion. I had some experience in the shipyards of the River Clyde. I assisted as a boilermaker’s labourer in the construction of wooden and iron vessels of from 10 tons up to 15,000 tons, and I am in a position to say that the shipwright is the man who is held actually responsible for the construction of a vessel, practically from the time of the preparation of the plans until the ship is launched. Even when the angle iron bars that constitute the frame of an iron or steel vessel are taken from the furnace and put into shape, and the boilermakers’ assistants prepare the frames, they cannot be taken from the board for transport to the keel in the shipyard until the shipwright has first examined and passed them. As a matter of fact, with the exception of the engines and boilers, everything else in connexion with the construction of aship must be passed by the shipwright, - who is the responsible man. He is familiar with every bulkhead, every door, and every pump, and he knows what to do should anything happen to the ship. No one can deny that a carpenter is a very handy man on board ship, and I have no wish to shut such men out of employment. But when it is a question of the safety of life at sea, the shipwright is the man who should be engaged in this work. I have said that I am prepared to support the Minister in his amendment for the reason only that I hope that while the Bill is under consideration in another place the clause may be, after consultation, framed in such a manner as would meet our views. If that is not done I shall be prepared when the Bill comes back from another place-
– It may not come back.
– If I am to understand that this is the final stage of the matter I must oppose the amendment, but I am prepared to support it if I can get the assurance of the Minister that another opportunity will be afforded to mould the clause in the way which has been indicated.
– Take no chances.
– I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that point. It is possible, as Senator Lynch has said, that some men now engaged as ships’ carpenters might be displaced, but the important consideration with me is the safety of life at sea. When a crisis occurs we must have a man on board the ship who knows what to do, and the loss of employment by a few men is not too great a sacrifice to make to secure the safety of life at sea.
– It is very comforting for the Committee to have Senator Needham’s assurance that at some future date he will do the right thing. If it is in the competence of the Committee, honorable senators should make up their minds now as to what should be done, and should not trust to what may happen in another place.
– Do not honorable senators trust to the drafting of regulations every day in the week?
– This is not a question of the drafting of regulations. Honorable senators are being asked to decide a very simple question. We are asked to say whether we shall leave certain positions open to two kinds of mechanics, or to only one. I quite recognise that a shipwright and a carpenter have something in common, inasmuch as for certain work they use similar tools. I have no difficulty in deciding what course I should take in this matter, because I asked myself whether if I were building a house I should call in a shipwright or a carpenter. A shipwright and a carpenter might apply for the job, and both might be skilled mechanics, but I should prefer to engage the man who ordinarily did the kind of work I required done. When we are dealing with vessels a shipwright may be called a ship’s carpenter, while an ordinary carpenter is not a ship’s carpenter. It seems to me that the shipwright is the proper man to employ for this work. I am confronted with a little difficulty in dealing with the question, because I understand that at the present time a number of carpenters are employed for this work on various vessels, and have fulfilled the duties of the position satisfactorily for years. We should not by any legislation of ours turn those men out of their occupations.
– There is no desire to do so; this applies only to new appointments.
– I am quite aware of that. There is a principle generally recognised by Parliament when legislating to alter the existing state of affairs, and it is, so far as it may be done with safety to the public, to respect what may be termed existing interests.
– The saving of existing rights.
– Just so. That principle has been followed in connexion with the registration of dentists, various medical Bills and midwifery Bills. It has been declared’ that those who at the time of the passing of the legislation are in reputable practice, and can satisfy some examining authority as to their competency, shall not be disturbed. I think that it should be possible to do something of that kind in connexion with this Bill. Let us decree, as I think we ought, that these positions shall, . in future, be secured to competent shipwrights, and at the same time provide that carpenters who are not shipwrights, but who have been filling these positions satisfactorily, shall be allowed to continue to hold them. It seems to me that that would be not only a sensible method of solving the difficulty, but would adequately meet the not unfair claims which have been presented for our consideration by circular and other means on behalf of those whom I have indicated.
– I point out to Senator Needham that if he supports the amendment submitted by the Minister, and it is sent to another place, we may not have an opportunity to deal with the matter again, because if the amendment be accepted there, even though the Bill should be returned with other amendments, this question would not come up for further consideration.
– We could deal with it by regulation.
– If the Minister intends to deal with the matter by regulation it should not be necessary to deal with it here.
– If we provide for both shipwright and carpenter the door will be left open for employers to engage whatever men they choose. There may be men engaged on our coast who are not shipwrights, but who are by experience acquainted with the duties of a ship’s carpenter, and we should, I think, preserve to them all the rights to which they are entitled. A good many years ago I was in a vessel the mate of which had no certificate. The master and first officer had certificates from the Board of Trade, but the mate had only a ticket of service. He had never passed any examination, but he had been at sea for a certain length of time, and had worked his way up under the system in force prior to the practice of requiring men to pass an examination to secure certificates. We were coming up the channel, had run past Beechy Head, and had got up to the Downs without meeting a pilot. The master of the vessel said, “ I suppose we shall have to anchor here until we get a pilot.” The mate said ‘ What is the use of anchoring here ? I can take this vessel up to Greenwich as well as anybody else. I have been there scores of times.” Instead of waiting for a pilot this mate, who had no certificate at all, and had never passed a Board of Trade examination, took the vessel up to Greenwich, though the master or the first officer would never have dreamed of doing so. The mate was an experienced man, and he had all his rights under previous legislation preserved to him. He was allowed to continue in the same position as long as he was able to perform the duties.
– He had local experience.
– He had sea experience as well, and his rights were preserved to him. If these ships’ carpenters who have been referred to understand their duties there is no reason why they should be passed out, but I am not prepared to leave it in the power of employers to engage men who have never had any experience of shipwrights’ work at all.
– A new clause must be drafted.
– That may be necessary, but I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment with the idea that another opportunity will be afforded to deal with the matter. We should pass the clause in the form which we think it should take, and if any amendment is considered necessary it may be made in another place, and it will then come before us for consideration. I agree that it is our duty to see that competent men are put into these positions. I shall be told that shipwright’s work is going out. That has been so in Australia up to the present, but it is not so in England, where they are building ships, and have men coming into the trade all the time. We are going to have shipyards here, and so we shall have men learning the duties of shipwrights just the same as in the Old Country.
– But we are up against a transition period in which we have not got the men.
– Does that mean that there are not enough shipwrights in Australia at present? There are dozens of them who would be only too glad to get a position as shipwright on board ship, but they are not .able to get it, so long as some one else who may be a ship’s carpenter is able to get in and secure the job. It is not simply a question of saying they shall carry a man who can handle timber. The question should be the protection of the travelling public, and of the crew of the vessel. If it is objected that we are not training shipwrights, I reply that if we are going to have shipbuilding yards, as I believe we are, we shall have numbers of men learning the trade, just as a carpenter learns his trade. I am going to vote for the retention of the section as it stands in the principal Act. It was discussed in this chamber when the Bill was before us, and it was pointed out that what we wanted to secure by this legislation, above everything else, was proficiency, and that if there were any who had previously obtained employment as carpenters, but who were not shipwrights, all the rights due to them should be preserved under the law.
– Honorable senators seem to assume that there is a tendency on the part of the Government to reduce the standard of labour engaged in this work. Nothing could be further from the minds of the Government, who are a Labour Government, believing in highly skilled labour in all branches. Honorable senators seem to have gone back about a century for their definitions, for it is nearly a century since the term “ship’s carpenter” came into vogue in connexion with British shipping. It is still a well recognised term. Mr. Frank T. Bullen, in his book, The Men of the Merchant Service - a work accepted by Mr. Justice Higgins in the seamen’s case before the Arbitration Court - devotes some chapters to the carpenter, but none to the shipwright, showing that the two terms have evidently been exchanged at some period of our maritime history. I have here the rules of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, an or ganization extending throughout the world, and these deal with the qualifications of the members of that body going to sea, showing that ships’ carpenters are recognised. For a number of years there have been a considerable number of men engaged as ships’ carpenters, and not as shipwrights, on our vessels.
– How many ?
– A considerable number.
– There are not a dozen in the whole of Australia.
– The Government do not favour a man being taken as ship’s carpenter simply because his labour is cheaper, if he is inefficient. They do not intend to tolerate that class of men being in or about the vessels at all. They are therefore inserting an amendment to provide that the carpenter must be “ qualified.” Surely if a man has been a ship’s carpenter for fifteen or twenty years - an efficient tradesman with daily experience on vessels - even though he may not be able to produce credentials as a shipwright, there will be no desire on the part of the Shipwrights Association to exclude him. Rather, I take it, that they would ‘ be glad to work him into their organization. The intention of the Government in the first place is that a man, whether he is called a ship’s carpenter or a shipwright, must, before he is allowed to take his place as a member of the crew, have certain qualifications, which will be clearly set out in the regulations, and those qualifications will certainly not set such an inefficient standard as to permit a sort of half-baked tradesman to be engaged purely and simply for the purpose of sweating competent labour. That is not the intention of the amendment.
– But il gives the opportunity.
– Unfortunately, this is not a dispute between union and union. It is bigger. It is a dispute between trade and trade. I have done all that is possible to bring the two trades together, and am hopeful that they will come to an agreement on this point.
– What if they do not? They will not, and the Minister knows it.
– If they are not prepared to furnish us with an acceptable standard definition of “ carpenter “ and “shipwright,” the responsibility will be cast on the Navigation Department of drawing up a suitable one. Surely there can be no harm in a Government which believe in unionism and a high standard of labour seeking the co-operation in a matter of this kindof the unions which are vitally interested, especially in these days when industrial organizations are universally recognised. Moreover, this is not the final word.
– It may, so far as the Senate is concerned.
– No; because the qualifications have to be prescribed by regulation, and the regulation must be laid before the Senate. If the qualifications are not sufficiently high it will be the duty of the representatives of Labour in this chamber to veto the regulation, so compelling the Government to set a higher standard. I therefore ask honorable senators to let the clause go through in its present form, and in the meantime everything will be done by the Government and the Department in consultation with the unions to secure what may be accepted for all time as a standard definition.
– I have been waiting for the Minister’s reply. Whilst up to now I have thought it wise to let the clause go down to the other place as it stands, so as to give the unions a chance to meet, on second thoughts it seems to me to be better to take time by the forelock. It is not a question of trade unionism or of trade against trade, but a question of the safety of life at sea, and incidentally of the saving of property. A bird in the hand being worth two in the bush, I am going to vote against the amendment moved by the Minister. If the conference between the bodies affected takes place, and due consideration is given to the matter in another place, with the resultthat a clause improving on the section in the principal Act is drafted, there will be a chance for further consideration by us. I stick to my previously expressed opinion that the shipwright is the man we want, and all the navigation experts or Departments in the world cannot change it, but I do not desire to inflict hardship on any carpenter at present engaged in our coastal service.
– You are doing it all the same.
– That is a matter for the Government to look out for by administration.
– It is a matter for the Government to put in the Bill.
– They need not put it in the Bill. Even if my vote does displace a carpenter or two-
– Thousands.
– It will do nothing of the sort; but even if it did displace a few I would rather see those carpenters go than endanger the lives of thousands of people who are travelling on our Inter-State ships. That is the important point to me. I am at home on this subject, for I have had practical experience of the whole industry. To make assurance doubly sure, I beg to inform the Minister that I shall cast my vote against his proposal.
– I cannot accept the Minister’s suggestion. As regards the big question raised here, that injustice may be done to some people who have previously held these positions on. board ships, the wishes of Senator Lynch and others who have spoken will be met if we adhere to the principle already laid down clearly in the principal Act. We have made provision for other classes of labour on board ship, so that no injustice shall be done to those already employed. This is so in the case of engineers, firemen, greasers, and pilots. Section 41 of the principal Act says -
No seaman shall be rated -
as “ greaser “ who has not served six months as fireman at sea, or
as “fireman” who has not served six months as a trimmer or fireman at sea.
The question now before us is the rating of a man as a shipwright. We can get over the whole difficulty without doing injustice to a single individual by inserting in sub-section 1 of section 41 of the principal Act the following new paragraph -
as “ shipwright “ who has not served at sea for at least three years as shipwright or carpenter.
– Would you refer to him as a seaman ?
– Yes, every man who serves at sea, except the master,is a seaman. Even the stewardess is a seaman. That provision would solve the whole difficulty.
– -If lie is to berated after three years’ service, how does he first get to sea ?
– If at the time of the passing of this Bill he has had three years’ service as carpenter or shipwright, he will be rated. That will meet the position urged by Senator Lynch. I do not want men who have served for years as carpenters to lose their employment. At the same time I want to provide that those who hold the positions shall be absolutely competent. I am not tied to the three years’ minimum.
– What if he has been for three years at sea merely mending deck chairs?
– If he has been accepted by the ship-owner for three years as a carpenter employed on board the ship, I say all right, let him come under the definition of shipwright.
– Without examination?
– Yes. We are doing the same thing throughout the principal Act in regard to engineers, firemen, greasers, and able seamen. We there laid down the principle that if a man had discharges to show his qualifications, he was entitled to be rated as an able seaman, or fireman, or greaser, or trimmer. Why should not the same principle be applied to lie case of a shipwright? The Assistant Minister will be well advised, I think, if he will accept the amendment I have suggested. I believe that such a provision would solve the whole difficulty, and suit the two societies who are fighting the matter, as well as meet the objection that, in its present form, the clause will take employment away from individuals who have held these positions in the past.
– I do not wish honorable senators to think for a moment that I desire to deprive any man of the opportunity to earn his living. We have been told that some men have been at sea as ship’s carpenter for half a lifetime. As one who knows something of the coastal shipping, I can say that there is not one dozen of such men on the whole of the Australian coast. My complaint is that under the clause an opportunity would be given to ship-owners to foist incompetent men on to ships. If the
Minister is right in his contention that the provision was designed to save these men from losing their positions, in my opinion he has gone to work in the wrong way, because in all shipping trades there is a trade definition. In the shipping trade there is no such thing known as a “ ship’s carpenter,” but there is a shipwright. In iron ship-building it is the custom of the trade for the shipwright to do the work of laying down a vessel on the scrieve board. The shipwright is a man who is thoroughly acquainted with the architecture of the ship, and knows at all times where to put his hand on the sluice doors, which are there for the purpose of life-saving. There is another class which should have been mentioned in this clause, and that is the ship’s joiner. By leaving out the word “ joiner,” and inserting the words “ ship’s carpenter,” the Government make the provision mean anything or nothing. A ship’s joiner, in the ship-building trade, is a man who does the internal fittings of a ship, such as cabins and other things. If a man has served his time as a ship’s joiner he may know something about a ship, but a ship’s joiner is not mentioned here at all. The clause simply refers to a “ ship’s carpenter,” which means anything. If the term “ ship’s joiner “ had been used, we should have exactly what the definition meant. The Minister says he has done his best to bring these unions together.
– The trades.
– There should be unions if there are trades; if the men are not unionists they ought to be. In New South Wales there is not one shipwright working who is not a unionist. If the desire of the Assistant Minister is to bring these men together, I would like to see them come together. In New South Wales we have Demarcation Boards sitting to define these very things. The law of Victoria is different from our law. I believe that here the men cannot get Demarcation Boards brought into existence, but if they could it would be a good thing, and save a lot of time and trouble to shipwrights, joiners, and iron ship-builders. I would remind the Minister that the Government have lately appointed a Director of Navigation. I am quite content to leave it to that officer, with his ability and knowledge of sea-going vessels, to say who shall be a ship’s carpenter. A ship’s carpenter only comes into existence when he goes aboard a ship. Previously he has been either a shipwright or a ship’s joiner. I Urn told that the Director of Navigation has already expressed the opinion that no one should go to sea as a ship’s carpenter who is not a qualified shipwright. In good weather a carpenter or a joiner may do very well aboard a ship, but in bad weather, when there are breakages, and rafts have to be constructed and other things done, a ship should carry a man who has a knowledge of ship construction, which a ship’s joiner, or even a ship’s carpenter, cannot possibly possess. It can only be possessed by a man as a result of having had, as Senator Guthrie has stated, years of experience on a ship. If any men have had years of experience on a ship as a ship’s carpenter, I, for one, would not be willing to deprive them of their living. I know a man who has been employed on the coast for many years. He served his time in the same establishment as I did, but as a ship’s joiner, and a very competent one he is. He came to be foreman of the establishment, but unfortunately the dearth of shipping requirements in Australia caused that place to be closed at that time. He was thrown adrift, and has been a ship’s carpenter ever since. He does not claim now to be a shipwright, but he claims to have gained that experience by being a ship’s joiner, in the first place, and by going to sea as a ship’s carpenter. I do not wish to deprive the man of his living. I consider that the suggestion of Senator Guthrie is a “good one, and if the Ministry will agree to the suggestion, I think it will suit me. I am not here in the interests of any union, nor in the interests of any one but the travelling public, and their requirements have to be met by putting competent men in the position of officials on vessels. Too long have we regarded the carpenters on ships as simply “ old chips.” My opinion is that these men should be subjected to the same severe test of examination as is an engineer or an officer. In the principal Act we made provision for testing the qualification and the competency of firemen. If the Government are unwilling to accept the advice of Senator Guthrie - the
Samuel Plimsoll of Australia - in this matter, and bring the men together in such a way as he has suggested, I shall be compelled to vote against the proposal to make the definition of a ship’s carpenter so loose that a “ wood butcher “ - which, as Senator Story has pointed out, is sometimes applied to a carpenter - may at any time be put on a vessel in his place.
– I think that as the result of a consultation the Assistant Minister is rather inclined to accept a suggestion such as I have thrown out. It will call for a little consideration by the Minister and by honorable senators. I think that we can get over the difficulty by allowing the word “ shipwright “ to remain in the schedule, and defining what a “ shipwright “ shall mean. It will be competent for the Committee to define “ shipwright” to mean anything it likes. I feel strongly that a man to be efficient on a ship ought to possess a knowledge of the ship. That is the position I have taken up right through. I have tried to meet those who think that an injustice is going to be done to men who have filled these positions in the past, and I admit that there is a good deal in their argument. I think it would be very fair to adopt the principle which pervades the Merchant Shipping Act, in which it was enacted that men who had held the positions of masters, mates, and engineers, and were able to show their discharges prior to the passing of the Act, should be entitled to certificates of service, and not to certificates of competency. An option was given to a ship-owner to choose between one class and the other. In the same way the Imperial Parliament dealt with seamen’s certificates. It provided in .the case of an able seaman that he should produce four years’ discharges before he could get an able seaman’s certificate. On the articles, as a rule, the men whose case we are discussing are defined, not as shipwrights, but as carpenters. I think that, as a matter of course, every ship-owner who wanted to insure the safety of his ship employed a shipwright. Yet in the Act these men were defined. If the carpenter of a ship had an assistant, he was called the “ carpenter’s mate.” The same rule applies in the Navy to-day, but does any honorable senator think that the Navy employ men who are only carpenters? No, they take very good care that the men rated as carpenters on a ship are shipwrights. The only difference existing at the present time between the Minister and myself is that I want to lay it down in the measure that any man who has served on a ship for three years prior to the passing of the Act, either as carpenter or as shipwright, shall be rated as a shipwright. The Minister seems to be insistent that any man who has served an apprenticeship in a ship-building yard shall be rated as a shipwright. But such a man might be a cabinet-maker or a boiler-maker, or a blacksmith. Surely we are not going to rate these men as shipwrights. Yet if we limit employment in that capacity to men who have been for three years at sea, in a very short time their ranks will be exhausted by reason of death. Consequently, we must provide for the introduction of fresh men, and I desire to bring in those who have served their apprenticeship on board ship as shipwrights, and not as carpenters, cabinetmakers, boilermakers, or blacksmiths. I think that the Assistant Minister will recognise the justice of the claim which I am putting forward. We need not interfere with the men who are at sea to-day, and who have three years’ service to their credit, but in future we must insist upon the employment of only qualified shipwrights in the capacity of shipwrights on board vessels.
– I am prepared, at a later stage, to recommit the Bill, and to accept an amendment in the form of a new clause as follows: -
Section 41 of the principal Act is amended by inserting in sub-section 1, after paragraph (b) the following words “or (c) as ‘shipwright ‘ or ‘ ship’s carpenter ‘ who has not served an apprenticeship as shipwright or three years at sea as ship’s carpenter.”
Then, after this Bill comes into operation, no person will be able to secure employment as a shipwright or as a ship’s carpenter unless he is a qualified shipwright who has served his apprenticeship, or who has served three years at sea prior to the measure coming into force. That provision, I think, will overcome the difficulty. In these circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my amendment for the pur pose of allowing the clause to pass in the form in which it is printed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 68 agreed to with a verbal amendment.
Title agreed to.
Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -
That the Bill be reported with an amendment.
Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That the Bill be reconsidered for the purpose of amending clause 4, inserting new clauses 16a and 3a, and amending clause 46.
Clause 4 verbally amended, and agreed to as amended.
Amendment (by Senator Russell) proposed -
That the following new clause be inserted : - “16(a). Section one hundred and ninetyseven of the principal Act is amended by inserting after the words ‘ certificate of survey’ the words, ‘ or a certificate under section two hundred and four of this Act.’ “
Section proposed to be amended - 197. The master of a steam-ship shall not take her to sea, and the owner of a steam-ship shall not, knowingly or unknowingly, suffer or permit her to go to sea, unless a certificate of survey has been granted in respect of her and is in force…..
– I have had no opportunity of seeing this amendment previously, and it is scarcely fair that it should be sprung upon us so suddenly. From my standpoint, a certificate of survey is a very serious matter. An absolutely new principle has been introduced into the Bill, because the measure follows Imperial legislation, which, up till now, has not been followed in Australia. In my own State, and in Victoria, the law formerly provided for a six months’ survey of every vessel, large or small, irrespective of whether or not she carried passengers. But, under this Bill, a ship carrying less than twelve passengers will be exempt from survey. Sub-section (2) of section 204 of the Act provides -
In cases where the Minister is satisfied, in regard to any British steam-ship not registered in Australia, or any foreign steam-ship, that the requirements of this Act have been substantially complied with, he may -
dispense with any further survey of the steam-ship; and
give a certificate which shall have the same effect as if given upon survey under this Act.
Thus, a foreign ship may come in here, certain facts may be laid before the Minister, and he may issue a certificate which will have the same effect upon that vessel as would a certificate of survey. We must recollect that there is a considerable difference between inspection and survey. Inspection under the Act relates to lifesaving apparatus, whereas survey relates to the hulls of vessels.
– It is merely a formal matter which is involved.
– But formal matters have been the cause of an immense sacrifice of human life at sea. The alteration of the load-line on vessels trading in the North Atlantic was dealt with as a formal matter. That was passed in the Imperial Parliament without any debate, and yet it abolished the whole of the regulations regarding deck loading on ships sailing from Quebec to British ports with 12 or 14 feet of deck load.
– The amendment merely provides for the recognition of a higher certificate - the safety certificate.
– It is proposed to amend section 197 by inserting after the words “ certificate of survey “ the words “or a certificate under section 204 of the Act.” Section 197 reads -
The master of a steam-ship shall not take her to sea, and the owner of a steam-ship shall not knowingly or unknowingly suffer or permit her to go to sea, unless a certificate of survey has been granted in respect of her and is in force.
Section 204 provides that a steam -ship in respect of which a certificate of survey granted by the Board of Trade of the United Kingdom has been issued shall, whilst that certificate remains in force, be exempt from survey. Here, to begin with, there is an absolute departure, because a certificate of the Board of Trade of the United Kingdom is a certificate granted to a ship carrying more than twelve passengers. There is no protection for the crew and passengers of a ship carrying less than twelve passengers. It is provided also by section 204 that -
A steam-ship in respect 6f which -
in the case of steam-ships carrying not more than twelve passengers a prescribed classification certificate granted by any corporation or asso ciation for the survey and registry of ships approved by the GovernorGeneral, may be exempt from survey under the Act. The French Veritas Bureau or Lloyds may give a ship a certificate, and the GovernorGeneral can accept it as sufficient to exempt the vessel from survey. Section 204 further provides -
In cases where the Minister is satisfied, in regard to any British steam-ship not registered in Australia, or any foreign steam-ship, that the requirements of this Act have been substantially complied with, he may -
dispense with any further survey of the ship; and
give a certificate which shall have the same effect as if given upon survey under this Act.
This gives the Minister enormous power.
– Has not the Minister, by implication, the power to order a survey ?
– No ; the Minister, under this section, is given the power to dispense with a survey. It gives the Minister the power to say that, although a vessel has not been surveyed, she may go to sea. We shall shortly have a line of ships from Denmark trading to Australia that are perfectly strange to our authorities. They are fitted with Diesel engines, and, although they will be strange to our people, under this proposal, upon representations being made to the Minister that no survey is necessary, these ships may be permitted to remain on our coasts for twelve months without survey of any kind. We should have been given more time for the consideration of the amendment, which affects one of the most important provisions of the Act. One of the things to which I objected in connexion with the Imperial Conference was this proposal for doing away with a survey in Australia of foreign ships whether they carried passengers or not. My contention is that the lives of the crew and passengers of a vessel should be considered of equal importance whether the vessel carries 300 passengers or under twelve passengers.
– The honorable senator wants a survey of all ships.
– Yes, I do. If a ship only carries two men, their lives are valuable to some one, and it is our business as a Legislature to see that they are protected. When a Titanic is lost, there is a cry raised all over the world for legislation to prevent similar disasters; but I remind honorable senators of a circular which has been sent round during the last week, in which it is shown that, owing to an alteration made by the Board of Trade without the sanction of Parliament, at least 3,000 men were lost last year in small vessels. The Minister should give the Committee some information as to why this proposal is” considered necessary.
– I regret that there should have been any difficulty about Senator Guthrie receiving notice of these amendments. They were circulated the first thing this morning, but the honorable senator may not have been present in the chamber at the time. I regard the proposal as merely formal, because the principle is already adopted in section 204 of the Act. Senator Guthrie has explained that, for the purpose of the issue of certificates, vessels carrying less than twelve passengers are not recognised by the Board of Trade, and they would not be surveyed here.
– We accept all the cargo tramps that come here. We cannot touch them.
– It is probable that such vessels carrying less than twelve passengers would not have a certificate, as they are not required to have one by the Board of Trade, but I may inform the Committee that the object of this amendment is to make section 197 comply with section 204. The proposal is to insert in section 197 the words “or a certificate under section 204 of the Act.” This is to make provision for a certificate of safety, which is of a much higher grade than the ordinary survey certificate. If we accept the ordinary certificate of survey, surely there should be no objection to accepting the superior certificate of safety ? Senator Guthrie has said that certain boats will be coming here shortly, and they will present a certificate of survey, but he forgets that there is full power given to the Minister, if there is any suspicion that the certificate is not in conformity with the regulations of the Safety of Life Convention, to order a full and complete survey.
– If one of these vessels has a certificate from Denmark, the Minister will have to accept it.
– No such thing. In section 204 of the Act it is provided that -
In cases where the Minister is satisfied, in regard to any British steam-ship not registered in Australia, or any foreign steam-ship, that the requirements of this Act have been substantially complied with, he may -
dispense with any further survey of the steam-ship; and
give a certificate which shall have the same effect as if given upon survey under this Act :
Provided that the Governor-General may direct that this sub-section shall not apply in cases where it appears to him that reciprocal treatment is not given to steam-ships registered in Australia.
What does that mean ?
– It means that if Denmark gives a certificate, we have to accept it so long as Denmark will accept our certificate.
– All maritime Powers entered into a mutual arrangement to provide for safety of life at sea. It is not possible for us to legislate effectively on the assumption that the authorities in other countries will fake their certificates. If such a thing should happen, the Minister has full power under our Act to order a complete survey. If he is to be lax in the performance of his duties, I do not know how that can be overcome by legislation. The remedy for that is not to pass a new Act, but to get a new Minister. If this amendment is not agreed to, what we shall do will be to say that we are prepared to accept the lesser certificate of survey, while we are not willing to accept the greater and more comprehensive certificate under section 204, which covers matters that are not covered by the ordinary certificate of survey at all. I trust that the Committee will accept the amendment.
Proposed new clause agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That the following new clause be inserted to follow clause 3 : - “ 3a. Section 41 of the principal Act is amended by inserting in sub-section I, after paragraph(b), the following words : - or
as shipwright or ship’s carpenter who has not served an apprenticeship as shipwright, or three years at sea as ship’s carpenter.’ “
Section amended - 41. (1) No seaman shall be rated -
as “greaser” who has not served six months as fireman at sea, or
as “fireman” who has not served six months as a trimmer or fireman at sea…..
Clause 46 verbally amended and agreed to as amended.
Bill reported with amendments.
Senate adjourned at 12.47 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 December 1914, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1914/19141204_senate_6_75/>.