6th Parliament · 1st Session
The President took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 3942
– I desire, by leave, to make a personal explanation. Yesterday, in discussing the Supply Bill, a difference of opinion arose -between Senator Russell and myself as to my rendering of - a statement which I had assumed he had made. He objected to my interpretation, and in conformity with a direction from the Chair I withdrew it. I have since looked through the Hansard proof, and whilst yesterday I withdrew my remark in conformity with the request of the Chairman, I now do so absolutely. I find, curiously, that there is no reference in the report to the statement which Senator Russell made, either in the form in which he rendered it or in the form in which I interpreted it. It is a curious omission; probably the Hansard reporter did not catch the remark. I accept the assurance of Senator Russell that I was incorrect. I would say, in justification, that although his statement is not reported, his affirmation later on of what he did say is reported, aa also Senator Gardiner’s reference to the statement which appears to have been omitted. However, I quite frankly and without any reservation accept Senator Russell’s statement that my interpretation of his utterance was incorrect.
page 3943
The following papers were presented : -
Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway- Report of the Engineer-in-Chief on allegations in the West Australian newspaper.
Lands Acquisition Act 1906 - Land acquired under, at -
Brisbane, Queensland - For Meteorological purposes.
Gnowangerup, Western Australia - For
Postal purposes.
Guildford, New South Wales- For Postal purposes.
Somerton, near Glenelg, South Australia - For Defence purposes.
Wynnum, Queensland - For Postal “purposes.
Papua - Ordinance No. 1 of 1915 - Supplementary Appropriation (No. 1) 1914-15.
Patents granted in favour of residents of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
Small Arms Factory, Lithgow - Report by the Director- General of Public Works, New South Wales, re Second Shift.
page 3943
Supply of Candle Tins: Fitting of Transports : Sale of Goods in Camp.
– Has the Minister of Defence yet received a report regarding the supply of candle tins in Western Australia?
– No report has yet been received.
– Has the Minister of Defence any objection to laying on the table of the Senate a copy of the report by the Assistant Minister of Defence on the inquiry into the fitting of troop-ships at Brisbane?
– Does the honorable senator wish the evidence, as well as thereport, to be tabled?
– No.
– I will have pleasure in complying with the request.
asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -
– The Military Commandant reports as follows: -
page 3943
Bill read a third time.
page 3943
Debate resumed from 10th June (vide page 3875) on motion by Senator Gardiner -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
– I regret that I cannot enter so thoroughly into a commendation of this Bill as Senator Keating did, and I desire to pay my tribute to the skill with which he dealt with its provisions. It is interesting to the lay mind to observe how the legal mind sees points which, perhaps, may have been noticed by the layman without discerning the reasons for them. I admit that from the point of view of insurance companies the Bill may be regarded as an exceedingly good one. It transfers the necessity of rendering accounts from the States to the Commonwealth, and thus will save the companies an immense amount of labour. Again, instead of the companies having to give a security to each State in which they transact business, one deposit with the Commonwealth will suffice for all the States. That, from their stand-point, is undoubtedly a great advantage, and I suppose it was in regarding the measure from that stand-point that the Minister was able to characterize it as progressive. But from the stand-point of the insurer, particularly of the smaller man, the progress is very much of the crab order. It goes on one side.
– Backwards.
– Not backwards, but directly aside, it is no progress forward.
– It must be stationary.
– It is the aspiration of the Labour party to introducea national insurance scheme, and I think that it may be said of this measure, in the language of an old writer, that it “keeps the word of promise to the ear, but breaks it to the hope,” because there is nothing about national insurance in it. In fact, it does not touch the question as regards bringing it forward, in any sense. It neither makes national insurance easier nor harder. It neither facilitates the taking out of a policy, nor secures beyond what is already done a policy when it is taken out. The Minister was good enough to indicate the different points with which the measure deals. He pointed out that it covered life insurance, fire insurance, accident insurance, workmen’s compensation insurance, and so on. I have looked very carefully through the measure to discover how it deals with the question of workmen’s compensation, because the principle of insurance to-day is undoubtedly the distribution of the liabilities. The principle of workmen’s compensation renders a master liable for any accident or injury which may be suffered by an employee during the time he may’ be considered to be in the service of the master. But in order to protect himself, the master has transferred that liability to an insurance company so that the workman has to deal, not with the master, who, by law, is responsible to him, but with an entirely different entity in the shape of an insurance company. It has been said, I do not know with what truth, that a company, or a corporation, has neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be saved, and so the workman has to deal in business with one who is not linked up to him by any ties of sympathy or feeling of kindness or compassion; it reduces itself to a matter of pure business. Singularly enough, after’ honorable senators have read on the second page of the Bill, the definition of “ accident insurance business,” and “ accident policy,” they will not meet with the latter term again as it applies to workmen’s insurance until they reach the schedules, and from the fifth schedule they will discover that a company will have to make returns. We claim that most of us here are representatives of the workman, protecting his interests, or, to put it in the most conservative form, exercising care to see that his interests are not imperilled by any laxity on our part. Viewing the measure from that standpoint, I ask whether we are protecting the interests of the workmen at all in this Bill?
– We are behind the whole civilized world in that matter.
– That is so. There is no country in the civilized world today that is not more advanced in the matter of national insurance than we are in Australia. In proof of that I might give abundant quotations from books I have by me in which reference is made to the excellent systems of insurance adopted in Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden, and other countries. So far from representing any advance, the Bill before us is merely a codification of insurance laws already in force in Australia, providing at the same time for a central place where returns are to be . made. I hailed the introduction of this Bill with hope, but I have perused it with a feeling of bitter disappointment, because it seems to me that a splendid opportunity has been lost. The people will feel that the promise of the introduction of a measure for national insurance has not been fulfilled. I wanted to see an Insurance Bill that would do for insurance exactly what the Commonwealth Bank Act and the Australian note issue have done for banking. I do not think that the best friends of this Bill can say that it touches the subject of national insurance in any way at all.
– It is a poor apology for an Insurance Bill.
– I agree with the honorable senator. It deals merely with the formulas necessary .in connexion with insurance, but it affords neither the opportunity nor the means to give effect to a system of national insurance. If it is based on a review of the recommendations of the Royal Commission which dealt with the subject, I am forced to the conclusion that the Minister has been unable, or has not had the time, to obtain the information necessary for the proper drafting of such a measure. This Bill bears the impress of haste and lack of information. I say that’ in all kindness to the Minister responsible for its introduction, because he is aware that my opposition to the Bill is not a personal matter.
– Trie present Government are not responsible for the appointment of the Royal Commission.
– I admit that.
– The Minister has claimed as a merit for the Bill that it is largely founded on the report of the Commission.
– It is a very valuable report, too.
– I infer from Senator Millen’s interjection that he desires to Claim credit for any merit in the Bill because the Commission was appointed by the Government of which be was a member.
– By no means. The present Government accept the responsibility of founding the Bill on the report of the Commission. They were not bound to adopt the recommendations of the Commission.
– I am reminded in this connexion that we learn from a study of natural history that some birds lay their eggs in the nests of other birds. It seems to me that a Liberal egg has been laid in the Labour nest, and the result is the Insurance Bill now before the Senate. Compulsory insurance is imposed upon all officers of the Public Service receiving salary above a certain amount. Does it not seem to be a natural corollary that the Government should afford the Public Service the means to comply with this compulsory provision. We provide for compulsory insurance, but we have no national insurance scheme to meet it. There is no such provision in this Bill.
– And there is no such provision in any of the States.
– That is so. We have taken one step and have said that public servants must insure as one of the conditions upon which they are engaged, but we then say that there is no chance for them to insure with the Government, and they must go to private enterprise for the purpose. All that is provided for in this Bill is a form of Government supervision, the kind of supervision which the collector of agricultural statistics has over agriculture. That is to say, information is collected, tabulated, and printed. If’ that can be called supervision it might be said that the Commonwealth Statistician supervises the whole of the people of Australia. What this Bill makes provision for in this connexion might have been attained by adding to the work which Mr. Knibbs is called upon to do the collection of the information required under it. Provision is made in the measure for the appointment of a Commissioner whose business it will be to duplicate work which could be better done by the Commonwealth Statistician. It cannot be said that the subject is not important. If it is sufficiently important to justify its oversight by the Government in the way proposed by the Bill, it is important enough to justify the Government taking the whole matter under its control. It cannot be said that the matter is not urgent. All the civilized nations of the world have recognised its urgency. I might diverge for a moment to remind honorable senators that existing systems of insurance are the result of the evolution of social thought. At one time as the law stood in order to secure compensation the employee was compelled to prove that the accident by which he was injured was directly caused, or could have been prevented, by his employer. The next step was made when the onus of proof was transferred from the employee to the employer, and the latter was called upon to prove that he was not the responsible person. We have now . arrived at a stage when many of the risks connected with manufacture and trade are regarded as risks of the industry itself. It is now admitted that there are accidents incidental to the employment, in which men are engaged, and that they should be covered by the profits of the industry in just the same way as the risk from fire. I ask honorable senators to consider the provisions of this Bill, and to say whether, in view of the evolution. of thought in the world to-day, it can be regarded as a progressive measure. The only progress it makes is in the direction of the compilation of statistics. This may be useful, but it no more advances legislation on the subject of insurance than the cash register advances the sales it records. It is claimed that the Bill is framed on the lines of English and American legislation, but England has gone very much further than we have in this direction. This measure is largely drawn from the provisions of the English Act of 1903 or 1904, but there is a much later Act of the Imperial Parliament than that dealing with the subject. I refer to the Compulsory Insurance Act of 1911. There is no comparison between the bare twigs of this measure, which give no promise of fruit, and the provisions of the Compulsory Insurance Act passed in the Imperial Parliament in 1911. The word “ progressive “ cannot, be applied to this Bill at all. Another Act upon which this measure has been founded is an Act passed in Queensland fourteen years ago. It appears to me that the Minister has been studying ancient history for progress in the preparation of this Bill.
– It is not a bad experience to go by.
– No; but seeing that the world moves, and does not stand still, it is much behind the times to look to records of 1901 for inspiration for the present day. A vast deal of progress has been made since that time.
– We cannot afford to despise the experience of the- past.
– I grant that, but we cannot afford to .stand still. When there are enactments much more progressive they should be considered, and . their provisions, if desirable, copied. If it was necessary for the Minister to look for inspiration to the Queensland Act of 1901 and the Imperial Act of 1903 or 1904. it was equally binding upon him to consider the legislation of New Zealand or the legislation of Great Britain of 1911. One can only feel that this measure is somewhat musty, and it certainly requires revision. I refuse to believe that the task is too great. 1 believe the Minister and his colleagues are quite able to frame an up-to-date measure, and I trust that, in his reply, he will indicate when that will be done. He said in his second-reading speech that, before national insurance was introduced, the foundations would have to be laid deep. If so, this Bill is not the one that we want, for it certainly lays no deep foundations. An entirely different measure will have to be introduced when national insurance is brought forward. The information before us, even including that furnished by the Commission, is very scanty. It scarcely touches the question. A little consideration will show how wide a matter is national insurance, which would overlap many existing Statutes. If it provided payment for disablement or sickness it would immediately touch the friendly societies, .and would either relieve them or imperil their existence. If it provided for payments at death, or for disablement continuing into old age, it would affect our old-age pensions scheme. If it provided, as the English Act does, for maternity allowances, it would at once duplicate the present maternity grant machinery. All this only shows how carefully the subject should be studied, and how necessary it is to search for information before we begin to lay deep and -broad the foundations of a great national insurance scheme.
– There are no such foundations in this Bill.
– True; it can scarcely be called a foundation. It is built upon a very shifting surface, and will have to be altered to meet the altering conditions as the different businesses transacted by insurance societies extend. The impression conveyed to me is that there has been a lack of information, a haste to put the Bill forward, and general superficiality in the treatment of the subject. It seems to be forgotten that the demand of the people is that this Parliament shall go forward with no faltering steps. Only recently it has again been affirmed by the. representatives of those who send us here that national insurance shall be a part of the platform of the Labour party, not for ornament, hut for use. If we are not prepared to materialize their ideas, the sooner we give place to those who will, the better for those who send us here. All that we are doing now is to create a flimsy measure - a mere ramshackle building instead of a noble superstructure from which those who follow after us should receive shelter and many benefits. Insurance has done an immense amount of good to the world, and it cannot be gainsaid that it can be better carried out by the nation itself than by parts of the nation. I firmly believe that the people should take into their own hands the means and power to use this great weapon for good. Under national insurance the risks are more widely spread, the means of carrying on the work are better, and a great deal of waste is saved. As I said, we have a mandate on the subject, and must obey it, or give place to others who will. None suffers more than the worker. None is more helpless under suffering, none more defenceless, and none a more easy prey to the unscrupulous. We are the chosen defenders of the worker. Is this the way we discharge our trust?
– Surely there is no allegation that any insurance companies in Australia are preying upon the workers ?
Senator -de Largie. - They prey much more on the workers than on the rich classes in regard to insurance.
– But they are nearly all mutual companies.
– They charge the worker about double what they charge the rich man for insurance.
– My answer to Senator Bakhap is -
How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds Makes ill deeds done !
Competition, it is said, i3 the life of trade, and competing societies will take advantage of existing conditions. Later on, I will show how this is done, and the extent to which it is done. I am making no allegations against societies that exist in Australia. I neither defend nor accuse them.
– But you” were talking about the worker being preyed upon in connexion with insurance.
– The Minister himself pointed out, in connexion with industrial insurance, that the amounts collected in premiums are more than double what it should be necessary to pay for the privileges granted, and the persons who usually insure under the industrial provisions are the working classes, who pay so’ much per week.
– On the timepayment principle, which is always expensive.
– As the honorable senator admits, the extra expense falls on those who are forced to use the timepayment system, just as the poor who have to buy in small quantities have to pay more than the rich, who can buy in large quantities. A man who has to pay weekly premiums has to pay more in proportion than a man who can afford to pay his premiums quarterly, half-yearly, or yearly.
– I quoted figures in my second-reading speech to prove that the workers pay 20s. in order to get 6s. 8d. worth of insurance.
– It cannot be said that they are preyed upon, seeing that the system is one of mutual benefit. It is merely that certain circumstances in connexion with industrial insurance demand those charges.
– That is the fault of the system that private enterprise has been following. In almost any street during the day will be seen six or eight bakers’ carts, and until recently six or eight butchers’ carts, and greengrocers’ carts, and milk carts; but in that street there is only one post-office letter delivery. The waste of private enterprise would more than double the privileges that’ could be granted under the premiums paid to life insurance societies. The Workmen’s Compensation Acts have opened up a wider field for insurance than was ever contemplated previous to their inception; hence, perhaps, the demand for tabulation and publicity. These, no doubt, are useful to the student and the political economist, but they are a poor protection for the toiler, especially if he is maimed in the battle of life. There is also a difference between the benefits given under workmen’s compensation and industrial insurance. Accident insurance and accident insurance policies are defined, and industrial insurance and industrial policies are defined also; but my complaint is that, while occasionally industrial insurance is treated in the Bill, accident insurance is not dealt with. It, therefore, seems as though the framers of this Bill had intentionally left all the provisions regarding workmen’s compensation ho the States. I am speaking only from the layman’s point of view, and was waiting anxiously to hear what Senator Keating had to say on that point. A definite and distinct statement on the point is very necessary, because we should certainly know whether the advantages provided in the Workmen’s Compensation Acts of the different States come under the purview of this Bill, and whether, when the Bill becomes an Act, they will be secured. But the very fact that they have been pushed aside in the framing of the measure seems to me to prove that they are not intended to be covered by the measure at all.
– I do not think they are affected by the Bill in any way.
– That is another proof that the Bill is not wide enough.
– I agree with Senator de Largie, that they are not affected by any of the provisions of the Bill.
– Then, in framing the measure, it has, apparently, been found necessary to make special provision against the burning of houses, but not against the maiming of a man’s limbs, or the destruction of his life ! There is a careful definition of what a cover-note means, but it is not thought necessary to make any provision for a workman’s wife and family after he is taken from them !
– I think the State of Victoria will effect insurances under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
– I know each State has an Act, and New Zealand has a specially-created Eire and Life Department.
– In at least two States there is partial accident insurance - that is, among the coal miners.
– All this information is coming to us from the experience of individual senators. We should have had it placed before us when the measure was tabled. On such a vital question as this, we should have been furnished with all possible information. The Bill is entitled “ A Bill for an Act relating to insurance.” As a matter of fact, it has very little to do with insurance, but a great deal to do with insurance companies. The major portion of it is devoted to setting out what insurance companies may do, and what they may not do. I admit that the provision relating to the determination of the age of a proponent on the receipt of his first payment in. the second year’s currency of his policy is a very wise one.
– Clause 76 settles the age question?
– Yes. Another point to- which I desire to direct the attention of the Minister is that if the proponent has a dispute with an insurance company as to proof of age, he will be obliged, under this Bill, to submit that proof either to the Supreme Court in the State in which he resides, or to the High Court. Now, ought any proponent to be subjected to the .expense .of taking his case to either of those tribunals? Is it reasonable to expect him to do so ? Under this measure the penalties recoverable from an insurance society, and which range from £50 to £2,000, are recoverable in a Court of competent jurisdiction - a much inferior tribunal. There is just as much necessity for protecting the insured as the insurer. In this connexion I propose to quote from a book written by Mr. George Money, entitled Things that Matter, under the chapter “The Breaking of a Man.’” The writer instances a case in which B B was employed by an ironfounder. He was covered by an insurance company against the risks of his employment. He was fifty-two years of age, and had the misfortune to get an eye cut out by a piece of steel while at work. The injured eye had to be removed on 11th August. On 15th October the insurance company wrote to the solicitor of B B, saying that he was fit to work. An independent medical man said he was not, and that he ought not to attempt to work in his then condition. There were three persons who could testify to this fact - the man himself, his solicitor, and his physician. They contended that the insured was unfit to resume his usual occupation, and that he could not return to his old work as a moulder, especially as he had been ‘doing very fine and delicate work. On 15th January, the insurance company applied to the Court for a reduction in the amount of compensation payable to him. The case was adjourned until 12th March, and B B in the meantime was to experiment -as to whether or not he could do his old work. But he was not allowed to return to his old shop, or to carry molten metal, and he was only given work such as was performed by apprentices. Under these circumstances it could not be truthfully urged that he was able to return to his work, and that compensation was not due to him. After the adjournment, the case was resumed, with the result that the payments were reduced from 17s. 6d. to 4s. per week. Thus the insured received only 4s. per week as compensation for the loss of an eye, after payments had been made of 17s. 6d. per week, extending over a period of seven months. In addition, he had to defray his lawyer’s costs, which amounted to £6 6s., and also those of the insurance company. In the following October - that is to say, a little more than twelve months from the date of his injury - the company threatened to apply to the Court to have the payment of 4s. per week discontinued. But it offered to compound with him by paying him a lump sum of £20, and volunteered - if he would give it a clean discharge - to grant him £10 towards his expenses. Needless to say he accepted the offer in order to save his home. He was thus thrown out of employment without receiving any compensation, and the insurance company gained considerably as the result of its lawsuit. That similar methods are followed by some insurance companies I have no doubt, and it merely serves once more to recall the quotation -
How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds Makes ill deeds done !
– Was that company a proprietary one, as are most insurance companies in the United Kingdom?
– It was not a Government insurance company. It may have been a proprietary company. There are insurance stock companies doing business in Australia.
– In a very small way.
– There are many such institutions in Australia. The Scottish Provident Society is one of them.
– Nearly all purely Australian societies are mutual societies.
– But there are others. However, that does not affect my argument. It is admitted that people who pay only small premiums are required to pay insurance societies very much more than they would otherwise pay, and also that they frequently have their rights whittled away.
– If a man pays his premium quarterly instead of annually he is naturally charged something extra.
– One reason is that when an annual premium is paid in advance, the insurance company gets the use of that money for the whole twelve months. The life of the insured is covered for that time, even though death may occur during the first month of it. T3ut if the premiums were payable quarterly, and death occurred during the first quarter, the remaining premiums for that year would not be called up, and the company would not have the use of the money. .It is a matter of finance pure and simple. I have already pointed out that, although accident insurance business “ is defined in the Bill, as is also “ accident policy,” no mention is subsequently made of either of these terms. The measure does not contain a single word between the definition clause and the schedules in regard to these very important matters. That is exceedingly curious. I feel that the Bill is anaemic in character, and a starveling in substance. Instead of being possessed of strength and manliness, it has run to .seed in the way of mere schedules.
– It is designed to .supersede the various State laws by a Commonwealth law. That is its main principle.
– The fact remains that, although fourteen years have elapsed since the passing of the Queensland measure upon which the Bill is founded, it affords no indication of progress, notwithstanding that in regard to insurance legislation all other countries have made great advances. It has hitherto been our custom to pride ourselves upon leading other nations. But in a measure which is submitted for our consideration in 1915 we are asked to follow the lead which was given us in 1901. As a representative of the Commonwealth, I want something more Australian in its nature, in its bold outlook, in its comprehensiveness and usefulness, than this Bill offers. It cannot be urged that a scheme of national insurance is not required. The most highly educated nations in the world have found it necessary- to incorporate in their laws a system of national insurance.
– To what countries is the honorable senator referring?
– To England, Germany, Austria, France Italy, and Switzerland. I should only weary honorable senators if I were to quote the provisions relating to this matter which are operative in those countries. But I will be pleased to supply any honorable senator who so desires with the titles of the book? in which those provisions can be found. I say that the Bill lags behind the legislation which has been enacted in other countries. Even in little New Zealand a comparatively up-to-date system of insurance is in operation, both in regard to fire and life. Yet we are without either. Such a condition of things might be pardonable if the States had not federated, but under existing conditions it is unpardonable. The scheme which is incorporated in this Bill is one of shreds and patches. It exhibits no statesmanship. No attempt has .been made to deal with a scheme of national insurance. If we have not the information we should seek to get it. If the datum is not at hand, it is our duty to procure it. It is not our duty, for one moment longer than necessary, to delay bringing in a measure that will be of such vast importance to the nation, and’ particularly to the working population of Australia. It may be argued, of course, that insurance is being well done by other societies, and that, there is no need for the State to step in. I quite expected to hear honorable senators on my right blessing the measure. I judged that they would pronounce their benediction upon it. I listened to Senator Millen and heard him “ cooing like a sucking dove.” There was not a word of complaint about the Bill, and not even a suggestion that it had any deficiencies or displayed any signs of restricted vision. There was no suggestion that it was anything but exactly what was needed. Senator Keating went through it as a lawyer, and while his criticisms were exceedingly good, nevertheless, according to his view there were very few, if any, deficiencies in the measure, which practically received his benediction. I have no doubt that the Minister feels delighted with the attitude of the Opposition, and is pleased with the Bill, but I am opposing it because I believe it is not the measure the Senate needs.
– It will not interfere with such a measure if it is brought on later. It is a necessary Bill, even if we do introduce the legislation you speak of.
– We must have a unifying and codifying measure.
– That argument has been heard before; I take that argument and thank the honorable senator for it; but I say it would be better if we had not simply a codifying Bill, but a Bill providing for national insurance in the one measure. Whilst it may be claimed that good work has been done by insurance societies, I want to point out that, in the case of a national insurance society of the Commonwealth, its securities would be infinitely greater. We know that a good deal of the money that is paid into insurance societies has to be reserved for the special benefits that are guaranteed under the laws of the society; but, if we have a national scheme, the Commonwealth will be able to use -the money just as to-day it uses the deposits of the National Savings Bank. It would be a source of revenue to the Commonwealth, revenue which today is largely dispersed amongst private societies. These are matters that we certainly should look at. Then there is the advantage that a good deal of the mechanism necessary for a national scheme is already in existence in our Savings Bank branches and Post Office branches throughout the Commonwealth.
They could be utilized for insurance purposes just as they are used for other purposes to-day.
– It would be just as easy to conduct the insurance scheme through those agencies as it is to pay the old-age pensions.
– Yes; so that we really have the means at our disposal if we have the spirit to undertake the work that is demanded of us.
– Was not this system tried in England”?
– My answer is that, while it was tried in England, it was also tried on the Continent, and it has proved successful there.
– It was not successful in England, was it? senation SENIOR. - Perhaps that was because the scheme was not properly approached, but I know that it is being successfully worked on the Continent through the agency of the post-offices. In the case of industrial insurance, stamps are procured from the post-offices and cancelled by the post-office officials in very much the same way as the penny Savings Bank system is carried out. The whole thing seems to be perfectly feasible. If there are difficulties, they can be overcome by minds that are intent upon overcoming them. In this matter, as in most others, the old adage, “ Where there’s a will there’s a way,” holds good. We ought to have a will in this matter.
– We have a Bill.
– Yes, a Bill of a character.
– This scheme would take the place of the compensation law, would it not?
– If the honorable senator had been present while I was speaking earlier on this subject, he would have observed that I referred to the pos- “ sibility of overlapping, and the necessity to exercise care. The proposal would have to be well considered, and all the latest data should be secured for its preparation. The subject is urgent. I suppose, in Australia, there are more persons insured in some form or another than anywhere else in the world*, except, perhaps, where compulsory insurance exists. The business man feels that he cannot afford the risk of uninsurance. When two men enter into a partnership’, an insurance policy is taken out to cover the death of one or other of them, so that the business may be protected. Professional men also feel that they have too much to lose by uninsurance, and so, right through the whole list, we find insurance is favoured. The worker is least of all provided for, and he ought to have the best provision, for we know that the toll of death in the ranks of labour is far heavier than in any other walk of life. We have only to take up a list to find that the risk of death or injury in railway work is very great. Likewise in the mining industry the risks are considerable. In fact, some of these occupations are almost; as deadly as the battle-field itself. The risks are as many as in a great war, yet we are content to pass a. measure which, on the statement of one of its critics, neither includes nor affects workmen’s compensation’. It behoves us to. make provision in every sense for that; We know that the- life- and health of the toiler is the best asset of the nation,, and on the common ground of humanity we should be failing in our duty did we not do our best to provide for the better protection of the worker. Such a measure as national insurance would be ‘in harmony with the great social movements of the age. To delay would be to re-enact the folly of a nation entering the’ battle-field without sufficient munitions of war.. Insurance is the modern method of spreading liabilities in the best- way over the widest area and the longest time. National tabulation aswe find it in this. Bill leaves, the real issue where it was before.’ There- has’ been no advance at- all, so that once more I say I cannot call this measure progressive in any sense whatever. Let us look at the position in regard to the- case. I quoted. The workman, probably but poorly educated and ill-informed as to his. true position legally, had to pit his. case against anexpert member of the insurance society, against a doctor feed by the society, and against a solicitor- employed by the society, whose sole interest it was; to reduce the amount that the man should receive. If any honorable- senator will compute-,, say, for twenty years-, -what the- reduction1 of compensation at 5s. a. week amounts- to,. he> will see that it. would cover, and morethan cover, what would be the cost of a case of that kind. Who- gains ? The insurance society; Who loses? The man who can least afford to lose.
– He might havebeen paying for years, and thought that he- was- quite secure.
– Under a compulsory insurance scheme this would be provided against. Under the Act I refer to, the 1911 Compulsory Insurance Act of Great Britain, it is provided that, in a case where a workman receives less than 2s. 6d. per day, the master pays 4d. and the employee 3d., or a total of 7d. per week.
– And the Government pays 2d.
– Not in the case of a man getting 2s. 6d. per day. Where the wages -do not exceed 2s. per- day the payment is. divided, up, - 3d. being paid by the master, 3d., by the* employee, and Id. by the- Government. 0Where the- wages, received do not exceed Is. 6d. per day the employer pays the whole, with the- exception of 2d., which is paid by the Government,, but the employee’s benefits are safeguarded. In a national, scheme’ we shall have to make provision, or, at least, have to take into consideration measures similar to that. Here is another, point that I would like honorable senators to consider with regard to the contingencies under the workmen’s compensation, and dealing with, companies. A company, before taking risks, may exclude from its acceptance a workman whois growing old. When the’ master presents a. list the company will, say, “ What are- the- ages of your men ? Here is a man. - Jim Jones - who is– between forty and forty-five- years of age. We cannot take him unless; you agree to pay a higher premium.” That is a very serious position for a workman to be put -in. If his risk is not to be covered- by an, insurance company, and his master will’ not- undertake- it; what is likely -to happen? The- easiest way out of the difficulty, for the> master will be -to discover that business is growing, slack, or that the main is very slow, and cannot be retained. So; with his life uncovered, and with unemployment, staring- him’ in the face, the man will be forced out until he becomes one of those who are dependent on the charity of society. That- is a risk to be considered’. Again, there- is another risk which’ will loom up before the: eyes of a keen business man and a shrewd society. The1 society will discover that Jim Smith received’ an ‘injury at such a time, and contested his claim, in order to get his legal rights. The society will say to the master, “Jim Smith’s name appears on the list for insurance. Jim Smith must not be accepted, because he is on our black list. We know that he contested his claim.” It will be seen, I think, that there are dangers looming up, and as legislators we should not shut our eyes to the possibility of their occurrence. It is all very well to be charitable, as my honorable friend was when he said that this thing will not be done. We know that it can be done. We know, too, that provision should be made to prevent anything of the kind. There is another matter of which we must not lose sight, and that is that many small employers do not insure their labour, but take a risk; and if an employee gets injured at his work, it is useless for him to go to law because the employer is a mere man of straw. But, under a system of national insurance, every master, however small he was, would be compelled to insure his labour, and the workman would be secured in the rights he had. Obviously, if an employer is insured in a company, the latter will endeavour to reduce the claim of a man almost to vanishing point. The man who paid the premium is not the person .with whom the company deals. It deals, not with the master who paid over the money, but ‘with the unfortunate employee .who is injured. Hence, it does’ not feel that there will be any loss of business by the claimant pushing the case. The company does not wish to know the claimant. Its medical man and its solicitor are feed by the office, and we can suppose, without doing any injustice to them, that, in order to maintain their position, they are biased in that direction. By law a liability has been created in the matter of workmen’s compensation, and Parliament has compelled the employer to seek relief and insurance because there are so many elements of uncertainty to be faced. For instance, there is the uncertainty of intervals, as well as the uncertainty of duration. It will be realized by honorable senators how impossible it is for a workman or an employer to foresee what intervals there may be between claims; so that he cannot calculate the amount as he can calculate his rent or his premium for fire insurance. Therefore, in order to protect himself, he feels that those uncertainties must be taken into account.
Then, too, he does not know what may be the duration of a claim. Obviously, he is compelled to rush to an insurance society, just as he is obliged to go - to a fire insurance office. Having a place of business which he desires to cover for a large sum, he has a portion of the liability undertaken by other offices, so as to spread the risk in that way. It will be seen how by legislation we have created a liability, but made no provision for meeting it. In short, the liability is transferred from the master to an insurance company, and a claimant has to deal with the company, not with the master. It is a curious thing that while we compel a man to insure we make no provision for his insurance, and force the weak and the unfortunate to do battle with the strong. Entrenched behind the barbed-wire entanglements of the law’s delays and uncertainty, how can we expect the widow of, say, a builder’s labourer to know where she stands in law? What wonder is it that the tempting bait of a lump sum should compel such persons to sell their birthright just as one. of old sold his birthright for a mess of pottage f What wonder is it if an insurance company, seeing an opportunity, and feeling that there is no business to be lost by the act, offers that temptation ! Can we blame those who are tempted in such circumstances if they fall? The blame will lie with us as the legislators for Australia if we do not put it beyond the power of an insurance company to do anything which is wrong to those who are weak and helpless’. I .have no commendation to offer the Bill, seeing that it falls infinitely short of the necessities of the position. Obviously, insurance could be achieved at a very much cheaper rate than it is to-day if it were done nationally. Let us reflect on the subject for a moment. Look at the palatial1 offices which have been erected all over the States; look at the multiplicity of directors that there are all over the States; look at the manifold number cf agents who are paid to look after this business. In this measure we are asked to perpetrate the self-same thing as we have done with milk, meat, bread, and even cabbages. We are compelling these men to tumble over each other in their search for business, and in their attention to us, when the whole work couldbe systematized in such a way that in- surance would not cost nearly as much to the man who has to pay the premium, and better privileges and better conditions could be guaranteed to a claimant.
– Even the “ Huns “ know better than we do how to deal with this subject.
– I have gone very carefully through the different systems of insurance which obtain on the Continent of Europe. America is not so advanced in that regard as Europe is, and I find that we may well sit at the feet of the “ Huns,” towards whom we feel anything but kindly, to learn what national insurance means. The Germans have achieved far more than we have done in this connexion. This Bill means waste right through, and, relatively speaking, excessive premiums. Further, it means less benefits and more danger of expense in lawsuits. The purpose of the Bill seems to be to search into the solvency of the companies which are doing business, and with this it may be said to exhaust itself. It looks for the greatest solvency, otherwise it would not require the lodging of deposits with the Commonwealth. The greatest solvency can be secured with a national scheme. Yet the Bill blinks its eye, so to speak, to where true solvency can be obtained, and endeavours to manufacture solvency. Let us consider what the Bill means in another way. Since it was introduced I have received from a friend in a sister State a letter telling me that in Australia there exists to-day a number of mutual insurance societies which might be called trade insurance societies, small in their orbit, but useful in their character, possessing not even so much as one-tenth of the amount which the Minister requires to be deposited with the Commonwealth, yet covering, and amply covering, as shown by actuarial tests, the benefits which are promised. Where will those societies be when the Bill becomes law? Persons will be compelled to go and do business with the Equitable Life Assurance Society or the Australian Mutual Provident Society, or some other large society. We who have claimed and paraded our boast throughout Australia that we are not in favour of monopolies are asked now to create a monopoly, unless, of course, we are prepared to take up the business of national life assurance: From beginning to end the measure needs to be looked into very carefully. In his speech, the Minister said -
It is one of those useful measures which will confer a great benefit on many persons in the community. . . It will be a distinct gain, -
Will honorable senators notice the closing words of the sentence - particularly to insurance companies transacting business in Australia.
– Hear, hear; I repeat the statement.
– 2 looked forward to the introduction of a useful measure, which would confer a great benefit, and be a distinct gain to the maimed and the wounded, to the widows and the orphans of the toilers of Australia. I am far more concerned about those persons than I am about insurance companies. The latter can look after themselves. I have had no sad experience with them, but I have learned, so far, that they require all that they ask from a person, that it is they who estimate the amount to be paid on any claim, and that the insurer is simply a silent partner in a bargain.
– We have also a record of having done something useful for the class to which the honorable senator refers.
– The Government have done something useful for those who can look after themselves.
– Little as you may appreciate the Bill, the people outside do.
– The people outside who will appreciate the measure will be the directors, the managers, and the proprietors of the different insurance companies in Australia.
– You said that for the widows and the maimed we had done nothing. Before we started to deal with insurance companies we did something for those persons, do not forget that.
– Only for a portion of those who should be covered by national assurance. I am glad that I have got the Minister to speak at last. He puts up this claim : Because we have done so and so for the widows and the orphans, therefore we are permitted to neglect the wounded and the maimed.
– I said that we did something for them first.
– Is this the position, that because we have done something for the widows, therefore we may neglect the toilers of Australia?
– You are trying to put us in the position of having overlooked them, and I say that it is not a fair thing to do.
– The Minister will admit, I think, that the Bill does nothing for the widow or the toiler.
– The Bill is introduced for a useful purpose.
– It would be just as correct to say if you brought in a Bill to create a new system of defence, that it would serve a useful purpose, but ,it would not be useful for insurance. This measure may be useful to the insurance companies, but its usefulness to insurers will be very small indeed, or my conception of it is very weak. Where do the workers come in? Can the Minister indicate one point where they come in? Will they gain a farthing under the measure? Is their compensation extended one week by its provisions? Does it sweep in a single man who otherwise would be left out? Does it beneficially affect one soul in Australia except indirectly through the insurance offices ? Does it not benefit the latter immensely?
– It puts the whole question of insurance, now in the hands of the States, in the hands of a Parliament elected by the people themselves.
– I am not contending that it does not.
– The honorable senator is contending that the Bill is not progressive. ‘ Senator SENIOR. - I contend that there is a gain to the insurance offices, but no guarantee that it will be transferred to the persons insured.
– Senator Keating explained that under the Bill the lawyers will be able to follow the insurance law more easily.
– That is so, because I grant that the law as it is at present is somewhat complicated. A definition clause and a schedule can hardly be said to afford any benefit to the man who meets with an accident. But that is all that is provided for such, a man by this Bill. Is that all the solace which the VicePresident of the Executive Council has to offer such people? That is the only advantage he proposes for them. Is that all the honorable senator proposes for the man who is stricken down in his toil? Is that the ultimate conception of a Labour party that has put national insurance on its platform - a definition clause and a schedule? We are clever people, my masters, if we can solve national questions by creating a schedule, and meet great liabilities with a definition clause. Is this question some political nettle which we must handle gingerly? Should we not, rather, grasp ‘it with a firm hand ? If we have not the necessary information to deal with the subject, let us go to school until we get it. I do not care what course Ministers adopt to secure the information required, whether it be the appointment of a Select Committee, as suggested by Senator de Largie, or the appointment of a Royal Commission. The question is too vital, too urgent, and too far-reaching to be overlooked in the way it is in this Bill. This measure may be useful to those who are carrying on business in palatial offices, and who plead their cause very often against the interests of the weak and the unfortunate, but it will be of no use to the weak and unfortunate. I am sent here for the sole purpose of championing their cause, and I believe it . is one that needs champions. Towards the close of his address, the VicePresident of the Executive Council made this strange admission -
There are no special provisions relating to accident and other insurance business.
What are the general provisions of the Bill ? First of all, a society must obtain a licence. Then it must appoint a representative in the Commonwealth with plenary powers. Is that going to benefit the sick workman ? In the next place, a society is compelled to lodge a deposit of an amount so high that henceforth no new. societies can start business here unless they have very considerable capital behind them. Then a society must furnish periodical, returns; and further - and this is the only provision which will touch the . person insured, though it will not benefit the class of people for whom I have been speaking - a society must submit its policy proposals to the Commissioner for approval. The Minister styles this a progressive measure, but if we contrast it with the Imperial Act of 1911 we shall find that it can scarcely lay claim to any such title. It does not secure to any person a tittle of extra benefit in coin or in kind. Let us glance hastily at the provisions of the Imperial measure. It includes every person under contract of service or apprenticeship, male or female, over sixteen years of age; whether a British-born subject or an alien ; whether working in a factory, a mill, a store, a mine, or a ship; whether working as an inside or outside worker; so that even the poor woman who takes out work to do at her own home is included. It also includes domestics.
– What are the contributions required?
– The total contribution is 7d. per week, made up of 3d. by the master, 3d. by the employee, and Id. by the Government. There are two classes excluded from the Act - Teachers working under a superannuation scheme, because it is considered’ that such a scheme covers their insurance, and clerks of companies who have adequate benefits provided by the company, and, further, commission agents who are working on commission for companies. The scale of contribution is moderate, and the benefits guaranteed are substantial and varied. Let us consider the benefits secured by this small contribution under the Imperial Act. The medical benefits include treatment, medicine, medical and surgical appliances, as may be prescribed by regulation ; treatment in a sanatorium for diseases such as consumption, tubercular affections generally, and so on. Then provision is made for periodical payments whilst an insured person is incapable of work as the result of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement. Notice is required to he given of the disease or disablement. Provision is also made for the payment of a maternity grant, not in a lump sum, as our allowance is paid out, but in a different form. When our political opponents raised the cry, as they did throughout Australia, that our maternity allowance was audacious, wicked, and criminal, they were not aware that we were following somewhat lamely the example set by other nations.
– They do not complain of the maternity allowance now.
– No, they do not. The Imperial Act also provides for medical attendance and treatment for the dependants wholly or partially of an in sured person. That is to say, if a young man is insured, his mother, if dependent upon him, is given the benefit of medical attendance and treatment, although she might be over the age prescribed in the Act for insurance. Then provision is made for the payment in whole or in part of the cost of dental treatment. What would our friends the Opposition say if we introduced a proposal of that kind ? Would they not stump the Commonwealth to direct attention to the absurdity of the Labour party introducing a measure for attending to a man’s teeth V
– The Labour Government in New South Wales are already doing that in the schools.
– In South Australia similar provision is made, a lady doctor having been appointed to ‘ go through the schools and attend to that matter.
– That was first started in Tasmania.
– Then a cheer is due to little Tasmania because of that. There is provision in the Imperial Act for the extension of benefits to dependants of minors and in the case of married men where there are children dependent. Payment is made of a disablement allowance to members not wholly incapable of work, and for an increase of the maternity benefits where that is considered necessary. Superannuation payments to members are provided . for in addition to old-age pensions. Then there may be payments to superannuated families in which a member may be interested before he is compelled to insure. Provision is made for payment to members in want or distress, or in arrears in the matter of contributions owing to unemployment. Payments are made to members for personal use who, because they are inmates of an asylum or a hospital, are not in receipt of sick benefits. There is provision also for the repayment in whole or in part of contributions payable under the first part of the Act. The benefits are at the rate of 10s. per week for males, and 7s. 6d. for females for twenty-six weeks. Where disablement continues beyond that period the payment is 5s. per week. Only a careful perusal of the Act will show how broad and humanitarian its provisions are. Humanitarian as we, no doubt, are in Australia, we do not consider it necessary that the landlord should come beneath the lash of the law, because the houses he lets may be responsible for sickness amongst his tenants. But if honorable senators will turn to section 62 of the Imperial Act, to which I have been referring, they will find that where an epidemic of diphtheria, scarlatina, or infectious disease of that kind may be due to insanitary conditions controllable by a council, or controllable by a landlord, the national insurance benefits come into force. A landlord who lets insanitary buildings to tenants may be dealt with under that section. The argument may be used that we have but a small population in Australia, and are but feeble folk. It may be granted that the United Kingdom is much more densely populated than is Australia, but surely it will not be contended that we should wait until our 5,000,000 of population are multiplied nine times before we pass progressive and beneficial legislation.
– The small nations of Europe are best insured.
– The population of Switzerland is very much smaller than that of Germany, but the provisions of the Swiss insurance law are quite equal to those of Germany.
– There is also Norway.
– Insurance in Norway is partly compulsory and partly voluntary, but it is wholly compulsory in Great Britain and Germany to-day. A controlling power over insurance is very much needed. We require something more than tabulation and supervision. There is one provision under which the Vice-President of the Executive Council may, perhaps, be disposed to shelter Kimself. The Bill sets out that the Commissioner shall have power to ask questions. I am reminded by this of Rose Dartle, a character in one of Dickens’ works, who had the right to ask questions. I was not aware that it required an Act of Parliament to empower a Commissioner to ask questions; but we live and learn. This great national scheme absolutely gives power to a Commissioner yet to be appointed to ask questions. In the language of a very old writer -
No doubt but ye are the people; and wisdom shall die with you, for, lo and behold, from this time forward a Commissioner of Insurance will be able to ask questions !
– And it also provides that the societies may be heard.
– Between the two provisions we ought really to have arrived at the solution of this great problem. It is many years ago that the principle of issuing licences to cut timber was brought into operation, but I have yet to learn that it has succeeded in reafforesting our country. I have yet to .learn also that the issue of licences is all that is necessary to create a great national scheme of insurance. It may be something like a milestone, which tells you how far you have gone, but does not help YOU to travel. The tabulation of results, as I have said, may be useful to political economists and students, but will not be very helpful to us in solving: the problem as a whole. From a rejoinder by the Minister to an interjection of mine, I learn that this measure is what he calls foundation work. He also said that, irrespective of whether an insurance scheme was national or not. the foundations on which it was based would have to be laid deep. If he had said that this was a Bill preliminary to a national scheme, he would have led me to very much tone down my remarks.
– I should have been sorry for that.
– I am glad to know that I have been able to help the Minister to rejoice in some degree. He apparently has been in the happy position of being able to draw commendation from one side and pleasure from the other. Considering the average duration, of a life policy, and the fact that the insured has probably put more thought into the matter than the beneficiaries will, and that when he has crossed the great divide, and leaves a widow not so well able to transact business, and children dependent upon the provision he has made, there should have been in the Bill something more than the formulation of a vast number of schedules to protect those left behind. Whilst the schedules ought not to have been omitted, a great deal more should certainly have been done. There is too much in the schedules of tithing “ mint and anise and cummin,” and too little of the “weightier matters of the law.” The grain of insurance is omitted, while the husks are included. I hope I have awakened in the minds of those who have honoured me by listening to me, sufficient thought to delay the passage of the Bill until we have made such provision as will enable us to tell our electors that the National Parliament of Australia is at last committed to a national insurance scheme. Until we have taken some steps to bring that much-to-be-desired end within our reach, we shall not have done the duty that we owe to the’ people who sent’ us here.
.- I wish to express my appreciation of the intensely, interesting and illuminating address that we have heard from Senator Senior, who has evidently paid great attention to this important subject. Insurance is, undoubtedly, of supreme importance, and the honorable senator ‘has shown us that there is more in it than many of us previously thought. The importance of insurance is shown by the way in which it has spread, and the many and varied forms of risk covered. I would define insurance in its purest form as the spreading of the burdens or losses that accrue from misfortune or calamity over the widest possible area, so that when they do come they are hardly perceptible owing to their being o widely distributed. It follows, therefore, that I must be in favour of national insurance. A scheme of national insurance will cover, or very nearly cover, the whole area of the people. The nearer we get to that the nearer we approach our ideal. While in some cases insurance, so far as we are acquainted with it, has been a boon, it has also been a curse. This is to some extent proved by Senator Senior’s reference to the enormous expenditure incurred in connexion with industrial insurance. I have known of many oases where people have been grievously injured through apparently very small defects in the policy or description in connexion with insurance. Some companies have taken advantage of very trivial misdescriptions, but I am happy to say that this Bill removes that danger, so that while Senator Senior has condemned the Bill root and stump, my criticism will not be quite so severe. While I am strongly in favour of a national system of insurance, I yet think there is something in the Bill that we might adopt. It is a protection to insurers, and in some cases to smaller companies, although there is room for im provement in that regard, and it will certainly offer some greater protection than now exists to those who use industrial insurance. One has only to think of the many hazardous callings in which men are exposed to serious risks to realize the necessity for some kind of national insurance. It is, or ought, to be, a boon. It means spreading the risk over a bigger area, but the very small remuneration received by some of our people makes them totally unable to take advantage of the insurance facilities available. I could take honorable senators to a mine where from the beginning of the year to the end the men do not average £2 a week. I could show them seamen who in many cases receive -as little as 30s. a month in pay. I have known vessels trading out of Launceston on which the seamen were paid 30s. a month.
– How long ago? ‘
– Not more than five years ago. The pay on English vessels until very recently was only £2 10s. a month.
– They are giving Chinese firemen £8 and £8 10s. a month now on vessels in the Home country.
– If so, they are doing better than we are. These low rates of pay render many portions of our industrial community unable to take advantage of the facilities to insure against possible risk.
– You can safely say that very few of them can make the provision they would like to make.
– When I was younger I was unable to make the provision I should have liked to make, and that is the case with nearly all those engaged in industrial occupations. If we have any concern for the welfare of the masses of the people, we must strive for a system which will bring insurance within the reach of all, and spread the burdens arising from calamity or misfortune over the whole of the people. There are, however, some good things in the Bill. I wish to refer briefly to the difference .between some insurance concerns and others. Some work purely on the cooperative or mutual principle. I am not so seriously antagonistic to them, because they pay no dividends to proprietors. Tn a great many cases in this country, the societies are mutual, and the profits are all returned to the policy holders, less the cost of maintenance, and I am glad to say that in many of the bier societies the maintenance cost is exceedingly small. I am not sure that if we established Government insurance in that direction we should do very much towards reducing the premiums. It would, perhaps, be a good thing to establish Government competition with the existing companies, so as to keep them within reasonable limits, within which they might not otherwise be disposed to stay.
– There is not much difference between the premiums charged by the Government and private companies in New Zealand for life assurance.
– There is a great difference in the fire insurance rates in that country, as is proved by the fact that some years ago nearly half the insurances there were effected in the Government office. That proportion has enormously increased since, and I should not be surprised to learn that to-day the great bulk of fire insurance in New Zealand is done by the Government. The private offices are in that case largely proprietary.
– The New Zealand Government was able to reduce the fire insurance premiums by 33i per cent.
– They were not able to effect such a reduction in life assurance.
– There is a good deal of truth in the honorable senator’s contention. We must tackle the question, from a national point of view, so that the burden may not be felt very materially by any individual.
Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.
– When the sitting was suspended, I was about to remark that the Vice-President of the Executive Council had supplied us with some figures from Sydney Webb. I have taken those figures, and from them have endeavoured to calculate the average amount of the industrial, insurance policies in force in Great Britain. It pans out at) about £10 per policy. I have also attempted’ to ascertain how much each policy-holder is paying for his £10 policy. I find that it works out at about 10s. per annum. In other words, these industrial policyholders are paying 10s. annually for a policy of £10. Having arrived at this conclusion, my thoughts naturally turned to a similar method of insurance through the medium of friendly societies. For a payment of 8s. 8d. per annum, a society to which I belong, and of which I was secretary for some years, is accustomed to confer a benefit of £45 upon the death of a member, and to undertake a further liability of £15 upon the death of his wife. That is to say, this society, for a smaller premium, undertakes a liability of £60, as against the £10 liability which is undertaken in England. I admit that this is merely a rough comparison, because, in many respects, the conditions that obtain in friendly societies differ from those that obtain under industrial insurance.
– To which society is the honorable senator referring?
– To the Independent Order of Rechabites. The contribution to that society for a funeral benefit is only 8s. 8d. per year.
– But a man has to be a member of it for a good many years before he is entitled to that benefit.
– After a membership of fifteen years, he secures the benefit to which I have referred.
– At what age has he to enter the society?
– Under the old tables, he was eligible to join it up to thirty-nine years of age, and to obtain that benefit. That condition of affairs, however, does not prevail to-day. I am speaking of the old system under which, till recent years, many friendly societies worked. To-day a man, upon joining the organization I have mentioned at thirty-nine years of age, would be required to pay about double the amount I have indicated.
– The honorable senator has been referring to members who join the society before they are twenty-one years of age?
– Yes.
– Then the honorable senator’s comparison is not a fair one.
– I admit that it is not strictly a fair one. I have already said that it is merely a rough comparison.
– Why was the previous scale of payments discontinued?
– Because it was found to be unscientific.
– Actuarially unsound 1
– Yes: Obviously it is not fair to charge an individual who joins the society at nineteen years of age the same rate as a man who joins it- at thirty-nine years of age. This leads me to suggest that friendly societies are in reality insurance societies. It would be a most intricate task to frame an Insurance Bill which would absolutely meet the conditions of friendly societies. But that is evidently what Senator Senior had in his mind when he was speaking to-day. It is because of this intricacy that I strongly approve of the sentiments .expressed by Senator de Largie in regard to the wisdom of remitting this question for investigation either to a Select Committee or a Royal Commission. It is a matter of supreme importance, and one in. which the whole community is interested. Unless we sift its details to the very bottom, we shall not secure ah insurance system which will be suitable to our needs. I unhesitatingly affirm that, in Australia, we should have a national system of insurance. But I wish to utter a word of warning against interfering with the benefits that are conferred by friendly societies without very careful consideration. I am aware that the national system of insurance which is operative in Great Britain has seriously injured friendly societies there, whose members constitute a large portion of the community. I do not know what are the figures in respect to Australia, but from the report of the Tasmanian Statistician, I gather that in that State the membership of those societies constitutes one-third of its male population. Almost absolutely, the national system of insurance in Great Britain is condemned by friendly societies, and, consequently, I am in favour of a searching investigation being conducted into this question either by a Royal Commission or a Select Committee befo’re we lay down the basis of any such system. Various figures have been submitted by the VicePresident of the Executive Council with a view to showing the cost of industrial insurance. Prom- those figures, it appears that the cost of management represents from 47 per cent, to 50 per cent, of the income derived from it. That ought not to be. If we adopted a system of national insurance, we could utilize the Post Office and other Government institutions, thus materially reducing that cost, and thereby conferring upon the policy holders a corresponding advantage. One has merely to keep his eyes open to observe that to-day quite a. number of men follow canvassing for life- insurance- societies as a .calling. They go from door to door, and they frequently induce simpleminded women to take out policies because of the alluring prospects which they hold out to them. This Bill will materially alter that condition of things, because, under it, every insurance society in the. Commonwealth will be required to have an office in each State, and to make a- deposit as a guarantee to its policyholders. I agree with Senator Senior that the* term “ reasonable and just/’ which is used in the provision relating to this matter, is a very vague one-.
– Who is to determine what is. “ reasonable and just “ ?
– Exactly.
– The Commissioner will determine it, and the company will have an appeal to the Court.
– At any rate, the position is not too clear at present. It reminds me of an experience I had in the Tasmanian Parliament, where, on one occasion, an honorable member moved an amendment affirming that some particular proceeding should be a “ reasonable “ one. Thereupon, another honorable member jocularly moved the addition of the words “ or should appear to be so.” The provision, in its present form, is very indefinite, and I hope that we shall improve it. Under the Bill, it seems to me that one uniform deposit will be demanded of all insurance companies irrespective of their size, from a business stand-point. I am aware that provision is made that if the lodging of the deposit presses unduly on any company, the Commissioner may permit it to make a smaller deposit. But assuming that the amount provided for in the Bill is the sum which is necessary to guarantee the depositors in one company, it is obvious that a smaller sum should suffice to guarantee the depositors in another company, which has, perhaps, only one-fiftieth part of its responsibility at stake. Yet, under this measure, both companies will have to provide the same deposit.
– That is an act of grace, and not of law.
– Quite 80. I can readily conceive that such a provision will press harshly upon societies which have not long embarked upon insurance business. In the city in which I live, there is a society which is endeavouring to transact the local business, but unless it obtains a concession under the terms of the latter portion of the clause, it will have to dispose of its business to a large company. That is one of the dangers which I foresee. If, under this Bill, the smaller societies will be absorbed by the larger ones, it will be assisting to establish monopolies. As a matter of fact, I know that quite a number of large English societies are buying out the smaller Australian societies. Doubtless, that is what Senator Keating had in his mind when he referred to the provision relating to amalgamation and to societies continuing to operate under the old name.
– But where the larger institutions are not buying out the smaller ones, is there not an “ honorable understanding ‘ ‘ t
– There may be. The fact is that large British societies, recognising that the business is a lucrative one, are buying out the smaller Australian societies.
– Is the honorable senator referring to life or fire insurance societies ?
– To fire insurance societies. The shareholders in the smaller societies are being very well paid, too. They are being paid for their shares considerably more than those shares cost them. They pay the market rate, which is more than the initial cost to the shareholder. I see here a danger of forcing the small companies to sell out to the larger companies, which by combining would become a sort of monopoly in fire insurance in Australia. I think we ought to be very careful that we do not help in anything of this kind. It is desirable when Australian money is invested in societies of this kind that the profit should be retained in the Commonwealth. I have a great deal of sympathy for the smaller societies that have been forced to sell, so to speak, to the larger companies, and, personally, I am not going to lend any hand to crush the small societies or force them into the hands of the bigger concerns. These are nearly all British companies, and they send their dividends to shareholders in England. I know that to-day thousands of pounds go out of the various States to the Old Country as dividends from profits on Australian ven tures of this kind. It is true that new societies starting subsequently have the provision that they are required to provide a deposit of only £2,000. I had an interview with one of the managers of a small society recently on this subject. He was greatly concerned about the position of his society as to whether it would have to provide a deposit “of £20,000. I assured him of the provision at the end of the clause, and he seemed to be more or less satisfied.
– The largeness of the deposit seems to express the policy of the Act, although there is provision for its reduction.
– There are one or two provisions that strike me as being very desirable. For instance, clause 29 makes provision as to the responsibility -for lost securities. If we are going to be fair, when we take securities from any society, whether large or small, we must be responsible for those securities while they are in our custody. That is simple honesty. Another good thing about the Bill is that returns have to be provided from industrial societies. These returns will be tabulated, and I have no doubt that the Commissioner from these data will be able to devise a standard rate of premiums. I think I mentioned a moment or two ago that these standard rates must be observed, and that any society failing to do so would be subject to certain pains and penalties. This will be some protection to the policy-holders. Then I notice there is to be an actuarial investigation each three years, the result of which will be in the hands of the Commissioner, who will thus be able to submit a standard rate for the premiums. There is also provision for lost policies.
– What chance would the Commissioner or the Actuary have of checking the loan money of the society, and the securities held by the society for such loans?
– Does not the Bill provide that details must be given of the working of the society?
– I do not think so.
– Then how could there be an actuarial investigation each three years ?
– The society’s actuary would do that.
– If I understand the provisions aright all these details must be handed to the Commissioner.
– He can ask questions.
– My impression from the reading of the Bill was that a society had to furnish all the details to the Commissioner; but the latter was not necessarily compelled to disclose them. These are the details upon which the rates will be based. I am glad to know there is a clause providing that if a society accepts a premium for the second year this will be regarded as an acceptance of the age of the policy-holder.
– If a society accepts portion of a second year’s premium it will also be an acknowledgment of age.
– Just so. I have heard of cases in which men had insured, had given their age, and because, after a lapse of time, there was no birth certificate attached to the policies, the policy-holders had difficulty in getting the money paid at the due date of the policies.
– Very many claims were ruled out because of only a slight error in the age.
– I am reminded of the fact that I myself, although not a neglectful man, took out a policy thirty years ago, but I have not yet attached to it a certificate of my age. It is one of those things we omit to do, knowing that we can get a certificate at any time; but possibly something happens accidentally, and the policy is presented without a birth certificate attached.
– You admit, then, that it is due to your own negligence?
– Yes, and I submit this case to show how common it is, and the necessity for putting a clause like this into the Bill, so that any society accepting a premium during a second year, or portion of it,- necessarily accepts the age of the policy-holder.
– The question of proof may be difficult in the case of persons coming from the other States or from countries beyond Australia.
– Yes, that is a difficulty. I have no desire to take up the time of the - Senate further, but I want to say that I am not altogether satisfied with this Bill. We want a national Insurance Bill - one that will deal with all the varied classes of risks that are covered by the different insurance companies. We want, I think, some Commission or Select Committee of men who have had some dealings with the various kinds of industrial insurance, friendly societies, workmen’s compensation cases, and insurance societies to advise on the preparation of the measure, which should be very carefully drafted, being based on the facts elicited and the experiences gained by such a body. I do not know whether the Government intend to go on with this Bill.
– Yes.
– If the Government are going on with it, I will support the measure, although I would have preferred to have seen introduced a much more comprehensive Bill, and I hope it w:ill not be long before we get one that will meet all the requirements of the time and the wants of the people generally.
Debate (on motion by Senator Ready) adjourned.
page 3961
Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Thursday next.
page 3961
Small Arms Factory: Second Shift - Manufacture of Munitions - HansardProof - Export of Coal.
Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed - That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MILLEN (New South Wales) [2.55]. - I want to take advantage of this, opportunity to bring under the notice of the Minister and the’ Senate generally the position that confronts us in connexion with the second shift at Lithgow as the result of the reports which were tables yesterday and to-day. I am to some extent under an obligation to the Minister for having agreed to the adjournment at a somewhat earlier hour and for having had. the opportunity to peruse the second report, which was laid on the table to-day. The position is this: We have been anticipating that as the result of this promised second shift there would be within a reasonable period some increase in the output at the factory, but after a careful perusal of that report I feel there is little justification for the s’tatement that we will get a single additional rifle under three or four months from the present time. That, I venture to say, is a disappointment to us; I think it is also a great reflection upon the resources of Australia, to- assume that we cannot so organize matters: there that we can hope for some increase in the output in some shorter period than that. The report tabled yesterday and the one presented to-day both agree, in recommending the same procedure. I do not want to place anything but the correct meaning upon the recommendation of these gentlemen. Let me, therefore, direct attention to the reports themselves. In the report tabled yesterday it was stated: -
If it is decided to introduce the second shift, which the Committee thinks is desirable, it is recommended -
– I refer to the Special Committee which was appointed to inquire into this matter, consisting of Mr. Davis, Director-General of Works in New South Wales, Colonel Dangar, Major Harding, and Mr. Ferguson, manager of the Newport Workshops. These gentlemen in their report made this recommendation -
If it is decided to introduce the second shift, which the Committee thinks is desirable, it is recommended that the management be forthwith instructed to make a commencement, in the instruction of the required extra personnel by a gradual levelling up of the existing trained staff for. .the leading and important positions, and at the same time by engaging further employees to strengthen up the existing staff.
Mr. Davis was not able to visit the factory at the same time as his confreres, so he submitted an independent report in which he recommended -
The plan that is proposed is to engage workmen, and for a short period, until this second set has become acquainted with the machines, they should be allowed to assist, the machinists at present using the machines. Thereafter when they have made themselves acquainted with the’ details of the work, a second shift could be started. Until this time has arrived, however, in order to keep up the present output, it would ba inadvisable to alter the hours - long as they are - as by so doing the object which is, I understand, in view, would be defeated. It is proposed,. therefore, that steps be immediately taken to engage additional men, and, for the time being, those machines, where the pressure exists, should be double-banked. But; as. soon as the new men gain experience the works, where necessary, should be run the sixteen hours per diem. At first sight this may appear extravagant, but it must be remembered that the new men must serve an apprenticeship- in order to gain experience, and if they are- put to- work machines by themselves, they will probably dolittle and what they do would he valueless. In addition, the extra output that is now being secured by the longer time, worked, will not be forthcoming. . . By this means men would be. trained within three or four months to unable the second shift to be worked.
If we were dealing in normal times with a business proposition, the report would be unassailable. It suggests the procedure which men. with some regard to commercial conditions would, submit to the proprietary if. they were suddenly confronted with the need to produce a bigger output, but we cannot allow such considerations to operate to-day. Instead of talking to-day about taking three or four months to prepare untrained men, the correct thing to do is to ignore the commercial considerations, and draw upon the trained staffs, known to exist throughout Australia. I venture to say that if instead of taking three or four months to get ready for a second shift, instead of bothering to train untrained men, the Government appeal to the trained -mechanics in the Eveleigh and Newport workshops’* and other large engineering establishments in the Commonwealth; if instead, of giving “ ordinary labourers,” if I may use the term in contradistinction to “skilled men,.” three or four months’ training, and putting them at this inferior work, that is, inferior in the sense of. being less skilled, the Government place superior workmen there, they can have a second shift in operation in a fortnight. The position is too serious to allow us to follow a procedure which I admit would be the correct one in time of peace. Much as we may by censors try to stop news being circulated throughout Australia, every newspaper which comes from Home tells us that lives are being lost because of the want of a sufficiency of munitions at the front. In only today’s newspaper we find a statement headed, “Lost days mean lost lives,” and covering this a statement by an officer returning from the- front -
It ought to be publicly announced broadcast that every slack, wasted day in the factories, means so many lives. If the Government and public men generally spoke the whole truth there would be much less difficulty in getting recruits and munitions.
That applies equally to a slack day at the Government factory at Lithgow as it does to a message addressed to the workers of England. It is immaterial! in the result whether it comes from slack workers or slack machinery or slack management. I wish to make it clear to” honorable senators that the only’ thing which can stand in the way of instituting a double shift at Lithgow within a very reasonable time - and I say that a fortnight is ample - is the simple question : Whether the Minister will take trained engineers, and pay them the wages of trained engineers, or engage cheaper labour and take three or four months to train them. There is the alternative which confronts the Minister. I may be met by this inquiry. “Is it not to be assumed that the gentlemen who made this report were aware of the urgency of the matter? Would they not have considered this alternative?” I certainly think that they ought to have done so, but there is sufficient evidence in the report to show that they did not, and I am not at all certain that they were invited - it does seem to me to be a large matter of policy in which the Government should have given a lead - to report as to the practicability of establishing a second shift. They have said that it is possible, and recommended how it should be done; but I suggest to the Minister that he should put this question to his own Committee: “Under your proposal it would take three or four months before we could get an additional rifle. If, ignoring all commercial considerations, and taking advantage of that very fine offer of the State Premiers to make available their staffs for the purposes of the Commonwealth, and regardless of the financial considerations you were free to try all the mechanical skill in Australia, could you not install a second shift in a much shorter period?” there is a number of honorable senators here who know a great more about the engineering establishments and skill of Australia than I do, but I venture to say that there is not one of them who will dispute this contention, that from either of the workshops I named just now, and from a multiplicity of private establishments in the Commonwealth, the Government could obtain engineers capable of working any machines in the Small Arms Factory. A man who has been trained to the use of a turret lathe is not likely to find himself at sea when he is asked to work comparatively simple automatic machines at Lithgow. Is this a time to stop and take untrained men? According to this report, it is proposed to work twelve hours, double-banking the machines. Let the authorities work the Factory with two shifts of trained men, and then with the untrained men doublebanking them, we could in the course of a short time have three shifts fully at work. I ask the Minister and honorable senators to recognise that we have passed the stage when we can be content with saying that we are bound to win. We have reached the stage at which we have to say to ourselves, ‘ ‘ If we want to . win we have to utilize every ounce of energy we possess, every atom of skill in the community, and every piece of machinery capable of administering to the needs of the Army.” We have lost many months over this matter. In this report there 33 evidence which goes to prove that, but for the peculiar attitude taken up by the manager of the Small Arms Factory, it would have been possible to have done months ago what it says can be done today. I would remind the Minister before he commits himself to an unbending attitude, that previously he followed the advice of his own officers, and his own action recently shows that the advice was not well founded.
– I do not admit that. These Committees say that the advice was well founded.
– Let us see what the Committee do say. Mr. Davis has once and for all put to the Minister a proposition* and I shall be glad to know what the Minister proposes to do, and that is that Mr. Wright should be at once removed. Does the Minister intend- to follow that advice? Mr. Davis gives his reasons in the following language: -
After a long conversation with Mr. Wright, it is obvious that it is impracticable to expect much help from him, seeing that he is likely to sever his connexion with the works at an early date, and especially in his present disturbed state of mind. It is abundantly clear that owing to circumstances with which I am altogether unacquainted, he is greatly upset, and although he evidently thoroughly understands his business, and has got a comprehensive grip in detail of the work, he would be, as before stated, of little use except to assist some other responsible person in inaugurating the change. I therefore strongly advise that the new arrangement as regards management should be brought into being at once.
Mr. Wright has proved all through the chief obstacle to the introduction of a second shift. Nothing was done, in spiteof the attempt made by this Committeeto throw a sort of cloak over his action. The fact remains that up to the last moment Mr. Wright reported that a second shift was impracticable. Only so- lately as the visits of the two Parliamentary Committees to the Factory, Mr. Wright insisted that a second shift could not be established, and the Minister, following his advice, took up that attitude; but it needed the driving force of public opinion to bring about a change. I make this statement in order that the Minister may see that there are times when even his official advisers are wrong, and a responsibility rests on him to brush them on one side. No one will dispute to-day that had action been taken with regard to a second shift, in other words, had Mr. Wright been overridden six months ago, we should now have been better off than we are. I do not wish to unduly detain honorable senators, but I desire to point out that we are in an altogether invidious position. There are in Australia to-day empty homes asking what we are going to do to bring the war to a speedy termination. There are in Australia many aching hearts wanting to know what Australia is doing in order to reinforce and thoroughly equip the men who are fighting side by side with their sons. We have to give an answer, and it is not sufficient to say that we can in three or four months increase the number of rifles when there is an expedient, more costly I admit, by which it could be done within a fortnight. With every desire to assist the Government in its efforts, I invite the Minister to put a simple question to the members of his Committee, and that is whether it is not possible by departing from their proposal, and taking already trained engineers, to establish a second shift within a fortnight. Mr. Davis makes reference to one other matter - a thing so trivial in itself that it only indicates that his mind is not yet seized with the urgency of the problem he had to deal with. He mentions the difficulty about housing the men. Are we stopping the sending of troops to the front because of the difficulty of housing them ? It is, to my mind, a trifle to talk about the difficulty of housing for a limited period the additional staff we will have to place at Lithgow. I venture to say that the townspeople will make accommodation for newcomers, but if that is not possible, surely we have not lost all resource; we are not so helpless a community that we could not utilize public halls and make temporary quarters. Even if it comes to the worst, I venture to say the Govern- ment has only to appeal to the patriotism of the workers of Australia, to ask them, as a temporary expedient, to submit to what their brothers are doing, and to take shelter in tents for the time being. There need be no difficulty on that score. The one difficulty I see in the matter is a tendency on the part of all Departments, and generally of Ministers, to follow the recommendation of their advisers, and to feel bound to support and defend them. This matter is too serious, I submit, for the Minister of Defence to follow that generally recognised track. The position is a very simple one, and it is : Can we save this valuable period of* three months by availing ourselves ‘ of the skilled labour which has already been offered? I am very confident that it could .be done. I did not venture to make a _ statement of this kind as a layman without having buttressed myself with the opinions of those competent to advise. I have it on the authority of leading engineers, both in New South Wales and in this State, that there will be absolutely, no difficulty in obtaining the necessary men, who could walk into the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow, and in a few hours could run the machines as efficiently as the men whom it is proposed to take three or four months to train ; indeed, better still, because they are already trained. I feel a great reluctance to say a word as to the want of initiative which has marked the conduct of the Defence Department, but the matter is too serious to enable us to consider the sensibilities of ‘anybody. We have to recognise that outside its ordinary military duties - I do not wish to say a single word in that direction - the Defence Department, both here and in the Old Country, has been woefully lacking in initiative. It has not been the Department itself at Home which has brought about the changed front, but it has been the driving force of public opinion, that had to absolutely insist upon things being done which ought to have been done long before, but which the ‘Defence Department was not doing. One of the biggest influences hampering the Minister of Defence is the inability of the ordinary military officer, outside his military duties, to grapple with business problems. This is a business problem pure and simple. The Minister will probably not admit it, but he knows as well as I do that there is a strong conservative preju- dice in the Defence Department against embarking upon any fresh lines. There is, in addition, a strong prejudice against having anything to do with outside enterprises and people.
– That is not singular to the Defence Department.
– I am dealing now with the Defence Department alone. There is a strong disinclination to take advantage of the services of private institutions, or of any person who is not controlled by the Department, or does not come within the four corners of its regulations. These are things which must unconsciously warp the judgment of the officers called upon to advise the Minister. But we are speaking at a time when the safety of the Empire trembles in the balance. The Minister must shake himself free from these influences, and should insist on a plain and simple answer to the question I have submitted. There are available many persons quite competent to advise in this matter. I do not wish to say a word about the personality of the Committee I have referred to, but we must recollect that .one .member of it, who was not an official, was associated with three who are officials, and had to depend largely upon such information as he could obtain from Mr. Wright. That did not place him in the best position to get a clear view of the case. If the Minister will seek the opinion of Mr. Ferguson, or the engineers at Eveleigh, or his own engineers at Cockatoo Island, I feel certain he will learn that, if the ordinary business procedure recommended by the Committee be set aside, it will be possible to have a second shift going at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory in a fortnight. I have finished with that subject now, but I take advantage of the motion, in justice .to the Hansard staff, to refer again to the matter I brought under the notice of the Senate this morning. What I quoted from was the original proof of my remarks, and I find that when it was corrected for the permanent record, it was not open to the suggestion that Hansard had been careless in the matter. Had I seen the permanent proof, I should not have found it necessary to make the statement I made this morning.
– I rose at the same moment as Senator Millen to say a- few words on the subject he has raised. I do not intend my remarks to be taken as a criticism on the action of the Minister, but rather on the action of his advisers. I have been connected with machinery all my life, and I know the application of a machine to its work when I see it. I have seen the machines at Lithgow. -I may inform honorable senators that machinery has been invented by engineers in Australia, at Cockatoo Island, that will cut down to the three-thousandth part of an inch. Surely that is fine enough for anything ! Machines have been invented there which are not used in any other part of the world, and there are men employed there who have had a life-long experience of fine cutting machinery. I visited Cockatoo Island a week or two ago for the express purpose of finding out whether the services of any of the men there might be utilized at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory, and I was told that they could go into that factory, and work any of the machines there. A number of the men at present employed at the Lithgow Factory graduated from shops outside, and they picked up the working of the machines there in a very short time. The gravity of the situation is such as to justify us in asking the Minister of Defence to get up a little more steam, and see that a second shift is instituted at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory. The people of Lithgow recently held a meeting, at which they agreed to find accommodation for as many additional men as might be required for the purpose. The Engineers’ Society is prepared to send men into the Factory to work the machines, and I do not see why these offers could not be accepted. Yesterday I mentioned a shop at Randwick, the machinery of which could be utilized for the purpose of providing munitions of war. To-day. I received the following letter from a gentleman who is entitled to offer an expert opinion on the matter: - “ Lansdown,” New-street, Brighton, 10th June, 1915.
I note a report in the Argus of even date of a statement made by you in the Senate yesterday regarding a factory at Randwick, New South Wales, which might, with advantage, be utilized by the Government for the manufacture of arms and ammunition. Further, I note a statement by the Minister of Defence regarding shells. He stated that the “ difficulty seemed to be, .not in the manufacture of the shells themselves, but in the manufacture of the fuses.” I desire to draw your attention to the following important facts bearing upon the above statements : -
The mechanism of time and percussion fuses consists of accurately machined parts, principally in gun-metal, a copper tin alloy, and certain small parts of steel.
To procure these in quantity and to take necessary degree of accuracy requires the services of “ turret lathes,” or of almost similar screw-making machines, and of accurate presses.
The works referred to by you are preeminently equipped for such work, possessing, as they do, firstly, three very fine screwmaking machines and a full range of highest class power presses.
Using these machines it would be possible, without employing much “high-grade” labour, to turn out a large quantity of parts for fuses or any other accurately dimensioned parts of arms or ammunition.
I am able to speak with authority on this matter, as I spent some time at the works in question, having been sent over from Melbourne to attend to the interests of the gentlemen who were financing the concern, and being a fully-trained mechanical and electrical engineer who has spent many years engaged in the production of instruments and apparatus of the highest degree of accuracy.
I trust that you will find the above information of use in impressing on the Government the great possibility of assisting the Mother Country in providing munitions.
If I can be of any assistance to you please do not fail to call upon me for any further information in this matter, or in any technical capacity.
Yours faithfully,
I could not speak of the machinery of this establishment in the way in which Mr. Joseph has referred to it, but I knew that it was there. It was imported for the purpose of making the very intricate mechanical parts of the apparatus necessary for wireless telegraphy. Unfortunately, sufficient work of the kind was not available for the firm to keep the plant in full work. I am within the mark when I say that, to-day, 150 young fellows, who served their time in this place, have had to seek work elsewhere, and their services could be secured on the shortest possible notice. They are trained men, and could work the machines in the Lithgow Small Arms Factory. We have been told that one of the difficulties in the way of the establishment of the second shift there was the lack of a sufficient supply of material, but I believe that that difficulty has now been removed. I say that it is the duty of the Government to do all they can in this matter to assist the Mother Country, as Mr. Joseph has said in his letter. I go so far as to say that we should commandeer any premises of this description in which it is possible to manufacture parts of rifles, fuses, or anything necessary for the production of shells. We should go so far as to utilize the services of every mechanic we can secure. We have plenty in our own workshops, and have some of the finest machinery in the world. Work is turned out at Cockatoo Island that would be a credit to any establishment, and would compare favorably with the work done in any part of the world. Having the men, the machinery, and the material, I do not see why the Government should not get to work quickly. There is no occasion to train men for the machines at Lithgow. There may be one or two machines for which trained men are necessary, but the majority of the men who have served their time in a workshop that can turn out machinery that will cut down to the threethousandth part of an inch could, in a single day, work the machines necessary for the manufacture of small arms.
– Scarcely a day has passed since the Senate met this session without some reference being made, and properly made, to the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow, and to its operations during the time the war has been in progress. Although immediately after the outbreak of the war a curtain was drawn around Germany, we have learned,, from time to time, of the efforts which have been made to supply munitions of war. All the efforts which have so far been put forward have failed to expedite the production of rifles at Lithgow, beyond what can be produced by a twelve hours’ shift. I took advantage of the first opportunity that offered to pay a visit to that Factory, and it did not appear to me that great difficulty would confront any engineer in handling any of the machines I saw there. Most of them are automatic in their action, and do not require a great deal of attention from the mechanics in charge of them. So far, we have not had the output that might have been secured from that Factory. The reason has not been disclosed. We were told, in a sort of way. that there was a lack of material, and of trained men.
– There is no shortage of material.
– Not now; but there was a shortage.
– There has not been a shortage of material for some time.
– Why did not the honorable ‘ senator lay in a reserve of material when he had the power ?
– There was no shortage of material to prevent a second shift being established.
– Yes, there was.
– There was always more material there than the factory could work up.
– There was not sufficient .material at one time for two shifts.
– Senator Millen had twelve months in which to put on a second shift.
– I had only one month of the war.
– Order 1
– I find from the report of the Public Works Committee, of the 27th May, that- in regard to material, it was ascertained in evidence Chat the ‘factory has sufficient steel in hand and on the water to enable it to double its output for twelve months without exhausting its stock, by which time the agents who supply the steel are sanguine that -further supplies can be obtained.
It is evident from that that there is no difficulty about the supply of steel.
– There was not at the time that report -was written. That steel was obtained because of the shortage.
– The report says that there is sufficient steel in hand.
– There is now.
– What is the date of the Committee’s report?
– The 27th May.
– At that date Mr. Wright was still reporting that a second shift was not possible.
– Yes; but for other reasons. Previous to that the want of material was one of the reasons.
– There is no lack of timber required for the rifles, and there is certainly no lack of men. It has been a complete puzzle to me to know why a second shift was not put on.
– There is a lack of skilled section leaders.
– It may be due to that, or to other causes, which have not been made public.
– And should not be made public.
– So far as publicity is concerned, it appears to me that whatever care we may take to keep matters of this kind from the knowledge of the enemy, they will get the information all the same. I may mention that the other day Mr. Knibbs showed me a map of Australia which he purchased in Berlin when, he was there as an Education Commissioner ten or twelve years ago, and a better map could not have been obtained here or in Great Britain. That is typical of the work the Germans have done. -They had access practically to everything in the Commonwealth prior to the outbreak of the war. It is time the Defence Department recognised that it is of no use to attempt to hide defects of this kind. I do not consider that we are paying half enough attention to the war. If I had my way all legislation except that of the most vital importance would be discontinued, and the attention of Parliament would be directed exclusively to the war.
– But they want to shut up Parliament.
– I do not, but I would deal only with matters of the most vital and pressing character. If we do everything else, and fail to do our partin this war, we shall have done nothing. It should be the aim of the Defence Department to leave nothing undone. I do not find fault with them, nor do I .say that they are not doing all they possibly can. I recognise the immensity of the work they have done in enrolling nearly 100,000 men, and providing them with munitions and equipment; but this Parliament and Government .should devote every ounce of their attention to the war now in progress in Europe, .and particularly to the output of arms .and ammunition. They should call in all the expert evidence available, call together the employers and workmen., and get .the very last ounce out of them.
– What is the good of calling them in if no one will take any notice of .them ?
– I think notice will be taken of them. Mr. Lloyd George recently addressed a meeting of 4,000 manufacturers of arms in Birmingham, and no doubt other meetings of the same kind were afterwards held. Nothing is being left undone in the Old Country to secure the greatest possible output of munitions. The British Government were, no doubt, slow to move, as they always are. It take3 then some months, if not years, of war, before they are fully prepared. We, on our part, ought to try to move a little quicker. I am glad that Senator Millen has brought this matter up. I do not want to do any injustice to Mr. Wright, the manager of the Factory, who, I believe, thoroughly understands the business, but I am far from satisfied with the number of rifles turned out there, and the way in which the Factory is being conducted. I am assured by competent mechanics that there should be no difficulty inequipping the Factory with competent men in a few days to run it on full time. The trouble about housing the mechanics who go to Lithgow ought not to bother us for two minutes. That is a most trivial matter. If we can send the best men in the Commonwealth to the front to put up with life in the trenches, the mechanics who are doing their work in Australia’ ought to be prepared to put up with a little inconvenience.
– Surely that is not seriously urged as a reason against the second shift?
– It was put forward as one of the difficulties by the Committee. It has not been put forward by me or the Department.
– It was put forward by Mr. Wright and Mr. Davis.
– It is absolutely ridiculous !
– It is.
– A reason- of that kind ought not to occupy our attention for more than a very limited time. I hope the Government will devise the very best means of doing our share in the conflict, and leave nothing undone to secure, not two, but three shifts at the Small Arms Factory at the earliest possible moment.
– I am reluctantly compelled to again bring under the notice of the Senate the position created in Newcastle by the restrictions on the export of coal. I have received the following letter from Mr. Flynn, the secretary of the Chamber of Commerce at Newcastle: -
You will doubtless remember having informed Mr. H. C. Langwill, on 2nd inst., that you had learned that all restrictions on the export of coal to foreign ports had been removed in the case of any such port where a British Consul was stationed. Inquiries made this day elicited the reply that up to the present neither the Collector in “Sydney, nor the Sub-Collector here, has received any advice to this effect, and the embargo still holds as before at both ports. As the matter is of great importance to this district, I am to ask that you and Mr. Watkins will kindly see the Minister of Customs or Comptroller-General as soon as possible, and get the order communicated to the Sydney and Newcastle Customs officers.
The gravity of the situation at Newcastle cannot be over-estimated. I had an assurance last week from the Minister that the embargo on the export of coal had been removed, and conveyed that information to the Newcastle Chamber of Commerce. The above letter practically declares that the embargo has not been removed. The matter calls for immediate action on the part of the Government.
– I pointed out that there were still certain tilings that had to be observed. The general embargo was removed.
– I have an assurance from the Chamber of Commerce that they are quite prepared to comply with all the conditions laid down by the Government.
– And still cannot get their coal out?
– Yes.
– Yes, they can. There was one case where they did not comply with the conditions, and what happened afterwards was their own fault. They gave the name of a firm to whom they said they were sending the coal, but on inquiry it was found that they were sending it, not to that firm, but to another firm which is on the black list.
– I would have done something more than stop their coal.
– My information is that they have not sold coal to other than accredited agents.
– In this case they gave the name of an accredited agent, and it was afterwards discovered through the Consul that it was going to another firm who were not accredited agents.
– Are they still at large ?
– Yes, subject to further inquiries.
– No blame can be attached to the shipping agents at Newcastle.
– Yes, it can.
– I have yet to learn that they are responsible. I am not here to defend any party or person who would be guilty of doing anything to aid the enemy. Notwithstanding our present adversity, we are not anxious to do anything that will interfere with the success of our arms at the front, but having received an assurance and finding that that assurance does not hold good, we feel that the matter calls for further inquiry.
– It does hold good exactly on the conditions laid down.
– If the shipping agents have not complied with the conditions, that was unknown to me. I have been assured by those at Newcastle that they have complied with the conditions, and yet are being refused permission to send their coal away. They are allowed to load the vessel on the understanding that a clearance will be given, but immediately the vessel is ready the clearance is refused.
– If later information has reached the authorities that the permission was obtained under false pretences, you cannot blame the authorities for stopping the shipment.
– Still it is due to those concerned that immediately information of the kind is available they should be made aware of it. That is the complaint that Mr. Langwill has against the Department - that the shipping agents are not being taken into the confidence of the Department to an extent which, would enable them to carry on their shipping operations.
– It might not be safe to take them into the confidence of the Department.
– It would be safe to tell them that they were not allowed to sell their coal to certain persons, instead of letting them fill their ships only to find afterwards that the ships were not allowed to leave.
– They said the coal was for a certain person. They were given permission to ship it away. Before the ship left it was found that it was not for that person at all. We are now trying to find out who was responsible.
– I have given the Committee the information I have, and the shipping agents complain that for every day the coal lies loaded at . Newcastle they have to pay demurrage, which necessarily involves them in great financial loss. This is a serious matter, and if there is a reason for the action of the Government that reason ought to be forthcoming. The shipping agents who are- engaged in bringing trade to Newcastle should be given some valid reason why the vessel which they have been engaged to load is not allowed to sail. I trust further inquiries will be made, and that the Government will do everything possible to facilitate the shipping trade of Newcastle.
– The subject introduced by Senator Millen has become a familiar one, for very good reasons. Before we adjourned last year, I quoted in this Chamber from an American magazine the nature of the organization existing in Germany at the outbreak of the war. In that country they had everything organized on a war footing, so that they knew exactly what every man had to do before the war broke out. I quoted the article to show the Senate the complete system on which Germany was working. Had we had a full and candid debate in this Parliament at the beginning of the war on the whole question of our requirements for defence purposes, it would have been far better for Australia.
– Hear, hear! There has been altogether too much secrecy.
– It would have been far better if we had spoken out quite candidly and taken the consequences. No reasonable person can understand why, at the end of ten months of war, the Small Arms Factory is still running on a single shift, in face of the cry that has been going up all over the Empire for more arms and ammunition. Months ago politicians in the Old Country were quite candid on the subject, and I do not think they are any worse off for it than we are. Politicians there did not refrain from making their views known, and I am beginning to think that we have been following quite a wrong policy in restraining ourselves in our public utterances. Any one who reads such newspapers as Reynolds’ Newspaper every week will see that prominent politicians in the Old Country have been quite outspoken as to their requirements and the duties of manufacturers and workmen towards the Empire. It would have been a good thing indeed if we had had a candid hearttoheart debate at the beginning of the war. If we had, I do not think we should have been so badly off as we are to-day.
– You never saw any statement in any English newspaper as to the output of rifles from the Enfield Factory.
– Yes, and they were working three shifts many months ago.
– They were not working two shifts until months after the outbreak of war.
– They are working three shifts now.
– They are working two shifts now.
– I can give the Minister the date of an English newspaper in which the hours worked and the wages paid are published.
– And I can give the honorable senator the contents of a cable which was received only this week.
– The time has surely arrived when we should brush aside some of the trivial excuses which have been urged why the Small Arms Factory is not being worked at -least two shifts. Just imagine the plea being put forward that there is not sufficient housing accommodation for the workers at Lithgow ! Is our climate so bad that the employees could not live in tents if need be? What about the men who go far into the interior of the continent for prospecting purposes? What about the individuals “who are engaged in opening up our agricultural districts ?
– What about the men in camps ?
– Exactly. The plea is a ridiculous one. I know that honorable senators on both sides of the Chamber hate to be under the necessity of speaking as we axe forced to speak from time to time, but the longer we refrain from criticism, the less seems to be done. The reasons for fault-finding should be removed. I have not had an opportunity of inspecting the machinery which is installed at the Small Arms Factory., but I have heard it ‘stated that sufficient material was not available to enable a second shift to be started. I venture to suggest that, with iron works established at Lithgow, it ought to be possible to produce any kind of steel there. The .Minister smiles at my remark, but I would inform him that the production of any class of steel is merely a matter of using different ores. The ores may have to be brought from Western Australia to New South Wales, or from Tasmania to New South Wales, but any kind of ore can be obtained in Australia, and, seeing that we have steel works adjacent to the Small Arms Factory, no trouble should £e experienced in getting the required class of steel. Personally, I am “ of opinion that we have given altogether too much attention to the view expressed by Mr. Wright. It would have been a good thing for us if months ago we had relegated his opinion to the background and followed a more amateurish view. I hope that -things will be speedily organized upon a different footing. I quite .recognise that the Minister has -a great load on his shoulders, but if the work is too much for one man, it might, with advantage, be shared by a number of Ministers. We know that in Great Britain one Minister - and he the greatest man in the Cabinet - has been appointed to look after munitions alone. It is time .that we adopted a similar course in Australia. The work which now falls upon the Minister of Defence might, I think, with advantage be divided. Undoubtedly the Small Arms Factory has failed to give satisfaction to the people of Australia.
– I am rather pleased that this question has been raised, because it affords me a-n opportunity of putting the case which has previously been denied me. In the first place, there is no honorable member of this Parliament who is more anxious to see a double shift worked at Lithgow than I am, and than I have been from the beginning of this war. i yield to no man - neither to Senator Millen nor to any other speaker here to-day - in my desire to see that result achieved. Further, I have evidenced that desire by practical efforts to get this question cleared up, not, as Senator Millen inferred, by relying on .the reports of my -officers, but by personal inquiry at the Factory itself - inquiry not merely of the manager and the management, but of the representatives of every union which is represented there. Before I conclude my remarks-, I intend to put before honorable senators some of their statements, so that those who have been urging in a breezy fashion that we can do this and do that may know what the men themselves working on these machines say about them. I propose to show that very early after my assumption of office I took up this matter. I communicated with Mr. Wright and informed him that I thought we should commence working a second shift at the Factory, and that this step should be taken as early as possible. He at once reported that there were certain difficulties in the way. “When it was decided to increase the amount of overtime worked at the Factory, one of the unions interested - the Amalgamated Society of Engineers - wrote protesting against the course proposed and urging the adoption of a second shift. Again I put the question to Mr. Wright, and again he reported the difficulties which existed. As evidencing that difficulty, I will read the reply which was forwarded by my direction on the 2nd December, 1914, to the union in question, and was signed by the Acting Secretary of the Department-
I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th ult., and to inform you that the desirability of working two shifts instead of overtime at the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow. was fully realized when the increased output became urgently necessary, but on going fully into the question it was found that the employment of two shifts was quite impracticable, owing to the fact that considerable time would elapse before fresh hands could turn out the necessary components in any quantity, and the ultimate result would he a serious diminution of output for some months while they were becoming proficient in their work. The manager has arranged, however, to put on as many employees as possible, and at a later date, when enough hands have been sufficiently trained, it may be practicable to divide the whole staff into two shifts.
– If the honorable senator will allow me to develop my own statement in my own way, I will leave very little untouched.
– The Minister will touch everything except the second shift.
– I will come to the second shift by-and-by. The reasons given in that communication were backed by another reason, which could not be given to that union nor to anybody else at the time. I refer to the knowledge that no reserve of material was then available for the manufacture of rifles, that there was barely sufficient material to keep the increased overtime shift working, and that, owing to the fact that the allied nations themselves were monopolizing this steel wherever it existed - and I can assure Senator de Largie that it does not grow like mushrooms, and that there are very few works which manufacture this par-, ticular class of steel - we had no hope of immediately obtaining it. We have sifted that phase of the question right down to the ground. Even England herself has had to go to other countries for this particular steel. Owing to this sudden demand, it was impossible to get supplies, because the Allies were mopping them up wherever they could be found. That condition existed until two or three months ago. It was only then that we were able to get a quantity of this steel - a sufficient quantity to insure the working of a double shift.
– Where did Eng,land go to get this steel ?
– I can tell the honorable senator, but I am not going to do so; if he wishes to know, I will tell him privately. Honorable senators have talked about secrecy being indulged in, but what would have been said of me if I had. revealed that knowledge? At that time a German fleet was in our waters. The possibility of a raid was in everybody’s mind. At that time the Germans .were engaged in a victorious advance on Paris, and an invasion of England was a possibility any day. It is all very well, now that the German fleet has disappeared from the sea, and when there is no immediate prospect of an invasion of England, for honorable senators to be wise and to exclaim, “Why did you not tell us all about this? “ I ask them to reflect upon the condition of mind in which they were at the time of which I speak. Was there any protest raised in Parliament at that period because of the secrecy which was being observed? Certainly not. Parliament unanimously approved of that secrecy. But because of that secrecy it is not to be presumed that nothing was being done. The files of the Department will reveal that everything that could be done was being done by the Department, under my direction. As the result of my reply to the union, I was requested to receive a deputation from it. I received that deputation, which was composed of representatives from the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. They forcibly urged upon me the necessity for at once inaugurating a double shift. I could not tell them about the shortage of material which existed. They pointed out that, in their opinion, the working of a double shift was a practicable proposal. As a result, I promised them that I would at the earliest opportunity - it was not an easy thing to do - visit Lithgow and personally investigate the whole question. I did so. I had before me the representatives of the whole factory. I may tell honorable senators that there are in each of the sections of that factory what are known as the charge hands - the skilled and trained men who have charge of those sections. Here is the report of the way in which I questioned them on the 19th and 20th January, 1915, on the practicability of working a second shift-
– Order ! The time has now arrived when it is incumbent on me, under our Sessional Orders, to put the question -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
If honorable Senators desire to allow the Minister to complete his reply, they will negative the question.
Question resolved in the negative.
– The report of the deputation stated -
The Minister questioned the charge hand of the assembly rooms as to how long it would take the average man to pick up the work. The answer was that all depended on the job he was on; say, from three, four, to six months. The Minister asKed the charge hand if the statement was correct which had been made to him to the effect that after twelve months a man could come up against a job that beat him. The answer was that this was quite correct? What was done in such a case? the Minister continued. The section hand replied that he lent assistance, and the Minister suggested that with a larger staff the difficulty of this necessary personal inspection might be an insurmountable problem. The charge hand agreed that this was so, and doubted if there were sufficient men in the assembly room to personally inspect two shifts.
Goodeson, representing the hardening room, said that skilled labour was required; there were not enough men at the factory now to divide up into two shifts with a proportion of untrained men: but new men could be trained on some of the jobs in time.
Mr. Butler, speaking as regards the filing department, said that a double shift was impracticable.
Mr. Brett, of the polishing department, said that his work took a life-time to study.
The majority of this deputation were rather timorous about expressing their views as to the practicability of a double shift, but nearly all thought there would be difficulties in the way, and that some time would elapse before the men could carry on properly. They were not prepared to say whether the output would suffer or not during the coaching stage.
Mr. Wright did say something definite about that to me. He said to me, ‘ ‘ If you compel m© to put on a double shift at the present juncture, the output, as the result of two shifts, will for some time be only half what I am giving you now from the one.” That is the responsibility which Mr. Wright placed upon me. “ Not only is it a fact,” he said, “ that the men you bring in will take some time before they become efficient on a particular job, but the men who are efficient will be reduced in efficiency because they will be required to give a portion of their time to the training of the men who will be introduced.”
– It was not want of material, then ?
– Yes; but I am also dealing with the reasons given by the Amalgamated Society of Engineers why the double shift could not be worked, and my investigation into that statement. I want to separate the two things. The men did not know there was a shortage of material, and there was a possibility at any time that we might be able 1o lay our hands on more material. We were cabling, and at any time a cable might advise that within a month there would be a sufficient supply of material for all requirements. Therefore, if we could get the material the double shift could be put on. Now this is what Mr. Wright had to say on the matter on 24th March -
I am strongly of the opinion that more rifles for immediate use can be obtained under the present conditions than would be obtained by the establishment of a second shift, which means a division of the present force with an equal number of employees without the training of the present force now employed. I would also point out that with the establishment of a second shift, the proportion of wastage of material would make serious inroad on the present scanty amount of material now available. °
However, I wish to assure you that every effort has been made to obtain necessary supplies, and. would inform you that advices have just been received that portions of the material ordered months ago are now on the way.
I trust this will give you the information desired.
That was Mr. Wright’s view on. the 24th March. Senator Millen takes up the attitude that skilled men - engineers - could be put into the factory, and within a fortnight they could do all that was required of them; that within a fortnight, with a double shift working, the output could be doubled.
– I did not say the output could be doubled.
– What did the honorable senator say, then?
– I said that you could increase the output. I did not assume that a double shift would necessarily mean 100 per cent, increase in the output.
– Now the position is that Senator Millen thinks that the Committee overlooked the possibility of doing that. The honorable senator says that in the Eveleigh and Newport Workshops there are men who could be put into the Lithgow factory, and, in a fortnight, they would be efficient enough to carry out the work there.
– Hear, hear !
– Now, on that Committee was Mr. Davis, the DirectorGeneral of Works in New South Wales. He knows all about Eveleigh, and there was Mr. Ferguson, the manager of the Newport Workshops, who knows all about his own factory and the capacity of his own men. Those two gentlemen do not say what Senator Millen says.
– They were thinking of it as a commercial proposition.
– These men were not unaware of the existing conditions.
– They did not seem to understand.
– Does the honorable senator mean to say that the gentlemen I have mentioned, who were suddenly called upon for a report, not by their own Government, but by another Government, and a Department which is responsible for the war preparations of this country, never read their newspapers? Is it assumed that they did not see Senator Millen’s statement about the shortage of rifles, and so on ? Does the honorable senator suggest that they had not read all about the controversy, and of the attacks on the Minister of Defence by Senator Millen and his colleagues? These men. Senator Millen would lead us to believe, were Rip Van Winkles, and had slept for a thousand years, only to [145] be awakened by the Defence Department. Does Senator Millen assume that they did not know anything about the war or the scarcity of rifles, and the necessity of providing for an increase in the supply? We have, however, to regard them as intelligent men, and those of us who have seen some of the work done at the Newport Workshops, for instance, will admit that there is magnificent machinery there. Only yesterday they presented the Department with a motor ambulance, which, in the opinion of the Imperial officer who saw it, is better than has ever been turned out for the Imperial Army itself. Therefore, we must suppose that these men do know something about the question. These are the men who were called in to advise us as to how we could work the double shift. We had decided on that long ago - long before the Public Works Committee, or the Public Accounts Committee, or any other Committee or member spoke on this question. They are not called upon to advise us on that, but they were specifically asked to advise us how the second shift could be brought into oneration in the shortest possible time. That is the advice we asked for. Mr. Wright was for the time being out of the way. All I have said shows that they had a grasp of their instructions, and that they knew what the Government had in view. Mr. Davis’ report states -
Assuming that it be conceded that it is possible and prudent to start two shifts of workmen, the question immediately arises, how this can be secured so as to increase the output at the earliest possible moment.
That shows that he knew what the Government had in view. Mr. Davis, in paragraph 4 of his report, suggested that a conference should be called between the Manager, the President of the Small Arms Factory Union, and the President of the Ironworkers’ Assistants, and in paragraph 3, which Senator Millen has read, he gives his view as to how the output could be increased. To show that I was not opposed to the views of these men. I will read for the information of honorable senators, the minute which I attached to the report -
The recommendation No. 4 in report of Mr. Davis, “Director-General of Works, re a conference between the manager of Small Arms Factory and union officials as to supply of labour is approved. The Small Arms Factory Union, Amalgamated Society of Engineers, Ironworkers’ Assistants and Engine-drivers’ Union, should be asked to attend. In addition, the Sydney Labour Council should be asked if Mr. Henley, the gentleman who represented them in drawing up recent industrial, agreement, could also attend. To manager for necessary action.
That instruction shows that I was not closing up my mind on the suggestions made by the honorable senator on a previous occasion in regard to bringing in men belonging to the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, although Mr. Davis did not mention them in his report.
– Does it not strike you as extraordinary that Mr. Davis would shut them out ? “ Senator PEARCE. - I do not think so, because even if Mr. Davis is not bo closely in touch with them, Mr. Ferguson has these men working under him. A great part of his employees are this class of men.
– Does not Mr. Ferguson recommend that these men could be employed?
– That is not the point. They were not restricted in any way in their recommendations. If the suggestion put forward by the honorable senator is a good one-
– Is there any objection to putting, a specific question to Mr. Ferguson ?
– No.
– I am satisfied.
– To say that these gentlemen had not considered that question is to reflect upon their intelligence.
– No, it does not.
– I wish to read, iu justice to Mr. Wright, an extract from the report of the Committee consisting of Colonel Dangar, Major Harding and Mr. Ferguson -
The Committee are of opinion that the primary consideration for the successful working of the two shifts is the supply of raw material. Mr. Wright, the manager, was perfectly justified in his reasoning for the nonintroduction of the second shift, especially in regard to the supply of raw material, the outlook at the time he made his report being far from satisfactory.
– What report do they refer to?
– The report which r read, and in which, after I submitted the question to him, Mr. Wright definitely recommended against the institution of a double shift. That is the report which the Committee are referring to, and that is the report on the official file.
– Apparently,, he made two reports; he made one to me.
– I do not know of any report which Mr. Wright made to the honorable senator: I have not seen it. But the report he made to me was one he made on my recommendation that, a second shift should be instituted at the earliest possible moment. The Committee say, in their report, that the time taken to get a second shift into full working order will depend entirely upon the time taken to train the necessary staff. Mr. Davis is the only man who raised the question of housing, except that the Committee make this incidental reference -
The Committee did not go into the question of the housing of the extra employees at Lithgow. They, however, consider that the matter should be carefully considered, as undoubtedly it will be an important factor in the success of the undertaking.
Surely they were perfectly justified in saying that, without it being brought up against them that they used it as an argument against the introduction of a double shift. They did not do anything of the kind. They simply brought the matter under the notice of the Government.
– I think it was ridiculous that experts should be asked that question.
– They were not asked, but they had a right to raise it if they pleased. Senator Millen spoke about the recommendation of Mr. Davis, that Mr. Wright should be relieved at once. May I say that that also had been anticipated? When Mr. Wright came to me with his resignation - and it was quite unexpected on my part-
– It was not, on my part.
– When Mr. Wright came to me about his resignation, I first of all had to look round for a successor, and to assure myself that the acting manager, Mr. Ratcliffe, was competent to carry on the factory. I took certain steps, and having satisfied myself in that regard I sent for Mr. Ratcliffe. I may mention that we have fixed up a satisfactory temporary arrangement under which he is to be appointed on probation, and if he justifies his selection he will be continued in the position. Immediately that arrangement was made - I did not put anything on the official file, because I did not think it wise to do so - I wrote a personal letter, and I feel sure that Mr. Wright will not mind me making this statement now that the question has been raised. In my letter, I pointed out to Mr. Wright that hitherto Mr. Ratcliffe had acted in a secondary position, that on the 1st August the full responsibility would fall on his shoulders, and that it was only fair and just to Mr. Ratcliffe that Mr. Wright should gradually unload his responsibility, so that on the 1st August the full responsibility would not devolve all at once on Mr. Ratcliffe. When the Committee visited the factory, I sent an official letter to Mr. Wright that in all future actions in regard to the management of the factory, Mr. Ratcliffe was to be given a full and free opportunity of going before the Committees and stating his own views, irrespective of any opinions which Mr. Wright might hold, and that Mr. Ratcliffe was to be taken into the full confidence of Mr. Wright in regard to any step which might be taken in the matter. I do not think that, in fair justice to Mr. Wright’ and myself, I could do more than that. It would not have been fair tothe acting manager to have simply said to Mr. Wright, “You are going to resign; resign here and now,” because then Mr. Ratcliffe would suddenly have come into the full responsibility, whereas now there is a probationary period in which, although He is not the nominal head, he will be gradually assuming the responsibility of management. I think that any one who looks at the matter in a reasonable way will recognise that, in the circumstances, it is the best thing to do.
– It is practically anticipating the recommendation of Mr. Davis?
– Yes. As regards the manufacture of shells, and the statement made’ by Senator McDougall, the machinery he mentioned may or may nob be suitable. It is not at present the question of machinery which is holding us up; but it is the question of a knowledge of the kind of steel, the question of the specifications for the manufacture of the steel, and the question of the conditions under which the War Office will let us have secret and confidential information as regards the manufacture’ and the making up of the shell. That has been the subject of correspondence by means of cables, and we hope that it will be cleared up shortly. In the meantime, an expert Committee consisting of a local manufacturer of considerable standing, a representative of one of the steel works, the best qualified officer in the Department, and the chemical adviser of the Government, are going into the question,so that at the earliest possible moment when we have the necessary information we shall be able to utilize the whole resources of the Commonwealth for shell manufacturing. In the meantime, we are receiving daily from manufacturers throughout the Commonwealth offers of their plant, and inviting them to give us particulars of their machinery, to tell us what it is capable of doing, what class of work it has been engaged upon, and what they think it will be available for. A number of manufacturers have been invited to come down and see the component parts of a shell, so that they may be able to tell us very shortly what they can do. It is true that there are certain shells and munitions here now; but the expert advice is that without the specifications and the formula for the making of the steel, their manufacture cannot be proceeded with. The manufacturers who have inspected them say that they cannot tell the quality of the steel until the formula is obtained. They also say that they cannot do the necessary work in regard to the making of fuses until they have a copy of the specifications by which they are made. That information is being obtained, too, and we hope shortly to have it in our possession. That remark applies, not only to the wireless works at Randwick, bub to all other works of that character in the Commonwealth. I desire now to say a few words in reply to Senator Watson’s reference to the coal trade. The. coal export was necessarily restricted, because the German cruisers in the Pacific obtained theirsupply from British sources. Naturally, we did not want Australia to be feeding the enemy in that regard; and therefore, in conjunction with the British Admiralty, certain steps were taken to prevent the export of coal unless we were absolutely satisfied that it was not likely to get into German hands. When the German fleet in the Pacific was wiped out, the necessity, to some extent, did not exist; but there is still a number of enemy merchant ships in neutral ports in America, and similar ships in neutral ports in the Pacific have been endeavouring to obtain coal. The neutral countries are trying to restrict the supply of coal to such ships to that quantity which will enable ‘them to carry on necessary work in harbour, but the ships have endeavoured, time and again, to get a larger supply. Certain firms in neutral countries are under suspicion. There is direct proof that some of them were the agents for supplying coal to the German Pacific squadron. The British Admiralty have advised us which firms are under suspicion, and to-day we are still refusing to allow those firms (to be supplied with coal. What happened at Newcastle? A firm at Newcastle, complying with the terms laid down, was given permission to ship a cargo of coal, and named a certain firm as- the consignee j but we have a system of inquiries through British Consuls at the various ports, and we ascertained that the coal was not going to the firm mentioned, but to another firm, which was on the black list. That case is still with the Customs authorities, undergoing investigation as to who was responsible for giving the misleading information. It is not likely that that shipment of coal will be allowed to leave Australia until we have determined that question. I know of only that one case of a shipment of coal having been delayed. If. Senator Watson’s Newcastle friends can tell him of other cases, I invite him to send the particulars along to me. That is the one cargo which has been held back, and we shall continue to hold it back until the question is finally cleared up.
Question resolved, in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.27 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 June 1915, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1915/19150611_senate_6_77/>.