Senate
24 June 1926

10th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 10th Parliament
  3. 1926

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3440

QUESTION

WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY

Attitude of British Independent Labour Party - Prime Minister’s Visit to England

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the attack made upon the White Australia policy by the British Independent Labour party, and supported by two British Labour members, Mr. Jowett, M.P., and Mr. Kirkwood, M.P., to the effect that migrants should not be excluded purely upon the grounds of race and colour. If so, what action does the Government propose to take to see that Australia’s real attitude upon this matter is adequately put before the World Labour Migration Congress?

Senator PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I doubt if the Congress referred to by the honorable senator is an official body. I understand that it is an unofficialgathering.

Senator Duncan:

– Australian delegates are attending it.

Senator PEARCE:

– It is not in any way associated with the League of Nations, but is merely a body representative of certain trade union and political Labour organizations. It does not seem, therefore, that there is any way in which the Commonwealth Government, as such, tan put its views before that congress. The view of the Government on this very important question has always been adequately stated.

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it a fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), as an evidence of the goodwill of the present Government towards the black labour policy, will travel to England shortly in a vessel manned by black labour?

Question sot answered.

page 3440

QUESTION

NAVAL TRAINING COLLEGE

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence noticed thestatement published in the press on Wednesday last, as emanating from the Naval Board, in connexion with the establishment of a naval training school for Australian youths at Osborne House, Geelong? If so, will he state what is the reason for the delay in the erection of the necessary buildings there?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– I saw the statement referred to by the honorable senator. The Estimates are now being considered by the Cabinet.

page 3440

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Licensing Ordinance

Senator GARDINER:

– Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate take an early opportunity to make a public statement as to whether Canberra is to be “ wet “ or “ dry “ ? I am aware that Senator Pearce is not in a position to state at once the policy of the Government in this respect, but if he can say definitely that Canberra is to remain “ dry “ as at present, he will allay a feeling of uneasiness that exists throughout the whole community.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The policy of the Government on this important question will be made known at the proper time.

page 3440

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator Elliott brought up the second report of the Printing Committee.

page 3440

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Arbitration(Public Service) Act Deter minations by the Arbitrator -

No. 13 of 1926- Professional Officers’

Association, Commonwealth Public Service.

No. 14 of 1926- Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.

Treaty of Peace (Germany) Act - Regulations Amended- Statutory Rules 1928; No. 78.

page 3441

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN APPLES IN LONDON

Senator ANDREW:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Markets and Migration, upon notice -

  1. Has he noticed the report of disastrous prices of Australian apples in the London market two days ago?
  2. Is it a fact that Victorian apples were sold at from 5s. 6d. to Ss. per case; South Australian apples from 5s. 9d. to 7s. 9d. per case, and a few as low as 5s.; and Tasmanian apples from 5s. to 10s. 6d. per case?
  3. If so, will he take action to protect the interests of the apple-growers of Australia, as tile cost of putting apples on the london market, exclusive of the orchard expenses, is from 8s. to 9s. per case?
Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– The Minister for Markets and Migration has furnished the following replies: - 1 and 2. The statement in the Melbourne press of 23rd June hist that Australian apples had been sold at the prices mentioned by the honorable senator has been noticed. A cabled report also recently appeared in the local press that London traders believed that prices for Australian apples have touched bottom, and that an improvement may now be expected.

  1. The High Commissioner, at the instance of the Government, has already conferred with the leading brokers and organizations controlling the importation and distribution of Australian apples in Great Britain, and is doing everything possible to secure the best returns for growers in the difficult position which has been created by the dislocation of transport services throughout Great Britain. The whole position ia rendered more difficult by reason of the fact that the apple-growers of the Commonwealth have no representative organization in Great Britain such as the London agencies established by the Dairy Produce and Dried Fruits Export Control Boards. The policy of the Government, as announced over two years ago, is to give assistance only where the exporting industry is thoroughly organized and is able to show that it is on an efficient basis, and that permanent results are likely to be achieved us the result of any help rendered by the Government.

page 3441

QUESTION

BANKRUPTCY ACT

Senator H HAYS:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice -

When is it the intention of the Government to proclaim the Bankruptcy Act - passed by Parliament?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The honorable the Attorney-General has furnished the following reply: -

It is not possible at the present time to state definitely when the act will be proclaimed; but it is hoped that it will be in force early next year.

page 3441

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1926-27

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I realize that the Government is anxious to pass this measure without delay, but I cannot permit it to go through without taking this opportunity of warning the Government of the danger of dealing so drastically as it is with State interests. The Senate is properly regarded as the guardian of the rights of the States. Those honorable senators who have known me during my membership of this chamber will readily admit that, when dealing with questions of State rights, I always cease to be a party man.

Senator Ogden:

– I wish all honorable senators would adopt that attitude.

Senator GARDINER:

– During the present week, the Government has been in the mood to flout State interests. Representatives of the several States assembled in Melbourne at the beginning of the week, and - I speak subject to correction, because I am guided only by what has appeared in the public press - the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) refused to meet them. I care not what party is in power, no circumstances can ever justify the Leader of the Federal Government in refusing to meet the Leaders of the several State Parliaments in conference. I know that dignity and pride of position and power have an overbalancing effect on the minds of a good many; but we have to realize that there must be smooth working between the Federal and State Parliaments. The moment we step to one side or the other to flout authority, we invite trouble that may have very serious consequences. Let us come right to the issue, and consider the proposed abolition of the per capita payments to the States. I wish to make myself perfectly clear. I can understand the logic of the contention that the Government which expends revenue should be saddled with the responsibility of raising it. That is 60 self-evident and so logical that I do not intend to discuss it. But federation itself was not a logical proposition. Federation was brought about by a compromise, in “which the States gave up much for the sake of federal unity. How was it accomplished? The representatives of the States pointed out that the States were entering into the federation knowing that the greatest portion of their revenue was obtained through the Customs House, and that it would absolutely cripple their governing functions if they were deprived of revenue from that source. The statesmen of that day overcame the difficulty by a method which has been condemned on what I consider sound principles of finance and government, but under it the States came into the federation assured of three-fourths of the revenue raised through the Customs House. The other one-fourth was to be retained by the Commonwealth for its own services, but any surplus was to be handed back to the States. It was on that understanding that the States were induced to federate.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That was to obtain for ten years and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provided.

Senator GARDINER:

– Exactly. I do not want to misstate the case. The States knew, however, that they would be in the happy position of having equal representation in the Senate, and they naturally thought that, with the smaller States having the same representation as the large States in the Senate, the Federal Parliament would never allow them to become bankrupt. That was the opinion held by those who framed the Constitution. What is the position to-day? When federation was established, the total amount of Customs and excise revenue, was insignificant when compared with the revenue of to-day. In 1901-02 the amount of revenue received through Customs and excise was £8,894,000, of which the States were to receive three-fourths, and any surplus of the remaining one-fourth was also to be divided amongst them. That assured the States of a sound system of finance. The framers of the Constitution were in the same position as we are to-day. They were unable to look through the veil that obscures the future, and could not foresee the development of the Commonwealth or the increasing cost of government. When the campaign was being conducted in New South Wales in support of federation, the question was asked, “ What will it cost ?’’ It was said by some that the amount would not exceed the cost of registering a dog, about 2s. 6d. a head. We know how the estimated cost has been enormously exceeded, and that it is now 40 times greater than the framers of the Constitution anticipated. If the framers of the Constitution thought that the Commonwealth could then contribute to the States £6,000,000 out of every £8,000,000 raised through Customs and excise duties, what is the position of this Government which to-day is raising £40,000,000 or thereabouts from the same source? Since 1911 the States have been receiving a per capita grant of 25s. in lieu of the return of three-fourths of the Customs and excise revenue. This Government now comes along and says to the States, “ We shall end this agreement. It is not satisfactory to us.” It is being ended in a way which means disaster to the individual States. I cannot imagine any one, unless he is an enemy of sound government, taking such drastic action as this Government now proposes to take against the States. It is not only depriving the States of revenue to which they are legitimately entitled, but the Prime Minister has even refused to discuss the matter with the representatives of the States. I saw a statement in the press to-day that this attack upon the revenue of the States had thrown them together to a greater extent than ever before. As a unionist, I believe in unity. 1 do not wish to see the Commonwealth ranged against the States, and the sooner tho present situation is changed the better for the country. As it is intended to conduct a referendum within a few weeks in connexion with proposed alterations of the Constitution, the Government, if it believes that it has the people behind it, should also submit this question to the people. Long ago I realized that the object of high tariffs is to exploit the workers of the country, and to compel them to contribute a large portion of the revenue. If the Customs receipts increase, it is proof that goods of foreign manufacture are coming into the Commonwealth in larger quantities, and that our local industries, despite the protection afforded, are not supplying our requirements. If the per capita payments to the States are to end, they should not be stopped immediately, but should be reduced annually, and finally disappear at the end of ten years. Let the payment next year be the same as that for the present year, and then gradually diminish over a ten years’ period. That, proposal was first made by a Government of which I was a supporter.

Senator Ogden:

– That would only mean prolonging the agony.

Senator GARDINER:

– It may be; but, if we have such a drastic operation as the Government now contemplate, it is 100 to 1 that the patient will not recover. I would prolong the agony, as the honorable senator suggests, in order to. give the States an opportunity to adjust their finances, rather than favour an immediate operation which might prove fatal to the States. I realize that the pill has been sugar-coated for the benefit of some of the smaller States, so that they will refrain from opposing this proposal in the belief that the’ Commonwealth, will make financial provision for them.

Senator Ogden:

– -.They do not like the sugar.

Senator GARDINER:

– Whether they do or not, that is the intention of the Commonwealth. I have never been reluctant to assist the smaller States in financial matters. I have always realized their difficulties. But if this source of revenue is taken from the States, and they are driven into opposition to the Federal Government, there will soon be returned to this Parliament a government that will decline to subsidize any State. If New South Wales is not to receive any portion of the Customs and excise revenue its representatives will not for long continue to help the smaller or weaker States, by voting for subsidies or grants to them, as they have done so generously in the past. There is no justification for this proposed action on the part of the Federal Government. Watching its antics during the last twelve months I have felt inclined to refer to it as a “jazz Government.” Last November it promised the people of Australia that strike leaders would be sent out of the country. That figure was danced until the party opposite was returned to power with an ample majority. There was nothing to prevent it from introducing a measure’ to give effect to its promise, but it did not do so. Before the elections it posed as the benefactor of the States, by offering £20,000,000 over a period of ten years for the construction of roads. Now it proposes to take from the States over a similar period not less than £100,000,000. This jazz Government will soon realize that even its best supporters must receive at least sane treatment in the handling of the finances. I speak upon this matter because I believe that if the Government persists it will commit the gravest error that has ever been ‘ committed by a Federal administration. Can any one foresee the dangerous consequences of lashing the States into a spirit of antagonism? There are bound to be reprisals, and the federation has the most to lose. I can imagine Senator Pearce saying, “I held views similar to yours some years ago, but I have now changed my opinion.” Is that a satisfactory reason for depleting the State treasuries of this vast sum?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It is a great surprise to us to learn that the honorable senator thinks so highly of Customs duties as to consider that they are the salvation of the country.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not defending protectionist duties.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Is the honorable senator in favour of a revenue tariff?

Senator GARDINER:

– I certainly am not; but when that iniquity is placed upon the whole of the people I am decidedly in favour of the revenue being shared with the States on a just basis. Why should the Commonwealth say to the State Governments, “ The methods by which you have conducted your finances during the last 25 years must now be altered; you will have to find some other means for raising your revenues ? “ That might be justified if the Commonwealth did not have sufficient revenue to carry on its operations. Like Senator Thomas, I abhor equally a revenue tariff and a protectionist tariff. What does the real protectionist say about these revenues? His contention is, “ We have now a scientific protectionist policy -under which our receipts from Customs and excise duties will gradually diminish until we reach the stage of manufacturing practically everything we require, when our imports will drop correspondingly.” I prefer to look to the past for guidance rather than to endeavour to anticipate the future. The following amounts were received from Customs and excise duties in the years specified : -

In 1915 there was an increase in the tariff, but instead of leading to a decrease it resulted in an increase in the revenue derived from Customs duties. In 1921, the tariff was made so burdensome that it nearly crippled the mining industry and staggered primary production, as the following receipts indicate: -

In 1925-26, they will be in very close proximity to £40,000,000. The belief of the protectionist, that a system was being evolved under which imports would cease and Customs revenue diminish, is nothing but a myth. . I predict that in ten years’ time the revenue obtained from Customs duties will amount to £60,000,000 annually. That is not a large increase compared with what has taken place in the last 25 years. When that sum is being collected what will be the position of the primary producer, who to-day is the greatest sufferer, because of the heavy cost of everything that he uses? The States will be driven to impose additional direct taxation to obtain their revenues. They have charge of most of the essential services, which are very costly to run, and direct taxation will be the only means to their hands for raising money to carry on those services. I ask the Government to withhold the enforcement of their financial proposals. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) poses before the community as a big man, who is too dignified to meet the representatives of the States in conference. The time has arrived when he should realize that this proposal will irreparably damage the finances of every State in the Commonwealth. What will be the position of Tasmania if it is compelled to raise its own revenue? So soon as a large percentage of its manhood reaches the age of self dependence, it migrates to the highly protected industries on the mainland. What will be the position of Western Australia and South Australia, which are largely primary producing States, if they are driven to find by direct taxation all the revenue required for State development and the provision of essential services? If the Government wished to diminish the payments to the States, it should have done so by means of a bill, and it should have inflicted as little immediate injury as possible upon them. I realize that five out of the six States have Labour governments at the present time. Honorable senators opposite may consider that to be a good reason why the Bruce-Page Government should make matters hot for the State authorities; but it will be found that such action will detrimentally affect the interests of a great many people who are opposed to Labour. I see nothing to justify the Government’s proposal; the only reason for it seems to me that the Government imagines that it can make the State Labour governments unpopular, by forcing them to increase direct taxation. Speaking in all seriousness, if the proposal is persisted in, it may bring the disruption of federation into the region of practical politics.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Is unification not part of Labour’s platform ?

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Then, according to the honorable senator, the Government is assisting Labour to achieve its object.

Senator GARDINER:

– But Labour always strives to carry out its programme intelligently. So obsessed has it always been with that idea, that, as far back as 1919, in forming a ministry, it included Senator Thomas. Both he and I were members of the government of the day, when the per capita grant of 25s. was agreed to for ten years.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– But neither that Labour Government nor the honorable senator favoured making that grant a permanent one.

Senator GARDINER:

– I should like the Parliament to have a free hand. Section 51 of the Constitution, which provides that the Parliament shall have power, “ subject to this Constitution,” to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, should be amended by striking out the words “ subject to this Constitution.” That would throw full responsibility for legislation upon the legislators themselves. It is quite unnecessary for the Government to adopt such an injurious proposal as it has made regarding the payments to the States. The Prime Minister and his colleagues evidently do not realize its far-reaching effects. It may be contended that the people have adopted federation for all time; but the Australian community is not likely to submit quietly to injurious action by the Commonwealth, and rebuffs to their State representatives at the hands of the Prime Minister. Such treatment as that meted out by the Prime Minister to representatives of the States this week will create antagonism to not only the present Federal Government, but also the federation itself.

Senator Duncan:

– If the States had adopted the proper course, they would have made their representations through the members of the Senate, who are the representatives of the States.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am glad to hear Senator Duncan’s remarks ; but I am inclined to think that when he raises his voice on this matter he will be guided by the instructions received by him from the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce). Honorable senators will have an opportunity, no doubt, to debate this subject as the guardians of State rights. I wonder whether they will vote as such guardians, or as the followers of a party government.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What are State rights ?

Senator GARDINER:

– As a representative of one of the States, I consider that they are entitled to something better than the insult recently hurled at them by the Prime- Minister. If the tongues of honorable senators opposite were not tied by party bonds, they would probably have sufficient courage to resent that insult.

Senator Newlands:

– It would have been better if the Prime Minister had not met the State Premiers at all, but had attended to his own business in his own way, leaving the State Premiers to do the same. It will be noticed that I have broken the “ bonds “ to which the honorable senator has just referred.

Senator GARDINER:

– The States find themselves confronted with a financial difficulty, not of their own making but caused by a government- which, at the last election, posed as their friend. It pretended that it would find £20,000,000 to assist the States in roadmaking. The Prime Minister’s action this week will lead to the representatives of the States regarding the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth in future - whoever he- may be - with suspicion. I was opposed to federation, because I desired unification; but, when federation was consummated, I realized that its success depended upon the Federal and State governments working in harmony. This concord will be impossible, judging by the treatment received by the States at the hands of the present Prime Minister.

Senator Payne:

– Did not the Prime Minister invite the State Premiers to reason with him at the conference held three or four weeks ago, and did they not refuse 1

Senator GARDINER:

– Surely, in .a matter of such far-reaching importance as the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States, there should be no end to discussion. Seeing that the ‘ State Premiers had arrived at a unanimous decision, the Government should have realized the seriousness of the situation and taken steps to prevent a feud from arising between the Federal and State interests. The fire which has been lighted will, if the Government does not at once put it out, burn more brightly than it now dreams. Should this feud continue, there is nothing to prevent the States from telling the Federal authorities that they can collect their own Customs revenue. What would be the position of the Federal Government then? In any case, the people whom we represent have to pay for these disputes. Any increase in the cost of government places a greater burden upon the taxpayer.. Now, when the first insult has been offered; when, as it were, the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth has thrown down the gauntlet, is the moment for this Parliament to say that the dispute shall continue no longer. A dispute of this kind can only be ended by re-establishing harmony between the Federal and State interests. I should like to say a great deal more on this question, but in view of the important business with which we have still to deal, I shall not do so. I am, however, sorry that the Government has set out deliberately to injure the financial interests of the States.

Debate (on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman) adjourned.

page 3446

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ESSENTIAL SERVICES) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17th June (vide page 3166), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I view this measure as I did the Immigration Bill and the Crimes Bill, with which we dealt recently. The action of the Government in seeking to grasp the powers sought by this bill I regard as iniquitous and diabolical. Not only is the Government seeking power to deal with essential services, but it is also asking Parliament to rush the measure through. I am reminded of the decision of the High Court in relation to the legislation which sought to give to the Government the power to deport certain citizens. The High Court determined that that measure was, if not unconstitutional, at least invalid. Having been returned to office by the electors, the Government introduced the Crimes Bill which, although passed by both Houses of Parliament and placed on the statutebook, is, in fact, a dead letter. And it will remain a dead letter. Should this or any subsequent government endeavour to put into operation the provisions of the Crimes Act, I predict that that legislation will meet the same fate as befell the deportation legislation. Senator Reid, when speaking recently in connexion with another bill dealing with industrial legislation, referred to Great Britain. He said that whereas, twenty years ago, the military was called out to shoot the miners of Great Britain, a different attitude towards the strikers was adopted in the recent industrial trouble, the miners’ leaders being found in conference with the Prime Minister of the country. Senator Reid forgot to say that at the very time that the conference was proceeding, the Government was preparing emergency legislation which it eventually submitted to Parliament. While the representatives of the miners were assembled in conference with the Prime Minister, arrangements were being made to use the military and the navy, if necessary, to deal with the strikers. When that fact became known, the negotiations terminated abruptly. The general strike then began. It would appear that, because emergency legislation was passed through the British legislature, similar legislation must be passed by this Parliament. We are asked to place upon the statute-book legislation which can only be used in an emergency.

Senator Ogden:

– What is wrong with that ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I shall tell the honorable senator presently what is wrong with it. Parliament should not be asked to pass legislation to deal with something which may, or may not, occur. The bill relates to a probable or actual interruption of essential services. Legislation of this nature might be understandable in a country like Great Britain, where there is one central government, and no conflict, or possibility of conflict, between authorities clothed with sovereign rights in their respective territories. But in this respect Australia differs from Great Britain. Within the Commonwealth there are six sovereign States.

Senator Ogden:

– Senator Gardiner said that if he had his way he would give the Commonwealth Parliament complete power.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Senator Gardiner is here to answer for himself. My purpose is to discuss this proposed amendment of the Constitution in relation to essential services, and I submit that the Government already has all the necessary power to act in any emergency. If domestic violence occurs in any State, the State authority may call upon the Federal Government for assistance. I recall the time when those in authority relied mainly upon force. It appears that history is repeating itself. One would have thought that the Government would realize that force can get it nowhere.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that there is no force behind all forms of government?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Undoubtedly there . is forces - the force of reason - behind existing forms of parliamentary government. Senator Drake-Brockman. knows very well that, in the event of extended power being given, the Government will be able to use the act as a. strike-breaking measure.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Nothing of the sort.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The measure has been introduced to save the face of the Government and to counteract the influence against the Ministry, due to the adverse decision of the High Court in connexion with the deportation proceedings’ last year. The Government stampeded the people to the ballot-box by persuading them that there was grave danger owing to the existence of unlawful associations and the attitude of communists. As a result of the election, the Government came back with an alleged mandate to take certain action. It passed the Crimes Bill, which is now a dead letter. Even if, in the opinion of the Government, the necessity arose for the exercise of the drastic power conferred on the Government by that act, the Government would not dare to use it, because in all probability the High Court would declare it to be unconstitutional. One of the leading newspapers in Victoria declared that no one took any pride in the Crimes Act, and that doubtless members of the Government secretly hoped that no more would be heard of it. The Melbourne Age, which cannot be regarded as a supporter of Labour’s policy, said that “ the foolishness and futility of the Crimes Act should be a warning to the Government against practising such precipitancy.” Just as the Government was precipitate in connexion with its deportation legislation, with the amendment of the Navigation Act and the passing of the Crimes Bill, so is it precipitate now in asking Parliament to pass this bill to give it extended constitutional powers to deal with essential services in certain circumstances. . ti al services in. certain circumstances. No one can contend that the Government has a mandate to ask for this extraordinary power. The measure contains only one clause. Let us analyse it and see just what powers are being sought by the Government. Let us see what it means.

Senator Ogden:

– It means what it says.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am not so much concerned with what the bill says as with what it means, and with, its probable effect if administered by the present Government. I invite honorable senators to recall what happened under the War Precautions Act. I admit that I voted for that measure. I should not do so again because it placed extraordinary powers in the hands of the government of the day.

Senator Foll:

– At that time the Government required extraordinary powers.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I agree that when the State is in danger, extraordinary powers should be granted to the Ministry, but even Senator Foll will admit that the War Precautions Act was employed for purposes other than the original intention, and that the powers given under it to the Government were used for many years after the war. This bill is really a repetition of war precautions legislation. It seeks to clothe the Government of the day with extraordinary power to deal with certain situations that may .arise. I listened carefully to the speech of the Minister (Senator Pearce) when moving the second reading, and I heard no sound argument in favour of the bill. The Minister drew heavily upon his imagination. He instanced the police strike in Melbourne and advanced that episode as one reason why the Senate should pass the bill. The police strike was in every sense most regrettable, but even if the Government had had the extended powers which are now sought it could not have done more than was possible at that time with its then existing powers. The Minister did not tell us that. The Government of which he was a member could have taken steps to prevent an extension of that trouble. He spoke about mob rule and said that, for a time, Melbourne was in a state of subjugation by a rabble which might have raided the Victoria Barracks, where there were arms and ammunition, and might have raided the Treasury. But that did not happen. The Minister knows that the State Government could have called upon the Federal authorities to deal with any untoward situation that might have arisen at that time. Why did not the Federal Government direct a section of the Military Forces to protect the Treasury or the Victoria Barracks?

Senator Pearce:

– We did.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The Minister referred at length to the possibility of danger on that occasion, but he did not say that the services of an armed guard were requisitioned.

Senator Reid:

– He did.

Senator Pearce:

– Yes, the bluejackets were protecting Federal buildings, but nothing else.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– They could be protected now, by the same means, in the event of serious industrial disturbances. As the Crimes Act is inoperative, the Government desires to have the power to act in the event of the workers of Australia asserting themselves.

Senator Reid:

– Does not the honorable senator think that some authority should have the power to intervene on behalf of the people in the event of a crisis?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– We are in a different position from Great Britain, where the people are under one government. In Australia we have six sovereign States and a Federal Government, each acting within its own sphere; and on all occasions the States have exercised their powers to protect the people.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– The Western Australian Government in a recent case, did not.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The Western Australian Government has never failed to protect the people. The Minister, in moving the second reading of the bill, referred to the trouble on the Fremantle wharf during the shipping dispute; but the Collier Government took all the necessary action to protect the people of that State. When Mr. Collier declined to call upon the police he was blamed by this Government, and when their assistance was obtained his action was condemned.

Senator Pearce:

– That is not so.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Mr. Collier, the responsible head of the Western Australian Government, showed much discretion in acting as he did. As the Government has now found that it cannot take the action it desires under the Crimes Act, it has introduced this bill in a vain endeavour to keep its promise with the people to intervene in the event of a serious industrial upheaval. It has been made abundantly clear that honorable senators on this side of the chamber are strongly opposed to strikes. In speaking yesterday on the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, I stated that we believe in industrial disputes being settled by reason and not by force. Although our efforts are sometimes fruitless. Australia is not, as Senator Barwell depicted it, the home of strikes. Even if an industrial crisis should occur, the governing authorities would have all the power necessary under the Constitution as it stands.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– What would be the position if we had a general strike in Australia?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The States affected could exercise the powers they possess.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– There could be no concerted action.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– If the action taken by the States was ineffective, the Commonwealth could intervene. If the Government is given the power it is now seeking, I am afraid it will be ruthlessly exercised. The Age newspaper, which criticizes the Government at times, but always solidly supports the Nationalist party when an election is approaching, says of this measure -

The proposal is an amazing instance of ministerial arrogance. There is not the slightest suggestion that the States have in this connexion proved too timid or too feeble to function. Many times they have been confronted with such crises as the Essential Services Bill anticipates, and their powers have, for the most part, proved adequate.

In the opinion of the Age the States have not been too timid or too feeble to act. The article continues -

The prediction is that at some vague future date some dread thing may happen. It may, but it has not happened in the past 25 years of federation. The States have been able to cope with every situation. It has not been the power of the States that has kept the social order intact; far more really has it been the self-respect and common sense of the citizens. Even in the direst industrial trouble the Australian people have always kept their heads level.

Nothing has occurred to warrant the Government being clothed with such comprehensive and extraordinary powers. Australians are law-abiding citizens, and lovers of fair play and liberty; and they will show their objections to the Government proposals when the referendum is taken. Yesterday the Government passed an amending Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, under which the powers of the Arbitration Court are to be extended, and which we hope will be the means of helping to preserve industrial peace inAustralia. Simultaneously with the pronouncement that we have the ability not only to settle, but also to prevent, industrial disputes, the Government brings forward another proposal, under which it intends to use force against force. We on thi! side advocate the settlement of industrial disputes by methods of reason ; but honorable senators opposite evidently wish to apply force. That is not right. If the bill is accepted by the people, and becomes a part of the Constitution, the use of the powers which it confers will aggravate, rather than minimize, industrial trouble. The Imperial Parliament passed emergency legislation to deal with an existing disturbance. That is the only justification which can be advanced for the passage of such a measure. Ours is not a parallel position. This legislation is introduced in anticipation of something occurring that has not yet occurred.

Senator Pearce:

– The Commonwealth Parliament has not the power to pass emergency legislation. It is asking the people to give it that power.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I know that the Commonwealth has not the power. But the States have; and, in addition, the Commonwealth has sufficient power under the Constitution to go to the assistance of the States if their machinery fails. The Minister (Senator Pearce) admitted that the Government could bring down legislation similar to that which was passed recently in Great Britain. The position in that country is not comparable with ours, because the States of the Commonwealth have sovereign powers, and at their invitation the Commonwealth can intervene in case of domestic violence. We have not seen the Imperial act, but some of its regulations have been printed in the newspapers. Under it a policeman could be authorized to arrest without a warrant, and the authorities could search any building in which they had reason to believe that documents calculated to cause mutiny or disaffection among the Crown forces or civilians were being printed or issued. Even persons who were writing letters in their own homes were arrested, because a letter was considered to be a document. Meetings and processions which the authorities apprehended were likely to provoke disorder could be prohibited. If such legislation as that were passed in Australia, where would be our rights and liberties, or our freedom of speech ? I shall quote one or two utterances by a very eminent gentleman, who took a considerable part in the framing, of our Constitution, and afterwards became Prime Minister of Australia. I refer to the late Mr. Alfred Deakin. Speaking on the 19th October, 1910, he said-

Are we not prepared to trust the people of Australia after next year with some competence for dealing with any situation when it arises ?

Those words are pregnant with meaning, and they were uttered by a true Australian, who helped to shape the destinies of Australia. Are the people of Australia less intelligent or reliable to-day than they were in 1910 ? I do not think that they are. During the sixteen years that have elapsed, their intelligence and reliability have become greater, and they have always shown themselves able to handle any situation, that has arisen. Every man and woman in Australia has the right to vote for their representatives in the State and Commonwealth parliaments, and they can be relied upon to choose parliaments that will look after their interests. Mr. Deakin went on to say-

Are we not prepared to trust them (the people) to meet any . . . emergencies and difficulties … if they arise and when they arise? … Is all wisdom to die with us, and all power to meet emergencies and contingencies to be strapped down by a statute-book? . . . Let us trust them as we trust ourselves. … It is our children that are to follow us. Let us trust to them as probably more competent, more Australian in spirit, and less hampered by provincial considerations or day dreams of redemption by mere law-making methods. . . . Let us face the situation manfully to-day, leaving our country better provided than we found it, with the means of progress and without loss of liberty, still free to meet fresh difficulties and fresh trials as they arise, strong in the faith that our, race has so long justified. It is quite evident that this Government is not prepared to trust the people to handle an emergency when it arises, but> that, on the contrary, it wants them to be strapped down by statute. I shall now quote the remarks of another honorable gentleman, who to-day occupies the position of Prime Minister. I hope that he will long retain his health and strength, but I am not anxious that he shall continue for a lengthy period in the position of Prime Minister. Speaking on the 27th June, 1925, Mr. Bruce is reported as having said -

He would appeal to all those engaged in industry to recognize that success could only be achieved by the co-operation of employer and. employee.

Why does he not, as the head of the Government, practice what he preaches? Why does he propose to threaten the employees that, unless they obey the orders of their employers in all things, the military and naval units will be called out, in the event of an industrial disturbance, to terrorize them into submission? He has discarded co-operation,” and proposes to resort to force. The Minister (Senator Pearce), in his second-reading speech, complained that the Government of the State of Western Australia did not take action to protect a Customs official; and, later, he condemned that Government for sending police, armed with rifles and ball cartridge, to the wharfs during the progress of the British seamen’s strike.

Senator Pearce:

– I did not condemn it for doing that; I said it had done the right thing..

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The right honorable gentleman said that that action was not taken soon enough. He found fault with Mr. Collier for not immediately obeying the behest of the Commonwealth. Mr. Collier used his own discretion as the head of a responsible Government. I can imagine the reply which the right honorable gentleman would make if he .’were the Premier of a State and a Federal Minister told him to take certain action. When he was a Minister in the Fisher Government, the Queensland Government asked for Commonwealth assistance, and I remember the answer which he gave. Time passes and opinions change. Mr. Collier did the right thing. I believe that the Premier and the Government of every State would do what they considered was the right thing at the right time. Even if this alteration is not made in the Constitution, the Commonwealth has sufficient power to deal with domestic violence. I have dealt with the most important features of the bill, and, since I realize that the measure must be passed by to-morrow to enable the people to be given an early opportunity to express their opinion upon it, I shall conclude by remarking that honorable senators on this side of the chamber will oppose it at every stage, and advise the people to vote against it. There is no necessity for the measure, because, if the contingencies contemplated arise, the Commonwealth and the States already have ample powers to deal with” them.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL (South Australia) [4.37]. - In supporting this bill I shall confine my remarks within a very narrow compass. Speaking on the bill providing for an amendment of the Constitution, regarding the powers of the Commonwealth over commerce and industry, I expressed the opinion that, because of the complicated nature of the proposal,the Government was guilty of undue haste in forcing the matter forward in the short time allowed. To a cer-. tain extent I think that the same charge might be urged against the Government in regard to the present bill, not because it is complicated, but because it is not a measure of extreme urgency. The bill might well have been delayed until the revision of the Constitution next year, at the- proposed constitutional session, or at a convention, if one is to be held. I agree, however, that an amendment of the Constitution, such as is contemplated by this bill is necessary, and since the previous measure will no doubt . be passed, and a referendum will be taken shortly, I intend to vote for the present bill, because the question raised in it might as well be put to the people at the same time as the other matter. Every national government should have power to protect the community against not only external aggression, but also internal violence, particularly if the latter threatened to dislocate the essential services of the country. Of course a measure of this kind will give power to legislate in regard to not only internal violence, but also, for instance, the holding up of transport. One has only to imagine the possible results of an upheaval, such as occurred in Great Britain recently. Senator Needham seems to think that such a thing is impossible.

Senator Needham:

– I did not say so.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– Then I shall take it that he admits the possibility of such an occurrence. In that case ample power should be vested in the Commonwealth authorities to deal with it. The honorable senator contends that the power lies in the States at the present time, and I am prepared to consider the matter from that point of view. He said that he could not see why we should place upon the statute-books, legislation to deal with something that may or may not occur. That is a most extraordinary statement. Surely there should be legislation to deal with such a condition of affairs as was outlined by the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce). The bill seeks power to pass emergency legislation to deal with upheavals of an extraordinary character. It is true that the State Parliaments have power to take action in case of domestic violence occurring within their respective limits; but when an upheaval affects the whole of the Commonwealth, action needs to be concerted, and the power required to deal with such a situation effectively, should rest with the national government. Senator Needham remarked that this bill was merely a piece of strike-breaking machinery, intended to be used in the event of strikes. It is useless to attempt to hide the fact that that is probably in the mind of the Government. So far as strikes attended with violence, or strikes that threaten essential services are concerned. It is certainly in my mind, and I have not much doubt that the power may be required principally for that purpose.

Senator Needham:

– A very frank confession !

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– But should not the Government have power to deal with a condition of domestic violence occurring as the result of a strike ? Does Senator Needham think that organized labour has the right to hold the nation to ransom merely because some employees have a dispute with their employers? Does he contend that organized labour has the right to hold up transport and food supplies, starving the populace to enable it to enforce its claims against employers ? That is the argument he has submitted.

Senator Needham:

– No. I say that if such a condition arose the State Government could deal with it, and, if they failed to do so, power already exists under the Constitution for the Commonwealth authorities to take the necessary action.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– I point out that the States might not deal with such a situation. The honorable senator quoted with approval a statement by the Melbourne Age that there is no suggestion that the State Governments have ever been too feeble to function adequately. I contend that there is more than a suggestion of that, and I remind honorable senators of what occurred in connexion with the shipping strike in

Western Australia and the railway strike in Queensland. There the State Governments did not do what was necessary to safeguard the interests of the States and of the Commonwealth generally.

Senator Pearce:

– In any case, how can any State Government maintain coal supplies ?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– Exactly. I propose to deal with that point.

Senator Needham:

– In the event of the coal miners going on strike, and transport being held up, would the Government, under this bill, take over the coal mines and work them?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– I do not know. But if there was a railway strike that prevented South Australia from obtaining coal from New South Wales, my State would be completely cut off and would have no remedy. The New South Wales Government might be prepared to transport the coal through its State; but Victoria might refuse, in which case South Australia would be helpless unless the central authority had power under the Constitution to deal with the position.

Senator Needham:

– I contend that the necessary power is already contained in the Constitution.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– In a case of domestic violence the Commonwealth has no right to intervene except at the request of the State.

Senator Needham:

– Then in such circumstances as the honorable senator has described, why should not one of the States referred to ask for the assistance of the Federal authority ?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.But the States might refuse to ask the Commonwealth to intervene.

Senator Pearce:

– And in such a case there might be no domesticviolence.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.Exactly. It might be simply a matter of food supplies. It might be necessary to protect the lives and properties of the community; simply because of the holding up of transport. If Tasmania is cut off from the mainland on account of a shipping strike, the Commonwealth has no power to take action.

Senator Needham:

– Then why did this Parliament amend the Navagation Act recently?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– That measure does not deal with the domestic situation, hut only with foreign or overseas shipping. It will be admitted that any national government would be national in name only if, at a time when essential public services were held up, it had not power to act in the interests of the community. Every other national government has that power at the present time. The fact that it does now now rest in the hands of the Commonwealth authorities ‘is due to a mere oversight, and the sooner it is conferred upon them the better. If a big national crisis is to be dealt with effectively, it will be useless to have six State Governments adopting independent lines of action. There must be prompt and concerted action by one central authority. I feel sure that the measure will appeal to every honorable senator who brings his common sense to bear upon it.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I had no intention of speaking on this bill, because, to me, it seemed obvious that the Government should be clothed with the necessary power to intervene in the event of a national crisis; but I cannot let pass some of the remarks made by Senator Needham. I have been in this chamber only a few months, but from time to time I have heard honorable senators opposite say that the Government desires this power in order that it might be authorized to shoot Australians and to bayonet them. That statement has been repeated to-day. Do honorable senators opposite really mean what they say, or are their remarks only ‘so much humbug? God forbid that it ever should be deemed necessary to use the powers sought to he conferred on the Government by this bill in that way; but the day may come, and, like the good soldier who hopes for the best and prepares for the worst, we must be ready for it, should it come. In such an event, who would be required, as the instruments of the Commonwealth Government, to use these rifles and bayonets? Who would have to do this dirty job? They would be our brothers, our sons, our nephews, our fellow-citizens. I presume that I, who have the honour to command the 12th Battalion of Australian Infantry, am regarded as one who is thirsting for the blood of my fellow- citizens, and anxious to shoot down my “ cobbers “ who were with me in France a few years ago. The thing is utterly preposterous. It is beneath contempt. Do honorable senators think that when I left my wife and children to fight for my country I did so because I liked the job and wanted to go? We have no regular army in Australia, and I hope we never shall; but do honorable senators think that Australians, wearing the uniform of the Commonwealth - citizen soldiers - are anxious to shoot down their fellowmen? Do they think that any Government would be foolish enough to order them to do so? I would give these powers to any government, Labour, Nationalist, or other wise, because I believe that they should be possessed by a national government.

Senator Grant:

– The honorable senator would have deported Walsh had he been able to do so.

Senator SAMPSON:

– I do not know the gentleman ; but I can inform the honorable senator that, although I took part in the last election campaign, I have never advocated his deportation.

Senator Grant:

– But the Government which the honorable senator is supporting did.

Senator SAMPSON:

– At present, neither the Commonwealth Government nor any State Government has constitutional powers to take action to maintain essential services when the whole economic life of this country is held up. That aspect of the question appeals to me, because, on my return from abroad after five years’ active service, I arrived in Melbourne with my wife and two children, who had been in England during the last three years of the war. It was our desire to spend that Christmas in Tasmania - I had not spent a Christmas there for five years. But what happened? When we arrived in Melbourne there was a strike, which prevented “our getting to Tasmania. Being the senior officer of the party of soldiers who, with their wives, desired to reach Tasmania, I did my utmost to get there. We called upon the late Senator E. D. Millen to see whether he could assist us to Teach our homes; but he said that he could do nothing for us. He, however, referred us to Admiral Clarkson. I interviewed the Admiral, and suggested that he should send us home on a destroyer or a cruiser. He ridiculed the idea of womenand children being conveyed to Tasmania on a destroyer. A destroyer, he said, could not carry many people across Bass Strait. I told him that I was one of 480 men who, on the 25th April, 1915, were conveyed by a destroyer to the shores of Gallipoli. The Admiral however, could not help us, nor could the Commonwealth Government. And, in the event of a similar hold-up in the future, the position will be the same as it was then, unless these additional powers are granted to the Commonwealth Government. The State of Tasmania could not help us, and, should we apply to the Victorian Government, it would reply that the matter was not its concern. Consequently, these powers must be vested in the Commonwealth Government.

Senator Pearce:

– During the last shipping strike the Labour Premier of Tasmania, Mr. Lyons, nearly burnt out the cable wires with requests to the Commonwealth Government for assistance.

Senator SAMPSON:

– To whom can we go in these troubles, if not to the Commonwealth Government ? I am not embarrassed because of the attitude which I adopted towards past referendums. I voted for them all, and I shall vote for this. I cannot understand why there should be any opposition to the proposals contained in this bill, or in the Constitution Alteration (Industry and Commerce) Bill. The national government should be clothed with these powers. There must be some central authority which can take hold of things when they go wrong. During my experience, I have met some very ugly situations, but to hear honorable senators speaking of Australians shooting and bayoneting their fellow-citizens makes me tired. Such a thing is dreadful to contemplate; but in Australia, with its citizen army, it is utterly absurd. The central government should have the right to step in when a few people are trying to hold up the whole nation, and to starve it into submission by withholding essential services. I desire to read an extract from the Industrial Australian and Mining Standard of the 13th May last, relating to the recent general strike in England: -

There is no genuine Labour leader living in any part of the world to-day who believes the general strike to be an instrument capable of furthering its professed aims. There is a powerful Labour party in the House of Commons, and not one member thereof has ventured to defend the principle of the general strike…..

Although the general strike is regarded with contempt and execration by all democrats and genuine Labourites, it is the favourite weapon of the revolutionary nihilist. That gentleman knows as well as the next man that the general strike cannot possibly benefit the working class. But he is also aware that its employment produces conditions of disorder and chaos ideally favorable to the prosecution of carefully prepared minority schemes to wreck and overturn the institutions of democratic government. T,he revolutionist nourishes best in an atmosphere of tumult, engendered by strife and mental inflammation, fanned by physical starvation and destitution. “ There can be no revolution anywhere without empty bellies,” said Talleyrand. And that is why the revolutionist constantly labours not to improve the conditions of the working classes, but to reduce them by strikes to the lowest possible level, and to drive the idle masses by misery to desperation.

A very significant feature of the present trouble in Britain is the tossing of Communist hats into the air in Continental Europe. Soviet Moscow is in a ferment” of jubilation. The Third Internationale and all the allied socialistic societies of Germany and France have already eagerly proffered financial aid to their friends in .longland (who are also probably their kinsmen), the British strike promoters.

There is no doubt about it - the British general strike is not a conflict about miners’ wages or any other wages. It is a long prepared and maturely considered plan to sovietize the United Kingdom. The whole British Empire a few days ago deeply sympathized with the coal miners of England, and wished them well in their struggle to secure a fair living wage. To-day, however, there is hardly a democrat to be found in any part of our far-flung Empire who regards them as other than the foolish catspaws of unscrupulous rogues, intent upon smashing the British Constitution. The cause which has engulphed the miners is doomed in advance, doomed utterly, because presently it will lack even their support - must lack it, indeed, simply because they are Englishmen. Indeed, they will themselves assuredly fight against it the instant they realize how abominably they have been tricked and deceived by the damnable leaders to whom they gave their confidence.

Senator Needham inferred that the Baldwin Government in Great Britain had no right to prepare for the event, which for eighteen months it knew was coming.

Senator Needham:

– That Government was the cause of the negotiations ending abruptly.

Senator SAMPSON:

– Does the honorable senator maintain that the whole community should be liable to be held up by the withholding of essential services until it is starved into submission? That state of affairs amounts to war on organized society, and whatever government is in office must have the pluck to ‘deal with the situation. Should the Commonwealth ever be faced with such a state of affairs, the government would have to act, and, therefore, the powers which this bill seeks to confer are necessary.

Senator Needham:

– The Baldwin Government was the cause of the breakdown of the negotiations which would have prevented the general strike in Great Britain.

Senator SAMPSON:

– If the honorable senator believes that Australian citizens are anxious to be armed with rifles, ball cartridges, and bayonets to destroy their fellow citizens, he must have a woefully distorted imagination. I do not think that he really believes it; he cannot. I cannot conceive it possible that any sane Australian can object to the national government having the powers asked for in this bill. ‘ Perhaps it is mental incapacity on the part of honorable senators, if they actually fear what some of them would have us believe that they fear.” In matters of this kind there should be genuine co-operation between all parties to clothe the national government with all necessary powers. Probably the attitude of honorable senators opposite is due to the present-day deplorable tendency to follow blindly the pernicious path of prejudice and party passion. This blind following of party is a curse. . It is strange to see the forces arrayed on either side in connexion with these proposals to amend the Constitution. It passes my comprehension, but I always like a fight, and I shall enter the forthcoming contest with the keenest interest. I hope that the good sense of the people will induce them to approve of both questions. This proposed amendment of the Constitution, dealing with essential services, is absolutely necessary. I cannot understand how any sane, intelligent Australian can object to the Government of this country - I do not care whether it be a Labour or Nationalist Government - being endowed with the necessary power to deal with the people who are out to upset constituted authority.

Senator Guthrie:

– Surely no one is opposed to this proposal.

Senator SAMPSON:

– It would be ridiculous to oppose it. I hope that the bill will be carried, and that the extended powers asked for will be granted by the people.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- In view of the legislation recently passed, and the action taken by the Government during the last few months to deal with industrialists and trade union organizations, one must coane to the conclusion that the objective of the Ministry is to hamper, restrict, and weaken the unionistic movement throughout the Commonwealth. I need only refer briefly to the attempt made a few months ago to illegally and, if I may say so, unlawfully, deport two citizens of Australia because of their association with an industrial dispute. The introduction and passing of the Crimes Bill was conclusive evidence of the attitude of the Ministry towards the trade union movement. Senator Sampson, who has just resumed his seat, spoke vigorously in support of the bill. He directed attention to the inconvenience which he and the members of his family had been subjected to owing to the dislocation of the steamship service between Tasmania and the mainland. I sympathize with the honorable senator, especially as the trouble occurred at that period of the year when the spirit of goodwill should prevail; but I remind him that the Crimes Act, passed by the Government of which he is a supporter, gives the Government power to inflict punishment for offences that may come within the ambit of that measure.

Senator McLachlan:

– Punishment of offenders will not get passengers across to Tasmania from the mainland.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That act gives the Government all the power that is necessary to deal with any one who attempts to interfere with the services.

Senator Payne:

– The Crimes Act has nothing to do with essential services. It only inflicts punishment for certain offences.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that the shipping service between Tasmania and the mainland could not be dealt with under that act. The ships carry His Majesty’s mails. The Leader of the Senate, in submitting another measure a few days ago, said he was optimistic enough to believe that if the proposed amendment were adopted by the people at the referendum, a better spirit would be created between employers and employees, and that industrial disputes would cease. We are now considering another bill, under which the Government seeks extended powers to deal with essential services. In his second-reading speech, the Minister was anything but convincing. He did not advance a single reason why the bill should be carried. He said -

Essential services are services upon which industries are dependent for the continuation of their operations without interruption. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of the term.

So says Senator Pearce, the layman. If there can be no doubt as to the meaning of the term, why were not essential services enumerated in the bill? Obviously they were not, because of the difficulty experienced by members of the legal fraternity in defining what are essential services. The Prime Minister was asked in another place if in the event of a definition being inserted in the bill, the High Court could subsequently give another definition. The right honorable gentleman replied in the affirmative. Then Mr. Watt who asked the question, said, “ This is indeed dangerous legislation.” The Minister, in support of the bill, drew largely upon his imagination. He referred to certain happenings in the different States, and at times became quite dramatic. He instanced first the police strike in Victoria, and said that if those who took part in the street disturbances had been intelligently led, they could have destroyed the telephone exchanges, raided the Victoria Barracks, and also the Treasury building, where gold reserves to the extent of several million pounds were stored. He added that in the circumstances the State Government would have been powerless to protect the community against a state of domestic violence. It is an insult to the intelligence of the citizens of Victoria to suggest that they would have had any part in such diabolical doings as were conjured up in the fevered brain of the Minister.

Senator Duncan:

– They were satisfied to smash shop windows and loot the shops.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Let us consider what led up to that situation. For many years the Police Force in Victoria, which physically and mentally was a credit to the State - a force always courteous and tactful, with ripened experience and judgment, a force that was called upon at times to do disagreeable and dangerous work - was treated worse than any other Public Service in the Commonwealth. The police, through their association, had repeatedly approached anti-labour governments, pleading to have their wrongs righted, and although they were promised redress, the reforms asked for were not carried out. Eventually the men were driven to strike. Unfortunately many members of the force were dismissed, and the recruits, who were characterized by a visitor from Western Australia as “ jockey “ policemen, because in stature they were not to be compared with the old members of the force, were granted those reforms which the old members of the force had been demanding for years.

Senator Guthrie:

– The new police are a fine body of men.

Senator FINDLEY:

– They are not to be compared with the old Police Force. Policemen are not made in a day. They require years of training to gain the necessary experience for the proper discharge of their duties. There were thousands of citizens in the streets of Melbourne on the night of the rioting, and it was quite incorrect for the Minister to suggest that they were all evilly disposed persons.

Senator Guthrie:

– Thousands were, as the honorable senator knows.

Senator FINDLEY:

– They were not all evildoers. Most of the damage was done by young fellows who are termed “ hooligans.”

Senator Guthrie:

– Does the honorable senator believe that they should be allowed to run riot?

Senator FINDLEY:

– In what way will this bill prevent a recurrence of that trouble? I challenge the Minister to prove that there is any power in this bill to prevent the breaking of shop windows, and other acts of wrong doing on the part of any section of the community.

Senator McLachlan:

– The honorable senator’s statement is a subject for laughter. The bill does not purport to do that.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That was one of the reasons advanced by the Minister in support of the bill.

Senator Pearce:

– No.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The Minister definitely used the police strike and the rioting that occurred in Melbourne as one reason for the adoption of the bill. He also advanced another reason why it should be carried. He directed attention to what happened in Western Australia. In another place the Attorney-General was asked, “ Do I understand that, under these powers, if domestic violence occurred that did not interfere with essential services, the Commonwealth could not intervene”? He replied, “Not under these powers.”

Senator Pearce:

– He did not say that.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The AttorneyGeneral replied to the question put to him in the words I have used.

Senator Pearce:

– The Western Australian strike interfered with an essential service. It held up the shipping.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I am speaking of the police strike in Victoria.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator said that I quoted the Western Australian strike.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I said the Minister quoted the police strike in Victoria, the shipping strike in Western Australia, and the strike of railway workers in Queensland. What was the strike in Western Australia about?

Senator Pearce:

– With which strike is the honorable senator now dealing ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I have said sufficient to convince honorable senators that what the Minister said in respect to the police strike in Victoria had no bearing whatever on the bill now before the Senate. If we had a similar strike in Victoria the Government could not do more than it did when the police strike occurred.

Senator Pearce:

– If the honorable senator is capable of understanding plain language ho should know that I used the police strike in Victoria merely as evidence of a State authority being impotent under certain conditions.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The assumption of the Minister is that if this measure had been enacted the Government would have been able to deal with such a contingency.

Senator Pearce:

– No.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Even if this provision had been in force the Commonwealth Government would not have had any more power than it possessed at the time of the police strike. The Western Australian strike was a most unfortunate one for our party. The Government used that strike in every possible way to win votes for its candidates.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator’s followers supported the strike.

Senator FINDLEY:

– They did, and so did I.

Senator Pearce:

– Then why should the honorable senator object to the people passing judgment ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I do not, but I object to the inaccurate and misleading statements made for party purposes during the election campaign concerning the strikes in Western Australia, and in Queensland. Appropos of the strike in Western Australia, I think I had better quote the Premier of Western Australia (Mr. Collier) in reply to the inaccurate and misleading statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) and others, including, I expect, Senator Pearce, during the elections. I quote the following from the Argus of 5th November, 1925, so that it may be on record in Hansard : -

Fremantle Riots. prime Minister’s Comments.

Reply by Mr. Collier.

Perth, Wednesday. The Premier (Mr. Collier) replying to comments of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) respecting the riot at Fremantle, said: - “The Prime Minister enunciated an altogether new idea in the political controversy when he stated that the clash between the rioters and the police at Fremantle was due to the supineness of Labour administration. How does he square this with the fact that there have been outbreaks of lawlessness, ugly scenes, and demonstrations by howling, surging mobs and vindictive strikers, according to the daily press in Victoria, which is not ruled by a Labour Government. Mr. Bruce fulminated against the other States, which, according to his conception, are not doing their duty. Since the beginning of the strike and until to-day, 45 British oversea ships have cleared the port of Fremantle without interference. Seven have been “held up”; four of these have gone away under police protection, and the remaining three are now in port. One other has cleared without any trouble. The police have done their duty during this period, refraining from taking sides in strike promoting or strike breaking, free from political instructions to interfere or to refrain from doing so, but affording protection where necessary, and restraining lawlessness where obvious or anticipated, at all times reasonably forbearing; while political propagandists, like a lot of discontented curs, have been snapping at the heels of the Government, screaming for action where none was necessary, and now deploring the fact which, unfortunately, became essential, because of lawless elements sought to prevent a steamer putting out to sea.”

From that statement it would appear that any action taken by the State Government of Western Australia would have been displeasing to the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth.

Senator Guthrie:

– Was it a Labour Government in Western Australia that armed police with rifles and ball cartridges to shoot down strikers ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– The Western Australian Government took the necessary precaution to see that the law was upheld.

Senator Guthrie:

– After it foundit was “in the soup.”

Senator FINDLEY:

– The States can be relied upon to satisfactorily handle any situation which might arise. There was also a strike in Queensland which received a good deal of prominence; but there is power in the Constitution under which the Government, if it so desires, can ensure that an essential service is not interfered with. The Queensland railway strike did not last any time.

Senator Thompson:

– Because the Government knuckled down to the strikers.

Senator FINDLEY:

– In what way would this Government have handled that strike if it had had this power? The Commonwealth Police Force would have been useless, and it naturally follows that the services of the naval or military forces would have been obtained. The Queensland strike was satisfactorily settled.

Senator Thompson:

– By the State Government “ caving in.”

Senator FINDLEY:

– The Government did what it considered best in the interests of the country and the people. Some year ago, when a railway strike occurred in Victoria, coercive legislation was introduced to bring it to an end. Public servants throughout the State were also denied the right to vote as ordinary citizens. They were given special representation in the Legislative Assembly. Very little time elapsed before the provision as to their special representation in the Legislative Assembly was repealed, and they became entitled once more to vote as ordinary members of the community, but it is still doubtful if the service is as loyal and contented as it was before that strike took place. The manner in which the Queensland Government handled the railway strike in that State was satisfactory to the State and to a majority of the people. In the event of serious industrial trouble would the Commonwealth Government take over the control of the State railways?

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Why did the Queensland Government allow the railway men to go on strike and then give them all they asked for?

Senator FINDLEY:

– In the event of serious industrial trouble would this Government undertake the control of railways or shipping services, or of, say, the mining industry? How could it do it? It is asking for power to control essential services, but notwithstanding what the Minister said it would be as difficult to define the phrase “ essential services “ as it would be to define the word “ luxury.”

Senator Payne:

– “ Essential services “ can be defined.

Senator FINDLEY:

– If they are defined in an act of Parliament the High Court may give another definition. We have proceeded satisfactorily for over 25 years without such powers. The people have never been asked to give the Commonwealth such powers as are now being sought under this bill. In the event of serious industrial trouble, the State Governments can, under the Constitution, appeal to the Federal authority for assistance, and it rests with the Government of the day to say whether assistance shall or shall not be given. The Minister said that it is necessary for the Commonwealth to be in possession of these powers to enable it if necessary to control essential services. I remind the right honorable gentleman that he was a member of a Cabinet with which I was associated in 1912, whena tramways strike occurred in Queensland.

SenatorThompson. - It developed into a general strike.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The Queensland Government approached the Federal Government for assistance. Was the attitude of Senator Pearce on that occasion the same as it is to-day?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes; but there was no necessity then for the Commonwealth to interfere.

Senator FINDLEY:

– In the opinion of the Queensland Government assistance was necessary; but it was declined because it was thought that there was a better and more peaceful way of settling the dispute.

Senator Pearce:

– I was also a member of the same Government which, in 1911, asked the people for these powers.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The right honorable senator was reluctant to engage the military in that industrial trouble.

Senator Pearce:

– That is my attitude at the present time; I have not changed one iota.

Senator FINDLEY:

– There is only one occasion that I can call to mind on which the military were called out to deal with an industrial disturbance in Victoria, and that was during the progress of the maritime strike in 1891. I have a very vivid recollection of the words that were said to have been uttered by the man who was in command of the mounted rifles at that time. If anything incensed the industrialists of this State, and the people generally, it was the calling out of the military to overawe peaceful industrialists, to the number of about 40,000, who were assembled within a short distance of where the mounted men were stationed. Fortunately, no action was taken by the military on that occasion. But the people were so incensed that, at the first opportunity, the Labour party asserted itself industrially and politically, and from that time it has made every effort to prevent military interference in industrial disputes. Such action is not necessary in Australia. Senator Pearce said that it is not intended that the military forces shall be called out. With whose assistance, then, will the essential services be carried on by the Commonwealth? The small number of the Commonwealth police force will not be able to help very much. I, therefore, believe that the military will be called out. Many members of the Government are prepared to advocate the adoption of that course. The bill is not necessary, because the Government will have ample power under the Constitution, as proposed to be amended by the other measure that is to be submitted to the people. I shall vote against this bill, and will advise the people to reject the Government’s proposal.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I am in full accord with the statement made by Senator Findley, that this measure in itself will not assist the carrying on of essential services. It is not intended that it should. The intention is, however, that through it the national parliament shall be vested with the power to place upon the statute-book legislation that will enable certain things to be done. The Government is merely asking for the power to protect the interests of the public in case of actual or probable interruption of any essential service. Some of my friends of the Opposition seem to delight in visualizing the use of rifles loaded with ball cartridge, and also the use of bayonets and other weapons. We recently had an excellent example of the enforcement of law and order by the Baldwin Government, which, without the firing of a single shot, or the passing of a bayonet through anyone, protected essential services during the currency of a general strike. I take it that that is what this Government has in view. I remind honorable senators opposite that this will make for the rule of law as opposed to mob rule, which is likely to occur when passions are roused in industrial disputes. Unless definite action is taken, there is likely to be a repetition of what occurred in Queensland last year, when the owners of certain produce took the law into their own hands. Although we may admire their courage, we must deprecate the necessity for such action.

Senator McHugh:

– The honorable senator, then, believes in the law of force ?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– That is what my friend advocates. I do not. If the people of Australia wish to keep out of office the class of government that is making its appearance in various parts of Europe at the present time, they will give to the national parliament the power necessary to protect the public and ensure the maintenance of essential services. We have no occasion to visualize bloodshed. I have mentioned the action which was taken in Queensland merely to illustrate what might happen if two extremes met and the Commonwealth Parliament had not the power to handle the situation. Surely this Parliament, which is the elect of the people of Australia, can be trusted with that power! The arguments that have been adduced in relation to the police strike and other industrial disturbances have merely emphasized the necessity for vesting in the national

Parliament a power equal to that which is vested in the States within their own spheres.

SenatorFindley. - Does the honorable senator argue that, under the bill, the Commonwealth Government could run the railways of Queensland?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– The bill proposes nothing except that the power to take certain action shall be vested in the Parliament. What better objective could any Parliament have than the protection of the public interests? I point out to the learned and astute Senator Findley that the police strike in Victoria amounted to the failure of an essential service. The protection of the public by the police force is just as essential as the supply of coal to the railways. I cannot understand what my friends have to fear from the passage of this bill. The people will say whether they are prepared to trust this Parliament with the power that is asked for.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– It is quite impossible in the limited time at our disposal to grasp the full import of the proposed alteration of the Constitution. If it is agreed to, the Government will be clothed with very extensive powers, of the extent of which we have no knowledge. We cannot visualize the manner in which those powers will be exercised. Despite the condemnation of Senator Sampson, I assert that powers of a most extraordinary character will be conferred upon the Commonwealth if this proposal is assented to, and I am quite certain that the Government will have no hesitation in using them. For that reason, the people will decline to grant them. Being a fairly observant citizen, I have noticed that every publication in the Commonwealth is either hostile to the proposed granting of additional powers, or is doubtful as to whether they should be granted. I do not know of one newspaper or magazine which has given definite approval to the proposal. It is quite obvious, from the reports that are coming to hand daily, that there is not the remotest possibility of a majority of the States and a majority of the electors agreeing to either this or the other proposal. I am, therefore, somewhat surprised at the Government’s persistence. Some timeago it was announced that it was proposed that we should begin at Canberra with a constitutional session, at which the various deficiencies in the Constitution would be calmly and deliberately reviewed. Apparently, the Government is not prepared to adopt that course in this case. Instead, it seeks to obtain from the people, in the course of a few weeks, certain additional powers, for the reason that it wishes to keep faith with the electors in connexion with the promise that it made regarding the deportation of Walsh and Johnson. I emphatically condemn the recrudescence of that evil spirit which was prevalent in Australia and Great Britain when possession was first taken of this continent. Upon the return to England of Captain Cook from one of his voyages, he reported that Australia was such a desolate place that it was of no value to Great Britain. I do not know whether he also made a secret report to the Imperial Government; but it is common knowledge that, shortly afterwards, Captain Phillip entered Sydney Heads, took possession of Australia on behalf of the British Government, and landed a considerable number of convicts on its shores.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newlands). - Does the honorable senator intend to connect his remarks with the subject-matter of the bill ?

Senator GRANT:

– Yes. Men were deported from the Old Country to Australia in the early days for the most trivial offences, and I certainly object to the recrudescence in this age of a spirit that I thought was extinct. The BrucePage Government was unanimous last session in its determination to deport certain citizens of the Commonwealth; and since it failed in that effort it now seeks additional powers under the Constitution. The proposal is of such a farreaching character that it is almost impossible to realize the extent to which this Government, if granted the increased powers, might go. We ought to have ample time to consider the measure; we should not be expected to rush it through the. Chamber in a few days. Evidently the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) has not the slightest hope of the people agreeing to his proposals. If they were considered calmly, at the constitutional session to be held at Canberra next year, and if it were possible to nave all sidesin Parliament united concerning them, there would be a chance of the people agreeing to their insertion in the Constitution; but I am sure that the electors will almost unanimously oppose them at the referendum. I shall vote against the measure on the second reading and at every other stage. It may be said that the Labour party is in favour of granting unlimited powers to the Commonwealth. That is true; but the bill does not provide for that. It merely seeks power in the direction indicated. Speaking on the subject of the general strike in Great Britain, Senator Sampson referred to the opinion of one person as if it carried great weight. Let me remind honorable senators that the miners of Great Britain, almost from time immemorial, have worked under the most inhuman conditions, and every attempt made by them to improve their lot has been strongly opposed by the ruling classes. Until recently, even women and children were employed in the British coal mines. I am surprised that Senator Sampson should oppose the improvement of the conditions of the coal miners, whose efforts in that direction are not of a revolutionary character. The notion that unionists who demand better industrial conditions are necessarily controlled from Moscow and desire to see a Soviet form of government introduced is nonsensical. The industrialists have no more idea than I have of upsetting the existing form of government in Great Britain. All they desire is shorter hours and better wages; and I have often wondered why they have been so moderate in their demands. The referendum will cost the country about £100,000, and it will be a sheer waste of public money, because all the evidence points to the fact that the people of Australia are not prepared to trust the Bruce-Page Government with additional powers.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- My remarks will be brief, and will be in opposition to the granting of increased powers to the present Government, because it has not been honest in its statement of what it desires to do. While it may be reasonably claimed that the Commonwealth authorities should have all the powers necessary to protect the community, the Government should he pre pared also to embody in the Constitution the right of the people to adult franchise, so that there never need be any fear on their part of being robbed of that privilege.

Senator Mchugh:

– Is not that right now embodied in the Constitution?

Senator BARNES:

– No; adult suffrage is merely provided for in the Electoral Act. If a government like the present Ministry felt inclined to organize a military force of 5,000 troops, to be used if it thought necessary in dealing with industrial troubles, it could do so, and then amend the Electoral Act by providing that only certain citizens should be allowed to exercise the franchise.

Senator McHugh:

– The people of Australia generally do not know that.

Senator BARNES:

– Quite so, but they should know it. What is the sinister motive of the Government in seeking these additional powers? I feel sure that the people will not tolerate such a menace to their liberty. If the Government were sincere it would agree to recognition in the Constitution of the right of every adult in the community to a vote. Then there would be no danger of the people being robbed of that right. Ifthe Government is to be given the powers now asked for, surely the. people should be protected in such a way that no small military oligarchy could deprive them of the right to the franchise.

Senator Ogden:

– The honorable senator should not talk like that.

Senator BARNES:

– These things should be spoken about. Why should the honorable senator fear to give to every man and woman in the country the right to vote in these matters? Why should we not provide in the Constitution itself for adult suffrage? In other parts of the world we see small military organizations overriding the will of the people. Wedo not want that state of affairs in Australia.

Senator Ogden:

– Sometimes I am inclined to think that democracy has proved to be a failure.

Senator BARNES:

– I can understand the honorable senator thinking that ; but, for my part, I am prepared to trust the people. I may be, at times, in conflict with the majority of my countrymen; but, knowing their great desire to do what is just, I am prepared . to trust them. I would never be a party, either in this Parliament or elsewhere, to putting into the hands of the present Government the power which it seeks in this bill, unless, at the same time, the people are given, in the Constitution itself, the right to correct any mistake it might make. Under this measure, the people of Australia are asked, as it were, to cut their own throats. A government with a large majority could, so amend the Electoral Act as to prevent any section of the community from having a voice in determining the country’s future.

Senator Pearce:

– This Government does not do that sort of thing.

Senator BARNES:

– But it might; and I am not prepared to trust the present Government with these additional powers. Nor do I think that the people of Australia will trust it.

Senator Pearce:

– They have trusted it.

Senator BARNES:

– They have not trusted it with the powers which it now seeks ; and they would be extremely foolish to do so. Why cannot the Government agree to what I suggest? What is the objection ? I can see no reason why any honest man should object to the Constitution being altered in the direction which I suggest. Unless, the people, who, after all, are the real masters, are given the power which they should have, I am not prepared to trust the Government with the powers that it seeks.

Senator Guthrie:

– Voting is compulsory, and adult suffrage is the law of the country.

Senator BARNES:

– That is the position now; but after getting these additional powers a government could pass an electoral act which would deprive of the right to vote every one who was not, say, bald.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– The Constitution provides that every adult shall have a vote.

Senator BARNES:

– It provides that this Parliament can pass any electoral law that it desires.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– No.

Senator BARNES:

– I am of the opinion that, under the Constitution, this Parliament can frame any electoral law that a majority of its members wish to pass. I challenge any honorable senator to refute that statement.

Senator Foll:

– How is that affected by this bill ?

Senator BARNES:

– If we passed this measure, and the people accepted it, all that would be necessary would be for the Government to entrench itself behind the military authorities.

Senator Ogden:

– Does the honorable senator think that any government would do so?

Senator BARNES:

– I do not know; but I know enough of this Government not to trust it very far. If the Government is honest, it will agree to my request. There would then be no fear in the minds of the people as to the power which the Government would wield. Why not provide in the Constitution tha t the people shall at no time be deprived of their right to havea voice in the future of their country? Any government that is not prepared to . How the people that right is not worthy to be entrusted with the government of the country for even ten minutes. It would be without honesty or sincerity. I hope that each elector, when handed a ballot-paper in connexion with the referendum proposals, will remember that if he gives an affirmative vote he will be assisting to put into the hand of any unscrupulous government - I apply that term to the present Government - a power that no government should have over the people in any white man’s country. I hope that the Senate will not consent to the passing of this Bill.

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

.- I shall not detain the Senate long, but I feelthat I should express my reasons for supporting this measure. A good deal of wild talk has been indulged in regarding what the Government might do if the people grant these additional powers. The arguments advanced by Senator Barnes are more suited to the public platform than to this Senate. A few days ago the honorable senator said that he would be prepared to tear up the Constitution, and to give to the Federal Parliament fulland complete powers.

Senator Barnes:

– That is correct, so long as the people retain their right to vote. I am prepared to trust the people at all times.

Senator OGDEN:

– Notwithstanding his remarks on that occasion, Senator Barnes to-day has, with assumed indignation, raised his protest against this bill, which provides for the grant of only a limited power.

Senator Barnes:

– There is no need for the honorable senator to use the word “ assumed.” My indignation was genuine.

Senator OGDEN:

– Senator Needham challenged honorable senators to point to one instance in which there had been any neglect to protect the essential services of this country. I shall not only supply the honorable senator with an instance, but I shall show him where he himself failed to protect an essential service. I represent a State which is dependent upon the essential service of shipping. A few months ago, when the shipping service between Tasmania and the mainland was threatened, an honorable senator moved that the Commonwealth Government should be authorized to carry on that essential service in the event of a dispute. Senator Needham opposed that power being granted to the Government.

Senator Needham:

– Because it already existed.

Senator OGDEN:

– What would be the position of Tasmania in the event of a hold-up of the shipping service if it were left to the tender mercy of a government composed of men like Senator Needham?

Senator Needham:

– Does not the honorable senator know the remedy ?

Senator OGDEN:

– No.

Senator Needham:

– Then he has departed from the views he previously held.

Senator OGDEN:

– The honorable senator when speaking of a remedy must have meant a State shipping service; but our. experience in that direction is not such as to make us desire to repeat the experiment. If we had a State shipping service, and trouble arose with the seamen, would Senator Needham, if Prime Minister, intervene ? I do not think that he would have the courage to do so. I am prepared to vest this power in the Commonwealth Government.

Senator McHugh:

– The honorable senator did not have sufficient courage to stand to his principles.

Senator OGDEN:

– I had sufficient courage to express my opinions in this chamber, and to risk my future by so doing. Unlike the honorable senator, I have not reached the stage where, at all costs, I must hang on to the Labour movement in order to retain my seat in this chamber. During recent years we have had examples in both Queensland and Western Australia of the failure of Labour governments. We saw the essential services of those States held upby the rebellious attitude of certain trade unionists.

Senator Findley:

– Does the honorable senator think that the Federal Government, could, or would, run the Queensland railways in the event of a strike ?

Senator OGDEN:

– Should the State Governments fail in their duty, it would be the duty of the Federal Government to run the railways. I do not care who does it so long as the essential services of the country are protected from rebellious attacks.

Senator Findley:

– It is problematical whether such action, if taken, would be constitutional.

Senator OGDEN:

– The Government is asking the people to make such actions constitutional. In Queensland, the unionists took charge of the Mount Morgan mine, and instructed the Labour Government of that State not to send police there. The State Government was impotent; it was afraid to take action. Does the Labour party contend that unionists should be the sole arbiters in these matters ?

Senator McHugh:

– Does the honorable senator think that the Government should take over and control the State Police Forces ?

Senator OGDEN:

– No. That is quite another matter.

Senator McHugh:

– But does the honorable senator think it should?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newlands). - Order!

Senator OGDEN:

– I should like to pursue my argument in my own way.

Senator McHugh:

– The Prime Minister was going to order the arrest-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order !

Senator OGDEN:

– If a State Government fails to use its Police Force in the direction indicated-

Senator McHugh:

Senator McHugh interjecting-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order ! If Senator McHugh continues to defy my call to order I shall have to name him and ask the Leader of the Senate to take the necessary steps to enforce order in debate. I have asked the honorable senator several times not to interject.

Senator OGDEN:

– We do not want to get heated over this matter. Every honorable senator should . be allowed to express his opinion on the bill without being subjected to continuous interruption. I have no ill-feeling towards the Labour movement, because I am a Labour man myself. Perhaps I am a better representative of Labour than are some of those who are officially identified with the movement. I speak to-night on behalf of the great Labour movement which I represent in this chamber. Who suffers when an industrial trouble occurs, and when the essential services of the country are interfered with? Those who suffer most are not the capitalists, but the great struggling masses of the people, and it is to protect them that I am supporting the Government in connexion with this measure. I have no other object to serve. I believe my attitude is the correct one towards the people whom I represent. The power . asked for under this bill is necessary for the peace, order, and good government of the country. Whether interference with essential services be due to the action of unionists or any other section of the community, the central authority should be vested with power to protect the interests of the people.

Senator Barnes:

– Section 68 of the Constitution, states that command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the GovernorGeneral as the King’s representative. That is what I fear.

Senator OGDEN:

– Senator Barnes realizes, surely, that the power which creates governments can also destroy them. That is the safety valve in the working of our Constitution. If any .government attempts to interfere with established democratic principles, the people will, at the first opportunity, displace it.

Senator Barnes:

– Then how can we get rid of the Victorian Legislative Council ?

Senator OGDEN:

– I do not wish to argue that matter now. If I did so I should be out of order. It is ridiculous for anyone not to be prepared to trust the Government.- It is absurd to suggest that this or any other government would call out the military forces to settle an industrial dispute. I have no fear on that score.

Senator Findley:

– How will the Government carry on essential services without the assistance of the police or military forces ? ‘

Senator OGDEN:

– The recent general strike in Britain was settled without resort to any of those dire methods which seem to perturb the minds of honorable senators opposite. If, however, a strike developed into a rebellion - I quoted one such instance in this chamber a few months ago - the Government would be justified in calling upon all the forces at its command.

Senator McHugh:

– To what incident does the honorable senator refer ?

Senator OGDEN:

– The disturbance in South Africa. It developed to such an extent that the Government had to take extreme measures to protect the people. If such a state of affairs occurred in Australia, Senator Findley, if he were Prime Minister, would adopt similar measures.

Senator Findley:

– I should take every possible care to prevent such a contingency.

Senator OGDEN:

– I know the honorable senator would do that, but if, in spite of what he had done, such a contingency occurred, he would have to take extreme steps to restore order. I do not wish to delay the Senate any longer. We are, I think, needlessly fighting over this question. It is one for the electors to decide. If the people think it wise to grant extended powers, they will vote for the proposals. Honorable senators on both sides will have an opportunity to advise the people how to vote.

Senator McHugh:

– The people will reject the proposals.

Senator OGDEN:

– If that is the honorable senator’s opinion, why all the trouble in this chamber over the bill? The proper time for some of the arguments that have been adduced in respect of the bill to-day will be when the questions are being submitted to the people. I deprecate the attempt of some honorable senators, to encourage the belief that if these extended powers are granted, the Government of the day, in order to ensure a continuity of essential services, will call out the military forces and that bloodshed will result. In the interests of the people, and especially in the interests of Labour supporters whom I represent in this chamber, I am prepared to trust this, or any other Government, with the extended powers asked for. I am satisfied that they will be used wisely.

Sittmg suspended from 6.27 to 8 p.m.

page 3464

NEW GUINEA ADVISORY COUNCIL

Order of the day for resumption of debate on motion by Senator Grant (vide page 2576) called on and adjourned.

page 3464

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ESSENTIAL SERVICES) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

. -In view of the utterances of some honorable senators opposite, particularly during the last election campaign, I am at a loss to understand why they should display such vigorous opposition to this bill. When the electors throughout the Commonwealth were appealed to, they were told by the representatives of the Labour party that if they were returned to power the interests of the whole community would be conserved. Notwithstanding this, they have denounced the proposal to submit to a referendum of the people the question of the Government controlling essential services in the event of a crisis. It is very difficult to reconcile the attitude taken by honorable senators opposite ‘during the election campaign with that adopted to-day, particularly as they are members of a party whose slogan has always been, “ Trust the people.” They are not prepared to trust even those upon whom they rely for support. I have not heard one honorable senator opposite suggest that he does not believe in submitting questions of vital importance to the people. Their “ Trust the people “ slogan appears, however, to be limited to occasions when their party is in office. Surely in this democratic age, when every man and woman has a vote, it is reasonable to suggest that even Labour senators should bow to the will of the people as expressed at the poll. The people having decided that a Nationalist Government shall rule, they should abide by the decision of the people. Their much-vaunted confidence in the people is all moonshine. If it were not they would whole-heartedly support this bill. The measure deals with matters of vital importance to Australia; in fact, there is nothing more important to the development of our resources and to the welfare of the whole community than the maintenance of essential services, which are the lifeblood of the Commonwealth. In an endeavour to obtain a reliable definition of the word “ essential “ I have perused the best authorities available. I find that “essential” means something which is absolutely necessary and important in the highest degree. In drafting the proposed amendments of the Constitution, I believe the Government had that definition in mind. Recognizing as the Government does, the jeopardy that Australia may be in, should our essential services be dislocated, it has considered it imperative to bring forward a proposal of this nature. If the Government had not taken this direction, it would have broken the promise it made to the people. The Nationalist candidates told the people that ifthe Government they were supporting was returned, it would, with the consent of Parliament and the people, amend the Constitution in such a way that the control of essential services in times of crises would be assured. A great deal of quite irrelevant talk has been indulged in to-day. One honorable senator had the audacity to endeavour to explain the cause of the police strike in Melbourne some time ago. That strike has nothing whatever to do with the bill, but what followed has an important bearing on what the Government has in view. I shall never forget what occurred in this great city when, for a short period the assistance of the police was not available, and a certain section of the people were guilty of terrible destruction of property. Senator Findley referred to those people who were responsible as being unworthy of consideration; he said they were members of the hooligan class. Were they ? I was an eye witness of all the rioting that occurred in Melbourne that afternoon, and I can say that it was not only the hooligan class that took advantage of the police strike. There were many whom Senator Gardiner, Senator Findley, and Senator Barnes would class as respectable members of society, and who, while not having the pluck to actually break the windows and begin the looting, followed the rioters and reaped the spoils. I was standing at the corner of Bourke and Swanston streets, opposite the Leviathan, before the first window in that establishment was broken. A shop window just round the corner had been broken and looted, and a crowd came along in the direction of the Leviathan building. I saw half . a dozen welldressed men standing on the opposite corner, and I began to approach them, with the determination of getting a few recruits, because I felt that twenty determined men would be able to prevent further destruction. Before I could utter a word, however, the first window was smashed and one of these well-dressed and so-called respectable men said, “ That is the way to treat the- . They ought to go round to Flinders-lane now.”

Senator Gardiner:

– Did the honorable senator assist them?

Senator PAYNE:

– No. For the information of the Leader of the Opposition, I may repeat thatthe damage was done, not by hooligans, as Senator Findley said, but by well-dressed men whom we would ordinarily regard as decent members of society. The action taken on that occasion shows the danger which any community is in when authority is absent. If any definite attempt to restore order had been made that evening, much of the destruction would have been prevented. As the Minister pointed out, the State authorities could not do anything. The State authorities did not prevent disturbances and a dislocation of services in Queensland and Western Australia. It therefore appears that, if the best interests of the people are to be served’, irrespective of class, the Federal Parliament should have power to legislate in the direction proposed. Some objection has been taken to the wording of the bill, which not only provides for the protection of the interests of the public in case of actual interruption, but also in the case of any probable interruption of an essential service. During the debate in another placea good deal was . said concerning the use of the word “probable”; but no government would be worth its salt if it did not provide against probable disturbances. I am wholeheartedly supporting this measure, be cause the Government is pursuing a proper course. I am sure honorable senators opposite really believe that action should be taken in the direction proposed, as I think they have every desire to protect the interests of Australia and its people, and there must be some power behind them to cause them to oppose a bill, the definite object of which is the protection of essential services. Senator Ogden referred to the difficulties experienced in Tasmania when the shipping service between that State and the mainland are interrupted, and upon that I do not wish to enlarge; but there are also railway, postal, telegraphic and other important services to be protected. The Minister did not overstate the position when he pictured what might have followed the police strike in Melbourne. Squatters and land-owners, many of them wealthy men, who were holidaying in Melbourne, threw themselves into the fray so that law and order should rule instead of chaos and anarchy. Men who had come down from their stations for a week’s rest, allowed all their pleasures to go so that they could act as special constables ; and they worked night and day to restore order. Eventually they and the men in the force who had remained loyal to the Government succeeded in their efforts. Had they not got the upper hand the crowd would not have been satisfied with damaging the buildings in the block bounded by Collins, Swanston, Bourke, and Elizabeth streets. What was to prevent them from wreaking vengeance on the Federal Government by destroying Commonwealth utilities? Nothing but a force of civilians which was prepared to stand up against them. When it arrived, the mob fled. They hunted in packs, like wolves, until they met a determined front, when they disappeared up the alleys and by-ways. I hope that the Senate, by a very large majority, will endorsethis proposal; and I trust that no honorable senator, during the campaign, will suggest that the desire of the Nationalist Government and its supporters is bloodshed. Such tactics should not be tolerated for a moment. Any honorable senator who would make that suggestion cannot be in his right mind.I have sufficient faith in the workers of Australia, especially in view of the attitude which they adopted when the’ position was put plainly before them at the last election, to believe that they will stand behind the Government in this proposal. They realize what is in the best interests of Australia. I warmly support the measure, believing that it 13 absolutely essential that this power should be given to the Commonwealth Parliament.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I am surprised at the attitude that has been taken up by Senator Payne. He has depicted terrible happenings in Melbourne. I am so accustomed to reading the reports which appear in the New South Wales newspapers regarding Melbourne outrages that I am almost afraid to come over here; but when I do I find that I can walk through the. Melbourne streets with the same degree of security that I have when walking through the streets of Sydney. Senator Payne appeared to think that if, when the police strike occurred in Victoria and the State Nationalist Government failed to keep law and order, the Commonwealth Government had had the power that it is now seeking it would have been able to prevent the disturbances that took place. There was very little wrong-doing on that occasion. It reflects credit upon such a thicklypopulated city that when police protection was withdrawn all that happened was the looting of a shop window here and there. Nothing serious occurred.

Senator Pearce:

– A man was robbed and killed on Princes-bridge, in the full glare of the electric light. Was that not serious ?

Senator GARDINER:

– Such things happen under the most strict governmental control. No system of government will prevent occasional outrai.ee of that kind. Bub the position will be made worse if there are two authorities dealing with the one set of circumstances, Strength comes from the placing of responsibility upon one body. The maintenance of civil order is ‘the duty of the State. There will be occasions when matters will get out of hand. I can remember the time when the military forces rioted in Melbourne. I was a Minister in the Government of the day. I joined the soldiers and walked up and down the street with them to find out what was the matter. I wanted to learn at first hand why they had set law and order at defiance and taken possession of the streets. They had the false idea that the civil police had killed a light horseman, and they were determined to “ get even.” I spoke to about a dozen men. In those days there was a press censorship, and very little appeared in the newspapers regarding the incident. I am’ pleased to say that Major Mclnerney handled that matter very skilfully and ably. But for two hours the soldiers held possession of the Melbourn© streets. Those happenings are quite unavoidable, and they do not warrant a change in authority. What does this bill propose? It asks that power shall be conferred upon the Commonwealth Parliament to take whatever action it may deem necessary in case of a probable or actual interruption of essential services. _ What are essential services? Senator Payne said that necessarily all important services must be essential. I ask honorable senators in all seriousness whether they think that all necessary services should be handed over to this Government. Has it shown the capacity to handle those matters ? The outrages in Melbourne that were depicted by Senator Payne were as nothing compared with the action which was taken by the Commonwealth Government prior to the last election. It took two innocent men from their families, imprisoned them, and endeavoured to prejudice their case by saying that they would be deported before the elections. I have never known the equal of that outrage in any part of the world. Where are those men to-day J

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Fighting one another.

Senator GARDINER:

– They are carrying on exactly as they did before. So long as a man exercises his liberties in such a way that he does not trespass upon the liberties of others, the more he is allowed to exercise his freedom, the better it is for the safety and good government of the people. One of the chief aims in amending the Constitution should be to ‘express clearly what is required. What essential services does the Government wish to control ? Surely they ought to be shown in cold type. Is the Federal Parliament, sitting in Melbourne, in a better position to control the police force in Queensland or Western Australia than the authorities who are on the spot? Can it control the essential services of Tasmania as well m the Tasmanian Government? The Government proposes to undertake duties that it cannot properly perform. If this were a unified Australia, with departments in every province to carry on the government, it might be possible to do as the Government sug.gests. Merely because there are Labour Governments in control in five States the Commonwealth Government takes the view that it must obtain power to do for itself what those Governments will not do for it. Last September and October it was asserted, with emphasis, that the strike of British seamen must be ended and the strike inciters deported forthwith. The Government obtained a majority at the poll, but it did not deport . those men. It had no intention of doing so. Neither has it any intention of exercising the powers which it is now seeking. After 25 years of federation the time is ripe for the amendment of the Federal Constitution; but the way in which that matter should be approached is to call a convention, and have amendments brought forward and discussed with deliberation by those who are competent to discuss them. Why should the Government say, “ “We will have a referendum in two months, the shortest period that the Constitution allows”? The people will not understand the matter; but that does not concern the Government.

Senator H Hays:

– They will understand what are essential services.

Senator GARDINER:

– That is the very thing which I think they will hot understand. The words “ essential services “ are most misleading. If we were honest we should specify the services and ask the people whether they favoured their being handed over to the Commonwealth Parliament. “ Essential services “ is a vague term which might mean much or little. There is one thing that I have never done in my public career, and that is to fool myself. These words have been chosen deliberately by the Government with the object of fooling first- itself and then the people. Has not the public the right to know what services are to be transferred from the States to the Commonwealth ? When the Constitution was drafted the clearest language imaginable was used to show exactly where State authority ended and Commonwealth, authority began. Why not continue that plain method? The Constitution at present enumerates 39 subjects upon which this Parliament has the power to legislate. Why not mention specifically the subjects that the Government considers ought to be added to those 39 ? Surely the public ought to know to what extent they would be depleting the powers of the States and increasing the powers of the Commonwealth if they voted for this proposal! I agree with those who believe that the Commonwealth Parliament should be supreme, but any additional powers conferred upon it should be obtained in a straightforward manner. Although this bill and the previous measure have been debated for about a week, the majority of the people will know very little about them when, they are asked to record their votes at the referendum. The average man, if he is a Nationalist, will vote in favour of granting the increased powers, because the Bruce-Page Government has brought in the bill, and if he is a Labour man he will vote “ No “ for the same reasonIn my opinion, Labour electors will.be well advised to adopt that course, because they cannot expect any good from the present Administration, I have no doubt that the answer of the people at the referendum will be in the negative, as it generally has been.

Senator Thompson:

– Is it always to be so?

Senator GARDINER:

– I almost hope so, except when’ the people are asked to vote for or against, the abolition of the liquor traffic, and then I hope that their reply will be. “Yes.” Naturally the electors will he opposed to any transfer of powers from the States to the Commonwealth, and the railway motto of “ Safety first “ will be adopted. The easiest method of settling any such question is to vote “No,” thereby leaving matters as they stand.

Senator H Hays:

– Did the people adopt that attitude at the last election ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I realize that on that occasion they were induced, by means of falsehood, misrepresentation, and fraud, to support the present Government. But when they realize that its object is to exploit the States, as indicated by this bill, they will oppose the granting of the increased powers sought. If it is desirable that the issues should be voted upon intelligently, the Government should summon the long-promised convention for the revision of the Constitution. I say quite candidly that I do not know what the Government means when it asks for the control of “essential services.” It has been said that Ministers desire power to “ Fire low and lay ‘em out,” a remark made some years ago regarding what, in the opinion of certain persons, should be done to workers who sought to improve their industrial conditions. There should be a frank statement in the bill of the exact power the Government desires to have transferred from the States to the Commonwealth. Senator Payne based his support of the bill on some little disturbance in Melbourne - serious, but unimportant as compared with groat events.

Senator Payne:

– No. I should not have mentioned that affair had it not been for Senator Findley’s remarks.

Senator GARDINER:

– Above the power of this Parliament is that of the High Court, which can say whether any action by the Government is constitutional. If the Government proceeded to control a servicethat is now dealt with by a State Government, and the latter appealed to the High Court, claiming that the Commonwealth had usurped its power, the court would immediately say that the words “essential service” conveyed nothing. A vague “ Yes,” expressed by the people at a referendum, would not give the Commonwealth Parliament the right to control the minds of the electors. The education of children may be regarded as an essential service; but would the State Governments allow this Parliament to interfere with them and take over the control of their education systems? Are not religious services essential ?

Senator Pearce:

– I think that the honorable senator had better read the bill. I am sure he has not yet done so.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have. Apparently the Minister himself has not carefully read it. It is a billfor a proposed law to alter the provisions of the Constitution in relation to essential services,” and it states -

Be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, with the approval of the electors, as required by the Constitution, as follows: -

This act may be cited as Constitution Alteration (Essential Services) 1926.

Section fifty-one of the Constitution is altered by insertingafter paragraph (v.) the following paragraph:- (v.) a. Protecting the interests of the public in case of actual or probable interruption of any essential service: “.

Senator Pearce:

– Is there one word in is about taking over essential services ? That has been the whole burden of the honorable senator’s speech.

Senator GARDINER:

– The object, as indicated by the words “ protecting the interests of the public in case of actual or probable interruption of any essential service,” is to obtain control over all essential services. The question is not “What are the Government’s intentions?” but “What do the words in the bill mean ? “. If the bill is passed and the referendum carried, the Government will have power to take over the control of the police. Senator Payne suggested that if the Federal Government had held this power the deplorable happenings in Melbourne some time ago would not have occurred. The power sought by the Government should be stated in precise terms. Are the sovereign powers that have always been enjoyed by the States to be transferred to the Commonwealth at the behest of this Government? Suppose there was a lockout in the coal-mining industry and this so-called democratic Government decided that the owners should not be allowed to prevent the men from working. If the Government proceeded to operate the mines, the owners would naturally appeal to the High Court, and that tribunal would want to know what power had been conferred upon the Commonwealth authorities to iustify their action. The lawyer appearing on’ behalf of the Government would say that the Commonwealth had received power to deal with “esential services,” but the court would probably reply that the powers ought to be set out in plain English. The proposal is so absurd that no government but the present one would introduce it. I remember that I strongly urged the Government not to proceed with certain legislation which it introduced into the last Parliament, but because it suited its purpose to continue, and as the public had to pay, it went on, only to find that the legislation was invalid. Wo cannot transfer powers from the States except in clear and definite language. Vague terms willnot suffice to transfer authority from the States to the Commonwealth. The Government wants the people to decide these questions within two months-the minimum period provided in the Constitution. No information will be given to them. The framers of the Constitution had a difficult problem. There was not only the difficulty of draftsmanship, but they also had to consider the conflicting interests of both small and large States. It is to their credit that, in language unmistakably clear, they drew a line of demarcation between the powers which should be exercised by the Federal authority and by the sovereign States. They made the position so clear that the wayfaring man, though a fool, should not err therein. This Government, however, has ceased to be definite and clear. It took two innocent men from their wives and families, and placed them in prison ; but the High Court declared that the law under which that action was taken was invalid. Yet, because an election was imminent, and the decision of the Deportation Board might have affected the result, Senator Pearce did not make that decision public for three weeks. No outrage by a mob could be worse than that. Some honorable senators will probably say that the two men concerned were strike leaders, and that anything was good enough for them. But the same honorable senators, if taken from their families at daybreak, and told that they would be kept in prison until they could be deported from the country, would regard such treatment as an outrage. They would wonder that such a thing could happen inany British community. Nothing couldbe more brutal than to place innocent men in prison, and to cause theirchildren to betaunted wherever they went with the remark that their fathers were in jail.

Senator Thompson:

– If the seamen’s wives and children could have gothold of those men in London, they would have torn them to pieces.

Senator GARDINER:

– The conditions in England, even in times of peace and under ordered government, are a disgrace to the British Government and the British people. The honorable senator himself has seen those conditions, but he has not raised his finger or his voice to alter them. He talks about the troubles that come upon people during times of strike. The working classes of England have been starving for centuries, while many of the wealthy classes have used their wealth and influence to resist all attempts to improve their conditions. The normal condition of England is starvation for one-tenth of the population. By that I do not mean every-day starvation; but conditions in England are such as to bring the blush of shame to the face of any man who calls himself a Britisher. That kind of thing has existed in England for centuries under callous governments, and for many years it has existed also in this country. I realize that all the evils of a system cannot be removed by a stroke of the pen; but it is strange to find men, who will do nothing to improve the conditions of the people in normal times, so concerned with their sufferings in times of strike. Iwas in England during a strike, and when travelling in first class railway carriages, I listened to the conversation regarding the dispute. On one occasion I inquired the wages ordinarily paid to the strikers, and when told that they were paid 18s. a week, I said that I did not wonder they had gone on strike; that I was amazed that they had continued to work for so long. To that the reply was that the men sometimes received a tip of 6d. or1s., so that they were not badly treated after all. I venture to say that many of the big firms in London, by regulation or otherwise, took good care to see that the tips received by their employees went into the firm’s coffers. I fear to give this Government additional powers. Matters connected ‘ with trade and commerce may come within the Constitution; because the Government hasdefinitely stated the powers thatit-desires to secure inthat respect. But, so faras I know, “essential services “ are not mentioned in the Constitution ; and becausethe term is so vague, it will mean nothing even though the electors give an affirmativevote onthese proposals. I understand that the Government is in a hurry, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) desires to attend an important conference in London. That is not the way to treat the people. A convention should be called. It could assemble at Canberra as soon as. the Seat of Government had been transferred there. But wherever it assembled, it should be representative of all Australia, and definite proposals should be placed before it, showing the alterations of the Constitution which the Government thinks necessary. The convention should be empowered to redraft the Constitution in any direction. We should then obtain the latest thought of the whole community, expressed after calm and deliberate consideration. By that means, many powers which with advantage .could be transferred from the Commonwealth to the States could be embodied in the Constitution. The present proposal is merely pretence. I do not believe that a gentleman of the political experience and ability of Senator Pearce believes that the use of the words “essential services” will convey anything from the States to the Commonwealth. The position is different so far as Mr. Bruce and Dr. Earle Page are concerned. They know nothing about politics, let alone the Constitution, otherwise they would not act as they do. They have not sufficient confidence in each other to meet in the same party room, and they do not understand the first principles of good government. The first principle of good government is that the Ministry shall have the confidence of Parliament, and that Parliament shall have the confidence of the people. Has Senator Pearce or Mr. Pratten, the confidence of the Country party ? In the opinion of the Country party, Mr. Pratten’s burdensome tariff has nearly crippled our primary industries. This jazz government, in attempting to amend the Constitution, is merely whirling round the dance-room. The music is set going and the people must dance to the tune of “ Essential Services.” I have been told that in opposing this bill, I am flying in the face of the community, which so recently passed a vote of confidence in the “Government. I reply that the most popular songs are often the silliest, but that once they pass they are never revived. And so with governments the song which was so popular a little while ago, “ Yes, thank you, we have no bananas,” seems specially applicable to this Government. If an amendment of the Constitution is desired, let us be fair to the people and set out clearly the alterations we desire to make. To put the proposals in vague ‘and ambiguous language is only to court defeat. Even if the people vote for the extension of this power, no one believes that such essential services as ar,e at present under the control of the States will be transferred to the Federal Parliament, because the bill does not specifically enumerate them. And, moreover, they cannot be transferred in this manner, because the Constitution cannot be altered in this way. If honorable senators care to study previous constitutional amendments that have been submitted to the people, they will find that the powers sought to be acquired have been clearly stated. No one will pretend that there is clarity in this proposal. Let us examine the position and’ see what are essential services. Are religious services in that category? I say, unquestionably, that they are essential services. Will the Government, assuming that this extension of power is granted by the people, interfere with the conduct of religious services ? Again, .are drinking services essential? In other words, is a business controlled by the liquor interests an essential service, and will the Government, under these wider powers, regulate the liquor trade? Almost every business may be regarded as an essential service, which, according to the language of this bill, could be transferred from a State to the Federal authority. Again I warn the Government that this bill is only so much pretence at amending the Constitution, and that the first appeal to the High Court will , prove conclusively that there is no power under if to transfer what may be regarded as essential services from the States to the Commonwealth. I am opposed to the bill, because I believe that no good can come from this “jazz” Government. The country wants its legislative affairs to be handled in a straightforward way. Possibly, the referendum dealing with industry and commerce powers will be answered in the affirmative by the people, because I understand my party is in favour of it. Possibly, also, the Government will carry this question against us, but I doubt it. In my judgment, the people will prefer to play for safety and negative it. They will argue that, as we have got along very well for 26 years without the protection of the Federal Government in regard to essential services, there is no occasion for a change now. I am satisfied that if any State Government requires the assistance of the Federal Government to deal with any situation there is sufficient power under the Constitution to enable the Federal Government to intervene. We know, of course, that the real reason for the introduction of these measures is to enable ministerial supporters when addressing members of the Chambers of Commerce and Manufactures, or, say, members of the Melbourne Club, to say that the Government will “ put the boot into the strikers,” and, similarly, when they are addressing the working class section of the community they will be able to say that their chief concern is to protect the workers from those “ dangerous agitators “ who are always leading the workers into trouble against their better judgment. I want the people to understand that this constitutional amendment means nothing, and that the Government, in persevering with it, is simply wasting money. Possibly some supporters of the Government are under the impression that the carrying of this bill will endow the Government with greater powers. I feel certain that Senator Pearce does not share that belief. The essential service which he has in mind is, 1 believe, the High Commissionership. Honorable senators will note that I do not propose to banish him i.o the Northern Territory. I have a high regard for the service which he has rendered to this country, and, therefore, I do not speak lightly of it. Judged by length of service in a ministerial capacity he has, perhaps, rendered greater service to the Commonwealth than any other minister, and I am wondering whether the recent change in portfolios means that, he is shedding some of his responsibility preparatory to a transfer to another sphere of service. But I feel Hire, that if he moves to another exalted position he. will represent his country as well as he has served. it as a minister. The Government will not mislead the people by pretending that these amendments of the Constitution will take certain powers from the States. In my judgment, this Government is not to be trusted even with the power it exercises at present. I know, of course, that my judgment is not shared by the electors, but, because the majority of the people may hold the contrary view, that is’ no reason why I should not express my opinion. The Government’s failure to protect the people from certain agitators, even when it had an overwhelming majority in both Houses, will require a lot of explanation. The Prime Minister declared that two men would have to go out of the country. They are still here. Were they not as dangerous in December, after the election, as they were in September, before the election? Certainly they had not changed their opinions on industrial matters, and yet the Government failed to send them out of the country. The Ministry now suggests that, if extended powers be given, it will be able to protect the community more effectively. I doubt if the people can be fooled twice in twelve months, and so I believe the Government will not be granted these additional powers. The proper and manly course is to call a conference of representatives of the various States, ascertain in what direction the Constitution should be amended, submit the proposals to a convention, and then subsequently have them debated in the Federal Parliament, so that, when they are placed before the people, the electors will be in a position to give an intelligent vote upon them. If, however, the Government persists in this hurried appeal to the people, the electors, not having had reasonable time to consider their ‘ proposals, and believing in safety first, will negative them, I advise the Government to take the people into their confidence, and adopt the course I have suggested. The amendment of the Constitution is too serious a matter to be undertaken in the way now proposed. I understand that this bill, as well as that debated last week, must be passed by the Senate to-morrow. Within two months the people will be called upon to vote upon them. Does the Government intend to apply the compulsory voting provisions of the Electoral

Act to the referendum, or will the issues he decided by the votes only of those electors who are sufficiently interested to go to the poll? My last word on this subject to-night is that, if the Government really desires to secure an extension of the powers of the Parliament, it should state in plain language what powers it wishes to be endowed with. This bill does not say that. Because of this omission, I am satisfied that it will not stand the test of an appeal to the High Court. I intend to oppose it.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– This bill, though a small one, deals with a matter of the first magnitude. Unlike Senator Gardiner, who states that it is hurried legislation, I think the bill has been delayed too long. A longsuffering public has been grossly trampled upon in the past for lack of this power, which is now sought to vest in the Federal Parliament. It is time that the community had a voice in this matter. The time has come for the Commonwealth Government to be vested with the necessary power to deal with those individuals who, in the past, have so grossly interfered with the liberties of the people. I listened carefully to Senator Gardiner and other honorable senators of his party this af ternoon ; but I see no cause f or alarm. The honorable senator and his colleagues opposite almost put their toes to the chalk line of political and debating propriety in their criticism of this measure. I could not help thinking that, if a visitor from Mars or some other planet, one unversed in parliamentary usage and unfamiliar with the ways of some men, had been present during the debate and had heard the criticism of the Government, he would have come to the conclusion that the Ministry and its supporters were a very indifferent lot. The critics of thebill have raked the Government fore and aft. Supporters of this bill have hardly any character left. But what are the facts? It is only a few months ago since Senator Gardiner and hisparty had a chance to be heard. There was an appeal to the people, and, notwithstanding the. eloquence with which the Labour party put its case, and the employment of all thearts in which its members are so skilled, the people once more reposed their confidence in the Government and its supporters. To Senator Gardiner and his friends they said, in effect - “You may be all right, but for the time being, at all events, you must take second place in the management of the affairs of this country. We put our trust in the other party.” In the circumstances, the criticisms which we heard to-day in the course of this debate were uncalled for. The opinion of the electors was reflected through the ballot-box.

Senator Gardiner:

– I understood the Government was returned because it had made a definite promise to deport certain men.

Senator LYNCH:

– That has nothing to do with the question at issue. The electors had an opportunity to place Senator Gardiner and some of his party in the position now occupied by Ministers in this chamber, but they did not do so. I feel that there is undue alarm in the minds of Senator Gardiner and his colleagues, who have quite unjustifiably indulged in calculations and speculations as to what the womb of time holds in store for the Australian people. They spoke of bodies of armed men shooting down their fellow-Australians, but I do not know why they should conjure up such thoughts. There have been in this country but three separate incidents which might warrant the expression of such opinions. Honorable senators of the Labour party may be the victims of environment or tradition, and recall the ruthless exercise of power by the few; but it was such incidents that awakened the people, and pavedthe way to the real freedom that obtains to-day. I need only remind Senator Gardiner that shots once fired at Ballarat were more responsible for the freedom and liberty which we enjoy thanperhaps anything else. Apart altogether from the nature of this proposal,it would not be good judgment or good politics for any government to act in the manner suggested by some honorable senators opposite. If this Government fulfilled the prophesies of its critics what would be the result ? How would this Government be regarded by the intelligent section of the community if it used its power in the way some suggest ? The democracy of this country would be so outraged thatthe people would rise in their might and remove the Government from the treasury bench. It wouldbe as I have said, bad judgment and bad politics to introduce a measure of this description with the object of fulfilling the hollow and unwarranted prophesies of Senator Gardiner and his colleagues. What is the proposal? Let us endeavour to get at its genesis. It is a proposal, so far as I can understand, to allow the people to undertake their daily tasks unhampered or uninterfered with by irresponsible men, by whose action untold misery has been caused to an overwhelming body of innocent men and women in this country. I would have some sympathy with the contention of the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters if we did not have an Arbitration Court the like of which is not to be found in any other country - a court that has been of much service to the workers of Australia. If we had not such an institution the workers might reasonably say, “What remedy have we but to strike?” The workers of Australia have what no other country possesses. They have a court before which they can ventilate their grievances, and receive just treatment. They have a means of preventing tyrannical employers doing what they did in our boyhood days, as Senator Gardiner well knows. The power which tyrannical employers enjoyed to the full in days gone by has been wrenched from their grasp, and the workers who for so long were denied their rights have at last come into their own. Notwithstanding this, they have in many instances, after receiving an award, levied a mild form of blackmail against society. Is that fair play? If it is, I should like to know what is foul play. Those who criticize the measure so severely, apparently wish to have two barrels to their pop-gun - they wish to have the Arbitration Court before which they can appear, and also the right tostrike. They cannot play long at that game in a free and intelligent community. Such practices are not allowed in any other field of activity, and should not be allowed in the industrial arena. In the football field, the players have to abide by the rules of the game, and in the industrial sphere the workers should obey the awards of a court the establishment of which they so strongly supported. In travelling throughout the Commonwealth I have found why public opinion has been moulded in such a way as to produce the results which we see before us to-day. The Labour party is in opposition, and the advocates of law and order and sane government are occupying the treasury bench. It is true that essential services have been interfered with by a section of the workers; but who is suffering? It is the workers themselves and that is why Senator Gardiner is where he is today. We have to play the game. The latter-day Labour party has not done so. If the Labour party stood true to its original principles, and did not wander from the path of political rectitude, there would be only one party in the Federal Parliament to-day. It is because the members of the Labour party have listened to the voice of extremists, who have never done an honest day’s work and who never will, that that party is where it is. Many of the irresponsible persons who have brought about the downfall of the Labour party have never lifted a finger for the Labour cause, and the present members of the party have not the courage to denounce them. The Leader of the Opposition in another place is an exception, but he only denounced the extremists when he saw his political funeral on the horizon. I am reminded of the story I heard some years ago, of the man who, on finding an egg, broke the shell, and was attempting to swallow the contents when a chicken squeaked. He said, “ You spoke too late - down you go.” The leaders of the Labour movement spoke too late, and down they went. This measure, which is somewhat belated, is being introduced for the purpose of giving the people at last a measure of justice. In touring the western State some time ago I visited a farm where I saw tons of potatoes for which a market in the East was available at £11 and £12 a ton. They could not be shipped because theKaroola was held up, and they were sold later at £6 or £7 a ton. Those producers were so incensed that they used the only weapon they possessed , and opposed these small-minded men who had not the courage to denounce their betrayers. I also visited a timber mill in Western Australia, at which hundreds of men were usually employed. What did I find there ? To my surprise, one of the employees took the chair at my meeting, and when I asked why such a thing should happen in an industrial centre, I was informed that the products of their labour, which were ready for shipment to the eastern States, had been held up for weeks owing to a strike. The men had been idle for weeks. There were several speakers, all of whom said that they were going to put these men in their place. They did. I could quote many similar instances of the action taken by men who had hitherto been supporters of the Labour party, but who at the last election declined to vote for them. They realized their responsibility, and a decided change was brought about. In a country such as Australia, we must keep on producing the commodities we consume and the articles we wear ; that is the system upon which civilization is built. Russia is considered to have the most advanced form of government on the earth’s crust.

Senator Ogden:

– Considered by whom?

Senator LYNCH:

– Not by me, but by certain people. There is no interference with essential services in that country. Should there be any disturbance of an essential service in that country it is quickly taken in hand. If honorable senators opposite lived in Russia and said “ Booh.” to the Government it would be the last “booh” they would say; and they know it. I have in my hand a work which contains the proof, and its authenticity cannot be questioned. It is entitled The First Time in History, and its author is an American lady named Anna Louise Strong. The foreword was written by that distinguished personality, Trotsky, so I presume that whatever statements are made are fairly near the mark. Listen to what the author says at page 64 -

When they had made their programme, they combined with the labour unions to present a united demand of Industry to Congress. That is how industry works in Russia to-day. Fuel spoke first in the conference.

In other words, the provision of fuel is an essential service in Russia to-day. The author proceeds to show how coal and fuel are provided. At page 67, referring to the workers in the Donetz, she says -

The delegates came up to Moscow to the Central Congress of Soviets, saying : - “ We work waste deep in water. Can’t you give us means to repair the mines V In their union halls, all over the Donetz they put up their list of heroes, the men who collapsed at work and were carried away, only to return to the struggle after a few days’ rest. They also posted lists of deserters, who quit because it was hard.

That was the way they mined coal on the Donetz through years of war and of famine and the first year of peace. When I visited the mines myself early in 1923, there was already a different story. It was still bad, from any standard of decent living. Production was less than half pre-war, which meant that the expense of the product was almost doubled; to the injury of all industry. Wages were very low, and not always paid in time. Housing was in shocking condition; even before the war it was very bad, and the civil war had destroyed one-quarter of the houses. There were cases in the Donetz of fifteen workers in a single room.

Yet these essential services were kept going! There was no need for a bill of this description. At page 68 the author says -

I saw red banners proudly displayed in factories, “ For the fulfilment of production programme.” …. Life was harder here, they said, but more secure. No strikes, no unemployment; everything settled by union agreement.

That is how things are managed in Russia. They have recognized, as we have, the necessity for keeping essential services running so that the communal life of the country shall not suffer. What is wrong with our doing the same thing, especially when we have an Arbitration Court which sees that the worker does not suffer any social injustice? I have read sufficient to show that in Russia there is no stoppage of railways, steamships or other essential services that are necessary to the industrial life of the country. I shall support the bill in the belief that, though it has arrived late, it will do some good. I feel certain that the predictions of honorable senators opposite will never be fulfilled. I am equally certain that that is their belief. They have previously said in this chamber that this Government wants to have wages reduced and black labour employed in industries, and that it is the friend and backer of Lord Inchcape. Theynow make the further charge that we are bent upon bringing out the military to shoot down their fellow Australians. Notwithstanding everything that has been said against the measure, it is necessary for the preservation of our essential services and I shall support it.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

– I fear that if this power is conferred upon the Commonwealth the military forces will be used to quell industrial disputes. It would not be the first time that that had happened in Australia. We should not follow the example that was set recently by Great Britain. During an industrial disturbance in South

Africa the Trades Hall was bombed from an aeroplane. That was a most cowardly action, as hundreds of innocent people were killed. In 1892 a strike, which lasted five months, occurred amongst the miners in Broken Hill. The New South Wales Government sent to that town an armed force. I witnessed its arrival. It comprised 500 or 600 men, with rifles, ball cartridges and bayonets, and it paraded the streets day and night for six or eight weeks. That action was taken to incite the people to a breach of the peace. The Melbourne newspapers at the time said that the streets of Broken Hill were running with blood, and that people were being murdered. The fact of the matter was that Broken Hill was the most tranquil place on the face of the globe. It was intended to re-open the silver mines with thousands of free labourers, and this armed force was sent to protect them. I am afraid of similar happenings under this measure. Senator McLachlan referred to the police strike in Victoria. Who but the State Government was responsible for that? It had ample time to deal with the men and give them what they were asking. Had it done so no trouble would have occurred. The strikers were discharged, and the men by whom they were replaced were given what the Government had denied to them. I hope that the bill will not be passed. I shall fight it tooth and nail, both inside and outside this House.

Senator PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Western Australia · NAT

– We are sorry that Senator Gardiner is about to leave the Senate, and that one of his last speeches should be so typical of many that he hasmade previously. His speech brought to my mind the story of the negro pastor who was introducing to his flock a pastor from a neighbouring town. He referred to him in these terms : “ He can see the unseen ; he knows the unknown; and he can unscrew the unscrewable.” Whilst listening to Senator Gardiner I thought what a wonderful description that was of him. He displayed keen anxiety regarding his friends, Walsh and Johannsen, whom he accused the Government of trying to get rid of. Ever since’ the elections those gentlemen have been busily endeavouring to get rid of each other. I made a few notes of the topics with which the honorable senator dealt. He appeared in many rôles. First of all, we saw him as the advocate of financial extravagance : he urged that the Government ought to incur additional expenditure in calling a special convention to decide what constitutional amendments should be made. Then he appeared in the role of the economist, asking, “ Why should we waste money upon a referendum? Next, he made a special appeal to the bolshevik element in our midst by telling them that they were justified in asserting themselves, “ by force if necessary.” He followed that up by giving law-abiding citizens a pat on the back. The honorable senator also had a word to say for the temper ance party, and explained the way in which he would deal with the liquor interests if he had the power. Then, thinking he might have a few friends on the other side, he said something for the liquor interests. He made a few pious references to religion, and then, in order to. retain the goodwill of the elements which were not exactly religious, uttered a few agreeable sentiments on behalf of the non-religious section. He drew a verbal picture of industrial conditions in England, clothing it in language that would be likely to appeal to every hater of that country. Then, remembering that there might be a few loyal Englishmen in this country, he appealed to the Englishmen’s love of law and order, extolling the virtues of liberty and posing as the apostle of liberty. As the votes of those who raided the shops in Melbourne might come in handy at the next election, he told them that they did perfectly right to damage a few of those shops, and that they had not done as much harm as this Government had done. So he will have friends amongst the law-abiding section of the community and amongst those who are willing to break any law. He paid such compliments to myself and other members of the Government that any one who listened to that portion of his speech would think this was a very fine Government.. But if he had listened to another portion of the speech he would have heard the insulting remarks offered by Senator Gardiner (to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page), and myself, and he would have come to the conclusion that the honorable senator looked upon us as a combination of fools and rogues. Speaking of the virtues of democracy, he said that it was essential that it should be defended. A little later, however, he referred to the people as a lot of fools, who were only fit to be well suppressed by a. strong autocracy. He even introduced the subject of the tariff, and spoke of the benefits of free trade. Then he apparently recollected that in New South “Wales, where he still hopes to have a political future, there are a large number of protectionists, and he added a few words about the importance of the industries of this country. He extolled the national sentiment even to the extent of declaring for unification, and said that he did not disguise the fact that his party stood for that principle. Then, suddenly remembering that there are many “ state righters “ in this country, he characterized the bill as an attempt to do away with State rights. He even assumed the role of a prophet.He told us what would be the result of the referendum, and said that the proposals would be defeated. He also took the role of the person who is wise after the event and says, “ I told you what would happen.” Prior to the last general election, however, I remember trembling in my seat in this chamber while the honorable senators thundered in my ear that that was the last time I should sit in this Parliament. But I am still here, and he is about to depart. Moreover, the honorable senator posed as the champion of law and order. He referred to those great spirits of the past who have impressed upon the British character a love of law and order. At the same time he said that he had a good deal of sympathy for the men who smashed the shops in the streets of Melbourne some time ago. Therefore, when the report of his speech is circulated in New South Wales, I venture to say that every section of the community that reads the portion referring particularly to it will say, “He is not a bad sort after all” If they ignore those parts of the speech with which they do not agree, the honorable senator will receive the support of the party that stands for law and order and the “ Bolshie “ votes as well. He will have the support of free traders and protectionists alike; of the religious and the non-religious; and of all the other elements of society. I have heard many electioneering speeches, but I have never listened to one delivered in the space of less than an hour in which so many arguments, calculated to appeal to all sections of the community, have been advanced. Now I return to the bill. The speeches by honorable senators opposite caused me considerable amusement. Some of them were members of a party that supported a government of which I was a member in 1910. According to the official records the Constitution Alteration (Legislative Powers) Bill was received from the House of Representatives on the 28th October, 1910, and “ on the motion of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce),” read a first time. Senators Gardiner, Needham, and Findley were among the most stalwart supporters of the Government responsible for that measure, in clause 2 of which it was provided -

Section fifty-one of the Constitution is altered by omitting from paragraph (i) the words “ with other countries, and among the States.”

At that time it was proposed to take full powers over trade and commerce, and to take full industrial powers. I invite honorable senators opposite to ask Mr. Brennan, or any other lawyer, whether, if this Parliament had full power over trade and commerce and over industrial matters, it could not do everything that it would be able to do if the powers sought under the present bill were granted. Do not trade and commerce extend to shipping, coal-mining, and every industry? Could not a State Government to-day do everything that the Commonwealth Government is now asking for power to do? If the people had granted the power sought in 1910, the Commonwealth would have had every power now enjoyed by State Governments in regard to trade and commerce and industry. It would have had power to protect the interests of the public in the event of the interruption, or probable interruption, of any essential service, not only in times of industrial trouble, but at all times. Honorable senators opposite are opposing the present bill, although it does not go so far as did the measure introduced in 1910. It merely provides for the following alteration of the Constitution: -

Section fifty-one of the Constitution is altered by inserting after paragraph v the following paragraph : - “ (v ) a. Protecting theinterests of the public in case of actual orprobable interruption of any essential service : “

If the Government had the powers sought in 1910, it could not only protect the interests of the public, but also take over every essential service, and legislate as to the conditions under which such services should be provided.Why are honorable senators opposite, who were in favour of the proposals made in 1910, against the present proposal? It is because they are humbugging themselves, and are trying to humbug the people. The suggestion that the Government seeks this power in order to use military force in the event of industrial turmoil is so much camouflage to enable those honorable senators to excuse themselves in humbugging the people. Senator Gardiner stated to-night that he sometimes fooled others, but never fooled himself. All I wish to say is, that if he meant what he said he was energetically trying to fool himself.Whether he succeeded or not, he alone knows.

Question - That the bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 8

Majority . . . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Essential services).

Question - That the clause stand as printed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 8

Majority . . … . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1926-1927. firstreading.

Debate resumed (vide page 3446).

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to refer to the all-absorbing question of national taxation. We cannot but recognize that the question of our national taxation is by far the most absorbing one that confronts us today. On innumerable occasions since federation, there have been conferences of State Premiers, as well as conferences between them and the Commonwealth authorities, on the subject of taxation. I invite the attention of the protectionists on the other side to the position. They never tire of informing us that Customs duties are imposed for the purpose of fostering Australian industries, and I never tire of reminding them that they are not only deceiving themselves, but that they are endeavouring also to deceive others. Customs duties are imposed for the express purpose of providing additional revenue. There is today no intention, and there has never been any intention, to exclude from this country goods manufactured in low-wage foreign countries. That being so, it does not surprise me that we have to-day the spectacle of the various States meeting in conference, and threatening to confer more frequently in the future, to determine how the spoils of Customs duties are to to he divided. No other question engages the attention of the State Premiers to the same extent. Judging by the receipts already to hand, the Customs revenue this year will be approximately £40,000,000. I remind the Senate that the Commonwealth assumes responsibility for the payment of old-age and invalid pensions, repatriation, defence, and other matters for which it is responsible under section 51 of the Constitution. In addition, it has recently undertaken, in its road policy, something which it was never intended that the Commonwealth should undertake. The spectacle of the Premiers of the various States meeting to determine the best way to lay their hands upon the Customs revenue is most humiliating. I do not altogether blame them. The additional receipts from the Customs House should be a clear indication to the people that our so-called protectionist policy is not a policy of protection at all, but a high revenue policy. The underlying cause of the dissatisfaction existing in Western Australia and Tasmania is their inability to lay their hands on the Customs revenue. If it were possible to re-open the question, I feel sure that the States would not again consent to this source of revenue being handed to the Commonwealth. The imposition of Customs duties is the most effective method that could be devised for placing the burden of taxation upon the poor people. Mr. Lang, the Premier of New South Wales, said the other day that the most fertile source of revenue was the Customs House. So long as we continue to borrow money abroad, and to import foreign goods, that condition will continue. The time is opportune for the States to be informed that, instead of relying on the Customs revenue, they should endeavour to obtain revenue by other means. How is it that in a large and wealthy State like New South Wales, the land-owners are allowed almost entirely to escape taxation? The various States have full power to levy taxation in any direction; but, true to their principles, they are determined, if possible, to avoid doing so. They prefer to obtain their revenue from the Commonwealth, out of the money received by way of Customs duties. From the inception of federation the Commonwealth Government has been a kind of “ wood and water joey “ for the various States. The system which permits one government to collect revenue and another government to spend it, is wrong. The Commonwealth should either retire from the field of Customs taxation or come to a definite understanding with the States regarding it. The States would then be able to place their finances upon a satisfactory basis. Tasmania desires to have the right to tax foreign-made goods entering that State. She would like also to tax all goods coming from the mainland as she now imposes taxation upon citizens from the mainland who visit that State. It will be interesting to see the result of the differences existing between the States and the Commonwealth. So far as I can see, the Commonwealth for a long time will continue to collect the revenue and the States will expend it. The States are opposed to direct taxation, because they realize that the taxpayer then knows what he pays, whereas in the case of revenue obtained through the Customs he does not know. I recently ascertained that a small mincing machine, used to make tough steak fit for human consumption, is imported for about 6s. The duty, however, is 6s. 6d., and the article is sold at 12s. 6d. As the purchaser has no knowledge of the amount of duty, he pays without a murmur. If, however, the average taxpayer is asked to pay a direct tax, such as income tax or a land values tax, he objects immediately. Recently there was quite a roar throughout Australia because the Senate moved to impose an additional tax of1d. a foot on imported films. The entire scheme of national taxation should engage the earnest attention of Parliament in order to bring about a solution of the existing difficulties between the Commonwealth and the States.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Senate adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 June 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1926/19260624_senate_10_113/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant