Senate
1 December 1927

10th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. Sir John Newlands) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2340

QUESTION

RAPSON TYRE COMPANY

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the fact that the Tasmanian Government has guaranteed the dividends for a period of ten years on the preference allures of the Rapson Tyre Company proposed to be established in that State?
  2. Does the Government consider that the guaranteeing of dividends of that character is a proper use of the special grant of money made to that State by the Commonwealth?
  3. Will the Government obtain the opinion of Crown law officers as to whether the guaranteeing of such dividends is not a violation of section 90 of the Constitution?
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The answers are: - 1.I understand from the press that the Tasmanian Government has given the Rapson Tyre Company some guarantee in connexion with the establishment of its works in Tasmania, but I have no official knowledge on the subject.

  1. If such a guarantee has been given, I am not aware that it involves the use of the special grant made by the Commonwealth to the State of Tasmania.
  2. In the circumstances it is not proposed to obtan the opinion of the Crown Law officers, but inquiries are being made from the Tas- manian Government.

page 2340

QUESTION

AMALGAMATEDWIRELESS (AUSTRALASIA) LIMITED

Common wealth’s Representatives.

Senator GIVENS:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Who are the persons representing the Commonwealth Government on the Board of Directors of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited?
  2. What remuneration do they receive?
  3. Does the Commonwealth Government or the company pay that remuneration?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The aswers are as follow : -

  1. Sir George Mason Allard, Sir William Vicars, Senator J. D. Millen.
  2. The remuneration of the directors other than that of the managing directors is determined by the company in general meeting, and such rumuneration is divided amongst the directors in such manner as they settle among themselves. I understand the amount paid to each of the directors is £300 per annum, and the Chairman receives an additional £200 per annum. The directors are also entitled to travelling and hotel expenses incurred in the performance of their duties including expenses to and from board meetings.
  3. The company pays the remuneration.

page 2340

QUESTION

BU TTER EXPORTS

Senator ANDREW:
VICTORIA

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

  1. Is the Government aware whether, owing to the absence of preservative in our unsalted butter exported overseas, it is found that on arrival at its destination the butter has deteriorated in quality?
  2. Will the Minister take the necessary steps to make representations to the Imperial Government with a view to an amendment of their regulationsso as to permit sufficient preservative to be put in the unsalted butter to ensure its being sold in the home market under the very best conditions?

SenatorCRAWFORD. - The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

  1. Complaints have been received from London regarding the quality of certain of the first shipments of Victorian unsalted butter this season. When this butter was submitted for inspection prior to export the quality was regarded as very satisfactory. After these shipments had been made the samples retained showed slight defects, and action was taken by Commonwealth officers to withhold from shipment for observation all the unsalted portion of the consignments then in store, lt was discovered that deterioration also took place in connexion with certain of these consignments; hut as the outcome of experiments by Commonwealth officers in conjunction with factory managers, a method has been discovered which it is hoped will maintain the grade and quality of butter without the use of preservatives by increasing the lactic acid content of the cream.
  2. The Commonwealth Government is fully seized of the difficulties confronting Australian producers in connexion with the prohibition of importation into the United Kingdom of butter containing preservatives, and has during the past three years made frequent representations to the Imperial Government in connexion with the matter. The British Government, whilst not prepared to exempt butter containing preservatives from the terms of the prohibition, agreed to defer the enforcement of the embargo from 1st January, 1927, to 1st January, 1.02S, to enable producers in the Commonwealth and other parts of the Empire to take the necessary action to manufacture butter which would comply with the requirements of the British regulations. Only yesterday, in answer to further representations by the Commonwealth, the British Minister for Health stated that he regretted he was unable to contemplate any further postponement of the enforcement of the regulations.

page 2341

INDUSTRIAL TROUBLE ON THE WATERFRONT

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

[3.6]. - I move -

That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the submission and consideration without delay of a motion dealing with the present waterside industrial trouble. J

If that motion is carried I intend to move -

That in view of the great loss, unemployment and general distress which will inevitably result from the continuance of the serious industrial disturbance in the waterside industry, this Senate affirms its support of the Government in taking any action the Government thinks necessary, in co-operation with the States so far as possible, to maintain law and order, and to ensure the continuance of services essential to the well-being of the Commonwealth.

I am asking the Senate to agree to the suspension of the Standing Orders because owing to the unlawful action of the

Waterside Workers’ Federation, we have been precipitated into what appears to be the beginning of a disastrous industrial trouble. It is desirable that at the outset the Government should know if Parliament is prepared to support it in any action which it may be necessary for it to take, and also to let those who are defying the law, know the course which Parliament will adopt. The matter is urgent because every day the trouble continues it means a loss of thousands of pounds to the producers and to the people generally. As its continuance will bring untold misery to thousands of people, it is urgent that Parliament should at once be offorded an opportunity to affirm its support of the Government in any action it may see fit to take.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce) in giving reasons for moving the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable him to move a certain motion, might, at this juncture at least, have refrained from making a direct charge against one of the parties to the dispute. It would have been better to have omitted any reference of a contentious nature until the Standing Orders had been suspended. In effect the right honorable gentleman invited honorable senators on this side of the chamber to obstruct the Government, and prevent the motion being carried. If there is any urgency in the matter, it could have been considered in an entirely different manner from that which the Government proposes. Had the Government realized its responsibilities earlier there would have been no need to act in the manner proposed. I do not intend to debate the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders, and so far as I am personally concerned, I shall not offer any objection to it.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I cannot refrain from expressing amazement at the language used by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce)-, in regard to one of the parties to the dispute. I am sure that the right honorable gentleman knows that he could, with greater accuracy, have levelled a similar charge against the shipowners. I do not wish to burke discussion on this subject but I strongly protest against the language used by the Minister. It reminds me of an utterance in this chamber quite recently, when an honorable senator urged the Government to immediately exercise force in order to bring the dispute to an end.

Senator Payne:

– What nonsense.

Senator GRANT:

– That was the language used by Senator Ogden.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir John Newlands). - Order! The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.

Senator GRANT:

– I wish to say in conclusion that I welcome a discussion on the motion the Minister proposes to move, as I am anxious to know what the Government intends to do to bring the dispute to a satisfactory termination.

Question put.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being an absolute majority of the whole Senate present, and no dissentient voice being raised, I declare the motion carried.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.12]. - I move -

That in view of the great loss, unemployment unci general distress which will inevitably result from the continuance of the serious industrial disturbance in the waterside industry, the Senate affirms its support of the Government in taking any action the Government thinks necessary, in co-operation with the Governments of the States so far as possible, to maintain law and order and to ensure the continuance of services essential to the well-being of the Commonwealth.

On Tuesday last, when Senator Ogden moved the adjournment of the Senate to direct attention to the waterside workers’ dispute, I gave the Senate the facts of the case and I do not therefore intend to recapitulate them at this juncture, except to say that since then the shipowners have done what they said they would do. They have called upon the men to work the cargo on the ships, under the award, of the Arbitration Court. This, the men have refused to do, and the overtime strike is still proceeding. If that is not an unlawful act on the part of the union I should like to know what honorable, members opposite would describe as an unlawful act. The law of this country has provided an Arbitration Court for the settlement of industrial disputes, and it also provides that “when a dispute is pending, neither side to a dispute shall be permitted to alter or depart from the conditions of the award. On Tuesday I gave the Senate particulars of the case as supplied to the Arbitration Court in the form of affidavits, and the particular instances in which the award was being broken by branches of the union. I quoted the statement of Judge Beeby to the effect that these allegations had not been denied. In fact in one of the affidavits submitted by the union, the judge said they had been admitted. Under the law as it stands we cannot describe this disastrous strike as other than stupid and foolish. What is going to be the effect of it ? We read in the newspapers that when the R.M.S. Ormonde departed for Melbourne a day or two &gb hundreds of cases of butter and other perishable produce were left on the wharf. That is going to be repeated at each of the principal ports of the Commonwealth, and this at a time when the Eastern States are suffering from the poorest harvest for many years. The wheat harvest in South Australia and Victoria this year will be only about one half the normal return. This trouble comes, moreover, at a time when our primary producers are finding it difficult to carry on, and when, according to honorable senators opposite, there is a great deal of Unemployment in the country. At such a time the shipping of the nation, upon which its life depends, is held up, not because the court is not open, but because a small section of men have taken the law into their own hands and have said that, notwithstanding the award of the court, or the order of the judge, they will dictate the terms under which ships, shall be loaded, how many articles shall be placed in a sling, and how wheat shall be shipped. They seek to constitute themselves dictators above the Arbitration Court. The Government and the Parliament of this country cannot sit idly by while these things happen . In the interest of the country, action must be taken. The sea-carrying trade of Australia cannot be interrupted in this fashion without something being done. For several years past, this period of the year has been chosen as an. opportune time to hold up our shipping. At this season of the year, whew our primary products are almost ready for shipment to the other side of the -world -and the people of Tasmania are looking forward’ to an increase in tourist traffic, for the fourth or fifth year in succession a strike is arranged. In the light of these facts, what is the use of

Bulking of other than the strongest possible measures to terminate these troubles once and for all ? It may be that on this occasion the Commonwealth and State Governments will have to take action beyond the measures ordinarily taken by a Government when dealing with somewhat similar situations. So far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned, I give the assurance that it will use all the powers it possesses to restore the essential services of the country and to enforce obedience to its laws. The Government believes that in so doing, it will receive the support of the State Governments. lt would be a good thing if this Parliament were unitedly to affirm this resolution. That would have a great moral effect upon those who are pursuing this mad, suicidal course - for suicidal it is; not only to the country, but also to themselves and the class to which they belong. No matter how stupid their actions at times may be, these people must to some extent be susceptible to public opinion as expressed in this Parliament. This motion is submitted in order that the people of this country may bo given an assurance that Parliament will support the Government in any action it may deem necessary to deal with the situation and to show those who are foolish and stupid enough to plunge the country into this fratricidal struggle, with all its consequences of unemployment, distress and loss, that their action docs not meet with the approval of the people and that this Government is determined that it shall not continue.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– The right honorable the Leader of the Senate said that it would be a good thing if Parliament were unitedly to agree to the motion submitted on behalf of the Government. This Parliament would have unitedly agreed to other action which the Government could have taken and which even more effectively would: have met the situation’ . than the method proposed to be adopted by the Government. There1 is no- need for the motion which has been submitted, or of the action contemplated by the Government. The’ object of the motion is to re-create that hysteria, which pervaded Australia about two years ago. I£ the Government was iri earnest in its; desire to cope with this trouble,, it could have taken action independently of Parliament to bring about a settlement of the industrial warfare that has commenced on the waterfront. Parliament is asked to give the Government power to take any action which it thinks- necessary, in co-operation with the governments of the States, so far as possible^ to maintain law and order and- to ensure the continuance of services essential to the1 well-being of the Commonwealth. If peaceful intervention by the Government was intended, there would be some reason for the motion ; but the Government intends to do more than act in co-operation with the States. It intends to issue a proclamation under the Crimes Act of 1926. The Government is trying to create an atmosphere which will lead to acts of domestic violence being committed. I remind the Leader of the Senate that should any such acts be committed there is power in the Constitution to meet such an emergency. In such circumstances any state government can requisition the assistance of the Commonwealth Government to cope with the situation. I remind honorable senators that, although we have had a number of industrial disputes in Australia, those disputes have been singularly free from acts ofdomestic violence. The Government need have no anxiety about the preservation of law and order. Speaking in another place, the Prime Minister this morning said that the Government did not intend to discuss the merits or demerits of the present trouble. Yet in almost the same breath he said that the members of the Waterside Workers Federation had been guilty of a flagrant violation of the order of the court.

Senator Sir GEORGE Pearce:

– He was quoting the remarks of the judge.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s statement that he would not take sides in the matter, he laid a charge against one party to the dispute. It cannot be said truthfully that all the blame for the present upheaval attaches to the workers. I repeat what I said on Tuesday that, although we have a system of arbitration which has for its object the settlement and prevention of industrial disputes the machinery of that system has not worked properly for years. Time after time the attention of the Government has been directed to the extremely slow motion of the machinery of the Arbitration Court. The Government has been urged to put that machinery into more rapid motion by the appointment of additional judges and conciliation commissioners. It is true that one or two additional judges were appointed : nevertheless the machinery of the court still works slowly. The workers have become exasperated because of the delay. That is one of the principal causes of the dispute now raging on the waterfront. Fully two years have elapsed since the Waterside Workers Federation approached the court for a hearing of their plaint. The executive of that body has done everything in its power to get the different branches to work in conformity with the law and to abide by the award of the court. The judge himself has admitted that. The Prime Minister said that the Government could not intervene in any way other than that proposed in the motion he submitted in another place because there was in existence a system of arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes. That is a lame excuse for the action taken. Tor 23 years arbitration as a means of settling industrial disputes has been a law of this land. During that period both Federal and State governments have on many occasions intervened in disputes. They did so because they realized that otherwise the trouble would spread and cause further misery and distress. I remind honorable senators that when trouble occurred in the coal-mining industry some years ago the then Prime Minister did not hesitate to intervene. He went further and obtained the approval of Parliament to the creation of a special tribunal to deal with that industry in the interests of the Commonwealth generally.

It is wrong for the Government to say that because we have in operation certain machinery we should not use any other means, except that of force to bring about peace when industrial trouble threatens. That is not a reasonable stand to take. No honorable senator can in his heart believe that that is the way to seek to bring about a settlement of the present industrial trouble. On the contrary, it will merely aggravate the situation, because the men who are engaged in the industry will say that the Parliament of the nation is taking sides with one party - the employers - and showing no consideration for them.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The Government is taking the side of the people of Australia.

SenatorNEEDHAM. - The side of the people can be taken in a manner other than that which is proposed. What steps does the Government intend to take?I presume that after this motion, and that which has been moved in another place, have been carried, the machinery of the Crimes Act will be put in operation, and that a proclamation will be issued threatening with all sorts of pains and penalties those who are on one side of the dispute, and extending protection and clemency to those who are on the other side. That is not the proper method to adopt. The situation is changing from day to day. The outlook is different to-day from what it was on Tuesday afternoon. It has now been definitely decided that interstate steamers and the Australian Commonwealth Line shall not become involved in the dispute, and that the transport service between the mainland and Tasmania will be maintained.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The Australian Commonwealth Line has become involved; it is not carrying cargo.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I assert that it has not. Yesterday my honorable friends opposite displayed anxiety at the action of the Chairman of the Commonwealth Shipping Board in keeping the men working and the ships running. Senator Duncan sought to elicit information as to whether the Government would take the action necessary to prevent the award of the court from being nullified. Honorable senators opposite appear to be. entirely forgetful of the fact that under an act of this legislature the Shipping Board has full power to act independently of either the Government or Parliament. A paragraph which appeared in to-day’s Sydney Morning Herald, reads -

Sir William Clarkson, a member of the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board, said yesterday that the Australian Commonwealth Line had not refused to recognize the shipowners’ ultimatum to the waterside workers. The board had never been a party to the ultimatum, hence it could not he accused of having repudiated it.

As the line never required an afternoon “ pick-up “ to work its vessels, it was not concerned with the vital cause of the no overtime strike. The members of the Waterside Workers’ Federation had signified their willingness to work overtime on the Australian Commonwealth Line’s steamers, at award rates, and the work would continue under those conditions.

Sir William Clarkson holds a responsible position in the shipping world and he says that the vital cause of the present industrial trouble is the pick-up question. I shall deal with that phase later. Not long after the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) returned to Australia from the last Imperial Conference, he preached the doctrine of co-operation, and said that if we had any British common sense, and used it, we could prevent a lot of industrial trouble; that if we only exhibited British common sense we would be able to overcome the small difficulties that faced Australia. The right honorable gentleman should now exhibit a little of that common sense. Instead of bringing forward a motion of this nature, and thus provoking a discussion on the floor of Parliament, he would be better engaged as a mediator between the parties outside.

Senator Ogden:

– One does not mediate with a burglar.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– After the last elections the Crimes Act was passed by this Parliament, so that the Government might keep faith - if that were possible - with the people who, whilst submerged by a wave of hysteria, had elected it to power. The Government did nothing to bring to an end the British seamen’s strike, but, on the other hand, members’ of the Labour party did all that lay in their power to terminate it. I assisted my leader by spending a week in Sydney in an endeavour to have the dispute settled. Yet during the elections we were accused of having encouraged it! I believe that this is a political move on the part of the Government. If it had not wished to make political capital out of the crisis, it could have adopted the role of mediator. The Prime Minister has been in communication with the Premier of Tasmania. What was the nature of the advice he gave? He suggested to Mr. Lyons that he should not only get into touch with the unions, but also initiate a prosecution under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Crimes Act.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– What communication did Mr. Lyons first send to the Prime Minister?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I have not that document with me. I am now dealing with one side of this question; the honorable senator may, if he wishes, deal with the other side. I say that in that communication to Mr. Lyons, the Prime Minister indicated the attitude that the Commonwealth Government intended to’ adopt. Instead of employing peaceful methods, or methods of reason, it is attempting to apply force. The members of the Labour party are not alone in holding the opinion that a responsibility rests upon this Government to take action different from what is proposed. It ought to have been taken at an earlier stage of the dispute. I quote the followiing from the Melbourne Age-

Mr. Bruce may be convinced that the waterside workers are entirely wrong, but does that forbid him from taking some action in the hope of saving from the results of wrong-doing by waterside unionists scores of thousands of other workers who may sooner or later be affected??

That suggestion emanates from an organ which supports the Government. If the Prime Minister and his Government believed that unemployment would be intensified, that produce would not be transported, and that the community would suffer, they could have intervened. If that had been done, the present stage of the dispute might not have been reached. The right honorable gentleman cannot altogether clear himself of the charge of having displayed indifference. The case for the ship-owners has been put before another place by the Leader of the Government, and before the Senate by Senator Pearce.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– We have put the case for the people.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I repeat that the right honorable senator has put before this Senate the case for the shipowners. As the matter has been brought forward for discussion, I shall endeavour to put the case for the other side, so that the people may have some evidence upon it.

Senator Ogden:

– Surely there is also another party to the dispute?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– There is . another party - the people of Australia. The Government should have realized that, and have taken action on behalf of the people in a manner different from that which it now proposes.

Senator Ogden:

– I should like the honorable senator to show me in what way the Government could have acted.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– There was a time when Senator Ogden did not need to be told when and in what manner action should be taken; but since he has been poisoned by the virus of Nationalism, he has lost sight of the principles of trade unionism. The case for the Waterside Workers’ Federation has been published in the Melbourne Age in the following terms : -

Tim management committee of tlie Waterside Workers’ Federation, of which Mr. W. Mather is president, and Mr. J. Morris secretary, issued the following statement yesterday in regard to the- present dispute : - “ The present dispute on the water front had its origin in the vexatious delays of the court in hearing our plaint, together with the studied hostility of the employers of waterside labour to every attempt that has been macle during the past two years by both the court and the federation to reach an agreement in keeping with the needs of the industry. In May, 1920. the federation met the ship-owners in conference to discuss the present log, and was in the end told to go to the court. As a matter of tactics it is good business for the employers passively to resist round the table all claims for decent conditions in an industry. Thereby they create a deadlock in the conciliatory section of the Arbitration Act, leaving no constitutional alternative but to refer the matter into a court already nearly two years behind in an attempt to keep pace with the accumulating plaints of the industries over which it exercises jurisdiction. We have no doubt that many employers, and our own in particular, take full advantage of the protracted delay of the court in effecting adjustments”, and derive considerable financial satisfaction as one of the results, but tactics such as these are not conducive to peace in an industry, and o,re the source of most of the ills surrounding the act. Right from the inception of our negotiations, both with the employers and in our claims before the court, the federation has been earnestly desirous of effecting an agreement, and in order that our case could be proceeded with, we have remedied every contentious act indulged in by branches, rendered desperate by vexatious delay and the observance of an award they are wholly dissatisfied with. “ The union’s advocate, by consent of the court, visited the branches concerned, and was instrumental in establishing full and complete compliance with the award. In May of this year he submitted these assurances to the court as being strictly ill order. At that stage the court allowed the employers to submit argument in the matter of the pick-up dispute, despite the fact that they omitted all reference to this dispute in their list of affidavits filed before tlie court in March. The federation had then no alternative but to regard this latest move on the part of the employers as a deliberate attempt to prevent the court from functioning, and was surprised that the court’s consent, in view of the fact that the pick-up dispute dated back to 1921, and that in 1922, and again in 1924, Mr. Justice Powers had made awards covering the industry, whilst the one pick-up system a day existed, and was working satisfactorily in certain ports. And as late as January this year Judge Beeby delivered an interim award, while fully aware of the pick-up disputeEarlier in the case he appealed to the employers to refrain from submitting ancient history as evidence in a case that demanded’ present day reference and co-operative adjustments. “ The question . of preference is an everrecurring claim in all our plaints, and a very necessary part of any award that aims at giving peace in the waterside industry. The court has, on the contrary, continually exempted from the terms of the award certain parties whom the federation has cited as. employers in the industry, ,and whose work consists of loading and discharging ships. The question of preference includes all waterside work at Risdon (Tasmania), Fremantle,. Geraldton, Sydney, Melbourne, Newcastle, and: all the northern rivers of New South Wales. Reasonable peace in the industry is impossible until these claims are considered a necessary addition in any agreement.”

Wc have proof there that for two yearsthe members of the Waterside Workers’’ Federation have been endeavouring to get the machinery of the court to work with greater expedition. We have also proof” that J udge Beeby allowed the two “ pickups “ to be incorporated in an award despite the fact that the one “ pick-up had, by common consent of both parties, been in operation for six years. All this trouble has been occasioned because the ship-owners now insist on having two pick-ups, after having allowed that portion of the award to remain a dead letter for years. Let us see what the two pick-ups mean to these men. The waterside workers are obliged to go down to the wharves rn the morning and wait about in their hundreds and in all sorts of weather until they get a call to work a vessel. If they are not engaged in the morning they are obliged, under the two pick-ups system, to hang about the wharves all day, irrespective of th? weather, until the afternoon pick-up, and then possibly they may not get a call to work. If ever there was justification for the two pick-ups system, which I deny, the advance of science and the application of wireless telegraphy have rendered it. unnecessary. Before the installation of wireless on vessels their arrival was uncertain, and in order that they could be worked immediately on coming alongside a wharf it was customary for waterside workers to be kept hanging about. Now, however, the ship-owners can tell to a moment when a vessel will draw up alongside a wharf and there is no longer any need to keep the mei. running to and from their homes so that they may be in attendance at an afternoon pick-up. If a man knows that he does not need to go back for an afternoon pick-up he is at liberty to take up any other casual employment that may bc offering; but under a system which keeps him hanging about the wharf all day be cannot do so.

Senator Givens:

– That means that the wharf labourers should have a monopoly of wharf work and yet be permitted to engage in any other work they choose to lake at the expense of others who may be unemployed.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not put that construction on the desire of these men. I know that at one time Senator Givens would have been the very first to kick against employers who sought to impose the conditions which the shipowners are seeking to impose on the waterside workers. The whole of the blame for this trouble cannot be laid at the door of the waterside workers. The

Government has constituted itself both judge and jury. It says that the men are in the wrong by disobeying an award of the Arbitration Court, but it suppresses the fact that the employers have acted contrary to the rules of the court by being party, for at least six years, to the one “ pick-up “ system. The Government has also deliberately suppressed the fact that the present trouble has been caused by the action of the ship-owners in delaying the machinery of the court for the pur- pose of reverting to the old system of two “ pick-ups.” The Labour party, as I have already said, is in favour of arbitration; but no system can be made absolutely proof against those vexatious delays which exasperate the workers. If the Government thought that the industries and the essential services of Australia were likely to be endangered by the action of the waterside workers, it was its duty to intervene at a much earlier period than this, and not permit the present dispute to reach its present stage. It had ample precedents for intervening. The Government of Great Britain and the Government of South Africa had intervened on similar occasions. As a matter of fact, in recent years in Australia there , has been government intervention in industrial disputes. If our present Ministers were honestly desirous of preventing the wheels of industry from being clogged, they could have intervened in the present dispute a week or two ago. They could have said to the parties, “If you cannot agree, let us see what we can do in the matter.” And, if they failed, they might then have had an excuse for going further, as they now propose. I have stated the case for the workers, so that the public can judge between the parties in the present dispute, and now, in order that the Senate may have an opportunity to decide the best method to adopt, I move, as an amendment to the motion -

That all the words after the word “ Senate “ be left out, with a view to add in lieu thereof the words “ is of opinion that consultations should be immediately held by the Government with the various State governments affected and organizations concerned, with a view to a clear understanding of the matters in issue and the settlement thereof by means of conference and conciliation.”

That amendment will give the Government an opportunity to prove its bona fides in the role of peace-maker. Although the State governments and the various industrial organizations are concerned in this industrial trouble as much as the Commonwealth Government, the Commonwealth Ministers have failed to get into direct touch with them. It is not too late to do so now. If my amendment is adopted I venture to say it will go a long way towards the settlement of the present industrial trouble and the preservation of peace.

Senator VERRAN:
South Australia

– I support the motion. It is the duty of the Government to look after the welfare of the people as a whole, and not that of a particular section. The trouble that has arisen on the waterfront will dislocate all classes of business and bring suffering upon thousands of people who have not been consulted by either party to the dispute. The situation puts me in mind of the Irishman who, when going through London, saw a fight in progress. He asked an onlooker, “ Is this a private fight or a free fight - can any one have a cut in?” The public have- not been consulted about this strike of the waterside workers. If two ounces of common sense were used in the management of the industrial life of this country, we should be able to overcome most of these difficulties without any dislocation of industry. I am not blaming the men entirely. I know how they feel. Since I was 20 years of age I have been deeply immersed in the industrial life of Australia. I have been through four strikes in eighteen years, and in one case was the chosen leader of 1,000 men. I can honestly say that I have never seen the destinies of the working class in the hands of such a set of lunatics as is the case to-day. I am firmly convinced that 90 per cent, of the workers in the Commonwealth are truly honest men anxious to give a fair return for their wages. The other 10 per cent, might with advantage be placed in a rubbish destructor, or at least their ideas of leadership, might well be so treated. The so-called leaders who are responsible for many of our industrial troubles take very good care to hide behind the crowd at the end. They know that the Crimes Act is operative and may be enforced against them. How can we expect the Arbitration Court to function unless there is a wholesome regard for the observance of the law? For year* now trade unionists have been taught by some few leaders that their duty is tobreak the law. The whole movement has degenerated of late and has become demoralized. The standard of our citizenship is not what it ought to be. Senator Findley and many others who led the Labour movement in years gone by built the House of Labour and did all they could to make it comfortable; but what has happened? These newcomers, by their total disregard of the ethics of trade unionism, have torn it down and wrought destruction in the industrial . world. There must be a bottom and a top to all industrial movements, just as there is goodness and badness right through our social stata. Some of the industrial leaders lately have been telling the workers that their job is to kill the boss. There has never been so much vilification as there is to-day of public men with sufficient courage to have an independent opinion and to give expression to it. In the earlier years of the industrial movement, a strike was impossible unless a secret ballot was taken. These sweating niggers who are now in the forefront are not game to take a ballot. If this issue were put to the waterside workers to-morrow in the form of a secret ballot, I am open to lay my hat that 95 per cent, of the men would vote to keep on working. After all the solution is simple enough if only the unions have the courage to make a definite stand. Let them stop the salaries of these leaders, who indulge in star chamber methods and who, many of them, are getting £10 a week and more by way of travelling expenses. They are the men who are “ bossing “ this show. When Tom Mann went to Broken Hill to take charge of a strike there, .1 asked the miners “Who is running this strike?” When I was told’ that Tom Mann was in charge I inquired “What are you paying him to run it ? “ The answer I got was “£9 per week.” “Strike my collar off,” I said, “if you are not a foolish lot! Fancy paying a man £9 a week to run a strike!” The waterside workers have started what they call an irritation strike-^ a kind of industrial barber’s rash - as if all strikes were not irritating. Is it possible to imagine anything more idiotic than a body of intelligent workers in this twentieth century, with the Arbitration Court open to them, taking part in a strike? I am a firm believer in the Arbitration Court. I am a conciliation man. I am entirely opposed to the doctrine preached by these degenerate industrial leaders with all their unglorified ideas. Given intelligent leadership it is possible for the working classes of the Commonwealth through the Arbitration Court to extract from industry the last penny to which they are justly entitled. All that is necessary is for them- to go about the business honestly and fairly. What happens when the court makes an award? Not infrequently within a few weeks the union concerned wants the court to reconsider it. If the basic wage drops 4d., they refuse to carry on. In South Australia not so long ago men working on the Liberal Federation Bulding, when the basic wage went down 4d., said, in effect, “We are not going to work, boss, you lay your own bricks.” Of course; it is all right if the basic wage goes up 4d. ! I am not blaming honorable senators opposite for their attitude towards this industrial .upheaval. They have behind them a crowd that would cut their political throats to-morrow, and perhaps be glad of the chance to do it. As one who has spent practically the whole of his life in the industrial arena, I know what is happening. The men who are in the forefront of this trouble have done nothing to put Australia on the slate. We who dug the gold and the copper, and cut the timber, did that. These fellows would wear out two sets of seats to their pants to one pair of knees. Unhappily they are involving good honest hard-working men in the trouble. I know that there are wrongs to be righted. I am a believer in improved conditions for the workers. I believe also that the workers’ wives and children should be considered. It certainly is the duty of the Commonwealth to protect them, if that can be done. I have been behind the scenes so I know all the buttons that can be pressed, and the strings that can be pulled. The Commonwealth Government would be failing in its duty if it did not take some steps to protect the wives and children of workers, who always suffer when a strike occurs. But we are more concerned, are we not, about the next election. We are more troubled about majorities than about legislation ! Personally, I never worry about an election - I let the other fellow do the worrying. Do not let us forget that there is in Australia at present an element that is seeking to destroy the British Empire. These men are never without a “ quid.” Stick them up whenever you like, and always you will find that they have a “ fiver “ in their pockets, though they never work to earn it. They must have a rich uncle somewhere.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– In Moscow, perhaps.

Senator VERRAN:

– I remember reading many years ago about an insect which injected its eggs into another insect, with the result that when in the course of time the eggs came into a state of life, the insect into which they had been injected died. That is what is happening to trade union- ism in Australia. These wicked rascals have been injecting their infernal and degenerating ideas into the Laborer movement. They themselves are not of the stuff which workers are made of. If men of that trib’3 developed a sweat to-morrow they would be in deadly fear that they had an attack of double pneumonia. They are living in what is really an industrial paradise, and are trading upon the moral character of every honest worker in Australia, The story is told of a little boy, who, when he was discovered in his mother’s pantry, told his mother that, “the devil had tempted him. “ The mother then asked, “ Why did you not tell him to get behind you.” “I did, mother,” said the boy, “ and he shoved me right in.” The degenerating elements have got behind the great majority of honest workers in Australia, and have shoved them into their present unfortunate position. The Government has the power to deport Bolsheviks from Australia, but it will take a long , time before their influence upon the industrial forces in Australia will cease to be felt. The Government is to be commended for bringing this motion before the Senate, and giving honorable senators an opportunity to support it in the action which it will doubtless take to preserve law and order in the Commonwealth. I often wonder who is responsible for the attitude adopted by certain leaders in the Labour movement to-day. I read only this morning that Mr. Peter O’Loughlin is to be kicked out of the party; but that is not an unusual experience for any of its members. I was “ kicked out “ of the party myself. There are, I admit, many men in the Labour movement whom I honour and respect. Perhaps I should have still been a member of that party if I had been willing to sink my individuality. Owing to the action which I took on one occasion a mau threatened to shoot me, but when I challenged him to shoot, he merely sneaked away. He was one of the cowards. Those who are causing industrial disturbances in Australia to-day, and are responsible for the irritation strikes which are holding up industry, and severely interfering with the progress and prosperity of the country, are cowards of the meanest order. Most of the men who ‘are causing the trouble to-day will not “ come up to the collar “ - not the collar on the beer illustrated in the Bulletin - because they are afraid of work. Some of them are the laziest lot of scoundrels I have struck this side of Niagara. Unfortunately these creatures are associated with loyal and honest unionists, and compelling them to strike. Wo have often heard some members of the Labour party exclaim “ Down with the capitalist.” I should like to know how industry is to be financed and employment provided if capital is withdrawn from the country. I freely admit that tlie employers seldom consider an industrial situation from the viewpoint of the worker. If they did, I believe that much of the industrial trouble which prevails would be avoided. The information we received in this morning’s press is somewhat alarming, but too much regard cannot be paid to statements which appear in the newspapers. It is the duty of pressmen to obtain news. On one occasion when a newspaper representative asked me if I could supply him with something of interest, I said, “If you want some news I will arrange for the parson in the church, which I attend, to go in the pulpit in his shirt-sleeves.”

Such a simple little incident would, have caused some excitement and provided the paragraph which the newspaper man required. The men who are now out on strike are acting in defiance of the law. I have always advocated that before a strike is declared mother should have a voice in deciding if father should strike.

Senator Payne:

– There would not be any strikes then.

Senator Reid:

– How does the honorable senator know that?

Senator Payne:

– I am sure of it.

Senator VERRAN:

– In my opinion the judgment of. a woman is superior to that of a man. A man cannot go very far wrong when he trusts his wife. Too many wicked devils do not do that. The women of this country should be consulted before their husbands are allowed to go on strike. Who has to pay the butcher, the baker and the greengrocer? Who has to buy the clothes for the children? Mother in many cases buys the stores, and father drinks the beer. When one considers the amount that will be lost m wages, there is not the slightest justification for the nien to strike. On every occasion the workers may not obtain from the Arbitration Court the wages and conditions which they think they are entitled to; but the law provides that when dissatisfied they can again approach the court in order to get their grievances adjusted. I know the difficulties and hardships experienced by the strikers and their womenfolk, because on one occasion I was compelled to go on strike - I had a family of seven at the time - and when work was resumed I was owing the tradespeople £70. Industrial disturbances of this nature, particularly in the shipping industry, generally occur towards the end of the year, when the trade, which is usually brisk at that time, is seriously inconvenienced. There is, however, another phase to consider. A strike when Christmas is approaching, and when we should be saying “Peace on earth’ goodwill to men,” we have this calamitous strike. What are the prospects of the little children when Christmas is approaching and their fathers are on strike? Instead of receiving presents, they are being given hell in the form of a strike.

I trust that at an early date the Government will provide by legislation that a secret ballot shall be taken by every union before a strike is declared. Many of the leaders of men in the industrial arena to-day, are without backbone. They are lacking courage. I was kicked for five years because 1 endeavoured to straighten them up. I said if I was not going to be the boss I would not be anything at all. They had to follow me because I was not going to follow them. On occasions such as this, when a definitestand should be taken, some honorable senators are thinking only of the election. Some of them would lap poison out of the hand of any man for a vote. They would not mind if it were milk or any other liquid, so long as it was wet. I hope that before many days have passed, wiser counsels and better judgment will prevail, and that these men will realize their responsibilities as citizens and declare the strike off. Disturbances of this kind can be regarded as hardy annuals. No one believes in the sincerity of those responsible for them, or of those who support them - not even the devil himself.

SenatorFoll. - The honorable senator should not refer to the Leader of the Opposition as a devil.

Senator VERRAN:

– I have too much respect for the honorable senator to say one unkind word concerning him. I still regard him as my brother. Industrial troubles of this kind may have a tendency to divorce some of us from our fellowmen, but I still maintain thatwe are all brothers. I want the Bolsheviks to be kicked out of thecountry. A party that was strong enough to remove me from its ranks should be able to kick them out of the party by giving them six inches of boot. Perhaps I am using expressions which are somewhat unusual in this chamber, but I am putting the matter in my own way. The Government would be lacking in its duty if it did not take a. determined stand in this matter. It is not a question of who is going to win at the next election. That does not trouble me. I am a breeder of fowls; but I never worry about the chickens that have never been hatched. I am more concerned with those that are here. I trust that on this occasion the Govern ment will do the right thing, and will stand four-square to all the winds that blow. There are disloyalists in Great Britain and unfortunately there are some here. Britain has her hands full of adders to-day. England fed them, and they are biting her. We can feed an adder on milk, but it will still bite. There is a tremendous number of adders in Australia at present, and the easiest way to deal with them is to starve them. A man once said to me “ I am a Bolshevik.” I replied, “ If you are then there is no room for both you and me here.” He then remarked: “You were kicked out of the Labour party,” and I replied, “ That has nothing to do with you.” This man visited Adelaide to bring about a strike, and I told him so. He replied that he “ had to get it up.” What these fellows forget is that the unions will sink into the bottomless pit if their management is not changed. Last Sunday I listened to some speeches at a meeting of the unemployed, and I heard one speaker say, “ Get all the money you can.” Are such persons fit to lead men ? Honorable senators will agree that the best men are required to lead men. I went further, and I saw two individuals who said that they were the leaders of the unemployed. They were “ three sheets in the wind,” and the fourth was “ blowing strong.” I hope that the better judgment of our fellowmen will prevail. Ninety per cent. of them are good, honest workers; but the sooner the other ten per cent. are got rid of the better it will be for the industrialists and all concerned. If a thing is not good, it should be put out of the way. If men will not fight for their citizenship, develop their character and become a dynamic force in the community, Australia has nouse for them. The time for the sentimental doctrine that we should be kind and loving to all men has gone. I used to preach that; but I do not preach it to-day. In the present crisis, I say that justice must be administered. If the men now on strike observed the laws of the land, and fulfilled the divine and moral laws, they would not be out on strike to-day.

Senator LYNCH (Western Australia ) deal of the speech to which we have just Had the pleasure of listening did not have a larger audience. If it had only been broadcast in quarters where the advice contained in it is badly needed, its moral effect might have been very beneficial. It is difficult for me to enthuse over a motion of this nature that seems to have much support in this chamber. While we are considering the present unfortunate circumstances, there are certain regrettable aspects to which, I think, it would repay us to give special attention. We see a large body of men out on strike in open violation of the law. Their’s is an illegal act. They have disobeyed a law that was not made by their political enemies. It was made expressly for them, and it was passed by their own party. Considering this unfortunate spectacle, we are forced to the conclusion that something must be done to save them from their folly; to save them from themselves. Another aspect is the untold misery that is about to find its way into many innocent homes as the result of their action. In great industrial upheavals it is not the guilty that are made to suffer. In the eyes of those now on strike the guilty are’ the ship-owners, who will not be affected to a great extent. In this, as in other similar conflicts, the innocent will suffer most. These men have resorted to tlie use of that time-honoured weapon, the strike. With all due respect to my friend, Senator Verran, I think that something may be said in favour of the men whom he has condemned. He knows as well as I do that we cannot suddenly break with the past. We know that for centuries the worker had no weapon other than the strike within his reach, and we cannot expect it to bc entirely surrendered in the present era. Having got into the habit of mind of regarding the strike as their natural weapon, these men cannot be expected to suddenly relinquish it. Eras aTe not watertight compartments. Unseen, subtle but very tangible influences from one epoch penetrate into and shape thought and action in a succeeding one. Confidence in strikes is one of them. The pity is that those who are responsible for sending the men out on strike do not realize that, if every section of the community had power to employ the same weapon, there would be very few strikes in this country. Consider the position of the producers who supply the food that we eat. - If those men thought that, in order to advance their station in life and improve their prospects, they were justified in striking, they would do so; but the circumstances are such that they cannot do it. Take the wheat-growers who supply the “staff of life.” Suppose they rose in a body and said “ Our position is not as it ought to be. We are labouring under a manifest grievance, and, in order to remove it, we will declare openly to the world to-morrow that there shall be no more sales of wheat until we are paid 10s. a bushel for it.”

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:
QUEENSLAND · NAT

– They have no Arbitration Court.

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Of course not, and that is their further disability. When one group decides to make war upon the community, it should not claim an exclusive privilege, and be allowed to exercise it to the injury of every other section. If the farmers were able to adopt a similar attitude to that of the waterside workers, and the industrialists had no bread to eat, the strikers would soon be brought to their senses. We must puzzle our way out of this difficulty. Another subsidiary reason why something is to be said in favour of these men is that they are following a class who, on a few previous occasions, took precisely the same action. They were working peacefully under the awards of the court up to a certain point, and they suddenly took it into their heads to violate those awards. The previous Government went to the rescue of those men by appointing an extra judicial tribunal over the head of the Arbitration Court. That Government, of which Senator Sir George Pearce was a member, ignored the Arbitration Court, just as the waterside workers are doing to-day, and thus encouraged them in the pursuit of their folly. On that occasion the waterside workers, the engineers, and the seamen secured better terms and conditions than they had obtained from the Arbitration Court. Instead of the Government of the day telling the unionists to go to the Arbitration Court, as the present Government is- now advising the waterside workers to do, it appointed an extra tribunal, which resulted in their ignoring the judgment of Mr. Justice Higgins, and, I believe, that brought about his resignation as President of the Court. Those3 men were encouraged by the action of the Government of the day to tear up the awards of the court, and to that extent the offence of the unionists, in the present instance, is mitigated. But we are here to make the best of things, and the Government is justified in testing the feeling of Parliament as to what is best to be done. I presume that it desires to have the opinion placed on record that Parliament supports it in regard to any action it may take to maintain essential services and preserve law and order. If this discussion has the effect of bringing back to sanity the, wild and lawless men, who are responsible for the present trouble, it will not have been in vain. I support the Government in the action it has taken, although I think that a previous government is partly responsible for what has taken place. I hope that we shall soon emerge from this struggle to enjoy better times; but should it extend, I see no alternative for the Government but to use to the utmost the powers conferred upon it for the protection of the innocent members of society from the consequences of this strife.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I am pleased” that this motion has been submitted. Notwithstanding the remarks of Senator Needham, the Government would have failed in its duty if it had not brought so serious a matter before Parliament. The position in recent yeai-3 has become so grave that at the outbreak of this struggle it was the duty of the Government to take the matter in hand, so that the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole would be preserved. The Leader of the Opposition read from the Sydney Morning Herald a statement by the secretary of the Waterside Workers Union as to the cause of the trouble.

Senator Needham:

– I quoted from the Melbourne Age.

Senator PAYNE:

– I have to-day perused the latest issue of several Sydney newspapers, and I find there that officials of the Sydney Trades Hall have stated definitely that, iu their opinion, the great majority of the members of the Waterside Workers Union are opposed to ceasing work. I believe that that is the case. Waterside ‘ workers have told me that, they have at times been ordered by officers of their union, against their own inclination, to cease work; that although the majority of the members of the union may not favour a strike, they are afraid to attend union meetings and to protest against the advice of the leaders, because if they did so they would be regarded as “ scabs “ and “ blacklegs.”

Senator Hoare:

– That is mere assumption. The honorable senator does not know what he is talking about.

Senator PAYNE:

– It is not assumption. I have merely repeated what has been told me many times by waterside workers.

Senator Reid:

– How does the honorable senator know that those men have told him the truth?

Senator PAYNE:

– These men are not all liars. Why does Senator Reid interject in this way if he is not in favour of the strike? I have not merely expressed an opinion; I have repeated statements made to me personally by waterside workers. On one occasion a group of about twenty wharf labourers who were on strike told me that the majority of the members of the union were not in favour of the strike. Surely they were not all liars. Senator Reid knows that the present trouble would not have occurred had it not been fomented by men who depend on such disturbances for a living. If there were no industrial troubles these agitators would be without a job. I agree with Senator Verran that many of them have provoked men to strike in order to retain their own jobs. Some years ago I travelled by steamer from. Townsville to Cairns, in Queensland. On the same vessel was a union organizer - I prefer to call him a dis-organizer - who left the vessel at a port at which a large steamer was loading raw sugar. Prior to his visit it was the custom for twelve bags of sugar to be placed in the sling at one time. When I returned from Cairns that vessel was laid up because of a strike. The organizer to whom I have referred had induced the men to cease work unless the ship-owners agreed that only nine bags of sugar should be placed in the sling at one time. It is patent to anyone who -seeks the truth that many strikes are fomented by -men whose sole object is to keep themselves employed at good salaries.

Senator Duncan:

– They can only be successful so long as the majority of the members of the union acquiesce in their proposals.

Senator PAYNE:

– If the majority of the members of the union are opposed to a strike, surely they can find a leader who will enforce that plank of the Labour party’s platform which provides for majority rule. If a secret ballot of the waterside workers were taken to-day, I believe the result would be in favour of a continuance of work. However, the trouble has occurred, and we must deal with matters as we find them. In view of the disastrous results which must necessarily result from a prolonged strike, it behoves every member of this Parliament to stand behind the Government in any action it deems necessary to maintain essential services and preserve law and order. Senator Needham, who evidently has been behind the scenes, suggests that the Government intends to bring the Crimes Act into operationDoes the honorable senator object to legislation which is on the statute-book of this country being brought into operation? Does he, a member of this Parliament, suggest that a law which has been passed by a majority of the members of this Parliament should not be enforced when circumstances warrant it?

Senator Needham:

– The Government is eager to put that legislation into operation.

Senator PAYNE:

– It is not a question of eagerness, but whether the Government is justified in bringing it into operation. If those in authority decided that circumstances warranted the provisions of the Crimes Act being applied to a settlement of this dispute, they would be recreant to their trust if they fail to do so. The Crimes Act was not passed to apply, as Senator Needham suggested, only, to other than domestic troubles.

Senator Needham:

– I said nothing of the kind.

Senator PAYNE:

– I understood the honorable senator to suggest that nothing which has occurred in Australia warrants the Crimes Act being brought into operation.

Senator Needham:

– I did not refer to the Crimes Act in that connexion ; but to the Constitution Act.

Senator PAYNE:

– If I have misunderstood the honorable senator, and consequently misinterpreted his remarks, I express my regret. In future I shall listen more carefully to him, so that I shall not run the risk of misinterpreting his remarks. So far as I can remember its wording, the Crimes Act provides that should there be at any time an industrial dispute in Australia which, in the opinion of the Governor-General, would have the effect of dislocating or interfering with trade and commerce between the States, or with any other country, the Governor-General may issue a proclamation declaring that a state of industrial unrest exists, and during the period of that proclamation any person inciting, urging, aiding, or abetting a continuation of the dispute is guilty of an offence. I do not know whether the Government intends to apply the provisions of the Crimes Act to the present dispute. I only mention this because Senator Needham suggested that that might be done. I sincerely hope that whatever action is taken by the Government will be taken only after the fullest and most careful consideration ; but should it decide that there is need for drastic action it should not hesitate to take it. At this stage in the history of ‘ Australia, when our finances are in an unsatisfactory condition, it is particularly lamentable that any stoppage of industry should occur. Moreover, we are now approaching that period of the year in which it is customary to exchange friendly greetings with one another, and it is regrettable that the peace and goodwill of the Christmas season should .be marred by industrial warfare. Anything that the Government can do to bring about a settlement of this trouble and a resumption of essential services should be done. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to stand behind the Government in anT legal action it takes - no matter how severe it may be - to bring about a settlement of this trouble and to ensure industrial peace in the future.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- The Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) has submitted for our consideration, and, he hopes, our endorsement, a motion to which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) has moved an amendment, that I trust will be agreed to. If it is, the motion will then read as follows : -

That, in view of the great loss, unemployment, and general distress, which will inevitably result from the continuance of the serious industrial disturbance in the waterside industry, the Senate is of opinion that consultations should be immediately held by the Government with the various State Governments affected and organizations concerned, with a view to a clear understanding of the matters in issue and the settlement thereof by means of conference and conciliation.

I have been a member of the Labour party ever since its birth in these southern seas,and I can say that there is no member of it who wishes to see industrial strife in Australia. We have always endeavoured, to the best of our ability, to bring about a better understanding between employers and employees in the various spheres of activity. When I hear honorable senators opposite waxing eloquent with respect to the conditions that are obtained by the workers as a result of the submission of their claims to the Arbitration Court, my mind goes back to the early days of the Commonwealth Parliament, when the Labour party assisted to keep in office a Government which was in a hopeless minority in this chamber, and aided it to place upon the statute-book the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which was responsible for the creation of the Arbitration Court. I well remember the feelings of that section of the community which today, as it did then, supports the Nationalists. From all parts of the Commonwealth loud protestations were made against such a law being enacted. I have a vivid recollection of a conference of the Employers Federation of Australia that was held in Brisbane, and was attended by representatives of every State federation. It passed unanimously a resolution expressing its thanks for, and its high appreciation of the efforts that had been put forward by those who by voice and vote had opposed the measure in this Parliament. A number of years have passed, and although there are now in Australia many employers who believe in. the principle of conciliation and arbitration, I consider that if they held the big stick which was then in their hands, they would wield it just as unmercifully. I was amused at the speech that was delivered by Senator Payne. He informed us that during his travels he has come in contact with unionists who have told him that there are fomenters of strife in industrial organizations, and that few strikes would occur if a ballot of the members of those organizations were taken whenever one threatened He, and other honorable senators would lead the people to believe that those who hold responsible positions in the unions derive a benefit from strikes. One honorable senator went so far as to say that their positions were dependent upon industrial unrest. That is a most foolish and stupid statement, which would not be made by any one who had a knowledge of even the A.B.C. of unionism. I have been a member of a trade union since I was a youth. For many and varied reasons I believe in the principles of unionism. I have a knowledge of the struggles and the strivings of the class to which I belong, for the betterment of their conditions. The benefits that are enjoyed today by the working class have been gained by their unswerving loyalty and unflagging zeal. By whom are the responsible officers in the different unions elected? By a majority of their fellows, invariably as the result of a secret ballot,but sometimes at a specially convened mass meeting. They are elected because it is the opinion of a majority of the members that they are best qualified for the position. They possess the trust and the confidence of their fellows. Those who are at the head of the Waterside Workers’ Federation to-day have been in the unionistic world for years, and are known personally to me. They have made very great sacrifices on behalf of unionism, and are always anxious to preserve industrial peace.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– How long has Mr. Seale been associated with the trade union movement?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I do not know.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– He is a Johnny-come-lately !

Senator FINDLEY:

– It is as certain as that day follows night that he occupies his position because a majority of the members of his organization believe that he is well qualified for it. There are two sides to every dispute. According to certain honorable senators who support the Government in this dispute there is only one side, that of the ship-owners.

Senator SirWilliam Glasgow:

– Why do not the men go to the court?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I shall give a brief history of the trouble. Last Christmas there was an outbreak of unrest on the waterfront on account of the inexcusable delay that had occurred in commencing the hearing of a plaint that had been lodged in the Arbitration Court by the Waterside Workers’ Federation against the ship-owners. At that time Judge Beeby decided that if the overtime strike which then existed was declared off, he would hear, early in the new year, the plaint with reference to the increased overtime rates, and deal with the general plaint at a later date. The Waterside Workers’ Federation accepted that proposition. Judge Beeby fulfilled the first part of his promise by hearing the plaint with respect to increased overtime rates early this year; and his decision was in favour of the federation. The one pickup system had then been in existence for a considerable time. Last May the general plaint, against which the shipowners had filed an answer in March, came before the court. Notwithstanding that in the affidavits no mention had been made of the one pick-up system, Judge Beeby, departing from the custom of the court, allowed a representative of the ship-owners to raise the question of procedure. What is more remarkable still, he decided that he would not hear any plaint on behalf of the Waterside Workers’ Federation unless and until a reversion was made to the two pick-up system. He overlooked the fact that he had already given a decision in relation to the overtime plaint during the existence of the one pick-up system.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Who makes that statement!

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is a statement which has been issued from the point of view of the Waterside Workers’ Federation.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It is not in accordance with the facts.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I claim that it is.

Senator Needham:

– These are facts which the Government has suppressed.

Senator FINDLEY:

– During the last year or two, three awards have been made by Judge Beeby, although the one pickup system was in operation. When the doors of the court were closed against them - unjustly, they believed - the men decided to try to move the court to hear their claims. So far they have not succeeded in doing so, and have, therefore, laid it down that no overtime shall be worked. The ship-owners have issued an ultimatum, which amounts to a declaration of war, that if the men do not work overtime all the ships will be tied up.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Overtime is provided for in the award.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Apparently the one pick-up system has by mutual agreement become an award.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– That is not so. The award provides for two pick-ups. The honorable senator evidently has not read it.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Notwithstanding that the men have beep working with one pick-up, awards of the court have been made.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Under duress. The court was not aware of the two pick-ups until its attention had been drawn to the matter.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The waterside workers object to two pick-ups being forced upon them. Apparently, there are some who are anxious for a fight. Those who have been connected with industrial disturbances in the past know what a serious matter a strike is, especially if it is protracted, and affects a large number of workers. Does any honorable senator believe that the carrying of this motion will end the present strike?

Senator Reid:

– It may help to bring it to an end.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Is that likely, in view of the staunch loyalty inthe ranks of trade unionism? Those who desire this issue to be fought to a finish will do well to remember that. Honorable senators, and indeed all who wish to see this trouble settled in a peaceful way, should read the leading article that appeared in the Age th° other day. An extract from it is as follows: -

If the court cannot or will not intervene there is nothing to prevent independent mediation. It is a reproach to our political leaders that the present critical stage should have been readied without even a suggestion on behalf of peace.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The leaders of this trouble desire to see political interference - not an approach to the court.

Senator FINDLEY:

– What does the Government propose to do?

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It proposes not to interfere with the Court.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Why then does not the court open its doors?

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The doors have been open for the last three weeks.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The trouble was settled in respect of the Commonwealth Government snips. Does the Minister believe there is any principle involved in connexion with the attitude of the workers?

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Yes.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Why then did not the Government prevent the Shipping Board from accepting the principle of one pick-up. The board’s action has prevented any trouble occurring over the loading or unloading of vessels of that Line.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The honorable . senator himself supplied the reasons to-day, when he reminded me that the board was under an independent act.

Senator FINDLEY:

– For some years there has been no trouble in regard to the one pick-up, and, in my opinion, there is no reason why there should now be any alteration of the system. The point is regarded as important by those engaged on the water front. If the Government is really in earnest, the present trouble could be settled in 24 hours. There have been compulsory conferences before today for the settlement of industrial disputes, even more serious than this is at the moment. Whenever the occasion demanded, the Federal and State Govern- ments did not hesitate to act if, in their opinion Government intervention was in the best interests of the community. So far as this dispute is concerned the Government tells the disputants, in effect, “ Box on. If there is any real trouble we will suppress it.”

Senator Needham:

– By means of the Crimes Act.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Of course. If serious developments arise the Government will issue a proclamation under the Crimes Act. As my leader has said, up to the present there has not been any industrial trouble that would justify the drastic action which, it has been hinted, may be taken shortly by the Ministry. The maritime strike was a far more serious industrial upheaval than the present dispute threatens to become.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– There was no arbitration court then for the men to appeal to.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is true. The police and the military were called out on that occasion, and I well remember what effect their intervention had upon the industrialists of the day. The Leader of the Senate (Sir George Pearce) and others whom I could mention, in a measure owe their political existence to that strike. The waterside workers have been told that they should approach the Arbitration Court. As a matter of fact, they have been anxious to do that for a long time, but owing to a technicality, the way has been blocked.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– What is preventing them from getting their plaint heard by the court?

Senator FINDLEY:

– There is this trouble with regard to the two pickups.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– No; they object to obey the award.

Senator FINDLEY:

– They have been working for a long time with only one pick-up and they are anxious to continue under that sysetm. They know only too well all the inconvenience that is caused by having two pick-ups a day. Moreover, awards have been made under the one pick-up system and the waterside workers are convinced that Judge Beeby was not justified in altering the procedure at the instance of the ship-owners’ representatives. I hope that there will be no extension of the trouble and that it will soon beover. I trust also that the waterside workers will receive every consideration to which they are entitled at the hands of the Government and the court.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- I do not agree with Senator Findley that the Government should intervene to bring about a settlement of the dispute. Senator Findley knows as well as any other honorable senator that interference by the Government with the court’s business would be wrong in principle. Every one is anxious to see the present dispute settled. It is remarkable that during this debate and on other occasions when we have been discussing similar matters, honorable senators opposite have carefully refrained from telling the workers that their clear duty is to obey the awards of the court. Only those who have had experience of industrial trouble before the establishment of the court, realize fully what the court has meant to the industrialists of Australia. Senator Findley referred just now to the calling out of the military and the police in connexion with the maritime strike. That action became necessary largely because, at the time, we did not have an Arbitration Court for the settlement of our industrial disputes. The workers now have that privilege, and largely because of the awards of the court, their conditions are better than those of workers in any other country. Wages are higher in Australia, and the purchasing power of money is greater even than in America. Why have not honorable senators of the Labour party the courage to tell the workers that it is their duty to obey the law? They are sent to this chamber to assist in framing laws to govern the Commonwealth, and they should impress upon the workers the fact that the laws must be obeyed. The Government would not be worthy of its trust if it failed to uphold the law in connexion with this dispute.

Senator Hoare:

– Does the honorable senator say that members on this side have not told the people they should obey the law?

Senator McLachlan:

– Not one.

Senator Hoare:

– I have, on more than one occasion.

Senator REID:

– Then I except Senator Hoare? Perhaps he is more candid - I hope other honorable senators opposite will not misunderstand me - in the expression of his views than are some of his colleagues. I do not wish to cast any reflection on them when I say that. They appear to be afraid of the political consequences. The majority of trade unionists are also afraid to attend the meetings of their unions to tell fellow unionists that they should obey the law instead of going out on strike. The great majority of the workers have no desire to see industry dislocated; but unfortunately the affairs of the unions often are in the hands of a strong minority. If only members of trade unions realized fully what they and their wives and families owe to the Arbitration Court, they would attend the meetings of their organizations and make their influence felt.

Senator Elliott:

– What would happen if they did?

Senator REID:

– If the majority were in favour of the observance of law and order, and I have no doubt on that point, there would not be so many industrial disputes.

Senator Elliott:

– The honorable senator knows very well that if they attended the meetings of their unions and spoke against their leaders they would be called scabs and blacklegs.

Senator REID:

– The honorable senator is wrong. I have been a member of a trade union, and I know how the majority of the men regard these matters. It is only because they neglect their duty by not attending the meetings regularly that these troubles come about. Senator Findley has told us about his allegiance to the cause of trade unionism. Unionists make all kinds of sacrifices in order to be loyal to their fellow unionists, but they do not seem to realize the effect of such loyalty upon the whole community. I admire their loyalty to each other, but it is absolutely criminal to inflict such injustices on other sections of the community and to paralyze industry as they are doing.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– And they know their action is wrong.

SenatorREID.- Of course they do. What is the cause of the present trouble ? Senator Findley stated only one side of the case, and made it appear that the strike was due to the difference between ship-owners and the waterside workers on the question of the number of pickups. Judge Beeby did not say that.. He directed attention to the fact that different branches of the Waterside Workers’ Federation - not the federation itself - were framing and working under rules which were altogether contrary to the award. It is unlawful for branches to frame and enforce rules which are contrary to an award of the court.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That is what Judge Beeby objected to.

Senator REID:

– Yes, he said that the men would have to dispense with the local rules. The members of branches of the federation have no right to frame such rules after obtaining an award of the court, and honorable senators opposite know it. Senator Findley said that Judge Beeby had made certain amendments in the award while the present pick-up system was in operation. That may be so; but the ship-owners, who should know their own business, have found that one pick-up is unsuitable.

Senator Needham:

– Both sides worked harmoniously for six years under the two pick-up system.

Senator REID:

– Possibly to avoid trouble the ship-owners have been putting up with the inconvenience of one pick-up for some time ; but have now notified the court that, as the present system is unsuitable, they wish the award of the court observed. The court has said that it will hear the case of the men if the strike is declared off. Is that not fair? If Judge Beeby had not taken a firm stand in this matter, he would not be worthy of the important position he occupies. On numerous occasions honorable senators opposite have objected to government by regulation, and have maintained in the strongest terms that the conditions under which the people live should be governed by acts of Parliament, and not by regulations; but the branches of the Waterside Workers’ Federation are framing regulations which are contrary to the laws of the country. Reference has been made to the action of a certain vigilance officer, who spent his time on the Melbourne wharves directing the ship-owners wherethe cargo landed was to be placed in the sheds. What right has such a person to interfere with the ship-owners, and to adopt such irritating tactics? Who is responsible for the cargo - the shipowners, or the stevedores? The shipowners understand their business and should know the best place in which to store the cargo. Would honorable senators opposite allow any one to interfere with their private business?

Senator Needham:

– What ofthe actions of the ruthless employer.

Senator REID:

– So far as I know there are no such employers to-day. The actions of the employers are controlled by the Arbitration Court. Moreover, the unions are so strong to-day that they have the power to crush a ruthless employer. I know what some employers in the past were like quite as well as honorable senators opposite; but those who had little regard for the interests of the men are now under the control of a court established under an act of this Parliament. Honorable senators opposite know that a representative of the union has no right to direct ship-owners where cargo is to be placed in the sheds, but they have not the courage to admit it. No principle is involved in this instance. For the fourth successive year, when Christmas is approaching, and when greater inconvenience is caused, the whole of our industrial life is to be thrown into a state of chaos in order that these men may achieve their objective. No one knows what the men really want. We are. told that they object to working overtime, but I should like to know how they could get a majority to support such a proposal. I know wharf labourers, and have been associated with them sufficiently long to realize that they are always ready and willing to work overtime. There are occasions when perhaps only two or three vessels are handled each week, and in such circumstances overtime enables them to earn a fair week’s wages. Do honorable senators opposite think that ships, which are very expensive to run,can be delayed while wharf labourers work only eight hours a day, including “ smoke-ohs “ ? Is it likely that ship-owners will send their ships to Australia when there is likely to be such a lot of lost time in loading? These strikers should be loyal to Australia, and assist in increasing its prosperity, in which they with others would share. If the members of the Labour party would tell the men clearly and definitely to stick to the Arbitration Court the present disturbance would speedily terminate. If they do not believe in arbitration they should declare their position, instead of sitting calmly here when so much is at stake. Senator Lynch was not quite fair to the Government in his reference to the appointment of special experts who worked outside the scope of the Arbitration Court. The present Government was not responsible for those appointments, and although the tribunals over which those persons presided may have settled some disputes, their establishment created a bad precedent. No such tribunals have been appointed by this Government. It is not the business of politicians, but of the Arbitration Court, to investigate and settle industrial disputes. I know the Government will not give a moment’s consideration to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that a conference of the Commonwealth and State governments with the organizations concerned be held to settle the trouble. Fancy convening such a conference to settle a dispute caused by a few waterside workers !

Senator Pearce:

– It would be a month before they could be brought together.

Senator REID:

– Yes. That- is an illustration of the statesmanship of the Leader of the Opposition. For what purpose was the Arbitration Court established? The employers are only doing their duty in requiring the men to go to the court. The men should not be afraid of the court. The records show that nearly all its decisions favour them. I have very little sympathy with the ship-owners, because during the war, when freights were high and business was prosperous, they conceded practically all the demands made by the men, with the result they were spoilt. The extra costs which followed the granting of all their requests have been passsed on to the public, and industry is being strangled.

Senator Needham:

– -But what of the profits ?

Senator REID:

– I am not defending the ship-owners. Their actions during the war period are largely responsible for the unfortunate position in which the shipping industry is now placed. A few years ago the seamen were receiving £7 a month, and were quite satisfied.

Senator Needham:

– Does the honorable senator think that that was too much ?

Senator REID:

– No.

Senator Needham:

– Is the honorable senator receiving too much?

Senator REID:

– I do not know, but I consider that my services are worth as much to the community as the services of the Leader of the Opposition. As a representative of the people I endeavour to perform the work I am supposed to do. If I am unsuccessful it is my misfortune. The electors of Queensland, however, know me, and have elected me, with others, to represent them. I endeavour to do my work here to the best of my ability, for which I receive an allowance fixed by act of Parliament. Some time ago I was surprised to find that there were only seven passenger steamers on the Australian coast, whereas a few years ago there were no less than nine such steamers on the Queensland coast. The cost of running the vessels is strangling industry. Honorable senators opposite say that the court has been too long in coming to a decision; but I remind them that soon after it was appointed it spent months in considering the question of a 44-hour week. The judges did not spare themselves, and in some parts of the country they sat until midnight. Since then they have been fairly busy, and there may be justification for the delay that has occurred. I am behind the Government in its determination to uphold the law; but I do not see any necessity for the motion. I should think that this Parliament would support any government in its efforts to maintain law and order. Honorable senators opposite cannot be expected to support the motion.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Why?

Senator REID:

– Because they have not the moral courage to do so. The Arbitration Court is ready to hear all grievances, and see that justice is done.

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

– I congratulate the Government on its action in bringing forward this motion, and I cannot imagine any loyal Australian objecting to the terms in which it is couched. It is a declaration by the Government that it is determined to maintain law and order.

Senator Hoare:

– What is the necessity for the motion ?

Senator MILLEN:

– It is desirable to indicate to the people of Australia that this Government will not tolerate defiance of the law. Honorable senators of the Labour party say that the unions find it impossible to have their disputes dealt with by the Arbitration Court. Have the men in this case tried to approach the court? I know something of the procedure of the Arbitration Court, because from 1909 to 1919 I was interested in cases from time to time brought before it. In the circumstances, therefore, I know what weight is properly attachable to such a plea. During this debate it has been urged that there is no necessity for the Government to submit the motion and to make this demonstration of its determination to maintain law and order. I differ from that view. This is not a mere election cry as some honorable senators have suggested. I am delighted that the Government are not raising the cry of law and order on the eve of a general election, but’ are acting when action is most necessary in the interests of Australia.

Senator Hoare:

– Why parade the fact that the Government stands for the maintenance of law and order?

Senator MILLEN:

– Because there appears to be a desire in some quarters that Australia should be governed by emotionalism, which causes a great deal of discontent and adds largely to the covetousness of a certain section of the community.

Senator Hoare:

– The ship-owners ! They are responsible for the present situation.

Senator MILLEN:

– The ship-owners have no voice in the matter. It is idle for the honorable senator to at tempt .to .saddle the ship-owners with the responsibility. It is useless for him to talk like that in the presence of honorable senators who travel weekly by steamers and see exactly the treatment to which the ship-owners have to submit.

Senator Chapman:

– The court has given its decision.

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes; but the employees will not obey it. They can-, not have it both ways. If they favour a policy of laissez faire, let them have it. If they want the instrument of the strike, let them have that. If, on the other hand, they want the Arbitration Court, let them have that; but they must not be allowed to flout the Arbitration Court. Senator Findley said that other administrations had adopted the policy of conciliation and that the Commonwealth Government should encourage it. They have. If my memory serves me aright, the Premier of Queensland, Mr. McCormack recently adopted it, and used it very well; but I cannot recall that there was conciliation on the part of the unionists. We are told that it is a reproach that the Prime Minister does not go to the ship-owners and tell them to give the waterside workers what they want, as long as they are prepared to continue to work. It is time that we ceased to adopt that attitude towards these men. Time after time men have absented .themselves from their ships and returned at their own sweet will. When a vessel was about to leave Launceston for the mainland recently two or three of the firemen turned up after a “hectic” time. It must have cost them a lot of money to produce’ the condition in which they returned to the ship. The vessel could have proceeded on its journey without them; but the rest of the men replied, “ No, we will tie up the ship.” And they did. The vessel was placed alongside the wharf in Launceston, and kept there all night, much to .the discomfort of numbers of mothers with infants. The following morning the absentees drove up in state in a motor car, and insisted on being driven right on to the wharf, while the passengers stood aside for “these captains of industry”! Can we tolerate conduct of that kind? It is no use saying that the fault lies entirely with the unionists. We know perfectly well that the great bulk of them are sensible men. Their leaders are to be blamed.

Senator Grant:

– There thehonorable senator is wrong.

Senator MILLEN:

– I amnot, but I would remind the honorable senator that one of the distinguished leaders of Labour in New South Wales, Mr. Mutch, tells us that the. whole of the movement is riddled with RussianInternationalism. I assume that he knows what he is talking about.

Senator Hoare:

– The honorable senator ought to blame the” red-raggers”. Russia has nothing to do with Labour in Australia.

Senator MILLEN:

– I would say that is absolutely incorrect.

Senator Hoare:

– The story must have come from the Nationalist party.

Senator MILLEN:

– Our party avoids the Sovietism of Russia as a plague. It knows enough about the character of the Australian people not to attempt to introduce anything in the form of Russian rule.

Senator Hoare:

– The law and order cry was the best asset the honorable senator’s party had at the last election.

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes. We let the people know what would be the dire consequences of the conditions the Labour party was allowing the extremists to impose upon them.

Senator Hoare:

– The honorable senator knows that cry was not true.

Senator MILLEN:

– We knew that it was. The people, too, realized the danger, and decided that the Prime Minister should “ carry on.” I am glad, therefore, that the Government has come down with this motion, with which I heartily agree. It is unthinkable that a handful of wharf labourers should be allowed to say to the people, “ We shall despatch the ships when we like, or they shall not be despatched at all.” Honorable senators opposite ask, “ What is the necessity for the motion ?”

Senator Hoare:

– No necessity exists for it.

Senator MILLEN:

– They haveno conception of economy of finance, otherwise they would appreciate the necessity for this action. If the strike continues, and our trade and commerce are held up, Australia will be seriously embarrassed.

Isnotsimilartrouble being experienced practically all over the world? Ours is not an isolated case. The Government has been advised to smooth the trouble over and say that, even if the law is being defied, the wheels ofindustry must be kept moving at any price. That would be a mistaken policy on the part of any government. As Senator Reid pointed out it has been adopted in the past; but has not helped the situation and will not do so. The case demands strong but careful handling. If the men do not stand up to their obligation to honour the awards of the Arbitration Court, but strike, then let us carry on and load the ships with other labour. I am pleased that, the Government is determined that law and order shall be maintained.

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

. - I fail to see any necessity for the motion. If it is carried it will not end the strike, and will not influence theship-owners or the waterside workers in the slightest degree. The position will remain unchanged. We have had an outburst of enthusiasm, and to some extent, of temper, from the honorable senator who has just resumed his seat. He did not utter a word concerning the delay caused by the Arbitration Court. He had nothing to say on behalf of the waterside workers. I have been connected with the Labour movement for 30 years. We used to look upon New Zealand as the home of conciliation. We held up that country as an example to the world because of its freedom from strikes, and. urged that we should copy its legislation. And we placed arbitration onthe platform of the Labour party. Whenthe Arbitration Act was passed, wewere proud of it. I am still proud of arbitration. I know of no better method for the settlement of industrial disputes. If we abolished that system I do not know what we could substitute for it. If we believe in the basic principle of arbitration,let us abide by the decisions arrived at by that method. If we do not believe in it, let us be honest and say so. Whether we intend to fight by direct action, or by arbitration, let us show clearly where we stand. There should not be the delay in having cases heard before the Arbitration Court that there is to-day. Arbitration has been much too costly and prolonged. To a large extent it has been only a fattening paddock for lawyers. Senator Millen should have been fair enough to say that at times unions which have approached the Arbitration Court with thousands of pounds behind them have come from it without a penny.

Senator Millen:

– They have received increases practically every time.

Senator HOARE:

– Some years ago I saw a number of men come outof a building in Port Adelaide. I asked them whether they had been engaged in a conspiracy, and they replied, “ Something of the kind. We have just had a tip from the ship-owners to put in for a rise. If we do, we shall get it.” They applied for, and obtained, increased wages. The ship-owners immedately increased freights and fares. The same thing has happened time after time.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Have they fallen out now?

Senator HOARE:

– The ship-owners are not prepared to go any further. For about six years the arrangement to have only one pick-up place has apparently given satisfaction; but now a change is desired by the ship-owners. The present dispute is not a matter of wages, but whether there shall be two pick-ups each day instead of one.

Senator Pearce:

– It is a question of local rule.

Senator HOARE:

– I know the cause of the dispute. For years the ship-owners have been satisfied with one pick-up daily, notwithstanding that the award provides for two. The existing arrangement has not hurt the ship-owners, because every shipping agent knows, almost to the minute, the time of the arrival of every vessel with which he is concerned. He knows, moreover, that every morning, about 9 o’clock, the waterside workers assemble at a certain place, and that he can arrange with them then to report for duty at midnight, if necessary. There is nothing wrong with that system.

Senator Millen:

– What if a fog delays a ship?

Senator HOARE:

– That may happen in Tasmania, but not elsewhere to any extent. In any case, it is not possible to make special provision for a few fogs. The existing arrangement, while not injuring the ship-owners, has benefited the waterside workers.

Senator Reid:

– That is because they get paid for time they do not work.

Senator HOARE:

– If the men are wanted, they are told when to report for duty.

Senator Reid:

– What if the ship is not in ?

Senator HOARE:

– In that case, they arepaid for an hour. Should they have to travel from a railway station they are paid from the time they leave the railway station until they return to it.

Senator Millen:

– They will not go to the pick-up place until the next day, and a ship may be held up in the meantime.

Senator HOARE:

– No. If the vessel was there, the men would go to work. If there are to be two pick-ups each day, the men will either have to remain about the sea front or else go home and return again. There is nothing unfair in having only one pick-up each day.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Why not leave it to the court?

Senator HOARE:

– Why did not the court deal with that matter when it knew it was in dispute?

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The court did deal with it.

Senator HOARE:

– There have been other awards since the one which provided for two pick ups daily.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– But that provision is still in the award.

Senator HOARE:

– That is so ; but evidently the existing arrangement has not hurt the ship-owners or they would not have tolerated it for so long. Senator Verran, in his long tirade of abuse, or rather his exhibition of buffoonery-

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator may not use that expression. It must be withdrawn.

Senator HOARE:

– If the expression is objectionable, I withdraw it. Senator Verran said that violence is associated with every strike ; but I cannot recall one strike in South Australia in which any violence was exhibited.

Senator Verran:

– I have participated in four strikes, and I know that in each of them there was violence.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– What about the drivers’ strike in Adelaide?

Senator HOARE:

– That did not change the earth’s course. I do not think that anything will prevent men from downing tools if they wish to do so. I know of occasions in which men have downed tools despite the advice of their leaders. That has occurred in the past in spite of arbitration, and it will occur again. Senator Lynch asked would it be wrong if the farmers refused to sell their wheat for less than 10s. a bushel. I cannot see what that has to do with this dispute. The present trouble is not a matter of wages, but of principle.

Senator Lynch:

– Has the honorable senator ever heard of farmers going on strike ?

Senator HOARE:

– I have heard of some of them “ scabbing “ on the Farmers’ Union. Senator Payne blames the leaders of the unions for this trouble. He referred to something he heard when going home from a meeting. The honorablesenator has never been a member of an industrial union, and, therefore, he knows nothing of its inside workings.

Senator Elliott:

Senator Verran knows something about industrial unions.

Senator HOARE:

– The leaders of the Waterside Workers’ Union have been elected to their positions by the members of the union. If the leaders of the union do wrong, the unionists who elected them to their positions are to blame. Senator Payne said that if men who were not in favour of a strike went to a union meeting and spoke against the strike, they would becalled “ scabs.” That isnot so. The trouble is that the meetings of the unions are not attended by a majority of members. Any faults connected with the unions are not due to those who attend the meetings, and take an interest in their affair’., but to those who stay at home. Yet those are the men who find fault with what their unions do.

Senator Payne:

– Does the honorable senator deny that unionists who have opposed strikes have been termed “ scabs.”

Senator HOARE:

– That kind of language is not indulged in at union meetings.

Senator Verran:

– I know of a union - not in South Australia - which conducted a ballot for three men to attend a conference. The ballot-box contained 50 voting papers in excess of the number of persons in the room.

Senator HOARE:

– As the Waterside Workers’ Union has branches in all the States, any fiction taken by the union cannot be said to be the work of a small body ofmen in one place.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to8 p.m.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

. - On Tuesday, when we were discussing a motion moved by Senator Ogden relating to the question now before the Senate, the opinion was fairly freely expressed by a number of honorable senators, including myself, that it would be unwise just at that stage to say or do anything that was likely to prejudice in any possible way the chances of a settlement of the trouble that was then looming. Since yesterday, however, that trouble has been precipitated, and is now right on us. Therefore, although we must at all times be guarded in what we say, particularly at a time of industrial trouble, the necessity for placing a curb, as it were, upon our tongues has been removed ; but at the same time we ought to exercise, even at this late hour, a very large measure of restraint. It is easy at such a time as this to pour petrol - employing an expression used to-day - upon flames already leaping pretty high, and thus prejudice all possibility of any efforts that may be made at conciliation being successful. Nevertheless, when a motion of this character is before us, I feel that it is incumbent upon all of us to express our opinion upon it, and declare whether we can support one side or the other in an industrial conflict like the present. Without entering into the merits or demerits of the circumstances that have led up to this strike, I want to say at once that the shipping industry, if I may so describe it - with its allied callings of coallumping and wharf labouring - and industrial trouble are synonymous terms. Reference to the Commonwealth YearBook and the Quarterly Bulletins issued by the Commonwealth Statistician show that for a number of years there has been more industrial conflict in the shipping industry and its allied callings than in all the other industries of Australia put together, with the possible exception of coal mining, in which industry there is always more or less constant friction in a small way without serious consequences to any one. When we remember that the shipping service is one of the arteries of our national life, upon which all our other industries, primary and secondary, are largely dependent for their success, advancement, and growth, I think it will be realized that any large industrial conflict covering a wide area and affecting the whole of our great national services, must be pregnant with dire consequences to the people of Australia. Why we should have this constant trouble in the shipping industry and its allied callings it is difficult to understand. With the exception of the sugar industry it is the most highly protected in Australia. We ‘declare that our coastal shipping service shall suffer no competition from overseas. We absolutely prohibit such competition. We declare what conditions of labour must be observed by vessels trading on the coast of Australia, and we concede absolute prefence to the trades unions. I think the time has just about arrived when, the people of Australia will have to ask themselves whether the price they are paying is not too big. It has been said by a previous speaker in this debate that although Ave have had this prohibition of overseas shipping, and to that extent have penalized ourselves by suffering a shortage of shipping on our coast, the Australian mercantile marine which

Ave hoped to build up as a result of passing the Navigation Act and by other means has “not materialized to the extent Ave would like to have seen. Although the people- of Australia have declared emphatically time after time their fervent desire to build up a big Australian mercantile marine, with all its allied services functioning in proper order, it is undoubtedly true that there are less merchant vessels on our coast than there were quite a number of years ago, and we are not getting from the shipping industry and its allied callings the service we are entitled to expect. I am not prepared to say that it is the fault of one side or the other. Rather do I think there is fault on both sides.’ I am not one of those who, at all times, see in industrial trouble a reason for kicking hard at employers or employees. We must look at the facts as they are. It is quite possible that in this industrial dispute, quite apart from the stoppage of work itself - I want to make that quite clear - it can be proved that there are undoubtedly faults on both sides. But whatever may be the merits or demerits of the subject matter leading up to the actual stoppage of work, what we are concerned with to-day is the fact that the men have ceased work, and Ave are face to face with a great industrial crisis that will not be limited in its scope to the conflicting parties. If it were so limited, it would not matter so much, but people in all the States in all industries and callings are to be heavily hit by this industrial trouble. I agree with the Minister that the people should at all times be our first consideration. They should have the right to demand it of us. Let us consider for a moment what an industrial conflict of this sort means. The injury done is not felt so much by the men or by their employers. The latter certainly lose a certain amount of income or profit, and the former lose their wages,- but they are helped by other industrial organizations, and they are quite sure that, whatever may be the effect of a strike upon any one else, they will have enough dinner and all the necessaries of life. They will be fed and clothed, and if the position should become unendurable to them, they can always say “ We have had enough,” and return to work. But all over the Commonwealth there are men and women working hard to make an established position for themselves, either on the land or in various callings. It is they who are affected by an industrial conflict of this sort. Many of them are ruined beyond hope of recovery. They are the people who should be our first consideration. Industrial . trouble of this sort is very much the same as a conflict between nations in which one of the combatants, instead of observing the rules of warfare and limiting itself to engaging the forces of the enemy, acts as the Germans did in the Great War, and hurls its deadly weapons at civilians and non-combatants. In the present trouble, we have the wharf labourers, although they do not see it, involving in the trouble other people who are non-combatants, and bringing ruin upon them just as surely as the Germans brought death to noncombatants in London and other big cities, when they used their Zeppelins to hurl (bombs upon them. The Government must take cognizance of this fact. No Government worthy of the name, if it has any desire to retain its reputation, could afford to remain inactive in a time like this. If it did, there would come from the people of Australia cries of shame and indignation that it should be so recreant to its trust as to act in that way. Iam pleased that the present Government is determined to take steps - I hope the proper steps - to let those industrial bushrangers - they are nothing else - know that they cannot level a pistol at the head of society in Australia and demand that their demands be met. We could not stand for that sort of thing in a democratic country like this where we have Government by the people and for the people. If we ever permit any section of the community, employers or employees, to hold up the life of the community, and say “You shall do this, or that,” or “ You shall not do this, or that,” then, instead of our living in a democracy, we should be living in an autocracy intolerable and unendurable to Australians or any other decent people. We could not stand for that, and it becomes the duty of the Government, therefore, to take whatever steps may be necessary, not only to bring to an end the present trouble, but also to make it quite clear, as far as it is possible for us to make anything clear, that should these troubles keep on recurring as they are doing to-day, they will be met in a proper way, not on behalf of one party or the other, but on behalf ofa community determined that the services which are the life-blood of the nation shall continue irrespective of what may be the rights or wrongs of any minor section. I do not mean that we should disregard for a moment any injustice or wrong under which a section of the community may. he labouring. The parliaments of both the Commonwealth and the States have provided constitutional means for the righting of thosewrongs and theredress of any grievances. Since the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and the

State Industrial Courts have been available to labour organizations many of them have experienced no serious industrial trouble. When disputes have arisen they have been adjudicated upon by the proper tribunals, and the women and children have not suffered. But in this industry, so soon as a minor dispute looms on the industrial horizon, the men rush in with threats of a strike; and if their demands are not immediately satisfied,a strike is declared. It may be confined to one ship, one wharf, or one State; or, on the other hand, it may develop into a general strike, and a definite refusal on the part of labour organizations to observe the dictates of civilization by resorting to savagery and force. We cannot stand for that sort of thing. The Government is to be commended f or having taken cognizance of the trouble, and for having placed before us a proposition which in its opinion is calculated to terminate it. I have shown clearly where I stand, Remembering what lies immediately ahead of us, and the necessity for maintaining a solid front, I shall vote for the motion; but I candidly admit that the situation has certain aspects that I do not like, and in happier circumstances I should seriously consider the advisability of moving an amendment. There is one phase which to me, as a democrat, is abhorrent. We are asked to pledge ourselves in advance to support a line of policy about which we have no knowledge. That is a most unusual procedure to adopt. We are asked not only to do all that lies within our power to bring about a settlement of the trouble, but also to affirm our support of any action that the Government may take.

Senator Payne:

– If the honorable senator has confidence in the Government, can he not trust it to do the right thing?

Senator DUNCAN:

– Although we may, as a party and as a parliament, have the utmost confidence in the Government,we are not prepared to give to it the right to enact legislation without referring it to Parliament. We insist that before any legislation is placed upon the statute-book, no matterhow unimportant it may be, we shallhave an opportunity to say what we think of it, and we reserve to ourselves the right to amendthat legislation inany direction we think fit. Thatisnot evidence of our mistrust ofthe Government; we are merely exalting our combined judgment above that of a fewmembers of parliament, whether they be Ministers or not.

Senator Pearce:

– Either the honorable senator trusts the Government to handle this matter, or he does not.

SenatorNeedham. - The honorable senator will vote to give the Government this power that he condemns.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I trust the Government; but it is asking us to do something more than that - namely, to pledge ourselves in advance and affirm our support of anything it may do.

Senator Pearce:

– How can the Government say what it may have to do?

Senator DUNCAN:

– I admit that it is impossible for the Government to tell us what action it contemplates taking; but I suggest to the Minister that it should not ask the Senate to give away its right to pronounce upon whatever line of action it may take.

Senator Verran:

– The honorable senator is not being asked to do that.

Senator DUNCAN:

– We are asked to affirm our support of the Government in any action it considers is necessary. My objection would be removed if the motion were in the following form -

That in view of the great loss, unemployment, and general distress which will inevitably result from the continuance of the serious industrial disturbance in the waterside industry, the Senate urges the Government to take the necessary steps in co-operation with the Governments of the States, as far as possible to maintain law and order, and to ensure the continuance of services that are essential to the well-being of the Commonwealth.

Senator Ogden:

– That is a distinction without a difference.

SenatorDUNCAN . -There is a very great difference. Under a motion framed asI have suggested, although we urge the Government to takeaction, we do not pledge ourselves in advance to support whatever action it may take.

Senator Reid:

– Doesthehonorable senator think that the Governmentwill take any action that will upset its supporters ?

Senator DUNCAN:

– I remind Senator Reid that this Governmenthas donethat very thing in the past. I do not say that it will do things which no other government would do; but I do say that no government can interpret at all times the wishes of its supporters. In viewof all the circumstances, I am prepared to vote for the motion; but I would have liked it better if it had been brought forward in another form. Senator Needham. - Why notbe honest ?

Senator DUNCAN:

– I shall certainly not look to honorable senators opposite for advice or enlightment upon this question. Unfortunately, they are not free to express their real opinions, but they have to obey the dictates of their organizations.

Senator Verran:

– The honorable senator is adopting a “Yes-No “ attitude.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I can assure the honorable senator that I am not. I have stated that in the absence of something that is more in accordance with my wishes, I shall support the motion; but I want to make it quite clear that I desire the Government to act very cautiously, and that I am not affirming my support of everything it may do to bring about a settlement of the dispute. I reserve to myself the right to say whether I support or disapprove of any line of action the Government may determine to take.

Senator Reid:

– We shall all be free to criticize the Government afterwards.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Unfortunately, we shall not, if, by agreeing to this motion, we affirm our support of any action it may take. There are certain lines of actionthat are open but which I should not support. Precipitate action which has been taken in the past by governments in both the Commonwealth and the States, has merely aggravated the trouble and given rise to an embitterment that has taken years to break down. I shall not affirm my support of action of that sort. , This is, largely a legal matter, and will, therefore be handled by the Prime Minister (Mr; Bruce), the Attorney-General (Mr; Latham), and probably the Leader ofthe Senate (Senator Pearce) rather than by the Cabinet as awhole. I am prepared to trust those honorable gentlemen,because I am certain that any action they may take will do no injury to theCom- monwealth.

Senator GRANT (New South Wales) [S.27]. - There can be no two opinions respecting the importance of the matter under discussion, and it is imperative that those who address themselves to it shall be exceedingly careful to see that nothing they say or do is likely to add to the trouble. I was amazed to hear Senator Ogden urge the use of. force. The moment force is used by one section, it is open to the other section to adopt similar methods, and if that should eventuate, no man could foresee the end. I remember well that prior to the maritime strike many years ago the use of force was advocated by one of the men. He was advised by a more seasoned colleague to do nothing of the kind, but to return Labour representatives to Parliament and obtain reforms in a legal way. That has been the attitude of the Labour party in the Commonwealth for many years. Senator Millen has urged the introduction of free labour. I warn him that if the Government is foolish enough to adopt that policy, the result will be to add fuel to the name. That is not the way to settle a dispute. Possibly the Government is actuated by the best of motives ; but if so, it is adopting extraordinary means to achieve its end. The motion is couched in the most objectionable language. Certainly it is not acceptable to honorable senators on this side of the chamber. We are as anxious as any other honorable senators to see a settlement of the dispute, and to that end my leader (Senator Needham) has moved the following amendment -

That in view of the great loss, unemployment and general distress which will inevitably result from the continuance of the serious industrial disturbance in the waterside industry, the Senate is of opinion tha.t consultations should be immediately held by the Government with the various State Governments affected, and organizations concerned, with a view to a clear understanding of the matters in issue and the settlement thereof by means of conference and conciliation.

Senator Ogden wants force; Senator Millen wants free labour; we ask for conference and conciliation.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Why not stick to arbitration?

Senator Chapman:

– The workers will lint go to the court.

Senator GRANT:

– I have had a fairly long experience in trade unionism, and I take this opportunity to remind the Minister for Defence (Sir William Glasgow) that the Labour party was responsible for the adoption of the system of arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Not at all.

Senator GRANT:

– I can remember when the idea was scouted by the representatives of the people who support the Government and its followers; but in spite of strenuous opposition, it is now the accepted means in Australia for the settlement of industrial troubles. We admit that the system is not perfect, and that it has not always given satisfaction to all parties. What is the crux of this dispute? About 6 years ago the Waterside Workers’ Federation and the shipowners decided, among other things, that employees should be picked up twice a day; but for some reason, which is carefully kept in the background by the Government and its supporters, that provision was allowed to lapse. Employees are now picked up once a day. I do not know whether, as stated by Senator Hoare a few minutes ago, the shipowners precipitated the fight to raise this issue, but they are now insisting on the former practice of picking up men twice a day notwithstanding that one pick-up has given every satisfaction for about six years.

Senator Verran:

– The honorable senator knows that that statement is not correct.

Senator GRANT:

– I understand that it is. Before I resume my seat I shall deal with some of the very ridiculous statements made by Senator Verran this afternoon. What does this practice of picking up men twice a day mean? It means that the men must present themselves for employment at 9 o’clock in the morning, when the employers will select the number which they think they will require. The rest, if they still seek employment, must present themselves at the pick-up place again in the afternoon. It is extraordinary that employers should seek to revive that obsolete system. In this age of wireless, ship-owners know to a minute when a particular vessel will tie up at the wharves, and it should be a perfectly simple matter for them- to select at the first call in the forenoon all the men required for the day, instead of expecting many of them to hang around all day doing nothing.

Senator Payne:

– What advantage would that be to the employers?

Senator GRANT:

– If Senator Payne will study the history of the British dock strike he will read a very candid statement by one of the British ship-owners, who declared that a margin of unemployed was necessary in order that the industry might be carried on. That is the kind of doctrine which some people wish to see foisted on the workers of the Commonwealth.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– If what the honorable senator says is true, this dispute is playing right into the hands of the employers, because it will lead to a great deal of unemployment.

Senator GRANT:

– I do not agree with the honorable senator. I give the waterside workers credit for knowing what is best in their own interests. While men are unemployed their expenses go on just the same, and although it is true that a number of the waterside workers get fairly good returns for their services, it must not be forgotten that they have a great deal of broken time. They may be idle for days on end, during which time they earn nothing. I doubt if the average earnings of the whole of the members of the Waterside Workers’ Federation are more than 50s. a week. I leave out of account, in this estimate, those workers who may be fortunate enough to get more than a fair average share of the labour available, and, therefore, are kept pretty fully occupied. I am considering the great bulk of the men who, from day to day and week to week, offer themselves for employment. If the Government is really anxious to bring about a settlement of this dispute, it will support the amendment moved by my leader and thus make’it possible for Parliament to present a united front in expressing the view that something of a tangible nature should be done to effect a settlement. We, on this side of the chamber, realize quite as much as Government supporters do what distress may be caused among the workers and their wives and families if this industrial trouble is not settled very quickly. Therefore, we suggest that instead of showing the mailed fist, as the Government is doing, it should immediately consult with the State Governments and the organizations concerned, so as to get a clear and definite understanding of the true position, and then, by means of conference and conciliation, make possible a termination of the dispute. If the Government adopts this course I feel sure that the trouble will vanish even more quickly that it has appeared. But I have no faith in this Government, and certainly I cannot support the motion submitted by the Leader of the Senate. Senator Payne, perhaps with the very best of intentions, but, I think, with an ill-informed mind, made a statement this afternoon which, in my judgment, was incorrect. He said, amongst other things, that the majority of the unions concerned are opposed to the arbitration system.

Senator Payne:

-That is the statement of the Trades Hall officials.

Senator GRANT:

Senator Payne also said that the organizers are responsible for strikes. I believe that he actually believes that such is- the case.

Senator Payne:

– I saw the result of an organizer’s work in Queensland.

Senator GRANT:

– But “ one swallow does not make a summer.” The mere fact that an organizer made such a statement -

Senator Payne:

– I did not refer to a statement by an organizer, but said that I had seen the result of an organiser’s work.

Senator GRANT:

– That does not affect the position. As one who has had considerable experience in union affairs, I can assure Senator Payne that’ organizers do all in their power to prevent industrial disputes, and whoever has informed Senator Payne to the contrary has either misled him, or does not know what he is talking about. I should like Senator Payne to try to conduct a union meeting, and see how long he would be able to lead the men. He would soon find that the officers are controlled by the rank and file.

Senator Verran:

– Is that so ?

Senator GRANT:

– It is the greatest mistakein the world to imagine that union officials ‘control’ the men, and Icannot understand a man of the experience of Senator Verran in trade union matters ‘‘asking such a ridiculous question. Thehonorable senator has said that 90 percent. of the unionists are, upright, honest men, and that the remaining 10 per cent. are lunatics.

Senator Verran:

– I repeat that 90 per cent. of unionists are all right, but the other 10 per cent. should be in a place which I shall not name.

Senator GRANT:

– Such a statement cannot be substantiated. The honorable senator’s remarks do not apply to unionism in New South Wales.

Senator Verran:

– Yes, theydo.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir John Newlands). - I ask Senator Verran to allow Senator Grant to continue his speechwithout interruption.

Senator GRANT:

Senator Verran’s remarks do not apply to unionism in New South Wales, where I was associated with unions at different times, and where all the decisions reached were the result of a majority vote. The honorable senator further said that unionists are degenerating, and becoming demoralized. He even . objects to paid union officials, but I remind the honorable senator that the day has gone by when men devote their time to union work without remuneration. Some of us have a very vivid recollection of the time when delegates were appointed to interview employers, and discovered later that in consequence of doing so, their services were no longer required. It is true that some organizers in Adelaide are paid £9 a week, but in New South Wales and other places the remuneration is even higher.

Senator Verran:

– They are also supplied with motor bicycles and typewriters. -

Senator GRANT:

-Yes,and sometimes with motor. cars; . The days, of which Senator Verranisspeaking-

The PRESIDENT:

-Iask thehonor- ablesenatortodiscussthe motion, and notSenator Verran.

Senator GRANT:

– It is’ true, as Senator Verran said, that the men are better paid, and work shorter hours than they did some years ago, but the conditions which they now en joy have been obtained as the result of a- hard andbitter fight. Conditions- have ‘altered. Is it not on record that, when the masons engaged in building the Temple, in Jerusalem created some trouble- Solomon said, “ Paythe masons and let them go.” In Egypt the Israelites were forced to make bricks without straw.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must again ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.

Senator GRANT:

– It is a pity, sir, that you were not in . the chair when Senator Verran was speaking. He was allowed to discuss almost any topic. I deny that union officials in Australia are anti-British, or controlled by other than a majority vote of their members. It is ridiculous to say that there are Bolsheviks in the unions, as 98 per cent. of their members are good Britishers. Such statements are only made to mislead innocent honorable senators opposite. I should like to see Senator Verran endeavouring to control the members ofthe Waterside Workers Union, who sometimes hire the basement of the, Sydney Town Hall for their meetings, which are attended by three or four thousand men. If he made an attempt he would find that he . would have to be ruled by the majority. A clear, convincing and concise statement by Mr. Morris, . the general secretary of the Waterside Workers’ Federation, was read this afternoon, the accuracy of which no one can deny.. Although provision is made in the award for only one “ pick-up.;.” honorable senators should remember that . a two “ pick-up “ system has been in operation for at least six years, and although the award has been amended on three occasions, that portion of the award which provides for two “pick-ups” has never been enforced. For some unknown reason. the.ship-owners now wish the sixyearold award, which, provides . for two “pick-ups” to be observed in. its entirety. Ifthe. Governmentdesires to endthe trouble speedily,it willnotdosoby the -use of force. Thousands . of the waterside workers -are as well educated to-day in everyrespect as are their employers, and they will , not . be., bulldozed or deceived by statements such as those heard to-day from Senator Payne and

Senator Verran. The men are determined to get the very small measure of justice that they are seeking. Although the working hours are shorter, and wages and other conditions of employment are better than ever before, we have not yet reached the position when no further progress is possible. The workers of this country will not stand for the free labour advocated by Senator Millen. I was astonished to hear that honorable senator make such a suggestion, and I was equally surprised when Senator Ogden advocated the application of force. Free labour and the use of force are the two worst ideas that could be promulgated, if there is a genuine desire to see the dispute settled. If the method outlined in the Opposition’s amendment were given a trial, I have no doubt that the’ parties could be brought to see that the difficulties are not insurmountable. The adoption of the amendment would speedily bring the dispute to a satisfactory termination.

Senator CHAPMAN:
South Australia

– I was rather surprised to hear some of the views expressed by Senator Duncan. The Government seeks the approval of Parliament in its determination to maintain law and order, and to ensure the continuance of services essential to the well-being of the Commonwealth. It will be well for the Senate to let the people of Australia know- that their representatives are whole-heartedly behind the Government in this matter. Senator Duncan suggested that there had been a change in the attitude of the Senate during the last few days; but I cannot see that that is so. The doors of the court , are still open to the waterside workers, and, in the event of their refusing to avail themselves of the processes of that tribunal, theirs will be the responsibility for the industrial chaos that threatens the community. The present position is one of the most serious that we have had to face for a long time, and I propose . to stand firmly behind the Government. I believe in arbitration, and voted with the Labour party in South Australia to preserve our present arbitration, system.Ibelieve that the strikeis an antiquated method of dealing . -with- industrial grievances. . We hear a good deal about the tremendous. cost of arbitration; but it is nothing compared with the huge losses occasioned by strikes. The system of arbitration, of course, is in process of evolution, and I agree that one of its weaknesses is that the awards of the court cannot be enforced as well as we should like. Anything that the Government can do in improving the system in that direction will receive my hearty support. If Senator Needham believes in arbitration, as he says he does, why do not he and his party advise the unions who are now defying the court to abide by its decision ? It is because honorable senators opposite had a mandate from the conference of the Waterside Workers’ Federation last September, which conflicts with the parliamentary party’s ideas on arbitration. Honorable senators opposite are frightened of a clash with their industrial leaders outside.

Senator Needham:

– That statement is false.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir John Newlands). - I ask the honorable, senator to withdraw that expression.

Senator Needham:

– I withdraw the word” false,” and say definitely that the statement is incorrect.

Senator CHAPMAN:

-I shall show that it is not incorrect. First of all, I shall substantiate what I have said in regard to the attitude of the court. These were Judge Beeby’s words, in giving the reason why the men were debarred from going before the court -

The court cannot and will not proceed while the union claims the right to make an award itself before the court has dealt with the matter. Therefore, I cannot at present proceed with the case. The matter is still open if ever the union likes to give honest and serious consideration to what has been said, and gives the assurance to the court which it asks for. When that has been done, the case will proceed. You must consider whether you are going to let the court fix your conditions of labour or . fix them yourselves and enter into a contest with the rest of the community, because it ultimately means that. You cannot take . the law into your own hands in this way.

If the branches of the Waterside Workers’ Federation make regulations which conflict with the rulings of thecourt, it is hopeless for the court , to make an award,, becausetheunionswould . continue to makerulesconflicting with , thecourt’s decisions. Underthose conditions,the -work of the courtwould be rendered absolutely useless. The ultimatum of the Waterside Workers’ Federation, after it had considered the demands of the shipowners, was -

That this committee of management, after fully considering the ultimatum from the shipowners, is of the opinion that the terms of normal resumption as requested by the shipowners are impossible, because normal resumption as demanded by them, and previously insisted upon by Judge Beeby, includes reverting to two “ pick-ups “ a day. This request is contrary to the unanimous decision of our September conference.

It has been said that a condition of the award is that there shall be one pickup a day, but the award provides for two. The owners met on Tuesday to draw up a full list of the Arbitration Court award rules and clauses which have been disregarded by the waterside workers in the past, and oh which the ship-owners now insists. One of the conditions of the award that the waterside workers have been breaking is the provision for two pick-ups a day and they will not go before the court because they know that that would mean reverting to two pick-ups a day. »

Senator Needham:

– How does the honorable senator know that?

Senator CHAPMAN:

– The men consider that there should not be two pickups a day, notwithstanding that the courthas awarded that number.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That provision has been ignored for six years.

Senator CHAPMAN:

– The shipowners have accepted one pick-up a day under duress.

Senator Needham:

– The arrangement has been made with the consent and knowledge of the court and of the two parties.

Senator CHAPMAN:

– The shipowners have tolerated the breach of the award for the sake of peace. Job control has been in operation all over Australia for some time. I was informed recently that one union in Adelaide, whose members were employed -by a certain club, demanded rates and conditions over and above those provided in the award. The club was willing to continue to abide by the award of the court, but that was not sufficient for the union. To avoid trouble, the demands of the men were acceded to. On the west coast of

South Australia men engaged on public work are not permitted by their union to do more than a certain amount of work each day. I was told that one cold day a man, in order to keep himself warm, worked faster than the prescribed rate, and completed his allotted section of work about one and a half hours before knockoff time. In order to keep himself warm for the remainder of the working hours he threw the soil back into the trench and then out again. In such circumstances it is no wonder that the farmers complain of high water rates.

Senator Hoare:

– Does the honorable senator believe that statement?

Senator CHAPMAN:

– I am inclined to believe it, because I know that the unions do limit output. Tactics such as these have led to the present trouble. The ship-owners are determined to put up with them no longer.

Senator Hoare:

– Will the honorable senator tell us how the Adelaide Steamship Company treated the farmers on the west coast of South Australia?

Senator CHAPMAN:

– That has nothing to do with this debate. I have here a newspaper report which reads -

Work on the steamer Baron Belhaven. which brought portion of a cargo of nitrates to Fremantle from iquique, was resumed to-day, after a stoppage caused by the lumpers refusing to accept the award o’ the chairman of the Board of Reference (Mr. V. Walsh) for the payment of 6d. per hour additional on the usual rates, the provision of two extra men in the hold, and two daytime smoke-ohs. When the vessel arrived work began, but it ceased soon afterwards, and the mon made a claim for 5s. an hour, two daytime smoke-ohs. and two extra men in the hold. The board considered the claim, and the chairman made the announcement outlined above. This decision the men refused to accept. An attempt was made to pick up men to-day under the conditions awarded, but was unsuccessful. When ls. 3d. per hour additional on’ the usual rate was offered the men agreed to work the cargo, and extra gangs were picked up.

That is another instance of the award of the court being defied. Is that abiding by arbitration? Let me quote another instance of job control. In a statement issued by the chairman of the Oversea Shipping Representatives’ Association the following appears : -

Limitations on loading, &c, under domestic rules, reduce efficiency without reducing wages. The latest instance reported is at a northern port, where a conveyor belt is used for loading and discharging. The local watersiders have now resolved to place the bags of cargo on the conveyor at intervals of 6 feet between the bags. It is estimated that the decision reduces the efficiency of the conveyor belt by 50 per cent., thereby making an ordinary ship’s gear as effective. Thus the effort to achieve efficiency is defeated.

When men deliberately slow down in that manner the cost of production is necessarily increased. The extra cost of handling have to be deducted from the price that is paid to the producer for his produce. In order to show that these men receive good wages, I desire to place on record the rates actually paid to them. The statement to which I have referred sets out those rates in the following terms: -

Few Australian workers and fewer still struggling primary producers realize the wage harvest being reaped by members of the Waterside Workers’. Federation. The following are some of the wage rates laid down by what the union is pleased to term an “ obsolete and inefficient award:- Ordinary rate, 2s.11½d. an hour;6p.m. to midnight, 4s. 3d. an hour; midnight to 7 a.m., 5s. an hour; meal-hour work,5s. 8½d. an hour; supper hour work, 7s. 9d. an hour; smoke-ohs, half an hour each, full pay; double pay if worked. Holidays. - Saturday afternoons, &c,5s. an hour (7s. 9d. for meal hour if worked). Extraordinary holidays. - Sundays,6s.6d. an hour (9s. 3d. for meal hours if worked).

Senator Hoare:

– Will the honorable senator tell us how much they average each week?

Senator CHAPMAN:

– In view of those high wages there is no justification for dissatisfaction on the part of the men. They should not endeavour to evade the award of the court or attempt to enforce conditionsover and above the award rates by making local rules and adopting irritation tactics. They know that when they do so they are, in effect, shutting the doors of the court, because it is useless for the courts to deal with them while they are disobeying its awards. Unfortunately, this dispute, if continued, will not be confined to the waterside workers and the ship-owners, but will affect thousands of persons in other occupations. According to a newspaper report, the secretary of the Coachbuilders’ Union in South Australia stated that he had been notified by the firm of Holdens Limited that if the action of the Waterside Workers resulted in the holding up of the shipping, it would mean thepartial closing down of their works at Woodville. A serious dislocation of industry is a matter of great importance to Australia, particularly at this time. The harvest throughout Australia is light; the money market is tight, and unless our wheat and other products can be shipped buyers cannot normally finance, and disaster will confront many of our primary producers. They will be forced to sell their wheat at low pricesto a few speculators. The men on strike have no grievance which cannot be settled in the Arbitration Court. It is there they should go for relief if they believe theexisting conditions are oppressive. If honorable senators belonging to the Labour party really believe in arbitration, they should advise the men to appeal tothe Arbitration Court, and to abide by the result. The amendment moved bythe Leader of the Opposition provides for the very thing that the men will not accept. If they will not abide by the decision of the Arbitration Court, it is useless for Senator Needham to advocate a settlement of the dispute by conciliation. Does the honorable senator suggest that another body should be set up, and the Arbitration Court, appointed for the settlement of disputes by this Parliament, be ignored. Judge Beeby says that the doors of the court are still open. The men should be prepared to have their case settled by the court. I trust that wiser counsels will prevail, and that the men will yet agree to that course being followed. Some time ago, when in Sydney, I visited the Domain on a recent Sunday afternoon. I approached the Communist ring and purchased for 3d. a booklet containing the manifesto of the Communist party of Russia, in which I read that the only way the objective of the Communists could be obtained was by the overthrow of the present system. The claims of socialism and communism are somewhat similar, it points out, but the means of obtaining their common objective are different. Communism believes in force, revolution, and bloodshed. It says further, that the present owners cannot be dispossessed without bloodshed, and that bloodshed is inevitable in order to attain their objective. I also purchased another book containing speeches by Trotsky and Lenin, delivered before the central conference at Moscow, and these contained references to the progress of communism in various countries, including Australia. These speeches stated that the communists are achieving success in Australia in the ranks of the trade unionists, and it is significant that on the executives of the unions in Australia which have the most strikes are a number of avowed communists.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

– I do not intend to add very much to the debate that has already taken place, because nearly everything that can be said has been said; but I do not care to give a silent vote on such an important matter. I welcome’ the motion, and when it was moved expressed the hope that it would be carried unanimously. If I interpret it aright the Government is simply asking Parliament to support it in any action it may take to uphold the law. I do not understand how any member of Parliament can oppose such a proposal, because in so doing he expresses a disbelief in the principle that the law of the land must be upheld. We have an Arbitration Act under which awards are made. When it was introduced for the purpose of preventing and settling industrial disputes I welcomed it; but having had a long experience of the fact that only one side observes the awards that are made under it, I have begun to doubt its efficacy. I realize, however, that whilst we are working under it, it is the duty of every member of Parliament to support the Government in upholding its provisions. If this were a matter in which only waterside workers were affected it would not greatly concern me; but I have in mind its effect on all other industries, particularly those in my own State of Tasmania. Whenever there is a shipping strike Tasmania is practically isolated. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) said this afternoon that the interstate services would be maintained. They are not being maintained. The Kitiwai, which is loadedwith zinc from Tasmania, is at present tied up in Melbourne. The Koronui, upon which we depend for the shipment of our produce to the Sydney market, is tied up in Launceston, full of coal, which to-day’s newspapers state will not be unloaded. The farmers in Tasmania are depending on that boat” for the shipment of their produce, and they may lose the return from a year’s work because the wharf labourers will not obey the law. For the last twelve months the potato growers have been planning, scheming and working to get their potatoes ready for market. They have now practically reached that stage, but because the wharf labourers refuse to work they are faced -with ruin.

Senator Payne:

– The balance of the crop will probably be lost.

Senator J B HAYES:

– That is the case. It should be stated publicly that the point which stands out in this dispute is the utter disregard of the wharf labourers for the welfare of other people. They do not seem to care whether others are ruined. They are being well paid. Senator Chapman has detailed a list of the wages that they earn, ranging up to 9s. an hour. That figure may be exceptional, but 3s., 4s., and 5s. an hour are quite common. Numbers of small farmers who will probably be ruined by this strike would consider that they were enjoying comparative affluence if they had an equal income. They work all the year, take the chance of bad seasons, and very likely have an indifferentcrop and obtain low prices; yet they are to be denied the little that they can get because the wharf labourers will not obey the award of a court that was brought into existence for their benefit. Senator Chapman instanced Holden’s motor bodybuilding industry as one that would be affected by this upheaval. I instance the zinc works in southern Tasmania. I dare say that every honorable senator could mention some big industry in his State that will be similarly affected. Probably 2,000 men in southern Tasmania will be thrown out of work. They do not complain of the nature of their work; they are satisfied with the agreements which they have with their employers. Their wives and families were looking forward to a Christmas of comparative comfort; yet suddenly,because of some dispute with which they have absolutely no concern, theiraffairs will be thrown into chaos, and the whole country will bein a state of turmoil. Only a little while ago five or six wharf labourers by their action threw out of work 350 men who were employed in the Catamaran coal mine. It is about time the people of Australia took a hand and stopped this business. Nobody denies that the wharf labourers should have fair play. Perhaps their job is intermittent and unpleasant, and keeps them at work formany hours, but they have chosen that calling, and if they do not agree with the terms and conditions under which they are asked to work, they can state their case to the Arbitration Court. The ship-owners have issued the clear and definite statement that they are willing that work shall continue according to the terms laid down by the Arbitration Court. . No one denies to any man the right to decline to work, but if in doing so he prevents other people from working, action should be taken to put a stop to his proclivities in that direction. I was amazed at the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) moving an amendment. When I heard the motion read for the first time, I anticipated that both the. Senate and another place would say unanimously, “ We made the law ; let us back up the Government in upholding it.” No matterwhat government was in power I should stand behind it in an effort to carry out the law. If I did not like the law I would use my position to try tohave it altered. If honorable senators opposite are opposed to this law, they would be acting within their rights if they endeavoured to have it altered. The Government cannot take any action that is not sanctioned by law. I hope that it will adopt every legal action that is open to it to settle this dispute, which will bring widespread distress toevery part of Australia if it is allowed to continue.

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

.- Theother day I indicated fairly clearly myattitude with regard to the waterside trouble. Thereis no necessity for me toadd very much to what I then said. Theoutstanding point to me is that there wasno necessity fortheGovernmentto submit suchamotionas this. The elementary principlesof responsible government demand that Ministers shall accept full responsibility for all their official acts. I believe that apart from this motion the Senate and another place would have supported the Government in any action it considered necessary in the public interest. Senator Duncan has raised what, in my opinion, is not a very seriousobjection. Every honorable senator can reserve to himself the right to refuse to endorse an unwise, extraordinary, or unreasonable attitude, if the Government is foolish enough to adopt it. I am bound to support the motion. The cause of the dispute is altogether too trifling to warrant the extreme stepthat has been taken by the waterside workers. It is all over the question of the pick-up of labour.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– No. The question of local or branch rule is also involved.

Senator OGDEN:

– The men object to attend twice a day to look for work. When I was following the occupation of a miner, I had to present myself at the morning, the afternoon, and sometimes the night shift, in the search for employment. That may not be a pleasant task, neverthless,it is the experience of the miners at Mr Lyell and in other places. They will be thrown out of work, and hardship and suffering will be thrust upon their families, in order that the waterside workers may obtain certain privileges. That is not right. I shall stand behind the Government in any strong and reasonable action it takes to protectthe public in the crisis that appears to be upon us. I still hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that the waterside workers will seek the advice of the leaders of other trade unions. I hope they will not take up the attitude that they are the only pebble on the beach and by persisting in their present stand, throw large numbers of other workers out of employment. That is an unreasonable attitude. I fail to understand it. I know that therank and file are not in sympathy with the present trend of events. I know, because I have spoken to someofthem.The majority would be very pleased indeed if this trouble could besettled amicably.

Senator Reid:

– Why did not they vote against the strike?

Senator OGDEN:

– They did not get the opportunity. Thatis thetrouble.

SenatorReid. - Thereis the ballot

Senator OGDEN:

– Surely the honorable senator is aware that in these days a secret ballot is never taken at the meetings of trade unions. The executive of the Waterside Workers’ Federation have taken this matter into their own hands and have told the waterside workers what they must do.

Senator Grant:

– That is not correct.

Senator OGDEN:

– I know, because I have as wide a knowledge of trade union matters as any other honorable senator. In my earlier days it was the custom to determine issues of this nature by means of a secret ballot ; that is not done to-day. A secret ballot was not taken to decide the course of action to be adopted with regard to this dispute.

Senator Graham:

– How does the honorable senator know that?

Senator Hoare:

– Does the honorable senator say that it was not discussed at meetings of the union?

Senator OGDEN:

– It might have been discussed, but the executive would be in control. Not long ago there was a dispute in connexion with the Catamaran coal mine in Tasmania. Two State Labour members of Parliament, men whom I know very well and for whom I have every respect, went down to interview the men. They had almost persuaded them that they were in the wrong, but the representative of the executive said that the dispute had to be referred to the executive in Melbourne. As a result, the executive in the exercise of its authority, refused to allow the men to load or unload ships, and the coal mine was closed down. Secret ballots are not how taken at meetings of trade unions. That is what I object to. If the rank and file of the Waterside Workers’ Federation were solidly behind the executive in this dispute, and if a secret ballot had been held, there might be some justification for their present attitude.

Senator Hoare:

– Does the honorable senator say that a vote was not taken at a meeting of the federation?

Senator OGDEN:

– There may have been voting, but there was not a secret ballot. From my experience of trade union matters I have a pretty good idea of what happens in open voting. Many years ago 1 was at a meeting in Mount Lyell, convened for the purpose of discussing a threatened strike. Mr. Nankervis, president of the miners’ federation in Victoria, and Mr. John Praed. a highly respected member of the organization, were present. The men wanted to strike, but Mr. Praed, who was one of the finest characters we have ever had in the ranks of trade unionism had the courage to tell the men that they must not strike, and that if they did the executive had no funds for their support, so that it could do nothing for them. There was a great todo at the meeting. When the local member rose to speak in support of what Mr. J. Praed had said, he “got one” on the back of his head, and sat down again very promptly. He was called all sorts of names, and had such a hostile reception that not another man at the meeting had the courage to rise to support him. Senator Needham knows as well as I do that a man needs a great deal of courage to stand up at a meeting of unionists and express views in opposition to the advice of the executive. I do not wish to take up further time. I feel bound to support the Government. The dispute is a very serious matter to the people of Australia, and particularly to the people of the State which I, with other honorable senators, represent in this Chamber. I must place the interests of my State before the interests of the individual, and therefore I shall vote for the motion.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– This question was raised by Senator Ogden on Tuesday last, when he submitted, a motion for the adjournment of the Senate. Some doubt was expressed at the time as to whether he was justified in bringing his motion forward. I think the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) said that Senator Ogden was extremely unwise in raising the issue, since there was every prospect of a settlement being arrived at. The events of the last few days have shown that he was fully justified, and also that the Government has good reason for its action. I take it that the motion now before the Senate was not submitted by the Ministry because of any doubt as to what steps it should take. The right honorable the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce), when speaking to Senator Ogden’s motion on Tuesday last, assured the Senate that if the trouble developed, anu. if industry were threatened, the Ministry would take all steps necessary to ensure the continuance of essential services. The Government, however, realizing its responsibilities in the matter, has properly put the issue before the elected representatives of the people, and has asked for their support in any action that may be necessary to maintain law and order. ‘ Is that unreasonable? Did not every honorable senator, before taking his seat in this Chamber, affirm that he would do all in his power to maintain law and order? If the present trouble extends, its consequences will be far-reaching and disastrous. It is extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition and other honorable senators opposite should complain that the Government has asked them to say “ yes “ or “ no “ to the motion before the Senate. Something has been said, in the course of this debate, about equal citizenship rights. The people have an opportunity, once in every three years, to exercise their rights at the ballot-box. About two years ago the issue which we are now discussing was then before the electors in an acute form, and as a result of the appeal to the people the Government was returned to power with a definite mandate to ensure the observance of law and order. Honorable senators opposite cannot deny the truth of that statement. They fought the election on that issue, and came back in greatly reduced numbers in both this Chamber and another place. In saying this I have no desire to be in any way offensive to the Opposition. I am merely stating the fact that at the last general election the same principle was at stake.

Senator Needham:

– That was not the issue.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– On other occasions I have heard the honorable senator declare that this Government went to the country with a battlecry.

Senator Needham:

– Yes - a battle-cry of misrepresentation.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– No. That battle-cry, as the honorable senator must remember, was the maintenance of law and order. At that time there was a serious shipping dispute in Senator Needham’s State, and there was urgent need for definite action by some governmental authority to restore law and order.

Senator Needham:

– The Western Australian Government maintained law and order on that occasion. There was no need for action by the Commonwealth Government.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– When speaking to Senator Ogden’s motion on Tuesday last I said I was sure that .the people of Australia were expecting this Government to see mat law and order were observed, and that essential services were maintained. I believe that if the motion is agreed to, the Government will use its power with wise discretion. I feel sure that the Government having this authority to act on behalf of the people, and will exercise the powers it possesses in a way that will not bring discredit upon the Parliament. The people, who are keen judges of the actions of its public men, will not support any tyrannical methods, and if this administration abuses the powers which it possesses, the people will deal with it in no uncertain way. I support the motion.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.1]. - I have a few observations to make concerning the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham), which is to the effect that the Senate is of opinion that consultations should immediately be held between the Governments of the various States affected, and organizations concerned, with a view to a clear understanding of the matters at issue, and a settlement thereof by means of a conference and conciliation. One would think from the terms of the amendment that the dispute was an insignificant one, that the country could wait a few months until a settle ment had been effected, and thatnothing of consequence would happen. But before the procedure set out in the amendment could be carried out, even if it were right, a tremendous amount of misery and unemployment would have resulted. What does the amendment mean when one analyses it? It asks the Senate to surrenderto the dictation of the Waterside Workers’ Federation. That is what it means. The members of that organization are prepared to confer with the ship-owners to-day, provided the owners will flout the court with them. The ship-owners, however, refuse to do that. They say that the court is there to adjudicate, and they are willing to go before the court and let it decide the issue.This branch of the legislature, which assisted in framing the arbitration laws of the country, is being asked by the amendment to join with the Waterside Workers’ Federation in flouting a court established under legislation passed by this Parliament. The amendment, which I understand is a concotion of the Labour party in both branches of the Federal Parliament, means that that party has abandoned arbitration. Let them no longer pose as exponents of arbitration, if they are now fathering this amendment. The Government appreciates the tone of the speeches delivered in support of the motion which I submitted to the Senate this afternoon. I feel sure that apart from the terms of the motion itself, and what it expresses, the. speeches made in both Houses on this subject, will’ have a considerable moral effect in bringing about a settlement of the dispute. It should also be the means of bringing the men to their senses and showing them that they must conform to the laws of the country. I think that in a crisis such as this, the Government has a right to obtain an assurance from Parliament that it has its support. In view of the season of the year that is approaching, Parliament will probably have dispersed within a couple of weeks, but that does not meanthat the Government will have shed itself of its responsibility. It will continue to exercise its authority, and surely it is ofvalue to the Government to have an assurance from honorable senators, and from honor able members of another place, that in whatever measures it may have to take, it will have their support. That assurance will be a source of strength, and will give to the action of the Government an authority that cannot be questioned. Honorable senators know that this is not the first time that some of us have had a similar experience. On previous occasions when crises such as these have occurred Governments have been taunted with having taking action without consulting Parliament. It has been said on such occasions that Parliament should have been called together. Fortunately in this instance, Parliament is in session, and has been fully informed of the whole circumstances. The representatives of the people have expressed their opinion in no uncertain way, and armed with their support, the Government can go forward with confidence in whatever circumstances may arise. I can assure honorable senators that the last thing which the Government desires is that any action it may have to take shall be of an extraordinary character. It is earnestly hoped - and no one wishes it more than the Government - that a speedy and peaceful solution will be reached. Why should the Government be anxious to seek trouble in a case like this? It is the last thing it desires. Honorable senators may rest assured that whatever action is taken, will be directed towards a peaceful settlement of the dispute. We trust that those responsible for the disturbance will adopt the same attitude. If they do, there is no reason to doubt that before the week is over work will be resumed on the Australian coast, and the industries which have been interrupted will again resume work. I askthe Senate to reject the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and to carry the motion which I have submitted on behalf of the Government.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out, be leftout (SenatorNeedham’s amendment)- put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 5

NOES: 23

Majority 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 23

NOES: 5

Majority . . . . 18

AYES

NOES

Questionso resolved in the affirmative.

page 2379

POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS

Ordered -

That Government business,notices of motion, Nos. 1 and 2, be postponed till to-morrow.

page 2379

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Sill received from theHouse of Representatives,and (on motion by Senator Sir George Pearce) read a first time.

page 2379

INCOME T AX BILL

Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives.

Senate adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 December 1927, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1927/19271201_senate_10_117/>.