House of Representatives
8 August 1905

2^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITION
MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL
QUESTION
- TARIFF COMMISSION
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL LEGISLATION
QUESTION
- ISSUE OF ELECTORAL ROLLS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE
QUESTION
- PAINTING OF POST-OFFICES
APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL
QUESTION
- AMBULANCE WAGGON AXLES
QUESTION
- QUEEN VICTORIA MEMORIAL
ORDER OF BUSINESS
QUESTION
- ALLEGED DISREPAIR OF COMMONWEALTH BUILDINGS
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE APPEALS
QUESTION
- LEATHER ACCOUTREMENTS
QUESTION
- ADULTERATION OF WINE
QUESTION
- MILITARY SUNDAY DUTY
CUSTOMS LOCKERS’ OVERTIME
PAPERS
MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL
- Second Reading
TRADE MARKS BILL
- Second Reading
SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS ACT. AMENDMENT BILL
ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 663

PETITION

Mr. R. EDWARDS presented a petition from certain residents of Brisbane, praying that stringent legislation be enacted to prevent the importation of opium for smoking purposes into the Commonwealth.

Petition received.

page 663

MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL

Mr. SPEAKER reported the receipt of a message from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, recommending that an appropriation be made from the Consolidated Revenue for the purposes of this Bill.

Referred to the Committee on the Bill.

page 663

QUESTION

TARIFF COMMISSION

Mr ROBINSON:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I wish to know from the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a paragraph in this morning’s Age, in which, after a reference to the unfortunate accident which has befallen the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, are these words -

The Government will soon have to face one of two alternatives in connexion with the Tariff Commission - (1) reducing the quorum necessary for the receipt of evidence ; (2) increasing the Protectionist representation on the Commission.

Does the Government intend to increase the protectionist representation on the Commission ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– The Government have no proposition to submit at present.

page 663

QUESTION

ELECTORAL LEGISLATION

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I wish to know from the Prime Minister whether the following statement correctly reports his utterance -

There were two electoral Bills now advanced in preparation ; they would be laid before the House at an early date. These Bills had to be entirely drafted by the present Government, whereas other Bills already introduced were drafted by the late Government, and only had to be revised.

Is he not aware that a complete Electoral Bill, drafted by the late Government, was left in the Department of Home Affairs?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– A codifying machinery Bill was all but completed when the honorable member left office. My allusion was to the Representation Bill, about which I had been particularly asked, which, as the honorable member knows, is being drafted as an entirely new measure. At some date a third Bill will be necessary.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Is it the intention of the Government to bring forward, and, if possible, put through Parliament, this session, a Bill for the redistribution of the electorates ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– That is one of the measures I alluded to.

page 663

QUESTION

ISSUE OF ELECTORAL ROLLS

Mr BATCHELOR:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to know from the Minister of Home Affairs if he is aware whether the electoral rolls for South Australia are yet issued, or ready to be issued?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

– I understand that they are printed, but I cannot say whether they have been issued. I will make inquiries on the subject, and let the honorable member know the result.

page 663

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, as representing the Minister of Defence, if his attention has been drawn to the report in to-day’s newspaper to the effect that the New South Wales Commandant has stated that he has a scheme for the defence of Australia ready for the Federal Government if they will only ask for it? Will the honorable gentleman obtain that scheme, and place it before Parliament for the information of honorable members ?

Mr EWING:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– Any information that any Commandant has to give will be gladly received; but matters of this kind require Cabinet consideration before any Ministerial statement about them can be made to the House.

page 663

QUESTION

PAINTING OF POST-OFFICES

Mr MAUGER:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I wish to know from the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the great distress from which some persons are now suffering through want of employment, he will take steps to carry out, as early as possible, the promise he made to have certain painting work done in connexion with his Department?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I will take steps to see that the work is carried out as promptly as possible.

page 664

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL

Mr WATSON:
BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Last year the late Treasurer, acting on my suggestion, saw that the Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill was pushed forward independently of the ordinary Appropriation Bill, and it became law at a much earlier date than did that Bill. In view of the delay which always occurs in getting work started,, and of the need for finding employment for the people in connexion with the construction of necessary public works, I ask the Treasurer if he will consider the advisability of taking similar action this vear?

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– It was my intention to do so.

page 664

QUESTION

AMBULANCE WAGGON AXLES

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I wish to know from the Vice-President of the Executive Council, as representing the Minister of Defence, whether it is true that the specifications for certain ambulance waggons contain a clause to the effect that American axles must be provided. If that is so, I ask why the Department of Defence does not give an opportunity to Australian makers of axles?

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

– I am unable to say what the specifications require, but I will see that the matter is inquired into.

page 664

QUESTION

QUEEN VICTORIA MEMORIAL

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I understand that Sir Edmund Barton, at the last Colonial Conference, agreed that a certain sum should be contributed by the Australian people towards the erection in London of a memorial to the late Queen Victoria. Will the Prime Minister say whether such a promise was made, and by whom, and whether the amount promised was ,£25,000? Will it be possible for honorable members to see al! the correspondence in connexion with the matter ? When does he intend to proceed with the motion dealing with the subject now standing on the notice-paper in his name ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The motion is likely to come on at an early day, but before then I shall lay on the table all papers relating to it, and I think that they will answer the honorable and learned member’s inquiries.

Mr Crouch:

– Cannot the Prime Minister say on what day the motion will come on?

Mr DEAKIN:

– No day has yet been fixed.

page 664

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister give the House any information as to the course of public business during the ensuing week? There are a number of Bills on the paper - four or five - and I think that it would be convenient to honorable members to have some information on the subject.

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The Government propose to commence with the ‘Manufactures Encouragement Bill, and then to proceed with the second reading debates on the Trade Marks Bill, the Commerce Bill, and the Secret Commissions Bill - probably in that order. The further consideration of the message on the Papua Bill may be resumed if opportunity offers, but we have been much pressed to afford an early opportunity for the consideration of the Public Service Classification. Until the classification has been adopted,, it will cost the Government about ;51,000 a month.

Mr Crouch:

– Why?

Mr DEAKIN:

– To explain would be to enter into a debatable question which can be dealt with when the matter is brought forward. Probably Friday in this week would be a suitable day to set aside for the discussion of the classification, if we can spare time from the consideration of other business.

Mr Fisher:

– What about the sugar bounty ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– That matter will be referred to by the Treasurer in the course of his financial statement.

page 664

QUESTION

ALLEGED DISREPAIR OF COMMONWEALTH BUILDINGS

Mr POYNTON:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to direct the attention of the Minister of Home Affairs to the alleged disrepair of many public buildings used by the Commonwealth Departments, and to ask him whether, in view of the dearth of employment, he will cause the work of effecting repairs and renovation to be carried out as soon as possible ?

Mr GROOM:
Protectionist

2.The position was this : There was an amount of£6,000 available for accoutrements on the 1903-4 special warlike stores vote.

This money would have lapsed on the 30th June, 1904, and it was quite impossible to get supplies locally before that date, even if the Department had the samples, which were not then finally sealed.

The sets of accoutrements indented for formed only a portion of what are required, and the very much larger balance required will be arranged for locally.

What was intended to be conveyed was that local supplies could not have been made in time to prevent the money lapsing.

page 665

QUESTION

ADULTERATION OF WINE

Mr LIDDELL:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of

Home Affairs, upon notice -

Is he aware of the anomalies existing between the Adulteration Acts of the various States in relation to the wine industry?
Is it a fact that some States are given an advantage at the expense of others because of this?
Will he introduce a Bill at an early date to rectify these anomalies, and place this industry on an equitable basis?

Mr GROOM:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows: -

The control and regulation of the internal trade in intoxicating liquors is a matter specially reserved by the Constitution as one which is altogether under the jurisdiction of the State. No such Bill is therefore contemplated.

The Commerce Bill now before the House will, if passed, enable the adulteration of exports to be dealt with.

page 665

QUESTION

MILITARY SUNDAY DUTY

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

asked the Minister re presenting the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Whether partially-paid forces are expected to do regular duty on Easter Sundays during Easter Encampments without pay ?

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

– I am informed that-

The instructions to commandants are that no unnecessary work is to be carried out on Sundays.

With regard to pay for Sunday during camps of training, it is found on inquiry that in New South Wales pay has not been granted, whereas in the other States payment has been made for the Sunday.

Further inquiry is being made as to why the payment was not made in New South Wales.

page 666

CUSTOMS LOCKERS’ OVERTIME

Motion (by Mr. Tudor) agreed to -

That a return be laid upon the table of the House showing -

The amount of overtime worked by the Customs lockers in the three bonds at Port Melbourne, and the bond at Yarraville, and the amount of extra pay drawn by each of these lockers during the twelve months ended 30th June, 1905.

The amount of overtime worked by the other Customs lockers in Melbourne, and” the amount of extra pay drawn by each of these lockers during the twelve months ended 30th June, 1905.

page 666

PAPERS

Mr. GROOM laid upon the table the following paper : -

Correspondence between the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth and the Premier of New South Wales with regard to the Federal Capital Site, and various documents relating thereto.

The Clerk laid upon the table

Return to an Order of the House dated 8th August, 1904, relating to the overtime worked by Customs lockers.

page 666

MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– A fiscal referendum would be a socialistic thing, and as the honorable member is not a Socialist he would not support a referendum upon anything, if he were consistent. Without entering into elaborate details respecting the quantity of iron ore available for treatment in Australia-

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that this Bill is out of order. It has not been preceded by a motion in Committee, which, I take it, is a condition precedent to the introduction of any Bill appropriating the public funds for any purpose whatever. Standing order 243 makes this very clear. It says -

If any motion be made in the House for any public aid or charge upon the people -

I do not think there can be any doubt that this measure involves a public charge upon the people - the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but should be adjourned till such further day as the House shall think fit to appoint, and then it shall be referred to a Committee of the whole House before any resolution or vote of the House do pass thereon.

A vote has already been wrongly taken upon this Bill, inasmuch as it was not put in Committee, where the Bill ought to have originated. I submit that, following precedents going back almost to the infancy of parliamentary institutions, the Bill, as now before us, is out of order. It should have originated in the Committee to which the Governor-General’s message was transmitted as soon as it was received. The Constitution is silent in the matter of procedure, but all our parliamentary precedents are in favour of my contention, that there should have been an appropriation in Committee before leave was given to bring in the Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Parramatta was good enough a few moments ago to call my attention to the point that he was about to raise in order that I should have an opportunity to con- *sider it. On a previous occasion a similar Bill was introduced in Committee, the Committee originating from the reception of a message from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral. The Manufactures Encouragement Bill that was brought before the House last year was introduced, however, in the same way as that now before us has been. On examining this Bill I recognise that it is undoubtedly a measure for a public aid or charge upon the people, because clause. 3 provides that the Governor-General may authorize the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of bounties according to rates set out in the schedule. Standing order No. 243, which the honorable member for Parramatta has read, expressly declares that the consideration of a motion for any public aid or charge upon the people shall not be entered upon in the House until it has been referred to a Committee of the whole. I, therefore, think that there can be no doubt that it is impossible for the House to deal with this Bill until the subject-matter has been recommended by resolution in Committee of the whole House.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I have prepared a notice relating to the consideration of the Governor-General’s message, but understand that it is unnecessary for me to move a motion at this stage, as the matter will appear on the notice-paper in the ordinary way, and we shall be able to deal with it to-morrow.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The message was received and announced by me nearly half an hour ago, and was ordered by the House to be considered to-morrow. It will, therefore, appear on the notice-paper for tomorrow without further action being taken.

page 669

TRADE MARKS BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3rd August (vide page 610), on motion by Mr. Isaacs -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILSON:
Corangamite

– I feel satisfied that the discussion upon this measure will centre not upon the general question of trade marks and their registration or application, but upon the trade union label provisions. The whole of the debatable portions of the Bill are concentrated in those clauses. In the Age of the 7th instant the following paragraph appeared : -

Mr. Reid has attempted to identify the Government’s proposals with respect to the “union labels” sections of the Trade Marks Bill with the American union label system. Members who have carefully followed Mr. Isaacs’ speech declare that the Government has quite removed the dangers that were inherent in the section as it left the Senate -

Mr Reid:

– The Age speaks very freely for honorable members.

Mr WILSON:

– The whole point is in the next sentence -

No employer has to beg a union’s permission to use its registered label-

Mr Reid:

– That is another “ whopper.”

Mr WILSON:

– The paragraph continues -

It is automatically at his disposal as long as he fulfils the union conditions.

– As showing the effect of the union label on trade and commerce generally, I should like to quote the following extract : -

North of San Francisco, in the great city of Portland, one of the most conservative and solid cities on the Pacific coast, where they were facing the problem which St. Louis has so successfully carried through with many inconveniences, and the harrassing industrial conditions there existing, the Citizens’ Alliance solved the problem for the first time, perhaps, in the history of the United States, of building a great exposition under the open shop, and the Lewis, and Clarke exposition, from top to bottom, from the meanest to the grandest building that stands upon the exposition grounds, is the product of open-shop labour. Some two or three years ago a Mr. Wehner, of San Jose:, undertook to. build a panorama structure in San Francisco. He made a contract for the work. He did not specify therein the character of the labour, and the contractor began the exterior work with non-union labour. A delegate to the Building Trades Council protested against this, and Mr. Wehner, discovering that he was going to involve himself in difficulties, explained that he had no means of controlling the labour employed by his contractor, but that he would promise that all the interior work should be done by union labour. This was not satisfactory. A boycott was laid upon the structure, and upon the amusement that was to take place in it. Six carpenters who remained at work, despite the strike that followed, were expelled from the Carpenters’ Union of the Building Trades Council of San Francisco. Mr. Wehner was a man of limited capital. He was faced by the most terrible industrial conditions that have ever disheartened an employer, and threatened with the loss of his means. Through the manager, Mr. Harry Gilmour, he endeavoured to treat with Mr. P. H. McCarthy to learn the terms upon which the strike could be calledoff. Mr. McCarthy wrote in reply a short letter, which is a photograph of industrial conditions there as they then existed -

July 6, 1904.

To Mr. Harry Gilmour,

Inter-State Panorama Co.

Dear Sir,

In regard to the request, as presented by Mr. Wehner, relative to a settlement of the boycott on the panorama “ Battle of Manilla,” we have decided unanimously that we will, upon the consideration of having published in the daily press of San Francisco for a period of thirty days the following : - “ I, Mr. Wehner, do hereby acknowledge that I have committed a serious and grave error in antagonizing the unions affiliated with the Building Trades Council and organized labour in San Franciso ; admit my defeat in the premises, publicly apologize therefore for attempting to erect and run a place of public amusement in San Francisco. And, further, I, Mr. Wehner, do hereby agree to pay to charitable institutions to be named by the council the sum of one thousand dollars.”

The employer had to fine himself $1,000.

Mr Reid:

– The “land of freedom” !

Mr WILSON:

– Yes, “ the land of freedom.”

Upon the fulfilment of the foregoing we will settle amicably the existing difficulties between Mr. Wehner and organized labour of this city and county.

H. McCarthy,
M. Page,

– Where is the high tone? There is no specially high tone about it. To show how much further the matter was carried in San Francisco, I quote the following: -

The Building Trades Council of San Francisco is composed of over fifty, governed by an executive council, with a” delegate from each union. The I-abour Council of San Francisco numbers nearly 135 unions, and numbers among its members such unions as the Chicken Pickers, the Fish Gutters, and there was even a union of the Bowling Alley employes organized, the men who set up the ten pins at the end of the alley.

Honorable members will notice that, under these conditions, if the system is to be carried to such an extent as the Ministry are making provision for at the present moment, it will be impossible in Australia, as well as in America, to have even a game of skittles unless some of those employed happen to be members of a union. I quote this further -

When in San Francisco they began the work of the boycott, labour there employed sandwiched men, and we had parading up and down the streets of our city in dozens of places men bearing placards, bearing such inscriptions as this - “ Do not patronize this non-union restaurant. It employs scab help. Indorsed by the San Francisco Labour Council,” or some other labour organization.

If the system is to be carried out to the same extent in Australia as in America, and if such a thing is permitted, we shall no doubt have sandwich-men parading the streets of Melbourne, Sydney, or Brisbane, pointing out the institutions at which people can get a feed, can get clothes or boots, or telling them which newspaper to read. If some newspaper is not produced under certain labour conditions,) people will be informed that it is not to be purchased by members of the unions. The extract I make proceeds -

But unionism was in the air to such an extent that labour had not employed its sandwiched men boycotters for a dozen days until the sandwich men conceived the idea of organizing the Sandwich Men’s Union. And we had the Sandwich Men’s Union demanding of the union that employed them an increase of wages from a dollar and a half to two dollars a day. And when they did not get it they struck, and we had upon the streets of San Francisco the ridiculous spectacle of one sandwich man parading up and down in front of a place of business declaring it unfair, and another sandwich man parading up and down in front of him, declaring that when he declared the business unfair he unfairly declared it unfair.

This sort of thing had been going on for a very considerable time in San Francisco, and the evil had increased to such an extent that 85 per cent, of the businesses in that city were terrorized by the system. The condition of things described had existed for three years, and when the people could stand it no longer they rose to defend themselves, and brought it under the notice of the legal authorities, in the form of a case submitted to the Court. Judge Hebbard, of the Superior Court of San Francisco, gave a decision in connexion with the matter which is of very considerable importance. I quote the following reference to it: -

It was upon a demurrer interposed to an application for a restraining order, a complainant in the Equity Court, setting up a boycott as the reason for the restraining order, and asking protection of the Equity Court. The question was one of law, whether an action in boycott could be maintained. The Court, in overruling the demurrer, said, “ There are not, and there cannot be any authorities to sustain the defendant’s contention. There is no law, human or divine, to support their argument. To proclaim a business or the proprietors unfair in this manner, is as infamous as to proclaim before a private dwelling that the inmates thereof are prostitutes. The acts complained of are breaches of the peace, and it is safe to say that if the one boycotted had met it by personal violence, instead of appealing to the law, he would have been justified by a jury under his constitutional right of self-defence.”

Mr Spence:

– Hear, hear.

Mr WILSON:

– for without the unrestricted right to labour, man cannot support himself, nor the lives of those dependent upon him.

Mr Spence:

– Hear, hear.

Mr WILSON:

When, therefore, any man dares to make membership in any organization an essential prerequisite to the exercise of the right to work, he violates the fundamental dispensations of the Almighty.

The honorable member for Darling does not say “hear, hear” to that. The honorable member would force all men into unions, and. so far as he is concerned, those who would not be forced might starve or rot. The quotation proceeds -

I claim that that man has also aimed a blow at the life principle of this Republic, which is simply the ultimate victory of 5,000 years of human effort to express in the form of human government the essential safeguards of human liberty.

An opinion of Judge Shackleford Miller, of the Chanoery Branch of the Jefferson Circuit Court, at Louisville, in the suit lately brought by the Courier-Journal Job Printing Company, and its president and vice-president, as citizens, to test validity of the “union label” ordinance under which the city has been awarding the contracts for public printing, is of the utmost interest and importance. It renders an unqualified judgment for the plaintiffs. Some of the points in the brief of the attorney for the plaintiff, Mr. Alfred Seligman, were as follow : - That the ordinance is unconstitutional and void, being in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in this : that citizens not a member of the Allied Printing Trades Council of Louisville, and not employing members thereof, are abridged in their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States and deprived of liberty and property without due process of law, and denied the equal protection of the law. That it is unconstitutional under section 3 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Kentucky, in this : that the said ordinance constitutes the grant of exclusive separate public emoluments and privileges to persons, members of said Allied Printing Trades Council of Louisville, or employing members of said council, and that such separate public emoluments and privileges are not in consideration of any public services rendered.

That it is a violation of the inherent equality of all men before the law. Moneys raised by public taxes constitute a trust fund for the benefit of all taxpayers, to be administered and spent only for public municipal purposes; that municipal officers are trustees, and have no right to divert such trust funds to any other than municipal governmental purposes; that the city buyer is undertaking under the direction of said ordinance, to pay $260 more for the public printing than the same can be done without the operation of said ordinance, and to that extent there is a diversion of public funds to private uses, and a breach of trust that will be enjoined by the Court. The injunction is not an interference with the discretion vested in this public officer. The legislative department of the city of Louisville has no right to impose upon the discretion of the city buyer or limit it by an unconstitutional ordinance, nor has he a right to accept or bind his discretion with the terms of such an ordinance. The appropriate remedy is by injunction. Judge Miller’s opinion was as follows : - This action is brought bv L. T. Davidson and August Straus, in their capacities as residents and taxpayers in the city of Louisville, and by the Courier-Journal Job Printing Company, as plaintiffs, against the City of Louisville, Charles F. Grainger, mayor of the said city ; Fred. R. Bishop, city buyer of said city ; the Globe Printing Company, and Charles T. Den ring, as defendants, for an injunction to prevent the awarding of a contract for printing of the reports of the city of Louisville for 1903, under a letting of June 1904, to either the Globe Printing Company or to C. T. Dearing. By an ordinance of the city of Louisville, approved January 24, 189S, it is provided in substance that all printing, bookmaking, and work of like character used or ordered by the city of Louisville, “shall bear the imprint of the recognised union label of the Allied Printing Trades Council of Louisville, Kentucky, as registered with the Secretary of State “ ; and that the city buyer, when advertising for printed matter, shall insert a notice in the advertisement that all bids shall be submitted in accordance with said ordinance. In advertising for these bids, the defendant, Bishop, followed the requirements of the ordinance by giving notice that “ all bids must be subject to ordinance approved by the mayor, January 24, 1898.” The plaintiff, the Courier-Journal Job Printing Company, filed a bid by which it proposed to do the work for $220 per page, while the defendants, the Globe Printing Company and C. T. Dearing, each offered to do it for $2’6o per page, there being a difference of $240 in the cost of the entire work under the respective bids. There is no question raised as to the regularity, sufficiency, or validity of any of the bids. This motion for an injunction is based upon the single ground that City Buyer Bishop is threatening to and will award the contract to the Globe Printing Company or C. T. Dearing at $2’6o per page, under and as required by said ordinance of January 24, 1898, because said Globe Printing Company and said Dearing can comply with the ordinance bv using the label of the Allied Printing Trades Council - commonly called the “ Union Label “ - while the Courier-Journal Job Printing Company, being an “ open shop,” cannot use said label upon its work, and cannot therefore comply with the requirements of the ordinance. The ordinance is attacked as being unconstitutional, in that it undertakes to make a discrimination between different classes of citizens similarly situated ; that it restricts competition in public work, and tends to increase its cost and creates a monopoly thereof ; that it attempts to confer an exclusive privilege upon certain persons, in violation of the Kentucky Bill of Rights, and that in awarding said contract to the Globe Printing Company or to C. T. Dearing said city buyer and the mayor (who must approve the same) will not act in the full exercise of their judgment, or discretion, or *bond fide, but will do so only under the alleged constraint of the said ordinance, which will require them to so award the contract. That the ordinance is clearly unconstitutional is conceded by the city attorney and by the counsel for the other defendants. Indeed, whenthe ordinance was presented to the city attorney for examination before it became effective, that official made the following indorsement thereon : - “ The ordinance is unconstitutional. Examined “and approved. H. L. Stone, City Attorney.” The legal objection to the ordinance has been well expressed in the following language : - “ Manifestly, if the General Council has the right to restrict competition, so far as the public supplies and public contracts are concerned, to those only who employ union labour, it would have the same right to pass the same character of ordinance for the benefit of non-union labour, if at any time the friends of non-union labour should gain control of the General Council. And if at any time the majority of the members of the General Council should be members of the Presbyterian Church, or the Methodist Church, or the Baptist Church, or the Catholic Church, or of any other church, or if the majority of them should belong to the Masons, or the Oddfellows, or the Elks, or any other order, they would have the same right to pass a like ordinance for the benefit of those employing members of their particular church, denomination, or order. The result would be that the laws of the city, instead of being enacted for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the municipality equally and impartially, would favour only that class of our citizens who happened to be in political power at the particular time.”

As I said in the first place, the Judge declared the use of the union label in connexion with the printing trade to be unconstitutional. Another case is mentioned in the same newspaper of the 15th June, 1904, as follows: -

Agents of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and of the International Association of Mechanics, of the Brass-workers’ union and the Brass-moulders’ local union, demanded that the Kellogg Switchboard and Supply Company, of Chicago, should execute an agreement that they would employ none but members of these organizations. The officers of the Kellogg Company refused to sign the agreement, a strike was declared, the union men leftthe employment of the company, and its factory was picketed by a large number of them. It obtained a preliminary injunction, but the picketing continued. It made an application to the Superior Court topunish the ringleaders for con tempt. The union denied all conspiracy, and claimed that the men who were engaged in picketing only used peaceable means by persuasion. The Court, however, fined a number of the officers of the unions, and directed two of them to be imprisoned. The unions appealed, and the Appellate Court has now sustained the injunction unanimously.

Judge Adams’ opinion says -

Appellants denied that they used force, threats, or intimidation of any sort, and say they were peaceful and mildly persuasive. But the very presence of a large number of pickets, with the avowed purpose of preventing plaintiffs’ employes from remaining in its employ, and of preventing those seeking employment from entering it, was in itself intimidation. When a thousand labourers gather around a railroad track and say to those who seek employment they had better not, and that advice is supplemented every little while by a terrible assault upon one who. disregards it, every one knows that something more than advice is intended. lt is coercion, force ; it is the effort of many by the mere weight of numbers to compel the one to do their bidding.

The affidavits show that the defendants picketed and patrolled around and about complainants’ place of business, watching the streets, alleys, and approaches thereto, daily shifting their positions; that they so stationed themselves that the complainants’ employes were obliged to pass through their picket line ; that their attitude was ugly and menacing, such as to cause fear in the mind of an ordinary person. Complainants’ employes and persons seeking employment were waylaid on their way to and fromthe factory ; they were insulted and threatened, and in numerous instances assaulted and beatenby the strikers’ pickets and patrollers, and complainants’ business was seriously and injuriously interrupted. All teaming and haulage of merchandize to and from complainants’ factory was stopped.

Thepurpose of the strike by complainants’ employes and their prosecution of it, as described, was to compel the complainant to execute the agreement referred to and made a part of the Bill. The drafts of agreements, three in number, purport to be with the different unions, whose members were in complainants’ employ.

Mr WILSON:

– The judgment proceeds -

The agreements in question would, if executed, tend to create a monopoly in favour of the members of the different unions, to the exclusion of workmen not members of such unions, and are, in this respect, unlawful. Contracts tending to create a monopoly are void.

The Legislature of the State cannot create a monopoly.

The purpose of the strikers is in violation of the criminal code, which provides as follows : -

– Here is a quotation in point -

In Chicago if a man went into a shop and bought goods which had not the union label on them, he would be fined five dollars for the first offence, twenty dollars for the second, fifty, for the third, and for the fourth offence he would be turned out of the union.

Mr Tudor:

– What is the name of the union ?

Mr WILSON:

– I cannot supply it.

Mr Hutchison:

– There is nothing in it.

Mr WILSON:

– The extract continues-

The walking delegate can insist upon a union man showing the union label on all his goods, even to his underclothing and boots, and he can also make the wife and children show that they are also wearing goods with the union brand on them.

As an example of what the unions can do under the protection of the label, an American newspaper states that in San Francisco -

Mr JOHNSON:

– It is a quotationfrom the newspaper referred to. The honorable member may use the word “alleged” if he pleases, but, at any rate, the words I am reading are within quotation marks. “ Burials of the dead were actually impossible, because of the demands of the union grave-digger. The people who patronized the restaurants narrowly escaped going altogether hungry because of the demand of union cooks and waiters. And every time it is the public on whom the expense and inconvenience has really fallen. One restaurantkeeper, Mr. M. Johnson, has fought the organization since 1901-

– The extract goes on -

– As honorable members opposite say that such intimidation as I have indicated is not intended, I claim their support for such a provision as that to which I have referred. These provisions of the Bill are not new. We are really harking back to the legislation which was in existence in mediaeval times, legislation which long since was discarded bv our forefathers. Unfortunately, instead of progressing we are retrogressing. The Times in a recent article stated -

In its youth Australian democracy has hastened to imitate the spirit, if not the letter, of some of the worst rules of medieval close corporations. <

This Bill is a fair indication that the Times was right when it published that statement. To illustrate the ‘practices that obtained in the period referred to, I might be permitted to read another extract from an old book : -

The trade guild of Hammermen, of Duns (in Scotland), in 1729, ordained - “ That no master of the incorporation shall hyre a stranger alse (as) long as their are any of the incorporation or jurnemen that is entred wants work and is willing to serve.”

At the same time they had also another provision in force, which was frequently put- into operation -

At duns, the 6 day of Agust, 1696, the trade being mett, fines John Cosor in the sum of Ten pounds, Scots, and yt (it), for selling and buying of shoos not made within the toune, but cowl)ed (i.e., hawked, imported) shoos. None within ye corporation shall sell sic (such) within the shyre, heirafter in all times coming under the paine o”T Ten pounds Scots money.

– There is no compulsion upon the manufacturer to apply for the union label.

Mr ROBINSON:

– If a man who makes goods, say in the district of Collingwood, finds that in and around that district an increasing number of persons purchase goods with the union label upon them, and he cannot affix that label because he employs two or three dozen non-unionists, then he will be forced either to induce the nonunionists to join the union, or to supplant them with unionists. Notwithstanding the ingenious sophistries interjected by the AttorneyGeneral, while the leader of the Opposition was speaking the other night, I maintain that it is quite possible for a man to be debarred from using the union label if he employs only the smallest proportion of non-unionists in a very large factory.

Mr Isaacs:

– Do not put that statement into my mouth.

Mr.ROBINSON.- That is the fair inference to be drawn from the AttorneyGeneral’ s remarks. The leader of the Opposition pointed out that there might be a factory in which 1,000 men were employed, only twenty or thirty of whom were non-uni©nists, and as a result the owner of the factory would not be entitled to use the union label upon his goods. Take the case of a boot factory, for example, and it will be seen that the statement of the right honorable member for East Sydney was absolutely fair. As we all knew, in that industry, the work of manufacture is distributed among a number of hands. One man does a certain portion of the work, a second confines his attention to another operation, and so forth. No single individual manufactures a pair of boots in their entirety. The employes include putters, clickers, and numerous other operatives. If one non-union clicker be employed in a factory, it will be impossible to distinguish which particular boot has been worked upon by the non-unionist and which has not been so worked upon; and consequently that factory will be precluded from using the union label. Thus, in an establishment employing a small minority of non-unionists, the latter will either be driven to join the union or will be dismissed. I have no objections to unions in any shape or form, but I object to legislative enactments which will have the effect of compelling men to join a particular association when they may be reluctant to do so. It appears to rae that’ this is a matter which the workers ought to decide for themselves. If they neglect or refuse to join a union, that is their own affair. We should not endeavour to force men into a body to which, for various reasons, they may not desire to belong. It has been said that this project has been put forward with themost noble object, and I have no doubt that the vast majority of honorable members who support the proposal only wish to see it carried out in a reasonable way. In Victoria, however, we have had some instances in which more than fair conditions have been asked. An attempt has been made in this city to apply the principles of the union label for purposes of oppression. I hold in my hand some cuttings from the Age and Argus of March last. They are headed. “ The Butchering Trade. - Listing Union Shops.” From these clippings I find that the Victorian Amalgamated Butchers’ Union, in February of this year, took steps for the purpose of forcing men engaged in the various butchering establishments throughout the city of Melbourne to join the Butchers’ Union. It must not be forgotten that that trade is under the operation of a Wages Board, that the hours of its employes are not undulv long, and. that their wages are not low. They receive a fair remuneration. Despite these facts, however, an attempt was made by the Amalgamated Butchers’ Union to force men to join that organization. That union endeavoured to achieve its object bv what was called “Listing Union Shops,” and the circular which was issued by the secretary to various master butchers reads as follows : -

February1st, 1905.

In response to numerous inquiries from individuals and organizations in your district - that is a little bit of what we call “fudge”- as to what are the shops wherein fair conditionsof labour are observed, or what are known asunion shops, we have decided to publish lists for distribution throughout the whole of the district, recommending such shops to the public for patronage, as being shops wherein fair conditions of labour are observed, and where the persons employed are members of the Butchers’’ Union.

Honorable members will recollect, in this connexion, that every master butcher in the metropolis has to pay the same rate of wages to his employes, and to work them for the same number of hours. The circular continues -

We are desirous of placing vour name on thelist, according to above conditions, and await your reply, on or before1st March, when it is intended to print the lists for publication.

As honorable members will readily see, that was an attempt to use the master butchers for the purpose of forcing their employes to join the Butchers’ Union, whether they desired to do so or not. This was done in relation to a trade in which a Wages Board has fixed the hours of labour and the rate of wages. It is not a trade in which sweating can be said to be rampant. The men work under fair conditions, and yet an attempt has been made to force those engaged in such a trade to join unions. That is the very principle which underlies the union label clauses. The object is not to secure that men shall work under fair conditions - because that is a matter for which provision is already made in the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Act, as well as by State factory legislation - but to force or persuade men, or to make it to their interests, to join certain trade unions whether they desire to do so or not. A good deal of comment took place upon this action on the part of the employes’ association, and the Master Butchers’ Union, .in a letter which they addressed to the press, used very strong terms. In this letter it was stated -

The conditions of labour in the trade are regulated by law, and no other authority is recognised. If in any case unfair or illegal conditions are imposed, there is ample remedy under the Shops and Factories Act. Further comment is unnecessary.

Under this pressure the Amalgamated Butchers’ Union practically “‘threw- up the sponge “ because they saw that the public considered that the issuing of the circular was an attempt to compel the workmen to join their organization. It is only fair that I should quote some extracts from a letter bearing date 9th March, 1905, which the secretary of the Victorian Amalgamated Butchers’ Union, Mr. Anderson, addressed to the Age, as it is an excellent illustration of the way in which the union went to work -

Before sending out any lists, we thought the fairest course to pursue would be to notify master butchers what was intended, so as to give any men who were employed an opportunity of becoming members.

It is true that they wished to give any man who was employed an opportunity to become a member of the union, but they also desired to give the master butchers an opportunity to dismiss any employ^ who would not join that union. These letters clearly show the object of “ listing “ union shops in this way or of issuing union labels. The object is not to secure fair conditions for the workers, which no one would deny to them, but to force them to form a union.

Mr Batchelor:

– What is the object of inducing men to join a union ?

Mr ROBINSON:

– In the majority of cases the object is to improve their conditions; but I think that it was conclusively shown, last year, in this House, that there were some unions which desired to get men into their ranks for political purposes just as much as for industrial objects. It was stated by the honorable member for Bland that union label provisions were in force in a great many States in America. It is a fact that a large number of the Legislatures of the States have passed what we may designate as union label provisions ; but it must not be forgotten that those provisions have been held to be unconstitutional bv every Supreme Court in the United States in which they have been challenged. They have been held to be unconstitutional because, in almost every case, I believe, thev infringe not only the Constitution of the States concerned, but a very vital amendment known as “ The Fourteenth “ in the Federal Constitution of the United States. I have before me a book entitled The Corporations Auxiliary Company Bulletin, which gives a full statement of what is described as a union label case, heard bv the Jefferson Circuit Court, Chancery Branch. First Division, the plaintiff being one L. T. Davidson, and the defendant the City of Louisville. In that case the union label was held to be unconstitutional, because it infringed the State constitution of Kentucky, as well as that grand declaration of rights known as the American Constitution. I should like to make one or two quotations from the report, in order to show the opinions upon which the learned judges acted in this case. In support of the contention that the provisions in question were unconstitutional quotations were made from a decision by one of the Justices of the Court of Appeal of New York - Mr. Justice O’Brien - as we’l as from decisions given in the Supreme Courts of Illinois - the State in which, as honorable members are aware, Chicago is situate, and which is the second most- populous State in the Union - New York, Kentucky, and other States. The Supreme Courts of these States had all held that the union label provisions were an infringement of the guarantees of fundamental personal liberty contained in the Constitution of the Union. Although our Constitution does not contain the same guarantees, the principles upon which the

Court acted in the case which I hare mentioned seems to me to be such as ought to commend themselves to those who have some respect for individual liberty - a principle which is at present rather out of favour. One of the justices of the Supreme Court of New York, Mr. Justice O’Brien, said, in language which appears to be unanswerable -

When he-

That is the employer - t is not left free to select his own workmen upon such terms as he and they can fairly agree upon, he is deprived of that liberty of action and right to accumulate property embraced within the guarantees of the Constitution, since his right to the free use of all his faculties in the pursuance of an honest vocation is so far abridged. A law that restricts freedom of contract on the part of both the master and servant cannot, in the end, operate to the benefit of either. The law forbids the contractor from paying a rate of wages other than what is called “ the prevailing Tate,” although the labourer is willing to accept it. It calls for the payment practically on all occasions of the highest market price, and hence must compel the contractor to employ only such workmen as aTe competent to earn the very highest rate of compensation.

To my mind this is an excellent statement of the position to which provisions of this kind must lead. In a Kentucky case, Mr. Justice Shackleton Miller stated -

Both classes -

Mr Watkins:

Mr KELLY:

– I have a lot to learn yet if I must learn that I must stand in this House and refrain from expressing my contempt for such departures from principle. I know that some of the honorable members I have enumerated will not. vote with the Government upon this matter, but I hope that all of them will stand firm to the votes they previously gave, and agree that -these provisions are opposed to the principle which they have approved. I have endeavoured to show that there is a similarity between the situation brought about by the present proposal and that evolved by the discussion on the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. I have shown, further, that the anxiety to introduce the union label by means of this measure was not evinced until in another place provisions had been inserted in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill for the regulation of unions. I now propose to show that unless Parliament again stands to the principle it has already laid down, and makes sure that no union which may be formed, as the result of this union label proposal, shall transgress the rules sanctioned by the Arbitration Court, new unions of a political character will spring into existence to do the recruiting for my honorable friends on the cross-benches. If non-unionists are to be compelled by means of the boycott to join unions, I think it will be admitted, even by those on the cross-benches, that entrance to and membership of unions should be made as easy as possible. Unless non-unionists are to be compelled to enter unions for the benefit of the social- istic leagues, these provisions, which allow non-unionists to be coerced by being forced into unions to adopt politics which may be foreign to their views, should surely be safeguarded. The rules of unions may very easily be made offensive to men who treasure the liberty of the subject. 1 do not propose to go far and wide in search of anomalies, but I should like to read three of the rules of the Sydney Wharf Labourers’ Union, which is one of the largest unions in the city from which I have the honour to come. The entrance-fee to be paid on joining that union is 10s., and the annual subscription another ios., so that a man who sought to enter it to earn a day’s work would be compelled to pay j£i for the privilege. That, however, is not the point which I wish to make by quoting these rules. This is the first rule to which I wish to direct attention : -

If any member shall at any meeting bring :t forward a proposition tending to destroy or break the aforesaid union, or should any member persuade or seduce others to join a conspiracy for such purpose, those who are thus tempted shall report the same to the committee of management, who shall investigate the matter, and on proof to their satisfaction of such conspiracy, they shall award such punishment as they may consider necessary.

That rule obviously places an enormous power in the hands of the committee of management, because they are the final and absolute arbiters. If they choose to say that anything that has been done has been done against the interests of the union, the offender may be dealt with as they think fit. To illustrate the effect of such a rule, let me ask honorable members to consider what would have been a similar position if, at the beginning of this session, the late Government had been in the position of this committee of management. Any member bringing forward “ a proposition tending to destroy or break the” late coalition - the “aforesaid union “ - or to “ persuade or seduce others to join a conspiracy for such purpose “ would at once have been liable to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the late Administration ! Another rule, which might very easily militate against the joining of unions by non-unionists - because non-unionists probably have friends who are also non-unionists, and do not wish to join unions - is this : -

No member of this union shall work with unfinancial members or non-unionists when union labour is available.

I pass by that rule without comment, since its extreme stringency speaks for itself. The third rule is the most stringent of them all -

If any member shall at any meeting bring forlion which may lend to injure the union, or conveying information, or causing to be conveyed any information, either verbally or otherwise, or acting as an accessory, if found guilty by a majority of the committee of management, such person or persons shall be expelled for all time from the union.

In other words, a man is to have no opportunity to earn a livelihood if, in the opinion of the committee of management, he has been guilty of the rather slight offence of “ imparting information.” That is a rule which is oppressive, and Parliament should not pass a law which would have the effect of compelling men to join a union governed by such a rule. To give other instances of union oppression, it is well known that the Australian Workers’ Union runs a strong and influential newspaper. This union, as every one knows, supports a distinct part in politics, and the newspaper is a partisan organ of the most pronounced type. The offices in Sydney into which it has just moved are such as the most capitalistic press might envy, and, if we pass the legislation now proposed, it may obtain compulsory subscriptions from men who maybe definitely opposed to the views published by it. Before passing a measure which will inevitably have the effect of compelling men to join unions, we should endeavour to insure that the unions shall not use these compulsory recruits oppressively. There will be no difficulty about the enforcement of such limitations. Honorable members know that the Arbitration Court has power to enforce the provisions in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act governing unions. Honorable members on the cross-benches told us while that Bill was under discussion ]that ;the difficulty of forming new unions is almost insurmountable. If that statement was correct, no new unions will be formed, and the limitations which I should like to see placed on the existing unions, which will benefit by this legislation, will not press hardly upon any one, since they already weigh on every existing union. But, if honorable members on the cross-benches were only characteristically specious on the occasion to which I refer, it will be clear that, unless we insert the provision which I wish to see inserted in this Bill, the measure will be used in opposition to the provisions of the

Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and I do not think that Parliament should stultify itself by allowing such a position to arise. -

Mr Mauger:

– How does the honorable member prove that?

Mr KELLY:

– I prove it in this way : The agitation for the registration of union labels did not arise until the unions, which honorable members opposite hoped to see augmented by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, were made politically non-oppressive to those compelled to join them. That provision did away with the Labour Party conspiracy in regard to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Now, under that Act, a unionist cannot be compelled to vote for a member of the Labour Party, or to subscribe funds for the organization or propaganda of the party. Therefore it has become necessary to introduce a new measure compelling people into new unions, and this measure is being used for the purpose. I prophesy that under it new unions will be formed outside the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, having political objects, advocating” definite political principles, and supporting definite political parties. New subscriptions will flow into the exchequer of the Labour Party, and honorable members will have been hoodwinked into making paramount the Labour Party, which will then be able to get along without the assistance of their present allies. Since these proposals are not made in the interests of the consumers, or in order to forward the legitimate objects of the manufacturers, we should inquire closely into the uses to which militant unionists might put them. They would refuse to buy any article unless it bore the union label. They would next refuse to deal with any one unless all the articles he sold were similarly marked. I would ask, first, whether that would be possible, and, secondly, how it would affect trade? In the first place it is clear that the vast majority of articles cannot be guaranteed as completely made by union labour alone. Honorable members of the Labour Party seem to think that a coat or any article of clothing or food, or any commodity of ordinary use, can be so guaranteed. Take the average article that is made from a raw product. It would not be possible to guarantee that the raw product was produced by union labour, because even the members of the Labour Party are not sufficiently versed in the mysteries of creation to permit of their doing any such thing. I think we may safely say that no one could guarantee that a coat .was ‘madethroughout by union labour. In this connexion, I desire to quote from an excellent publication by Mr. Max Hirsch called An Exposure of Socialism, which is one of the best contributions on the subject I have read. Mr. Max Hirsch takes the case of the coat, mentioned earlier in this debate, and says -

Take, for instance, this coat which I am wearing. In order to produce -it, some men had tc« clear land and rear sheep; another group of men had to .shear the sheep ; another group had toclean the wool; still another group had to dye the yarn ; yet another had to weave the yarn, into cloth ; and still another group had to fashion, the cloth into a coat. Simultaneously with these activities, another group of men had to collect horns, and another had to fashion these into buttons; another group had to plant and tend cottonbushes ; still another had to collect the cotton ;. another had to spin the cotton into yarn; another had to weave the yarn into cloth; and: still another had to dye the cloth, in order that, there should be lining for the coat. At the sametime another group of men had to plant and’ tend mulberry trees; another had to rear silkworms, collect the cocoons and unravel them; another group had to spin the silk into thread ; and still another had to dye the thread in order that the coat may be sewn together. Antecedent to all the activities so far mentioned, other groups of men had each to mine ore, coal, and flux, in order that another group might smelt these materials into iron ; while other groups, spread all over the earth, and far too numerous to number, had to fashion the iron into all themany tools and machines which were required’ for the many different activities mentioned. Also antecedently, other groups of men had to cut down trees, and still others had to cut the trees into planks; othershad to quarry slate, and still others had to cut it into shape; still others had to dig clay, and’ still others had to bake the clay into bricks, inorder that yet other groups of men might form these materials into factories, warehouses, and’ dwelling houses. Even this does not exhaust the process. In order that all these various materials, originating in different parts of the world, might be brought to the places where they could be most conveniently transformed, many different groups of nien had to act as carters, sailors, and railway men. Antecedent again totheir rendering these services, thousands of different groups had to perform the manifold processes which resulted in the production of carts, ships, and railways. Yet other groups of men, intervening at every stage of all these processes, had, as bankers, brokers, merchants, and storekeepers, to co-ordinate all these activities. And’ finally, in order that all these many thousand’ different groups of men could direct their energies each to his special task, thousands uponthousands of other groups, also spread over thewhole earth, had to direct their energies to theproduction of the many different kinds of food? and other things which the former wanted.

– The question of the use of the union label is a mere detail.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I dare say that it is, judged by the statements which have been made upon this subject by the honorable member’s leader. I have been at some trouble to try and understand what is the justification in Australia, at any rate, for legislation of this character. I have not heard one honorable member declare that it: is intended to meet any shocking state of things which obtains here. Neither have I heard anybodv a.lleee that unless this Bill be passed, some dire consequences will ensue to trade unionism - consequences of a character calculated to undermine it or to bring injury to its organization in any shape or form. In fact, there has been no tittle of justification for the measure, except a general statement by the leader of the Labour Party.

Mr Fisher:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The AttorneyGeneral, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that -

A trade union label is exactly analogous to every other trade mark which is placed on commodities offered for sale. If a man vends pure sugar or milk, he has a right to put a mark on his goods to indicate that fact ; if goods be made by a certain process, the manufacturer has a right to inform the public of it; and if goods be made by union labour, the manufacturer has also a right to say so.

– I doubt it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member may doubt it, if it pleases him to do so. I do not want his certificate anyhow, so that he can keep his doubts to himself, and allow me to proceed. I say that I doubt the wisdom of the means which some trade unionists are pursuing in Australia in turning unions into political camps. I say that, in my judgment, the condition of affairs to date furnishes no warrant for the new departure, but rather furnishes reasons for getting back to the sound, sane, and healthy conditions of the past in this respect. The honorable member for Bland the other night quoted Canon ScottHolland, who happened to say that it would be to our advantage if we made greater inquiry into the conditions under which the articles we purchased were produced. The honorable member quoted the Canon with a very great deal of approval, but if equally eminent clerics happen to say a word against Socialism, honorable members of the Labour Party are down upon them in fine style. They denounce them hip and thigh for what they believe to be everything that is bad. I could not help casting my mind back to a diatribe uttered the other day by a great friend of the honorable member’s against the Bishop of Goulburn, and all because he dared to have an opinion as to the methods of the labour leagues of to-day. The Bishop of Goulburn is a gentleman whose sympathy with all that makes for our social welfare no one will attempt to question. But the trouble with this propaganda today is that it is an unreasoning propaganda. One must not only believe in the ultimate aims and objects of the Labour Party, but also in their methods. If you dare to have a different opinion, if you dare to exercise the liberty to differ from them, you are a traitor and everything( else that is bad. I suppose that is the kind of liberty we shall have when we get into that glorious socialistic state into which some honorable members wish to hurry us. I am not taking any of that kind of liberty. I prefer the liberty I have rather than to be dragooned in such a way as to destroy the value of my private intellect and judgment to me. But the honorable member for Bland quoted that merely harmless statement from Canon Scott-Holland, and it is a statement with which any one might agree; . 1 subscribe to it to the full, and I say that we ought to inquire as to where goods are made, and, as far as possible, purchase goods that are made under fair conditions. Every man ought to do that.

Mr Robinson:

– We have Wages Boards in Victoria to fix some of the conditions.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– But the quotation from Canon Scott-Holland is not an argument for the use of a trade union label . I submit that it is a mere common-sense statement, from a kindly Christian humanitarian, a man who does not believe in the development of the “ class consciousness “ which is a fundamental doctrine of these latter day Socialists.

Mr Mauger:

– Will the honorable member tell me how we are to discriminate if there is not some mark on the goods?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I shall tell the honorable member how he is to discriminate, in two minutes. The honorable member for Bland went on to quote John Graham Brooks, and his contribution to the Labour Bulletin of America. What he quoted bears upon the interjection made by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. He summarizes the reason for a trade union label, and he says -

The appeal is made directly to the public, first, to understand what the label means - (1)It means, or aims to mean, that the work is done under wholesome conditions.

It ensures or aims to ensure the pay ment of reasonable wages.
It ensures or aims to ensure reasonable hours of work.
It stands for the effort of an organization constantly striving to secure and maintain these results.

– I rise to a point of order. I have no desire to interrupt the honorable member for Parramatta, but it appears to me that his remarks are hardly in order. I understand that the matter before the House is the consideration of the second reading of the Trade Marks Bill, but the honorable member is branching off into several interesting dissertations on the methods of the Labour Party, and particularly on those of the Labour Party in South Australia, and is’ lamenting that the Government or the Labour Party have or have not done this, that, or the other. In my opinion, such remarks are not in order. If they are, I do not see what limitations are to be imposed on the debate. If we are to follow the methods of the honorable gentleman’s party and other parties - there are very many parties here ; nothing but parties, in fact - the debate will have no natural limitations at all.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The point which the honorable and learned member has asked me to determine is whether the honorable member for Parramatta is in order in discussing the existence or non-existence of Wages Boards in the various States. As the honorable member has set up the argument that the existence of Wages Boards enables the discrimination to be exercised which is sought in the Bill by providing for the registration of the union trade mark, I think his observations are perfectly in order. Whilst I ask him not to enter into a dialogue with other honorable members, and ask them not to inaugurate such a dialogue, I cannot rule him out of order, so long as he follows his present line of discussion.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am pointing out that the condition of things here is totally different from the condition of things in America. The object which was first sought to be attained by the use of union labels in America, namely, the getting of work done under wholesome conditions, can be guaranteed by the various tribunals which have been set up in all the States of Australia except two. There is nothing to prevent those States from setting up such tribunals, and in Queensland the Government have made it part of their policy to pass such’ legislation. Other objects are to insure the payment of reasonable wages and the enforcement of reasonable hours of work, both of which come within the province of our Arbitration Courts and Wages Boards. The honorable and learned member for West Sydney on almost every day that he is absent from this House, is engaged in arguing om behalf of such things, and making money out of it, more power to him, in the New South Wales Arbitration Court. He is engaged in seeking for the Court the aid which, it is alleged, can be secured in America only by the use of trade union labels. If, then, we already have legislative machinery which compasses all the ends which are set out as the objective of the trade union label in America, the provisions of the Bill, though perhaps necessary in that’ country, are not necessary here. We have taken other means to get rid of our labour difficulties, and to set up and proclaim to the world the conditions under which our goods must be made. If my honorable friends wish to guarantee to the public that the goods which it buys are made under fair conditions, all they have to do is to remind it that they have been made by the members of the unions registered in the various States. I have yet to learn what advantages, in addition to those which they already enjoy, would come to our industrial toilers if the proposed legislation were passed. At the best it would overlap other legislation already on the statute-book, and I believe that its ultimate result would be detrimental to those who are now asking for it. If I understand the proposals of the Minister aright, he intends to throw upon the> trade organizations the obligation and responsibility of policing this legislation; that is to say, if action is to be taken to defend! these trade union labels, it must be taken by the unions. Will any one tell me that this legislation will not provoke great bitterness between ‘employers and employes? The position is already bad enough, but it will become much worse. There will be constant attempts at the infraction of the law, and the unions will find it a much- more costly proceeding to defend the labels than is the litigation in “the Arbitration) Courts of the various States, which, as is well known, has depleted their funds. Whatever advantages may have accrued from the setting up of these Courts, no one will deny that they are costly pieces of legal machinery..

To pass the Bill is to multiply Statutes without giving any advantage in the process. I presume that the measure is part of the socialistic propaganda, the uttering of a socialistic shibboleth ; but, instead of bringing gain to the workers, it will land them in further difficulties, and will still more estrange them from the employing section of the community. The leader of the Government said at Ballarat that every socialistic proposal must be treated by itself as a business proposition. I suppose that we may regard this proposal in that way, and that the Bonus Bill, which is now turned into a socialistic measure, may also be considered by itself as a business proposition. Then there is the Commerce Bill, which proposes to control in great part, and to limit the trade operations of Australia. That must also be treated by itself as a different proposition. On our business-paper, we have also two proposals of a socialistic character - one for an inquiry as to the advisability of running socialistic ships to carry our mails to the older countries of the world, and the other, in the nameof the honorable member for Melbourne, for socializing the iron industry of Australia. According to the Prime Minister, each of these proposals must be treated by itself as a business proposition.

Mr Mauger:

– Can the honorable member conceive of any proposal of a progressivecharacter of which that could not be said ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I can only say that, if I were in favour of Socialism, as the honorable member is, I should join the socialistic league. We have a right to consider these proposals together, as well as separately. The proposals in themselves are of the very essence of Socialism, and, taken together, I venture to say make a very serious inroad upon our industrial situation, and go very far towards bringing about that co-operative Commonwealth which it is the aim of the Socialists to. inaugurate. In the meantime there is no hurry. The policy is a gradual one. We are asked to treat each proposal by itself, and not as inter-related to the industrial situation in which we find ourselves. We are to detach it and to discuss it by itself, and pay no regard to its tendencies, or to the fact that, it is a step leading us anywhere. We are to treat it merely as a business proposal. That is the sinister suggestion of the Prime Minister.

So it comes about that we are getting Socialism piecemeal - in an insidious way, in a far more effective fashion than it could be brought about by the membersof the Labour Party if they were charged with the responsibilities of administration. The Government are doing more for them in the direction of carrying out their propaganda than they could do themselves if they were intrusted with the work of carrying on the public affairs.

Mr Mauger:

– That is a good testimonial.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It may be, from the honorable member’s point of view, but not from mine. The more I read, and the more I observe that which is around me, the more difficult it becomes for me to believe that Socialism is going to bring about the millennium that its devotees expect. If I could believe that, I should hold up both hands for Socialism, as readily and as cordially as its supporters do. I believe it will develop into an engine of tyranny, and that the people who will suffer most will be those who are loudest in the expression of a desire to hurry into it. I believe that the toilers of Australia will eventually suffer most from these rash proposals, and therefore I have to take my stand in opposition to the socialistic propaganda as a whole. I say that these proposals, taken together, mark a very formidable socialistic advance, and that this House should pause before it treats them in a detached and isolated fashion as has been insinuatingly suggested by the Prime Minister. In the meantime, there is no hurry. I am reminded of the man who went to buy a horse, and said that he was not particular about the speed of the animal, but that it must be gentle. In the same way, the Prime Minister and those joined with him in bringing about this socialistic regime are in no particular hurry ; they do not expect to see the full results of their efforts during their lifetime. They are simply building another rung into the ladder.

Mr Mauger:

– Perhaps they are building better thanthey know.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr MAUGER:

– The honorable member can now see that he was wrong, and I propose to supply him with proof omy statement, not from the mouth of a trade unionist,; or a Socialist, but from thai of a gentleman representing the employers of Victoria, who recently read a paper before the conference of the Employers Federation.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member misunderstands me. By “ political unions,” I mean unions which turn themselves into political labour leagues, which the honorable member does not join.

Mr MAUGER:

– None of the unions of which I am speaking actually convert themselves into political labour leagues, but every one of them has political aims and aspirations. I say that before trade unions made their influence felt in the Legislative Assembly of Victoria their members were hopeless and helpless. I also claim that the application of their principles has raised wages, shortened hours, and improved conditions generally. I will prove that by quoting from a paper which was read by Mr. Pratt, representing the Employers’ Union, before the conference to which I have alluded. Pie said -

In 180,5 the average wage in those trades not under the Wages Boards was 40s. id., against 38s. 4d. for the seventeen trades brought under the boards. In 1902 the twenty-six trades had only grown to an average of 42s., while the seventeen trades under boards had advanced to 46s. 5d. The increase in the trades under the boards was therefore 8s. id., .against 2s. 2d. in trades not under boards.

Have the Wages Boards put down sweating? In the clothing trades, “ Yes,” and largely in trades where women are employed.

Have they protected those who needed protection? In the case of females they have to a large extent.

In other cases he stated they had protected workers to a lesser extent -

Have they increased employment? - No; whatever increase of employment has taken place has been through the natural expansion of trade.

– We are told ‘that in America, there is not compulsory but voluntary arbitration; but what are the facts? Take the anthracite coal strike. When the President of the United States sent out his ultimatum that unless the trade unionists on the one hand, and the mineowners on the other, went to arbitration within seven days, he would, under the protection of the Federal Army, take possession of the mines, and work them in the interests of the people. Was that voluntary or compulsory arbitration? My honorable friend can call it voluntary arbitration if he likes, but unquestionably it was compulsion of an effective and drastic character which brought about the desired end, compelled arbitration, raised wages, bettered the condition of workers, and gave to the coal-miners of America all that we ask through the political arena should be given to the workers of Australia. Then my honorable friend asks, “As we have Wages Boards in Australia, why do we want a trade union label registered and protected ?” The first answer to his question is that a trade union has as much right to protection for its label and trade mark as any employer or capitalist has to protection for his trade union and trade mark. The answer to the second question is that the Wages Boards and the Arbitration Court have not vet touched the fringe. of our industrial life. They have not yet covered the whole of the industrial sphere, even in

Victoria. A large number of manufacturing industries desire to get the benefit of this protection, but they have not yet been able to do so. In Tasmania, Queensland, South’ Australia, and Western Australia, there is a large number of industries which are not protected by Wages Boards and industrial legislation, and we wish to apply the union label to their products. We are also asked, what benefit can it do? May I ask in reply, what harm can it do? A very striking illustration of the value of a label - a label not registered, but essentially serving the same purpose as a trade union label - was brought under my notice in Brisbane about two years ago. An enterprising tradesman there put on his slop clothing this label, “ These goods are made in Victoria under the conditions prescribed by Wages Boards.” He assured me that a large number of the workers in Queensland sent specially for this clothing, because, by the use of that label, they were assured that decent wages were received, and proper conditions enjoyed by those who were making them.

The electors had to consider whether they would be represented by a person who was the nominee of a little clique called the Political Labour League, or whether they would send back their present member, who represented, not one section, but all sections of the community.

There he was dealing with the same political labour leagues that the honorable member for Parramatta was referring to.

Mr Mauger:

– We are not proposing to legislate for them.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– If the honorable member had paid that attention to the speech of the honorable member for Parramatta which it merited he would have known that that was the phase of the subject with which the honorable member for Parramatta was dealing. He went on -

If he were to be returned to the Federal Parliament it would be as the representative of the whole people, and not as a machine to be worked at the dictation of a small section. . . . He had been asked to “ nominally “ sign the platform of the Political Labour Council.

A Voice. - Then the council is a failure.

Mr Mauger:

– I say it is not only a failure - it is an absolute fraud.

The honorable member devoted the last portion of his speech to-night to defending that political influence in trade unionism which he formerly denounced. The fact that the criticism pf honorable members has been confined practically to one portion of the Bill is because it is generally recognised that there is a necessity for a measure of this sort, and that most of its provisions are such as have been tested by experience in our own land, and in other countries. Consequently there has been a general acceptance of the remainder of the clauses. Any difference of opinion is left to the Committee stage. But there is one very grave departure that has attracted almost the entire criticism of honorable members, and, looking at the Attorney-General’s speech in moving the second reading, I find that he gives some reasons for this departure. So far as my reading of the Bill goes, in all other portions it is supposed that the person who applies a trade mark shall be the owner of the goods to which that trade mark is applied. That, I think, is a proper limitation. It would safeguard the Bill from many difficulties if it had been adhered to throughout. Once you step beyond that safe limitation, enormous complications and difficulties may arise. But the Attorney-General, in his speech, stated that this was no novel proposal; that in Great Britain there is a law on the subject. I will read his words, so that they may be correctly quoted. The honorable and learned member said that a mark- may be applied in various ways, and in some companies each member of the company or guild or trade has had his own special mark to identify his workmanship. In various Acts of Parliament - I do not wish to occupy time by enumerating the details of them - the principle has been recognised in England for centuries back of having the goods stamped with the workers’ mark.

The honorable and learned member also referred to the law of New South Wales, and said -

In the existing Act of New South Wales there will be found words to which I invite the attention of honorable members. In that Act a “trade mark” is denned as follows : - “Trade mark” includes any mark lawfully used by any person to denote any goods to be goods of (he manufacture or merchandise of such person, or to be goods of any particular description made or sold by such person.

Mr Isaacs:

– I think I went on to speak of the definition of “ manufacture. ‘ ‘

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– The honorable and learned member went on to say -

In the same section “manufacture” is denned to include “ workmanship and production.”

Mr LONSDALE:

– As the AttorneyGeneral will not agree to an adjournment of the debate, I shall conclude by stating that in Committee I shall do my best to secure the rejection of the clauses to which I have referred. I shall spare no effort in that direction, because I think that they are altogether foreign to our ideas of British liberty.

Mr McCAY:
Corinella

– I should like the Government to consent to an adjournment of the debate. The AttorneyGeneral interjected just now that the discussion should be continued until” the usual hour. Perhaps the honorable and learned gentleman is not aware of it, but the custom in this Parliament has been to adjourn at half-past 10 o’clock on Tuesday evenings. I desire to address myself briefly to this measure - more especially to that part to which the Attorney-General himself has directed attention.

Mr Isaacs:

– How many honorable members upon the other side of the House desire to speak?

Mr McCAY:

– I do not know - I have not made any inquiries. I have been present in the House during practically the whole of the discussion.

Debate (on motion by Mr. McCay) adjourned.

page 729

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS ACT. AMENDMENT BILL

Mr ISAACS:
Attorney-General · Indi · Protectionist

– With the permission of the House, I should like to obtain leave to introduce two short Bills. One of them I desire to have read a first time, so that copies of it may be circulated.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear.

Mr. ISAACS (Indi - Attorney-General). - I move -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Service and Execution of Process Act1901.

The object of the Bill is to obtain power under Federal law to issue a provisional warrant.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Ordered -

That Mr. Isaacs do prepare and bring in the Bill.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 729

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

– I protest against the adjournment of the debate upon the Trade Marks Bill. Some honorable members, who have travelled hundreds of miles from distant States, have been compelled to sit here all day and witness the erection of a “stone wall “ by members of the Opposition. I would warn the Government that if they allow these tactics to be repeated, we shall get no work done this session. It is quite apparent that there is an organized attempt to prevent anything being accomplished.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable member in order in characterizing the debate of this evening as an organized “ stone wall “ for the purpose of obstructing public business? I submit that it is not a fact.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. I will ask the honorable member for Grey to withdraw the remark to which exception has been taken.

Mr POYNTON:

– I withdraw it. It is decidedly unfair to bring representatives here for the purpose ofputting up a “ stone wall,” and to adjourn the debate at this early hour of the evening.

Mr Thomas:

– Half-past 10 o’clock is a fair thing.

Mr POYNTON:

– It is not. We have done nothing during the past two years. We shall accomplish nothing this session unless the Ministry stiffen their backs. I say that as a friend of the Government. We know that there is urgent work to be done, but unless we make more rapid progress, we shall achieve nothing. It is well known that the last session in any Parliament is chiefly occupied in talking to constituents. No useful work is ever done then. I protest against being brought here merely to gratify the Opposition, whose members are incensed because there has been a change of Ministry.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I object altogether to the remarks of the honorable member for Grey. I do not know who constituted him a dictator in this House, or how he dares to address either the House or the Ministry in the language which he has employed.Icanassure him that I know of no “stone wall” having been arranged on this side of the Chamber in connexion with this measure.

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member is very innocent about it.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I am saying what is true, and therefore there is no need to be innocent. The discussion upon this Bill has not been unduly prolonged.

Mr Poynton:

– All its provisions can be fought out in Committee.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Will it not save time if the speeches which are made now are not repeated in Committee ? Is the honorable member to come forward and say when honorable members shall deliver their speeches. This is quite a new role for him to play. I can recall to mind occasions when he has insisted upon his right of speech ; but he now desires the suppression of the right of free speech, when itis not unduly exercised. There has been no undue discussion. I was one of the last to speak on the motion for the second reading of the Trade Marks Bill, refraining from taking part in the discussion at an earlier stage- because I had been absent for some days ; but the remarks which I had to offer were curtailed as much as possible, and were made, not with the bad object which the honorable member has suggested, but with the best of purposes in view.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

– I think that this difficulty has arisen from the recent change of Government. Had the late Administration . remained in power, no doubt our Standing Orders would have been amended, and honorable members would have had their right of free speech restricted.. I am not one of those, however, who favour such a restriction.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Have there been any lengthy speeches to-day?

Mr FISHER:

– I am not complaining, bus my suggestion is that, if we are to have lengthy debates, we must either have longer sittings or meet on a greater number of days than we do. I am” greatly in sympathy with the honorable member for Grey, because during the first Parliament the representatives of Queensland had often to attend here under even greater disadvantages than those suffered by the representatives of South Australia, and we keenly felt any delay that took place.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– When the Labour Party were in Opposition they always desired an adjournment at this hour.

Mr Thomas:

– My desire is that we shall now adjourn.

Mr FISHER:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at10.48 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 August 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1905/19050808_reps_2_25/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 8 August 1905

PETITION

MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL

QUESTION

TARIFF COMMISSION

Mr ROBINSON:WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

ELECTORAL LEGISLATION

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

ISSUE OF ELECTORAL ROLLS

Mr BATCHELOR:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr GROOM:Minister for Home Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE

Mr G B EDWARDS:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr EWING:Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

PAINTING OF POST-OFFICES

Mr MAUGER:MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL

Mr WATSON:BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir JOHN FORREST:Treasurer · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

AMBULANCE WAGGON AXLES

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr EWING:Protectionist

QUESTION

QUEEN VICTORIA MEMORIAL

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr Crouch:

Mr DEAKIN:

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr REID:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr Crouch:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Fisher:

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

ALLEGED DISREPAIR OF COMMONWEALTH BUILDINGS

Mr POYNTON:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr GROOM:Protectionist

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT

Mr WILKINSON:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr GROOM:Protectionist

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE APPEALS

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr GROOM:Protectionist

QUESTION

LEATHER ACCOUTREMENTS

Mr WILKINSON:

Mr EWING:Protectionist

QUESTION

ADULTERATION OF WINE

Mr LIDDELL:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GROOM:Protectionist

QUESTION

MILITARY SUNDAY DUTY

Mr WATKINS:NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

Mr EWING:Protectionist

CUSTOMS LOCKERS’ OVERTIME

PAPERS

MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Batchelor:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; IND from 1910

Mr Batchelor:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

House of Representatives
8 August 1905

Mr ROBINSON:
WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BATCHELOR:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr EWING:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr MAUGER:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr WATSON:
BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr POYNTON:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr GROOM:
Protectionist

Mr WILKINSON:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr GROOM:
Protectionist

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr GROOM:
Protectionist

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Mr LIDDELL:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GROOM:
Protectionist

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; IND from 1910

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WILSON:
Corangamite