House of Representatives
20 September 1911

4^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- TRAWLER ENDEAVOUR
QUESTION
- LAND TAX AND LAND VALUES
QUESTION
- NEW SOUTH WALES PARLIAMENT
QUESTION
- CONVEYANCE OF CADETS
PAPERS
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS
QUESTION
- PENNANT HILLS WIRELESS STATION
QUESTION
- DEFENCE
KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL
- Introduction and First Reading
- Second Reading
LIGHTHOUSES BILL
- Second Reading
STATUTORY DECLARATIONS BILL
PARLIAMENTARY WITNESSES BILL
ORDER OF BUSINESS
- Notices of Motion
- Notices of Motion
CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL
SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL
PURCHASE TELEPHONE LINES BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Motion to Introduce Bills - Preference to Unionists
- Penalty,£1,000

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

– On the 17th inst.(vide page 271) the honorable member for Corio asked whether the Victorian Government had been requested to permit the free travelling of cadets on its railways when going to or coming from drill, and had declined to do so. The following answer to the honorable member’s question has been sent to me by the Minister of Defences-

No request for the cadets to be allowed to travel free has been made to the Victorian Government; but in December last a request waa sent to the Governments of the States asking for reduced rates to be charged for cadets.

It is. understood that this question was to be discussed at a recent Inter-State Conference of Railways Commissioners; the result of such discussion, however, has not yet been communicated to this Department.

page 633

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers: -

Northern Territory - Summary of report of preliminary scientific expedition.

Defence Act -

Regulations amended (provisional) -

Military College - Entrance examinations - Addendum - Statutory Rules1911, No. 132.

Military Forces - Council of DefenceRegulation1. - StatutoryRules 1911, No. 131.

page 634

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Licences : Finance

Mr GLYNN:

– Yesterday, in putting a question to the Minister of External Affairs, I mentioned that I could not find any ordinance altering the provisions of the South Australian Act, and limiting fishing licences to naturalized and natural bom persons. Was not the honorable gentleman under a misapprehension in informing me that there is such a limitation?

Mr BATCHELOR:
Minister for External Affairs · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer given was not quite accurate. Before leaving for London inMarch last, I issued instructions for the framing of an ordinance altering the South Australian provisions, and in replying to his question yesterday assumed that that ordinance had come into force, whereas it has not yet done so. But the Acting Administrator has been informed that the police are not to take action under the South Australian Act upon the expiry of the permits. The ordinance has not yet taken effect, but will do so shortly.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

asked the Minister ofExternal Affairs, upon notice -

Whetherall licences granted by the South

Australian Government are being re-issued by the Federal Government?

The number of licences now in existence for the sale of intoxicating liquors in the Northern Territory?
Is it the intention of the Federal Government to renew the licences referred to in question No. 2?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Information on this subject is being obtained from the Territory, and on its receipt the matter will receive consideration.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What arrangements have been made for financing’ the responsibilities incurred in connexion with the control of the Northern Territory?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– The matter is now under consideration, and will be dealt with in the Budget.

page 634

QUESTION

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

With reference to his statement regarding preference in employment to unionists -

Will this apply to the men who are at present employed in the Federal Territory, and is it intended that the nonunionists now employed there are to be replaced by unionists?

Will this rule be applied to all persons seeking employment in the Territory in any capacity?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– It is intended to make it a general rule.

Mr DEAKIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - Whether

He will define the classes of Government employes within which members of unions will henceforward be given priority of appointment over all who are not unionists?
Qualifications, such as ability, experience, or physique will be considered, and, if so, to what extent, in the appointments made?
The Ministry proposes to distinguish between unions when making appointments?
Ministers intend to impose any new conditions upon the choice of permanent employes under the Public Service Acts?
If preference is to be granted to unionists, other things being equal between the applicants, who is to determine, and on what evidence, their comparative qualifications ?
The determination mentioned will be final, or subject to appeal ?
Non-unionists appointed on the ground of greater personal qualifications or capacity will be liable to be subsequently displaced in favor of unionists applying for appointment?

Mr FISHER:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

Other qualifications being equal, preference will be given in all cases.
See No. 1.
No Commonwealth law now provides a means of determining this question.
No.
The officer charged with the duty of selecting. 6 and 7. No alteration in the present method will be made in these respects.

page 634

QUESTION

PENNANT HILLS WIRELESS STATION

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

When is it expected that the Pennant Hills (Sydney) Wireless Telegraph Station will be ready for working?
Has the erection of the building been carried out by day labour or by contract; and at what cost?
Was the timber on the site cut down by day labour or by contract; and what was the cost 7
Has the site been fenced in yet; if not, is itintended to carry out this work by clay labour or by contract?
Is it a fact that, although some months have elapsed since the timber on the site was cut down, it is still left lying about and impeding the contractor’s progress with construction work?
Is the timber on the site suitable for fencing purposes?
In view of the isolated position of the station, is it proposed to erect residential quarters for the officers appointed thereto?
How many officers will be required for the station, and have they yet been selected and appointed ?
What steps have been taken to insure effective supervision by expert officers of the Department of the work of installing the wireless apparatus?

Mr TUDOR:
ALP

– Inquiries are being made, and the desired information will be furnished as early as possible.

page 635

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Interviews with Officials.

Mr FENTON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

For what purpose has the following form been issued by the Defence Department : - “ Application for permission to interview Officers or Officials, CentralAdministration, Department of Defence. Name and address of applicant. Officer or Official whom it is desired to interview. Object of interview. Approved. Date.” ?

Mr FRAZER:
ALP

– The Minister of Defence has furnished me with the following information -

The form in question is intended for the use of representatives of the press only.

Officers are forbidden by the regulations to communicate to the press information relating to the Department, unless duly authorized to do so. It follows, therefore, that if a pressman desires information from a particular officer, be must produce to that officer an authority for obtaining it.

The authority is given by the Minister, or, in his absence, by the Secretary of the Department.

page 635

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL

Introduction and First Reading

In Committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. King O’malley), proposed -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue and moneys be made for the purposes of a Bill for an Act to provide for the construction of a Railway from Kalgoorlie, in the State of Western Australia, to Port Augusta, in the State of South Australia, the acquisition of the necessary land, the appointment of officers, the making of charges, and the appropriation of money, in connexion with such Railway.

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

– I would like to know at once whether the Minister will take steps, before proceeding with the consideration of the Bill, to ascertain, in the light of expert knowledge, what is the best gauge on which to construct the railway. It has been stated in South Australia, even so recently as Monday last, by its Railways Commissioner, that if the 4 ft. 8½ in. gauge be adopted it will be practically disastrous to the management of the railways of that State. I went into this question about twenty years ago in the House of Assembly of South Australia. At that time about a third of its railway mileage was constructed on the 5 ft. 3 in.gauge, and the rest on the 3 ft. 6 in. gauge. If another gauge is introduced at Port Augusta, there will have to be a line running from Port Augusta to Adelaide on the 4 ft. 8½ in. gauge, and the congestion in the yards at Adelaide and all the intermediate stations of any importance will be extraordinary, making it almost impossible to economically manage certain departments of the railway service. As this is a very vital matter, I ask the Minister of Home Affairs, before there is any determination as to gauge, to seriously look into the developing knowledge of the last twenty or twenty-five years as to the relative efficiency of the various gauges. In 1888 or 1889 I carried a motion in the House of Assembly in South Australia in favour of a meeting of the Railways Commissioners of the various Colonies being held to determine what should be the ultimate standard gauge for Australia. I moved in the matter then because Mr. Eddy and others had suggested that it would be well to decide once for all, assuming that the policy of unification ever became a real one, what ought to be the standard gauge. He stated that a great deal of the expense of the conversion was in connexion with the rolling-stock, and that if the Commissioners knew what was to be the ultimate gauge, they could order the rolling-stock so that at any time it could be accommodated to the standard gauge. The great difficulty now is in getting rid of the rolling-stock, because it is incapable of conversion. In report after report to the Government of New South Wales, Mr. Eddy pointed out that if the difficulty in connexion with the rolling-stock were to be overcome in the wav which he had pointed out - by having it constructed with a view to accommodation - a great deal of the expense of conversion would be avoided. I might mention here that an attempt in the direction of a uniform gauge was made even thirty years before 1888. It was recommended by a Committee which sat in England in, I think, 1853, or in connexion with the first draft of the New South Wales

Constitution, that one of the things to be determined ought to be a standard gauge for Australia. There was a movement with a view to having some form of Federal organization, and one of the matters suggested was a similar railway gauge for all Australia, but, unfortunately, we have not been quite as prescient as were our ancestors in this matter. Many opportunities for obtaining uniformity have been given since then, but owing to some lingering want of sympathy between the railway managements of the different States, no step of any consequence has been taken towards securing a standard gauge.

Mr Chanter:

– Was not a gauge of 4 ft. 8J in. agreed upon at that Conference?

Mr GLYNN:

– I was going to mention that in 1888 or .1889, on the expert knowledge which guided me, I thought that 4 ft. 8J in. was likely to be the gauge. That was then the gauge of about 80 per cent, of the railway mileage of the world, and if my memory serves me correctly, some of the English railways were converted to that gauge. The Great Western, which was 7 feet, was converted to 4 ft. 8J in. ; and’ in America within a week, having previously altered the rolling-stock, with the view to the accommodation I mentioned, they converted no less than 10,000 miles of railway to the 4 ft. 8J in. gauge, because the actual changing of the rails, assuming that the bridges were capable of carrying the new gauge, is a comparatively trifling matter. In the case of the Great Western railway, I think that the whole work was done in one night by relays of workmen. Since then there has been a growing opinion, which I think has been clearly voiced by some experts here recently - some reports have appeared in the daily newspapers, and I think that one has been presented to the Minister - in favour of the wider gauge, and the 5 ft. 3 in. gauge is again coming into popularity as being the most economical and the most reliable - economical by virtue of the fact thai it allows of the employment of big engines and big haulage. I do not want to discuss the question of gauge at this stage, but I seriously ask the Minister, before he takes the almost final step of introducing another complication into our railway conditions by constructing in South Australia a third gauge, to get the best expert opinions and determine honestly, apart from Inter-State jealousies, what ought to be the gauge on which the transcontinental railway should be constructed.

Mr Frazer:

– Does not the honorable member think that he could more conveniently discuss this question when we get to the clause embodying the gauge for the railway ?

Mr GLYNN:

– Recognising that I mentioned that I did not intend to say anything more at present, it is too important a matter not to be mentioned even now, because the judgment which ought to be formed in the light of experience and expert knowledge appears, according to the press, to have been forestalled by the Minister. I would be very sorry to think that that was so; I am sure that there must be some misapprehension. I ask the Minister to afford every possible opportunity for having the Department and the House guided as to what ought to be the standard gauge for our railways.

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

– I am not aware of what influenced the Minis- . try in deciding that 4 ft. % in. should be the general gauge for Australia, but I do suggest that it will amount almost to a crime if we start to construct a line toWestern Australia on that gauge without having an arrangement with the Government of South Australia respecting the gauge to be adopted in that State. If we adopt the 4 ft. 8J in. gauge it will mean, another break of gauge between Terowie and Port Augusta, and again at Port Augusta to go on to Western Australia. Starting from Brisbane at the present time we proceed through Queensland on a 3 ft. 6 in. gauge, pass through New South Wales on a 4 ft. 8J in. gauge, then travel through Victoria and to a few miles north of Adelaide on a 5 ft. 3 in. gauge. We then have to go for a few miles up to Port Augusta on a 3 ft. 6 in. gauge, and if the proposal of the Ministry is put into operation at once without any understand-, ing with South Australia, we shall start again on a 4 ft. 8J in. gauge. I understand that the Government of Western Australia has agreed to alter the gauge of the railway from Kalgoorlie to Perth so that the main line from Port Augusta to Perth would be constructed on one gauge.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– What is the gauge in Western Australia at present?

Mr ROBERTS:

Mr King O’Malley:

– We shall give honorable members a full opportunity to discuss the question of gauge.

Mr ROBERTS:

– I know that when the Bill comes before the House we shall have a full opportunity to discuss ‘ that question; but I know also that if we miss the present opportunity, ,one of our chances to deal with it will have gone for ever. Every Government - and the present is no exception to the rule- on introducing a Bill, invariably displays an overwhelming anxiety to carry it as introduced, and to silence all criticism, even though it be of the gentle persuasive type that usually characterises the criticisms of Ministerial proposals from this side of the House. I do not desire that this opportunity to discuss the question of gauge should be missed. When the second-reading stage is reached, the Minister will probably tell us that there will be a full opportunity to discuss it in Committee, and when we get into Committee on the Bill there will be the same overwhelming anxiety to pass the clause on which the matter can be discussed. Thus the opportunity for effective work in this direction will gradually fade away. It is in these circumstances that I have taken action, in the general interests of railway construction in such a manner as will meet with the approval of a majority, not only of this House, but of the people of Australia. It seems to me necessary that the Ministry should give us now some indication of whether they intend to go on with the construction of the railway on a 4 ft. 8£ in. gauge, regardless of the opinions of the people of the several States, who are deeply interested, and whose finances will be considerably disorganized if they are forced into a position with which, in a monetary sense, they cannot grapple.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It would be desirable to have the evidence of the best railway expert in America on the subject.

Mr ROBERTS:

– It would. I do not bring the matter forward from an immediate State point of view, for I like to think that I am an Australian; but I must have regard to the position in South Australia, where we have already two railway gauges. “We have there one line, on a 5 ft. 3 in. gauge, extending a few miles north, while the remaining railways of the State are built on a 3 ft. 6 in. gauge. If the proposal of the Ministry is prosecuted without any reasonable understanding with the people of that part of Australia, then we shall have within the borders of one State railway lines of three distinct gauges.

Mr Fowler:

– Is not that the position already ? Is not the Broken Hill line built on a 4 ft. 8£ in. gauge?

Mr ROBERTS:

Mr Fisher:

– What has been done will be published.

Mr ROBERTS:

– When?

Mr Fisher:

– Before the principles of the Bill are determined.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Fisher and Mr. O’Malley do prepare and bring in a Bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– With your permission, sir, I would like to ask the

Leader of the Opposition whether, in the circumstances, he will permit the Minister of Home Affairs to move the second reading of the Bill forthwith?

Mr Deakin:

– Most certainly.

Leave granted.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darwin · ALP

– In moving -

That this Bill be now read a second time,

I wish to give a very brief history of the? events which have led up to its introduction. In 1 901 the Government of Western Australia ordered its engineer-in-chief, Mr. C. Y. O’Connor, to prepare a statement relating to the probable cost of construction of a transcontinental railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta. That statement was laid on the table of the House on the- 16th July, 1901, and it set out that thetotal cost would probably be£4,400,000, Later on Mr. Muir, the inspector of the engineering services, made a personal inspection of the whole country between Kalgoorlie and Eucla, and submitted the following report upon it -

From the South Australian border for 250 miles in a westerly direction it is one large open plain of limestone formation, fairly well grassed throughout. Taken as a whole, this stretch of country is one of the finest I have seen in Australia, and with water, which can doubtless be obtained if properly prospected for, it is admirably adapted for grazing purposes, and will, without doubt, be taken up some day from end to end.

– Where are the mountains from which water can be obtained to irrigate the country through which the proposed railway will pass?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– The water will be obtained from artesian wells. Many Australians are not aware of the magnitude and great resources of their country. Population will spread over these immense tracts of fertile land, and will provide traffic for the railway. I have heard the strange question asked, “Will the line pay?” In America, private companies make railways in wild country, and population follows their construction. Years ago, it was said in the United States Congress that the Union Pacific line would not pay, but to-day there are seven lines crossing the United States and Canada, all of which are paying. The line which I -advocate will be backed, not by a private company, but by the Australian people. As the country to be traversed suffers periodically from drought, the construction of the line will provide means for the rapid removal of stock when necessary, and thus prevent losses which might run into millions. This is the latest estimate of the cost of constructing the line -

It is thought that the cost of water supply will be less than the sum estimated, because Western Australia is increasing the number of her bores. Then, too, we may be able to use internal combustion engines, which will need very little water. They can be operated in units. If you only want to run a small passenger train, you hitch on a unit, and go 60 or 70 miles an hour.

It has been demonstrated that it will be more economical to alter the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge in South Australia and Victoria to 4-ft. 8£-in., which is the standard for New South Wales, than to change the 4-ft. 8-in. gauge in New South Wales to- 5-ft. 3-in., the difference approximately being that between £2,000,000 and ^5,000,000. The difference in the cost is explained by the fact that if the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge of New South Wales were adopted, there would be no necessity to alter the enbankments, tunnels, bridges, and culverts in Victoria and South Australia, whereas if the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge were adopted the tunnels, bridges, and culverts would have to be widened and practically re-made in New South Wales.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Yes. Of course, some went by motor cars, but very few. This shows an immense increase of traffic to and from Western Australia. Practically the eastern States are entirely independent of the western State, and this is the first time that the Commonwealth has attempted to do something to make this one great Federation. As to the water supply, the following figures in regard to the route of the railway are informative -

At about 150-mile point, Ben Ben Well.

At about 225-mile point, Rock Hole, 2,750 gallons.

At about 230-mile point, Rock Hole, 700 gallons.

At about 235-mile point, Waddalynia, 1,100 gallons.

At about 250-mile point, Rock Hole, 1,100 gallons.

At about 345-mile point, No. 3 Bore, 1,372 feet; big supply good water, water stands 420 feet from surface, a little hard, no salt.

At about 420-mile point, No. 4 Bore, 907 feet.

At about 630-mile point, Ooldea Well.

At about 930-mile point, Eucolo Dam.

At about 970-mile point, Lake Windabout Tank.

At about g75-mile point, Oakden Hills Well.

At about 1,005-mile point, Gibson’s Camp Bore, also well and tank.

At about 1,010-mile point, Beda Bore.

At about 1,016-mile point, Canegrass Flat Bore.

At about 1,020-mile point, Kell’s Camp Bore.

page 648

LIGHTHOUSES BILL

Second Reading

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– In moving -

That this Bill be nowread a second time,

– It is not proposed that there should be any increase of rate. I think, however, that the Department should be self-supporting. If only Australianowned vessels used our lights we could say that it would not matter whether the whole charge came out of the Consolidated Revenue or not, but as other vessels use the lights from time to time it is perfectly right that all should pay. We could not say that a person who did not happen to be an Australian must pay, and that the

– I hope that the Minister will consult practical ship-owners, with a view to seeing that the gauge of any new charge which may be levied will not be of so complex a character as to add to existing difficulties. If a tonnage rate be adopted, a difficulty may arise because of the registered tonnage and the gross tonnage of vessels. Then the Minister may experience some difficulty if he imposes upon ships trading along a limited portion of our coast such a charge as they might fairly be called upon to pay if they were availing themselves of the lighting conveniences of the whole of that coast. Consequently, I suggest that he should consult practical men.

Mr Tudor:

– 1 did consult practical men in the persons of both the owners and captains of vessels before I selected the lighthouse expert.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am very glad to hear that. I understand that the choice of the Government has given great satisfaction. Then the Minister will require to make sub-clause 2 of clause 5 a little clearer than it is. It reads -

For the purposes of this Act, any lighthouse or marine mark vested in any authority of a State shall be deemed to be the property of the

– Does the honorable member know the name of the lighthouse?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I do not. The lighthouse is opposite a small island, which is a mile or two from the shore. There is telephonic communication between the lighthouse and the signalling station, and all the shipping news emanates from the signalling station. I should like to know whether such a station would come under the designation of a “ marine mark,” and whether it would be taken over by the Commonwealth under this Bill.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

. - I wish to congratulate the Government upon having introduced this Bill thus early in the session. It relates to a very important matter which should have been dealt with years ago. Our lighthouses should never have been left to the State authorities, but ought to have become Federal property from the inauguration of the Commonwealth. I notice that in this Bill the Government propose to take over our minor lights, and I observe that they intend to do this very extensively in the State of Tasmania. I congratulate them, too, upon having secured the services of a lighthouse expert. It is characteristic of the present Labour Government that they are welladvised by experts before they attempt to deal with technical measures. Hence I am sure that honorable members will not require to give such earnest attention to this Bill as it would have been incumbent upon them to bestow in the absence of such expert advice. 1 wish also to compliment the honorable member for Gippsland upon having outlined a very important proposal which he seeks to embody in the Bill. Personally, I believe that every lighthouse should have telephonic or telegraphic communication with some centre of population. Without that means of communication, it is incomplete. I recognise that in the near future, wireless telegraphy will play a very important part, not only in connexion with our lighthouses, but also as a medium of communication between vessels passing along our coast and the mainland. I was delighted to find that the Prime Minister, during the course of his recent travels, paid this matter a great deal of attention. That circumstance, in itself, evidences the wisdom of members of the Ministry going abroad occasionally.

An Honorable Member. - The honorable member himself was abroad lately.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– But I do not claim to be an important member of this House. Nevertheless, I kept my wits about me, and observed the contrast which exists between the lighting of our shores and that of the coasts of the Old World. From the moment the traveller passes Colombo, he sees quite a number of lighthouses, and one point which impressed me was that in Australia we do not require such powerful lights as are needed elsewhere on account of our atmosphere being much less dense. I am of opinion that in the immediate future, submarine signals will fulfil a more important function even than that which is discharged by our lighthouses. Indeed, it is difficult to say what part the signalling apparatus recently invented by Mr. Edison may play in that connexion. Therefore, in the words of the old Spanish proverb, we should make haste slowly in the matter of erecting and equipping lighthouses. Still, I commend the Minister for having introduced this Bill, in which he seeks to secure legislative authority for the erection of lighthouses which are absolutely necessary for the safety of ships in Australian waters. Recently, owing to the trade which has developed via South Africa, the west and south-west coasts of Tasmania have become very important highways of commerce. Hitherto they have been poorly lighted, and I am sure it will be a boon to mariners to have them better lighted.

Mr Atkinson:

– Is that where the Government propose to erect the lighthouse which is contemplated?

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I cannot say. But I have every confidence in the Minister and in the expert advice which he has received. I cannot credit the statement which has been made in reference to lighthouses being allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. I know that that cannot be a fact, because up to the present time lighthouses have been under the supervision of Marine Boards which are fairly wealthy. The Hobart Marine Board is a fairly wealthy body, and it has always been under the control of a most efficient officer. Indeed, no better officer than the late Mr. J. R. Meech could be found. I can say that from personal knowledge, because I have worked under him in installing telephone communication with certain lighthouses. I refer to this matter only for the purpose of enabling the honorable member for Wilmot to put himself right in regard to it when he discusses the measure in Committee. I feel sure that mariners throughout the length and breadth of Australia will be delighted to find the Commonwealth assuming responsibility for the protection of ships coming to our shores.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– I congratulate the Government upon the introduction of this Bill, although I candidly confess that I do not expect to see very much improvement effected in the fighting of our coasts, on account of the extremely creditable manner in which that function has hitherto been discharged by the State authorities. But I wish to draw attention to the urgent necessity which exists for erecting a lighthouse on Rocky Point on the west coast of Tasmania near Macquarie Harbor.

Mr Tudor:

– Is that the lighthouse of which the honorable member spoke previously ?

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– No. Unfortunately the State Governments have been expecting the Commonwealth to proceed with a measure of this description for some time past, and as a result a few lights which are urgently required have not been erected. I think that there is not in all Australia a place where a light is more seriously needed than at Rocky Point, between Port Davey and Macquarie Harbor, on the West Coast. The question does not affect Tasmania only. Several vessels that were not voyaging to Tasmania at all have been wrecked there. Ships bound for the mainland of Australia have made rather too much southing, and instead of going up between the mainland and Tasmania have run ashore. There have been some horrible cases, in which the crews of wrecked ships have absolutely starved after reaching the shore. It is not creditable that a lighthouse has not been built there; but that does not relieve us of our responsibility. I urge the Minister to make inquiries into this matter.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I desire to thank honorable members who have taken part in the debate for the reception that they have given to the Bill. They have almost unanimously congratulated us on bringing it forward. Of course, the Bill is noncontentious, but, nevertheless, I am thankful that it has been so favorably received. I admit that when the Leader of the Opposition, early this afternoon, suggested that we should postpone the debate on the second reading, I thought that we might very well proceed; but, having heard the advice given by honorable members, and having particularly noted one or two points raised by the honorable member for Parkes and the honorable member for Gippsland, I see that there are matters which will have to be inquired into, and that, therefore, it will be advisable to postpone the consideration of the Bill in Committee. I will look into the question of signal stations, to see whether we have power to take them, as well as lighthouses, over. The honorable member for Kooyong can rest assured that the Government are absolutely in earnest in this matter. Although we have placed only £25,000 on the Estimates for new lighthouses, that must not be taken as covering our full intentions. That sum is sufficient for the lighthouses which have been suggested as being required as soon as possible. The fact that no exception has been taken in either House of Parliament, or by any person outside, to the appointment of an expert without parliamentary authority,” indicates that the Government have done right in that respect. We were anxious that this work should be proceeded with as soon as possible. The honorable member for Parkes suggested that, before fixing the expert’s duties, it would be as well for us to consult outside persons. Personally, I do not mind consulting any person who is able to assist me in improving the work of my Department. When I found that it was necessary to appoint an expert in reference to lighthouses, I did consult the Chairman of the Ship-owners’ Federation, and the Secretary of the Officers’ Guild, or Union. I got them together, and laid before them the names of the half-dozen persons who had been picked out from amongst the applicants. They stated that any one of those selected would have been a good man; but agreed that the officer who has been appointed stood out above the others. I mention that in passing, to show that I do not mind going outside if I think that I can secure good advice by doing so. As to the point raised by the honorable member for Wilmot, I do not think it probable that lighthouses have been permitted to get into a state of disrepair in view of their probable transfer to the Federal Government. It is possible that States have not made alterations in their lighthouses, or brought them up to date, as, perhaps, they would have done, in some instances, had it been intended that they should retain control over them. But I do not believe that any State Government or harbor authority has willingly allowed a lighthouse to get into disrepair.

Mr Atkinson:

– That was a wrong word to use.

Mr TUDOR:

– I do not think that the honorable member meant what his words will probably appear to convey when he sees them in print. I desire again to thank honorable members for the reception that they have given to the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and considered in Committee, fro forma.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.^5 -p.m.

page 664

STATUTORY DECLARATIONS BILL

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now re’ad a second time.

I regret the absence of the AttorneyGeneral, who, had he been here, would have explained the provisions of the Bill, lt is a small and comparatively simple treasure, designed to get rid of a difficulty that has arisen under Commonwealth administration regarding the making of statutory declarations and affidavits. The laws of the six States in regard to this matter differ from each other, and inconvenience has arisen in proving that a declaration taken before a competent person under a State Act was a statutory declaration for Commonwealth purposes. The Bill provides a uniform law for the Commonwealth for the taking of declarations and affidavits. It is not proposed by it to give any person any power other than may be necessary for the purpose of taking declarations. We propose a slight amendment of clause 2, which, as passed in its amended form, will define “ Commissioner for Affidavits “ as a person autho rized under the law of the Commonwealth, or of a State, to take affidavits, “ Commissioner for Declarations “ as a person appointed under this Act, or under a State Act, to be a Commissioner for Declarations, and “ Statutory Regulation,” as a regulation made in pursuance of any Act or Ordinance.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Will any person authorized under a State Act to take affidavits be authorized to do so under this measure ?

Mr FISHER:

– Yes. A statutory declaration may be made in accordance with the form in the schedule before a police, stipendiary, or special magistrate, or a justice of the peace, or a Commissioner for Affidavits, or a Commissioner for Declarations, and the Attorney-General may appoint persons to be Commissioners for Declarations, who shall hold office during his pleasure.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- I have looked through the Bill, and it seems to accomplish what the Prime Minister says is its intention. There are great differences between the State Acts governing the making of statutory declarations. In South Australia we passed a Statute providing a very concise form of declaration, but some of the other States adhere to the old English form, which is extremely long. It is as well that we should have uniform legislation on this subject. The intention of the Bill appears to be to provide a short form for all statutory declarations, and to enable them to be made before those at present authorized to take them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time. / 11 Committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 - “ Commissioner for Declarations “ means a person appointed under this Act to be a Commissioner for Declarations.

Amendment (by Mr. Fisher) proposed -

That, after the word “ Act,” the words “ or under a State Act “ be inserted.

Mr Glynn:

– Are there, under State Acts, persons who are Commissioners for Declarations ?

Mr Fisher:

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6-

The Attorney-General may appoint persons to be Commissioners for Declarations who shall hold office during his pleasure.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

.- The honorable member foi Wentworth did not, perhaps, quite catch what I said. Commissioners for Affidavits in New South Wales are appointed by the Chief Justice, as the head of the Court; and those commissioners become officers of the Court, removable only by the Court, the Government having no power to interfere. On the other hand, the State Attorney-General, or the Government, may remove a justice of the peace, because these justices are appointed by the Government.

Mr Kelly:

– This clause deals only with Commissioners for Declarations.

Mr CHANTER:

– These officers are to be appointed for the purpose of taking sworn declarations. Under the clause we have just passed justices of the peace will be entitled to take sworn declarations, as I understand is the case in some of the States, amongst them Victoria. In New South Wales, justices of the peace are not so entitled; and, although there are thousands of these magistrates, that fact is not generally known. During the political contest of 1903 a declaration in connexion with it was made, and a justice of the peace innocently administered the oath to the declarant, as thousands of other justices of the peace have done. For political purposes that justice of the peace was cited to appear before the Court, and the then Chief Justice, Sir Frederick Darley, fined him £50, and removed his name from the roll. This Bill will remove a difficulty which should have been removed before, so far as Federal business is concerned. The Government, I take it, find that it will be necessary, all over the Commonwealth, to have certain sworn declarations in connexion, for instance, with the business of the Customs and other Departments; and the desire is to give certain officers the necessary power so that the declarations may hold good in all the Commonwealth Courts. That, in my opinion, is a wise and judicious thing to do. The honorable member for Fawkner, who has interests in the country, knows that in some cases it is necessary to travel from 50 to 70 miles, and pay certain fees, before the services of a Commissioner for Declarations or Affidavits can be obtained. If an ordinary official of a Commonwealth

Department is invested with power to take declarations, he can be reached without great trouble or expense. This reform will be a matter of great convenience, not only to the Departments, but to the people as a whole. I take it that there is no intention to make any new appointments.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– We have had a long and learned explanation from the Honorable member for Riverina, but we are setting up an inferior kind of creature by this precious Bill, clothing him with a little brief authority, and making him altogether inferior to State officers. No provision is made in the Bill for the framing of regulations under it. The honorable member for East Sydney stated that a Commissioner for Affidavits was a man who was paid is for taking an affidavit, but there is no provision in this Bill that he shall get the shilling. This Trades’ Union Government is cutting the rates down. Where does the Bill make it possible to charge for taking a declaration ? Does the honorable member for East Sydney, who is a good union man, intend to knock off the is charge? Where is the power to make regulations to fix the charges ?

Mr Frazer:

– It will probably be found in the Acts Interpretation Act.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I should like to see it pointed out. I do not believe in doing a man out of his job, or out of his shilling. It is bad enough to set him up under our Commonwealth law as inferior to a corresponding officer under a State law. We are making him merely a Commissioner for Declarations, and apparently he will have to do the work simply for the honour and glorv of it.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

– I have no desire that any one in New South Wales, or other States, shall lose the is. fee. I would point out to the honorable member for Parramatta that, under clause 2, a Commissioner for Affidavits is defined as a person authorized under the law of the Commonwealth, or of a State, to take affidavits.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8, schedule, and title, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment.

Motion (by Mr. Fisher), by leave, proposed -

That the report be adopted.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- The penalty for making a false declaration is four years’ imprisonment. On what basis has the penalty been arrived at? The Prime Minister can doubtless inform us what penalties are fixed in the various State laws for similar offences.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– I understand that the penalty provided in this Bill is rather below than above the penalties fixed under the State laws. Under our criminal law the term of imprisonment provided for in any measure of this kind is simply the maximum.

Question resolved in the affirmative; report adopted.

Motion (by Mr. Fisher), by leave, proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– The Prime Minister has just told us that these penalties are, under our criminal law, the maximum penalties. I have yet to learn that we have any Commonwealth criminal law. I understand that it is one of the matters put forward for consideration in the Government programme for the session. I have heard with alarm that in this measure the Government propose to reduce the penalties already enforceable under the laws of the different States. It is time we made a protest against this whittling down of the penalties already provided for the preservation of law and order in Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 668

PARLIAMENTARY WITNESSES BILL

Motions (by Mr. Frazer) agreed to -

That the request of the Senate contained in its message No. 3 for the resumption by the House of the consideration of the Parliamentary Witnesses Bill be complied with, and that a message be transmitted to the Senate acquainting it therewith.

That the second reading of the Bill be made an Order of the Day for this day.

Mr FRAZER:
Honorary Minister · Kalgoorlie · ALP

– By leave, I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

In introducing this Bill to the House, I may state that it is an old friend. I think it was originally introduced in the Senate, in 1904, by the late Senator Nield. Its provisions were subsequently approved of by different Governments. The object of the Bill is to secure, by statutory authority, that the will of this House shall be given effect to. On various occasions it is found necessary, in the public interest, to appoint Committees or Commissions to take evidence as to the doings of persons, or associations of persons, outside this House, so that we may be in a position to arrive at some definite conclusion as to the action which should be taken by Parliament. When, in the past, such Committees and Commissions have proceeded with their investigations, it has been found that, whilst either House of the Parliament has power to summon witnesses and secure their attendance, in order to give evidence, should the summons not be obeyed, or, being obeyed, should the person summoned refuse to give evidence, the House has no power to inflict penalties, unless an application is made to a Court. This Bill is introduced to overcome that difficulty. The necessity for such a measure was brought strongly under the attention of Parliament as a result of the proceedings of a Committee presided over by the honorable member for Bendigo. That Committee was appointed to consider certain serious reflections cast upon this House. The honorable member for Bendigo, as Chairman of the Committee, when endeavouring to bring those responsible for these reflections to book, found that the Committee had not the necessary power. He reported in this way to the House, and the matter was practically abandoned, because of the inability of the House to defend its own honour.

Mr Glynn:

– I do not think that was the point. This House has the power to do that.

Mr FRAZER:

– The House has the power to bring persons charged with contempt of Parliament before the Bar, and to impose upon them certain penalties. The House may restrain such persons within or without the precincts of Parliament until it goes into recess. But as soon as the House goes into recess, the persons charged with contempt are at liberty, and it becomes necessary, should it be considered desirable to proceed with the charge, to renew it when the House meets again. This Bill is intended to provide that when the House has deliberately made up its mind that certain information should be secured in the public interest by a Committee of its own members, or any Commission, such Committee or Commission shall be given the specific power to call witnesses, make certain inquiries, and insist upon answers to those inquiries within reasonable limitations, and impose penalties for refusal to answer such inquiries. The interests of persons likely to.be brought before such Committees or Commissions are protected in the measure where the inquiry involves the disclosure of trade secrets, or where special request is made that information given shall be regarded as confidential. If the Parliament is to be in a position to assert its authority, the passing of such a measure as this is an absolute necessity.

Debate (on motion byMr. Deakin) adjourned.

page 669

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr FRAZER:
Honorary Minister · Kalgoorlie · ALP

– In the absence of the Prime Minister, I move -

That on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday in each w.eek, until otherwise ordered, Government business shall take precedence of all other business; and that on each Thursday, until half-past 6 o’clock, until otherwise ordered, general business shall take precedence of Government business.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta [8.35] - I notice that the Government are proceeding in quite the usual way to fix the same days of sitting’ and order of business, and to adopt the arrangements which have been followed during the pasV ten years. This is a strange commentary upon the statements of the AttorneyGeneral during the recent referenda campaign, that, unless the referenda proposals of the Government were carried, this Parliament would have little or nothing further to do. That statement was repeatedly made by the honorable gentleman. He said that’ we had already passed into law, at any rate, the more important matters provided for in the Constitution. Yet here we are, with an immense programme before us, and a proposal to sit, as previously, tour days a week, which is a day more than any State Parliament sits. I believe I am correct in saying that every State Parliament in Australia sits upon only three days a week. In the way we are going, it seems to me that the Government will have nothing to submit to the country at the next general election, and I am very anxious that they should still have a. shot in the locker when that fateful time arrives. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any serious objection to the House adopting a similar rule to that which has been adopted by the Senate in respect tn the cessation of business on Friday afternoons. The other branch of the Legislature has, I understand, agreed to a sessional order which provides that automatically at 4 o’clock on Friday afternoons, all business goes by the board. When that time arrives, the question is put by the President “ That the debate be now adjourned,” and “ That the Senate do now adjourn.” It seems to me that it is a salutary rule, the adoption of which would save many heartburnings and much trouble in this House. We all know that on Friday afternoons a good deal of finesse goes on amongst members on both sides of the Chamber. This is a question which particularly concerns the representatives of other States, who sometimes get very anxious about 4 o’clock on Friday afternoons lest they should miss their trains home, and who, as a result, occasionally lose their tempers. I would strongly suggest to the Prime Minister that he should incorporate a similar provision in this motion.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Min ister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– In regard to the request preferred by the honorable member for Parramatta, I wish to say that I am quite in agreement with him, but I do riot desire the practice of adjourning at 4 o’clock on Fridays to be made the subject of a sessional order. However, I pledge my word, as head of the Government, that at that hour on Friday afternoons, unless honorable members have ample notice beforehand, the business of the House will close in the usual way. Honorable members in another place seem to be able to dispose of their business very expeditiously - much more expeditiously than we do. Consequently, it may be necessary, on occasions, for this House to sit a little later than 4 o’clock on Friday, and that fact has always been recognised. But we shall do our best to close the proceedings a little before that hour rather than after it.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– What does the Prime Minister mean by “ample” notice?

Mr FISHER:

– I mean that we shall close at 4 o’clock on Friday afternoons unless honorable members are given a day’s notice to the contrary. I merely rose to mention this fact. It would be unwise to make such an adjournment the subject of a sessional order, because, occasionally, financial matters or a crisis may arise which may render it necessary to sit later.

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

.- The promise of the Prime Minister is excellent so far as it goes, but I would point out that it may not prove to be effective, because, at 4 o’clock on Friday afternoons, any honorable member may upset the right honorable gentleman’s calculations, unless he takes the extreme course of moving that “The question be now put.” We have had many instances of members being so earnest in their remarks on Fridays that they have continued to speak until twentyfive minutes past 4 o’clock, when they have suddenly ceased, with the result that some representatives of distant States have been detained in Melbourne for three or four days. I have no desire to recall anything unpleasant, but in a large measure the death of a very prominent member of this House was due to his exceptional haste to catch a train, consequent upon his having been delayed here for a few minutes longer than was necessary. Those honorable members whose trains do not leave until 5 o’clock on Friday afternoons are not concerned with leaving the House until halfpast 4 o’clock. On some occasions the honorable member for Lang has prevented certain honorable members from returning to their homes at the week end.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Surely the honorable member does not suggest that.

Mr ROBERTS:

– I recollect what the honorable member did in the early hours of this morning, when we pleaded with him in vain. On the other hand, the Government always possess the power to prevent the House from adjourning at 4 o’clock on Fridays, if the business engaging attention is of an exceptional character. But, save in such cases, it would be infinitely preferable tha.t we should adopt a sessional order under which, automatically at 4 o’clock on that day, the business of the House should be terminated. As the honorable member for Parramatta has remarked, this House sits upon four days a week, and no State Parliament in Australia meets so frequently, except during the last week or two of the session, when business has to be disposed of with more than ordinary alacrity. It would be better if honorable members knew that at 4 o’clock on Fridays they would be at liberty to leave for their homes, and that there was no chance of their being detained by reason of some honorable member not being in a happy frame of mind.

Mr Fisher:

– The matter will be considered.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) agreed to -

That on Thursday in each week, until otherwise ordered, general business shall be called on in the following order, viz. : -

On one Thursday -

Notices of Motion

Orders of the Day.

On the alternate Thursday -

Orders of the Day.

Notices of Motion

page 671

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

Motion (by Mr. Fisher for Mr.

Hughes) proposed -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an -Act to amend the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-10.

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL

Motion (by Mr. Tudor) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for aft Act relating to compensation to seamen for injuries suffered in the course of their employ ment.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 673

PURCHASE TELEPHONE LINES BILL

Motion (by Mr. Frazer, for Mr. Thomas) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to provide for the acquisition of purchase telephone lines.

page 673

ADJOURNMENT

Motion to Introduce Bills - Preference to Unionists

Motion (by Mr. Fisher) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what value you think the motion for leave to introduce a Bill has, if honorable members are debarred from discussing the merits of the proposal. May very clearly lays it down that in the case of any important Bill the motion provides an opportunity, which is frequently taken, for a full exposition of its character and objects by a Minister or other member. The stage is of no practical value if honorable members may not be informed as to what they are being called upon to vote for, or ask for a statement of the objects and purposes of the measure which it is proposed to introduce.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- The replies of the Prime Minister to certain questions put to him this afternoon demand, at the earliest moment, some criticism inviting the attention of honorable members to the grave and serious nature of the departure about to be made by the Government. It is unnecessary to recapitulate the events leading to the passing of the original Conciliation and Arbitration Act - a measure which I had the honour to introduce on the retirement of my late friend and colleague, Mr. Kingston - nor shall I speak of the form taken after many battles by the provisions empowering the High Court to grant preference to members of organizations, or, in other words, to unionists. I ask attention now to a novel development of the application of this principle, and the extraordinary results likely to flow from a project apparently adopted without sufficient examination of the consequences. The legislation providing for preference to unionists was revised last year. It is to be found in section 40 of Act No. 7 of 1910, paragraph a of which allows preference to be granted in such manner as is specified in the award or order of the Court, other things being equal. Let me here point out that the law respecting conciliation and arbitration is administered by an independent Court, clothed, not merely with the ordinary judicial authority, but with large and exceptional powers, in order to enable it to investigate to the utmost every plea submitted, and to give its decisions only after a full and perfectly impartial investigation of alf’ the facts. Only under these circumstances, and after these inquiries, is the Court authorized, other things being equal, to grant preference to members of organizations. In the third sub-section it is also provided that - for the prevention or settlement of the industrial dispute, or for the maintenance of industrial peace, or for the welfare of society, the Court may direct that preference shall be given to members of organizations as under the paragraph to which I have just alluded. The considered attitude of the Parliament was clearly indicated by this very recent legislation. The grant of preference to unionists was to be at the hands of a judicial and impartial authority, only after the fullest, research and investigation. Having made that particular point as clear as time will now permit, let us notice next the latest formal proposition of the Government, submitted in the Speech of the Governor-General. Re-reading once more the paragraph already quoted in argument -

A Bill Will be introduced for the purpose of giving the public servants of the Commonwealth the right to appeal to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court,

I need not remind honorable members that this question has already been the subject of an appeal to the Court, in which it was decided that, as regards railway servants of the States, it was not competent for this Parliament to deal with them, as it proposed, by an amendment made in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill introduced in 1902. This proposition in the Governor-General’s Speech marks a new departure - a new departure in the development of the powers of this Court, and a new departure in our treatment of the

– I am at present concerned to bring before the House, if I can, in the clearest possible way, the enormous rebound which this represents from the present well-founded and elaborately guarded system to a new, untried, and unjudicial system - from a carefully constituted tribunal we know to the haphazard tribunal of a high officer, or of very minor officers, on whom this great responsibility and authority is to be suddenly cast.

Mr DEAKIN:

– True. It may be decided upon the grounds of a mere personal prepossession. A man may say to two applicants, in whom any other eye would detect transparent and marked inequality, “ So far as I can see, you are equal in all respects, and I am going to exercise my right to grant preference.” There is no appeal or hint of appeal. No redress is possible. Instead of judicial inquiry, caution and equity, any man seeking to earn his bread may be dealt with despotically, and finally out of hand. Those who have supported preference to unionists, including many on this side, have done so carefully and cautiously, taking every possible precaution against abuses.

Mr Page:

– I think the honorable member is the only one on the other side who supported it.

Mr DEAKIN:

– There were a number of others, and some of those who supported it thoroughly and most cordially are unhappily no longer here.

The Government are now of their own accord imperilling the whole structure of preference. They will provoke a large amount of ill-feeling, dissent, and complaint, which we all desire to avoid. The seriousness of the step and the actual range of its influence can scarcely have been properly assessed. Have the Government realized what it will mean if all the casual and temporary employes of the Public Service, as well as those engaged in the Northern Territory and elsewhere under direct Commonwealth control, are to have this principle applied to them by the hands of any and every kind of subordinate who may be in authority over a small area? No more fruitful cause of dissent or dissatisfaction could be imagined.

Nor can we neglect our responsibility to the public. The great bulk of the men who will be affected are engaged fpr longer or shorter periods in constructing the public works which the Commonwealth has undertaken. These works are paid for out of the public Treasury. We are the guardians of the public purse. It is our duty, after seeing that a fair rate of remuneration, is paid, to assure ourselves that a fair day’s work is given in return for it. Without that, we fail in our duty, deplete the public revenue, and diminish the number of public works which ought to be established. Neglecting it, we shall find ourselves properly held responsible by those who elect this Parliament.

Our Departments are, at present, administered by very capable men. I think the permanent heads, and many of their principal officers, reflect the greatest credit upon Australia. How we shall replace them when they are gone is a question into which I shall not enter to-night. But to have the ablest men that ever filled such offices living in Melbourne or Canberra, as the case may be, and exercising authority over the whole of Australia, through, perhaps, thousands of subordinates, many scores of them endowed with such authority as this, and with endless possibilities of the misuse of that authority, is to impose upon the Departments and their heads burdens which no one can pretend they will be able to bear. Out of sight is out of mind. Many of these grievances will arise hundreds, and some may be thousands, of miles distant, and may occur under all kinds of differing conditions. In those circumstances, it will not be possible for us to insure a sifting out of the facts or to apply those numerous precautions which we have hitherto adopted in order that every step of the kind taken with the sanction of this Parliament shall, as far as possible, be just and right. We are parting with an indefinite and most important authority to all kinds of persons, whom we have never yet chosen or considered with any regard to their qualifications for the grave responsibilities now proposed to be placed upon them.

Mr Batchelor:

– And all of whom have full power to put on whom they like now.

Mr DEAKIN:

– And, as I have said, a certain amount of friction has already manifested itself. I venture to predict a very much greater amount of friction if this new practice is applied. There must be, of course, some friction in all human affairs, but we do not wish to create more or scatter it broadcast over the Continent. As we have been amongst the first civilized communities to establish the principle of the minimum wage, it becomes us to establish, also, the principle of the minimum efficiency, excellently expounded in an able address recently by Mr. Woodward, of Bendigo. As he said, minimum efficiency and minimum wage must go hand in hand. If they are dissociated, and we are blind enough to pursue the new policy outlined by the Government, there is no other prospect before us than failure. We shall have to face extravagance in our great public undertakings, and a natural reaction of distrust on the part of the public. Members of this House have always shown themselves fully sensible of their obligation to recognise the humanitarian principle adopted throughout in our legislation. There is no desire to reduce and no thought of reducing wages j but we have always an obligation to the public to get money’s worth for the public money paid. There will always remain our obligation to the taxpayers, and all are taxpayers, to insist upon efficiency in every branch of the Public Service ; but the Government are now introducing a new practice, which may be widely applied, so as to bring in the inferior instead of the superior, while we pay the inferior exactly the same, or, in actual fact, a much higher rate of wage. One cannot pretend to touch more than the fringe of this subject, but I have fulfilled my task if I have indicated to honorable members some aspects of the new departure which are well worthy of the most serious reflection before we indorse any definite proposals of the kind when the Government lay them before us. As the project stands at present, it is cloudy. nebulous, and uncertain. It will be for the Government to explain their policy and principles, and define their methods of action, the safeguards they intend to employ, and the various means they will adopt for controlling the operation of this particular power, so that it shall at least retain some of the judicial quality and fairness that it has possessed hitherto in any Statutes we have passed. But when their plan of action is laid before us, there will be very few problems which we shall face this session as prolific of heartburnings, and possible disturbances, as those which are likely to arise out of this proposal, unless, indeed, it is safeguarded and surrounded on all sides, as it ought to be, with every possible assurance that can be given that the principles of justice and equity shall obtain as they have obtained in “the Court which we have established for this very purpose.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am not quite sure that I have even yet grasped the full import of the answers which the Prime Minister has given to the questions submitted to-day formally, or by interjection, by the honorable member for Ballarat. But I am sure that the impression which the right honorable gentleman has allowed to get abroad, not only in this House, but in the country, is that his Government is prepared to give what is ordinarily known as “ preference to unionists.” I say frankly that I believe that those who look for the establishment of something like industrial peace in the future of this country will find it in some development - a greater development than we have ever yet seen - of organizations both on the part of employers and employes. I think that is likely to be the inevitable course of events ; that, in order to control the improper actions, so far as they are improper, of combinations of capital, as well as of combinations of labour, both will have to be organized in a way that will enable them, not only to properly voice the aggregate opinion of both sides, but will make them both responsible for obedience to the law of the land. Either industrial peace will be established on some such basis, or we shall have a continuation of industrial warfare. That is the only direction in which we can hope for the ultimate establishment of any conditions that will lead to industrial peace. But the recognition of any such organizations by law, or by the Government - who I take it, for such a purpose, represents all sides in the House - must surely be a re cognition only of organizations which are regulated and controlled by law. On this point, the answer of the Prime Minister to an interjection by the honorable member for Ballarat was to me particularly vague. If the preference were limited solely to organizations registered under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, we should at least have a guarantee as to some of the results. The Prime Minister has allowed the impression to go abroad that, generally speaking, preference is to be given to unionists because they are unionists. I should like now to ask the right honorable gentleman whether he is prepared to say “Yes” or “No” to the question ? Is he going to instruct his officers to give preference to members of any unions other than those which are registered under the law ?

Mr Webster:

– What unions are there which are not registered under the law ?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member must know that there are numbers of them. I should like the Prime Minister to say whether he is going to do this or not. If he is not, the question we shall have to solve will be somewhat simplified. If preference is to be given to members of unions merely as members of unions, it must be remembered that most of the unions claim two rights, which are entirely inconsistent with any propriety in granting preference to them at present. One is the right, on their own account, and even by secret ballot, to exclude any person whom they choose from their ranks. Another right which is claimed, and openly claimed by unions, and which, I think, honorable members on the other side are prepared to indorse, is the right to strike.

Mr Page:

– Hear, hear.

Mr Webster:

– God help them when that right goes.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– According to one reading of what the Prime Minister has stated, if I understand the right honorable gentleman, he is prepared, under certain conditions and according to their merits, to extend preference to these unregistered and unrecognised associations, which still claim the right to exclude anybody whom they choose - and whom they commonly describe by opprobrious epithets which we need not use here - at their own sweet will. Under conditions, for which they are responsible to nobody but themselves, these unions claim and exercise the right to boycott large numbers of competent and willing workers, who offend against no law and against whom there can be no objection except that, forreasons of their own, they do not desire to become members of these associations. They also assert, and if, in their opinion, the necessity arises, exercise the right, to break the law which this Parliament has made, by striking. I do not suppose that honorable members on the other side would care to admit that they desire that any part of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act should be treated as a dead letter. I quote this provision from the forefront of that Act I think it is contained in the enacting section, and is the foundation and introduction of all this legislation and the huge machinery which we have created to give it effect -

No person or organization shall on account of any industrial dispute do anything in the nature of a lock-out or strike, or continue any lockout or strike.

Penalty,£1,000

Is that to be a dead letter, or is it not?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am afraid that, to a large extent, it is a dead letter. I shall be very glad to have an assurance from my honorable friends opposite that they are not prepared to countenance or support the claim frequently put forward on behalf of these very unions, that they should have the right to strike. I should like to hear a single honorablemember opposite deny to these unions the right to strike.

Mr Howe:

– I support unions in their right to strike.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Then there is at least one honorable member opposite who has the courage of his opinions.

Mr Page:

– That is not a fair way of putting it.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am going to point out, in contrast to these unrecognised unions, the conditions under which this -Parliament has laid those unions to whom alone it will accord its recognition. First of all we find that the only unions which can be registered under the Act are unions which comply with certain conditions, that is, any association of not less than 100 employes or any association of employers.

Provided that no such organization shall be entitled to any declaration of preference when and so long as its rules or other binding decisions permit the application of its funds to political purposes, or require its nembers to do aaything of a political character.

Mr Fisher:

– That is not the law now.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That part of it has been repealed. Then the Government are prepared to say that, in industrial matters and in Government employment, preference shall be given to members of an association which is purely of a political character.

Mr Page:

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- I do not propose to traverse the arguments against the Prime Minister’s position in the way that they have been traversed by the Leader of the Opposition, and the honorable member for Flinders. I have risen for the purpose of submitting to honorable members opposite a practical instance of how this new proposal will operate with regard to a large number of our fellow citizens, and to ask whether it is a fair thing under the circumstances? If honorable members will just think for a moment of the temporary employes of the Post and Telegraph Department, they will remember that those persons can only join the Department for a certain time, the maximum being nine months. The vast number of them are employed for less than six months at a time. Indeed, the larger proportion are employed only for a few days at Christmas time. Those persons are to be asked to join a union, and to pay fees and subscriptions, for the sake of getting a few days’ work, without knowing how long they will be employed ! It is well known to be a universal complaint that these temporary employes have not been kept on as long as they expected. Yet they are to be asked to pay union entrance fees and subscriptions for the mere chance of getting into th* Public Service for a few weeks. We all know that for every vacancy in the Public

Service of a temporary character there may be a hundred applications. Honorable members of both sides of the House are aware that what I am stating is an actual fact. So that not only is a man to be compelled to pay the union entrance fee and subscription for a temporary job, but to do so for the mere hundred-to-one chance of getting a few weeks’ employment in the Post Office. Is that a fair thing? Do honorable members opposite suggest that it is fair that this - I may say it without offence - extortion should be put upon a number of our fellow citizens ?

What is proposed will not allow officials to choose those applicants for employment who are best suited for the work to be done. It will instruct them to appoint unionists; the words “other things being equal “ are used, but what will take place? At present applicants for work have their names placed on a list, the officials who appoint them have no opportunity to inquire minutely into their qualifications, and the man whose name is first on the list gets the first position vacant. That system is to be altered. It is not the man whose name is first on the list, but the first unionist on the list, who is to be first employed. If ever there was a case of greasing the fat pig this is one. A special privilege to get work in the Government service is to be given to men who have better chances than others in the ordinary competition for employment. That is contrary to the principle so loudly enunciated by honorable members opposite before they got into power, and opposed to the fair play which the Australian public hold dear. The Labour party will bitterly rue its attitude in this matter when next its members submit themselves to the people.

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

.- The principle of preference to unionists is one for which the members on this side have contended for years, in and out of Parliament. It was one of the leading principles submitted to the people at the last two general elections, and indorsed by a majority at the last election, in such circumstances that we are merely acting in conformity with our public pledges in putting it into practical operation. Roar they never so loudly, our honorable friends opposite can hardly say that we are wrong in doing this. The remarks of the honorable member for Wentworth were given such exceptional consideration by honorable members, that even he, eager for notice as he is, will not expect me to pay further attention to them. To the honorable member for Flinders I offer my sincere congratulations and thanks for his dispassionate sentences, uttered, I believe, with a view to a better understanding of the question by the House and the country. If I understand his position, it is that he raises no serious objection to the giving of preference to unionists, provided that they are members of organizations registered under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and have given some sort of guarantee that they are prepared to conform to its provisions.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is a most important thing, because even those registered have not conformed.

Mr ROBERTS:

– I understand that the honorable member has no serious objection to preference to unionists, provided that the preference be given only to those members of those unions which have registered under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and provided, further, that such unions have given some guarantee that they will conform to the provisions of the Act. May I ask him to explain what those provisions are?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The most important is that requiring men not to strike.

Mr ROBERTS:

– When the honorable gentleman, who transcends in ability most of the members of his profession, can give us a reasonable interpretation of the meaning of the provisions of the Act, it will be time to ask the average trade unionist - shop assistant, shearer, mechanic - to conform to them. When debating the referenda proposals of last year, the honorable gentleman clearly indicated that it is almost impossible to understand the provisions of the Act.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Some of them. There is no difficulty in understanding the prohibition against striking.

Mr ROBERTS:

– As the honorable gentleman has informed us in unmistakable terms that it is well nigh impossible to understand the provisions of the Act, ordinary laymen are to be excused if they make mistakes regarding it. The language used by him on the occasion to which I refer impressed itself on my memory, and is to be found on page 77 of the report of the debates of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the Constitution Alteration (Legislative Powers) Bill. He said -

A not unreasonable proposition, and one which should receive the careful attention of the House, is the amendment of that very illogical and impracticable provision, paragraph xxxv. of section 51 of the Constitution.

In that paragraph this Parliament is nominally empowered to pass laws in respect to conciliation and arbitration. The honorable member went on to say -

Within the short space of four or five years each of those words, with the exception of “ beyond the limits of any State,” has been the ground for endless battles, with their accompanying delays and expense. If the provision disappears, I shall naturally shed a tear of regret at parting with an old friend, but no doubt others will take its place. Under the circumstances, I may reasonably ask my honorable friends to define the provisions of the Act before asking the ordinary citizen to give a guarantee that he will conform to them, more particularly since the Act, after being handled by the Court, does not embody the wishes of those who framed it, or the desires of those who sought for legislation for the prevention of industrial disputes. May I suggest that these provisions should be denned with reasonable clearness before men are asked to give up their liberty in order to conform to them? Whenever an attempt has been made to give practical effect to them, to obtain momentary relief for those hard pressed in the industrial strife, there has been litigation, which has nigh always ended disastrously for the workers. May I ask which provisions they should conform to? So soon as they have endeavoured to give effect to any provision, in order to secure some slight relief, they have found their money spent, and their time wasted, in litigation, at the end of which their industrial condition has been worse than it was at the start.

Mr.Hans Irvine. - To be forced to join.

House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 September 1911, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1911/19110920_reps_4_60/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives20 September 1911

QUESTION

TRAWLER ENDEAVOUR

Mr OZANNE:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr TUDOR:Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

LAND TAX AND LAND VALUES

Mr FENTON:MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr FISHER:Prime Minister · WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr Glynn:

Mr FISHER:

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES PARLIAMENT

Mr RILEY:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Roberts:

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

CONVEYANCE OF CADETS

Mr FRAZER:Minister (without portfolio) · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

PAPERS

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr GLYNN:

Mr BATCHELOR:Minister for External Affairs · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr MCWILLIAMS:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

Mr FISHER:ALP

QUESTION

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:ALP

Mr DEAKIN:BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr FISHER:

QUESTION

PENNANT HILLS WIRELESS STATION

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr TUDOR:ALP

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Mr FENTON:

Mr FRAZER:ALP

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL

Introduction and First Reading

Mr GLYNN:South Australia

Mr Chanter:

Mr GLYNN:

Mr Frazer:

Mr GLYNN:

Mr ROBERTS:Adelaide

Mr W H IRVINE:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr ROBERTS:

Mr W H IRVINE:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr Roberts:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr Page:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr Page:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr W H IRVINE:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

Mr W H IRVINE:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr Frazer:

Mr W H IRVINE:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir John Forrest:

Mr W H IRVINE:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr FOWLER:Perth

Mr ROBERTS:Adelaide

Mr W H IRVINE:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr Fowler:

Mr King O’Malley:

Mr ROBERTS:

Mr W H IRVINE:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr ROBERTS:

Mr Fowler:

Mr ROBERTS:

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

House of Representatives
20 September 1911

Mr OZANNE:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister · WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FRAZER:
Minister (without portfolio) · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr BATCHELOR:
Minister for External Affairs · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr DEAKIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr TUDOR:
ALP

Mr FRAZER:
ALP

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darwin · ALP

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darwin · ALP

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925