House of Representatives
9 June 1928

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- FLIGHT OF CAPTAIN KINGSFORD SMITH
PARLIAMENT HOUSE
- Dangerous Corridor
QUESTION
- PARLIAMENTARY TYPING STAFF
QUESTION
- DUMPING OF PETROL PUMPS
QUESTION
- MURRAY FLATS MAIL SERVICES
QUESTION
- WIRELESS BROADCASTING
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD
QUESTION
- CANBERRA
WIDGEON AMPHIBIAN
LORD HOWE ISLAND
- Wireless Station
PAPERS
CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL
BRIBERY ALLEGATIONS
HOUR OF MEETING

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Littleton Groom) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 5700

QUESTION

FLIGHT OF CAPTAIN KINGSFORD SMITH

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · NAT

– (By leave.) - It is with pride and pleasure that I announce to the House that Captain Kingsford Smith and his companions arrived safely at Brisbane soon after 10 o’clock this morning.

Honorable Members. - Hear! hear!

– In common with every other Australian, I am proud of the success that has attended the flight from America to Australia of Captain Kingsford Smith. I should like the AttorneyGeneral, -however, to remind the Cabinet of the almost miraculous flight of the young Australian, Ray Parer, and his gallant comrade, Mcintosh. As it took place so soon after the brilliant flight of the Smith brothers, it seems to have passed almost without national recognition. It was made under conditions that from the commencement seemed to spell failure. Can the. Government see its way to give recognition to the feat of those gallant airmen? I ask not for a monetary grant, but that there should be some national acknowledgment of so daring, and able an adventure.

Mr LATHAM:
NAT

– I have no doubt that the circumstances of that flight were taken into consideration by the Government at the time that it was made. I. cannot, however, speak from a personal knowledge of the matter. I promise the honorable member,to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister and the Minister who is in control of aviation the question that he has asked.

page 5701

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Electricians

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In Sydney and Melbourne electricians must pass a qualifying examination and pay 5s. for a certificate of competency. When they come to the Federal Capital Territory, however, they are called upon to pay a further 10s. for a permit to enable them to engage in their calling here. I ask the Minister for Home and Territories whether he will consider the advisibility of granting such men immunity from that charge ?

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
Minister for Health · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I shall have inquiries made into the question that the honorable member has raised.

page 5701

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

New Appointment

Mr FENTON:

– I ask the Attorney-

General whether it is a fact that Mr. Skewes has been appointed Chairman of the Public Service Board ; and, also, . whether the Government will appoint a person selected by the Public Service to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Sir Brudenell White?

Mr LATHAM:
NAT

– No appointment to fill the vacancy on the board has yet been made. The makingof such an appointment is the responsibility of the Government, which will certainly bear in mind the necessity for having upon the board persons who understand the conditions that exist in the Public Service.

page 5702

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Footpaths

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

With reference to the question by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie on the 27th March last, as to what is the average cost per square yard of the granolithic footpaths in Canberra in material and labour, and what is the total number of square yards laid down and the total cost to date, to which the Minister replied as follows: - “The average cost per square yard of concrete footpaths is 9s.6.84d. The total area laid down and completed is 11,931 square yards, at a cost of £5,709 2s.11d.” - will the Minister inform the House if overhead charges for supervision, &c., are included in the amount of £5,709 2s.11d., and, if so, what is the amount. If overhead expenses are not included in the sum named, what is the additional amount of that charge?

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
NAT

No. 9 - Copra.

No. 10 - Explosives.

No. 11 - Legal Practitioners.

No. 12 - Judiciary.

Norfolk Island Act - Ordinances of 1928 -

No. 1 - Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement ) .

No. 2 - Royal Commission.

page 5702

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

In committee (consideration resumed from 8th June, vide page 5699).

– The honorable member for Werriwa puts a pertinent question. It was replied to by the AttorneyGeneral, who pointed out that the issues involved in some disputes that come before, the Arbitration Court for settlement are immense and may involve a huge loss to the community or a section of the community. In the circumstances a maximum bond of £500 is not by any means large. I should be prepared to leave this matter to the discretion of the court, and allow that tribunal to determine the amount of bond required, having in view the issues involved and all the circumstances of the case. I am quite content to draw my own conclusions from the fact that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has advanced no valid reason why the bond should not be increased. I shall therefore support the clause.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 15

Majority . . . .11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 28-

Section thirty-four of the principal actis repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “ 34. - ( 1 ) In order to prevent or settle industrial disputes the Chief Judge may appoint, for such period as he thinks proper, conciliation committees consisting of such persons as he thinks proper, and of a chairman appointed by him.

The Chief Judge, if he thinks proper, may appoint a conciliation commissioner as chairman of any conciliation committee appointed under this section.

Any person who objects to being represented by the representatives specified in any order made under the last preceding subsection may, within thirty days after the publication of the order, or such further time as is allowed” by the court, apply to the court for an order setting aside or varying that order, and the court may upon such application make an order allowing that person to appear separately or may make such other order us it thinks just.

13 ) All plaints, summonses, orders or other documents served upon all the representative respondents appointed by an order under sub-section (10) of this section shall be deemed to have been served upon all the interested persons specified in the order and the representative respondents shall, in the matter in relation to which they are appointed, represent all the interested persons so specified. . . . “

Section proposed to be amended -

The court may temporarily refer any matters before it to a conciliation committee consisting of an equal number of representatives of employers and employees, who shall endeavour to reconcile the parties.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · NAT

– This clause introduces a new factor into our arbitration system in the form of conciliation committees. It has been developed and worked out after a very careful consideration of what appeared to be some of the defects of the law. Honorable members are aware that frequently criticism is directed against the Commonwealth arbitration system, on the ground that it is too legal in character and that it would perhaps work better if the parties were given an opportunity to meet and discuss their differences at a conference, though not necessarily a compulsory conference presided over by a judge. The provisions of sections 16 and 16a are largely used and are of the greatest service. They provide that a compulsory conference of the parties to a dispute may be convened under the presidency of a judge of the court. It is a regular part of the court procedure to hold such conferences in relation to every dispute. I think I am right in saying that no dispute comes into court to be determined by arbitration until the resources of conciliation have been exhausted at a compulsory conference.

Mr Charlton:

– Has the Government exhausted all the resources of conciliation in connexion with the trouble with the marine cooks ?

Mr LATHAM:

– Yes. At the beginning of that dispute the conciliation commissioner convened a conference of the parties, over which he presided, and other conferences have been held since the matter has been before the court, but honorable members will know, from the reports that have appeared in the press, that the union concerned unfortunately adopted an attitude of deliberate defiance of the court. The arbitration authorities of the Commonwealth have taken every possible step, up to the present, to bring about a settlement of that trouble. Last uight the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) communicated with the Premiers of all the States and received a reply from Mr. Hogan, the Premier of Victoria, expressing a doubt whether all constitutional and legal means had been exhaused, and asking the Government to take steps to influence the Arbitration Court to intervene in the dispute. This view was expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) last night. In response to the suggestion made by Mr. Hogan, the Government sent his communication on to the Industrial Registrar, who is the executive officer of the court, stating that while the Government would consider it wrong to attempt to control or even to influence the discretion of the Arbitration Court, the Ministry considered it only courteous to the Premier of Victoria to inform the court of the communication which he had sent to the Government. Mr. Hogan’s telegram has been placed before the court without any expression of opinion from the Government as to what action should be taken. I can assure honorable members, therefore, that every effort has been, and is being made, to utilize the machinery of the Arbitration Court to end this most unfortunate trouble.

– Proposed sub-section 5 reads -

Before appointing the members representative of employers or of organizations of employees, the Chief Judge shall take into consideration any recommendations made by employers or by organizations of employees in relation to such appointments.

Thus those interested are given the power to make recommendations which the Chief Judge will take into account when making appointments. That, I think, is as far as we can practically go towards the attainment of a desirable object. The employees will experience little difficulty. In this matter the road of the trade union is not hard but easy, because it has always been a principle of the Arbitration Act that employees shall act only through their organizations. These bodies will readily make their nominations. The process may not be so easy for the employers, but there are registered organizations representing large numbers of employers. It is true that they number only 29, but they include very big individual enterprises and large aggregations of employers. Amongst them are the Commonwealth Steamship owners, representing all the interstate shipping interests; the Timber Merchants and Sawmillers, the Graziers, the Picture Showmen, the Licensed Victuallers, the Metal Trades’ Employers, the printing and allied trades, and the Showmen’s Guild. The individual industrial enterprises that are registered include the Broken Hill

Proprietary Company, H. V. McKay and Company Proprietary, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, and Nestle’s and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company. Generally it may be said that the organizations registered under the act represent a substantial proportion of the leading industries of Australia. Accordingly, the provision for the appointing of conciliation committees, after consideration of the recommendations of employers and employees, should prove quite workable. The number of members of a committee is not limited, except that half must be representative of the employers and half of the employees. Many modern industries are complex and intricate, and seldom, if ever, can one man effectively represent all the departments of his particular industry. There should be a degree of flexibility in the constitution of these committees, and the parties should not be limited to single representatives <.or even two or three representatives each. In fact, in Great Britain, industrial matters arc often dealt with by committees representative of employers and employees with a membership of up to 40.

I propose to move an amendment to provide that the chairman of a conciliation committee shall not have a vote. In New South Wales conciliation committees have been appointed, and a great controversy has been waged in the courts as to whether the chairman is entitled to vote. The Government considers it proper to make it clear that the chairman shall not have a vote. The reason is that this procedure is intended to be conciliation and not arbitration. When an independent chairman is brought in to decide a dispute, we at once get into the domain of arbitration, and when we leave the domain of conciliation we must, owing to the provisions of the Constitution’, comply with whatever arbitration demands. The arbitration procedure hitherto has been rightly considered to entitle every interested party to give evidence. Thus, if the chairman of a conciliation committee were given a vote, we should have to provide for ever so many arbitral tribunals, with all the procedure for subpoenaing witnesses and so forth. That is not desired. We wish to keep these meetings of employers and employees on a conciliation basis. If the representatives of the parties are unable to agree, conciliation fails and the matter will have to go to arbitration. But the failure of conciliation may not be complete. It will at least have afforded an opportunity for employers and employees to meet under the presidency of a person chosen by themselves, if they can agree, and discuss their industrial difficulties. From such gatherings there may be at first no apparent result, but the mere meeting in conference is all to the good. Therefore, I sincerely hope that full advantage will be taken of the new procedure.

The proposed new section provides that if an agreement is reached it can be registered under the act by being certified in the ordinary way, and have the effect of an award. If the agreement is as to part only of the matter in dispute, it also may be certified, and that will represent so much gained. If, on the other hand, it is impossible to settle any of the matter by agreement, an entirely new procedure is provided in proposed sub-section 8 and the following sub.sections. A conciliation committee or the majority of its members, excluding the chairman, may make a recommendation for an award ; the whole matter in dispute may be worked out in detail by men who are conversant with and directly interested in the industry, and it is hoped that this procedure will save the court a great deal of work. When such a recommendation for an award is sent to the court, .the registrar will issue a summons calling upon all parties concerned to show cause why an award should not be made in the terms of the recommendation. It would be unjust for an award to be made on the basis of a committee’s recommendation without the parties, interested having an opportunity to express their views. The summons will be accompanied by the full terms of the recommendation.

Mr Maxwell:

– No special pleaders are provided for.

Mr LATHAM:

– There is no provision for anybody to participate in the conciliation proceedings other than the representatives of the parties and the chairman. On the return of the summons any employer will be able to attend and show that a certain provision in the proposed award is unsuitable to his business, or is unfair and should be amended. It is hoped that in this way the conciliation committees will be able to solve most of the difficulties, and that it will not be necessary to incur the delay and expense of hearing evidence in court. The court will be limited to points of difficulty and difference which remain after the conciliation committee has given its best mind to the subject. Then, after everybody has been given an opportunity of being heard, the award will be made by the judge in such terms as he thinks proper. This proposed section also provides for the utilization of the procedure of representative orders, on exactly the same lines as those to which I referred yesterday.

The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Killen) has an amendment dealing with this clause, but he will find that some of his suggestions have been incorporated, in effect, in amendments of mine which have been circulated. I assume that the honorable member desires to address himself to his own amendment before I say anything about it.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.-! think that the committee will be in general agreement with this proposed section. If it does not do any good, it certainly cannot do any harm, and I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that it can do a considerable amount of good. The conciliation section of the principal act has done a considerable amount of good in preserving industrial peace.

I wish to refer to the rather urgent situation that has been referred to by the Attorney-General. The honorable gentleman informed the committee this morning that the Prime Minister had received a telegram from the Premier of Victoria which, apparently, is practically on the lines of the suggestions which I made last night. It urges that, instead of applying the Crimes Act to the existing situation, we should exhaust the possibilities of conciliation under the existing Arbitration Act. I expressed that view last night, and I reiterate it now with emphasis. I do so with all sincerity, because I am satisfied from my knowledge of human nature, and of the trade union movement, that a false step has been taken in applying the Crimes Act when other methods are at hand, the application of which, I am satisfied, would meet with success. I have been in touch this morning with the heads of the trade union organizations of Australia, and I am assured that it is their strong conviction that if a compulsory conference were called between the ship-owners and the cooks there would be an immediate settlement of the dispute. The Government has gone some way along the lines suggested by me last night and by the telegram from the Premier of Victoria, of which I knew nothing last night, and I gather that it has been transmitted to the Industrial Registrar, I presume for submission to the court. The terms of that telegram at least indicate to the court the opinion of one State Government, but surely it is more important to convey to the court, through the Registrar, the opinion of the Federal Government. I do not suggest that this Government should attempt to instruct or control the court, but surely the Government may move the court to action by conveying to it the view of this Parliament which, if unanimous, is the view of the Australian people. I believe that every honorable member in this chamber desires to have this trouble settled. If that is so, we should have it recorded that it is the unanimous decision of this Parliament that a compulsory conference should be called at once. I do not want to burk the position. I know that the court did move in the matter and that its efforts failed. I am not condoning the action that’ led to its failure, and I am not withdrawing what I said last night as to the action of the cooks’ union in ignoring the advice and the recommendations of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. But I repeat that it is a fundamental error to endeavour to make a crime out of something which is not criminal in character. The effect must be the very antithesis of that for which we are striving in this conciliation clause. Such an action at once does an injustice to somebody. No matter how much one may be opposed to the action of somebody else, when one tries to bring into use the sledge-hammer and to penalize that person unduly, he at once arouses general sympathy in favour of that individual, and inflames the passions of the trade union movement. That is what must follow the manifest injustice of bringing into operation the provisions of the Crimes Act to deal with actions which are, of themselves, not criminal. If an individual is guilty of any act of a criminal nature, the criminal code is in existence to deal with him, but an industrial act is not a criminal one. No parliament should declare it criminal, and no government should apply the criminal code to acts which are not criminal.

I make an urgent appeal to the Acting Leader of the Government to get into touch at once with the Prime Minister, and to transmit to the Registrar of the Arbitration Court a message from this Government, similar to that which has been forwarded from the Premier of Victoria. I am satisfied that, in the circumstances, no court would feel that its self-respect was injured, or that it is being instructed as to what it shall do. It would realize that the intimation represented all sections of political opinion, and the opinion of all shades of industry, that it is the desire that another effort shall be made, by means of a compulsory conference, to bring the parties together. I am satisfied that the result would be peace.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · NAT

– For the information of honorable members, I mention that I propose to circulate at once an amendment to meet the point raised by the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) yesterday, and another amendment which will enable employees to sue for wages under an award, subject to a period of limitation of six months.

Mr KILLEN:
Riverina

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The two could not work together.

Mr KILLEN:

– They may not, but I am hopeful that if conciliation committees were set up they would be effective in settling many disputes. The system that I propose is similar, in many respects, to that of the United States of America. I know that different American States have different methods, but voluntary conciliation and round-table conferences are common. This matter is referred to in the report of the industrial delegation to the United States of America, from which I should like to quote several extracts. First let me point out that in a report submitted to the Delegation by the Secretary of Commerce of the United States of America there is the following suggestive sentence: -

The high standards of living enjoyed by the American people are the result of steadily mounting per capita productivity. 0” page 25 of the report of the Delegation, under the heading, “Relations Between Employer and Employee,” the following passage appears: -

An important part of the management is the conduct of industrial relations between it and the working force, and it would appear that strikes and lockouts in manufacturing industries are diminishing…..

The effort of employers generally to understand the wants and requirements of their employees, and, on the other hand, the readiness of the employee to grasp the idea of the employer that the interests of both are identical is very pronounced. *

That indicates clearly what is taking place in the United States of America, a country in which there is no compulsory arbitration. Disputes there are settled by conciliation and friendly argument at the round table, and the old methods have been p’ractically abandoned. On page 26 of the report the following paragraph appears: -

In many industries the militant domination is being supplanted by constructive activity in the form of union-managements co-operation. Wherever we found this operating there were undoubted proofs of contentment amongst the workers and management, and prosperity with progress in the industry.

Many unions and the American Federation of Labour apparently subscribe to the view that it is better to convert money, that previously was spent in fighting, into studies of what an industry can pay under proper organization brought about by co-operation between managements and the trade union movement. As a result we found strongly organized unions employing technicians, professors and consulting engineers, engaged on research work for the unions.

This system, where it obtains, has aroused and maintained the interest of employees, who to-day feel as though they have “ invested “ their labour - their all - in the industry and are anxious that it should prosper. They appear to feel that they have a voice in the management or control of their industry and arc anxious to assist. They no longer object to the introduction of more efficient machinery and methods. They welcome scientific management and encourage amongst members increased production, which cheapens the product and thus makes it available to many more of their fellows.

Silting suspended from 1245 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr KILLEN:

– On page 30, the report states : -

Tables taken from the American Labour Year-Book for 1927 show that in 1917 there were 4,450 disputes reported in all industries. In 2,325 cases the number of workers affected was given, the total being’1,227,254. The number of disputes together with the number of employees affected has gradually reduced until in 1925 the disputes totalled 1,301. In 1,012 cases the number of employees affected was given, which gave a total of 428,218 indicating a reduction by one-half at least. . . Wage earners per thousand of the population in 1925 were 16.1 per cent, fewer than in 1919; nevertheless, there was an increase of 25 per cent, in the quantity of goods produced.

That shows how co-operation, voluntary conciliation, round-table conferences and friendly argument, instead of compulsion, have led to a reduction in the number of disputes, and brought about a large increase in output. Again, on page 32, the commission reported : -

Arbitration as it is known in Australia does not exist in the United States of America. The number of industrial disputes which occurred throughout the United States of America caused a great majority of the State legislatures to enact laws designed to prevent cessations of work, caused by strikes or lockouts. Not only are the objectives of the various measures similar, but in all cases the methods closely resemble one another. A feature common in all such laws is the absence of any provision compelling the parties to submit the matter in dispute to a third party, but, instead, they authorize a “ body “ to intervene and endeavour to persuade the parties to meet in conference and thereby reach a settlement; further, in the event of such conference failing to eventuate or to reach a settlement, to persuade the parties to agree to a settlement by arbitration. . . . There is a provision in the law that work shall continue and the relations between employer and employee shall continue unaltered by either party until the Commission, Board, or Arbitration ends its jurisdiction, which jurisdiction is always limited to a specified number of days after the hearing of evidence.

On page 34, the report states: -

The most popular method of settling disputes is by the parties meeting, selecting their own Arbitrator, and entering into working agreements. Many of such agreements provide for the appointment of Arbitrators for future requirements.

There is undoubted hostility to any form of compulsory arbitration - that is, any law compelling parties to submit their troubles to a permanent tribunal for settlement.

Professor A. H. Tocker, who holds the Chair of Economics at Canterbury College, Christchurch, New Zealand, has made a special study of the compulsory arbitration system in New Zealand. In the course of a lecture, delivered in Sydney in February last, he stated, in referring to the coal industry: -

Australia, with arbitration, is having in that industry, infinitely more trouble than America is having without arbitration.

In that I quite agree with him. We have a good deal more industrial trouble here than the United States of America has. Professor Tocker went on: -

Some claim that arbitration has raised wages. Wages have been raised but prices have risen, too, and what matters to the worker is not so much the amount of money a man gets as the amount of goods he can buy with the money he gets. It is the purchasing power that really counts. Statistical investigations in New Zealand indicate that real wages now are no higher than in 1900, and the rise in Australia, according to the Commonwealth Statistician, has been comparatively slight. Though it may be true that the court has raised wages, prices have also been raised, and the worker in New Zealand is no better off. In the United States, the purchasing power of wages, or the amount of goods which can be bought with wages, is estimated at 25 per cent, greater in 1925 than in 1914. During the last few years, there has been a very decided rise in the workers’ purchasing power there. Wages have gone up, and prices have gone up, but wages have gone up far more than prices. In a country where labour conditions are practically unregulated, wages have risen very greatly. In our country, where we have strictly regulated conditions, real wages have not risen.

In face of the testimony of the Australian Delegation to the United States of America, on which both sides in politics were equally represented, there is ample room for inquiry into the wisdom of continuing the present system. The report showed conclusively that the workers in America are much better off with the voluntary system of arbitration, with co-operation, conciliation and round-table conferences, coupled with payment by results, than are the workers in Australia.

Mr Perkins:

– Is that not due more to the attitude of the American people than their arbitration laws ?

Mr KILLEN:

– I think that the absence of compulsion in arbitration has a good deal to do with their success industrially, and I do not know why honorable members opposite do not recommend the workers to adopt the American system. I do not believe that compulsory arbitration has reduced industrial strife in Australia; it has rather increased it. Under a system of voluntary conciliation and arbitration there would be fewer disputes, because compulsion tends to antagonize the two parties, and produces a frame of mind in which they are not likely to settle their disputes amicably. I do not understand the attitude of the Opposition.

– We want these disputes to be settled promptly.

Mr LATHAM:

– To require the Chief Judge to appoint within fifteen days re,presentatives to a committee is imposing upon him an onerous duty, and this handicap might lead to the defeat of the whole procedure. It is important that the persons appointed to a committee should be genuinely representative, and it might be such men could not be found within a period of fifteen days.

I am prepared to adopt the first part of the honorable member’s amendment that either party to a dispute may apply for the appointment of a conciliation committee, and I shall later move an amendment to provide that if the parties to the dispute concur in nominating a person as chairman, the Chief Judge shall appoint that person as such. Honorable members must agree that it would be undesirable to allow the ‘majority of the representatives to appoint the chairman of a conciliation committee. As the clause stands at present it provides only that the judge shall appoint the chairman. I propose to move a proviso to the effect that if the members of the committee concur in nominating any person as chairman, the Chief Judge shall appoint that person as chairman.

Mr Gregory:

– It must be a unanimous decision.

Mr LATHAM:

– Yes. I am prepared to accept certain portions of the honorable member’s amendment, but I submit that the adoption of the whole of it would introduce a degree of complication that would defeat the very object that the honorable member has in view.

Mr Killen:

– Does not the AttorneyGeneral consider that there should be a time limit to the appointment of a committee ?

Mr LATHAM:

– I propose to leave that to the discretion of the Chief Judge. It is of no use to fix an arbitrary time limit; it might defeat the object of the honorable member altogether, because of the difficulty of finding suitable men within the time prescribed. If a time limit were imposed it might even lead to the appointment of an unsuitable committee.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- Few honorable members are likely to oppose this clause. In my opinion, it is a step in the right direction. For a long time I have been endeavouring to include such a provision in the Industrial Peace Act. It is a very necessary clause, although, I submit, the Minister might have gone a little further than he has. The honorable member for Riverina stated, in support of his proposed amendments, that I had said, during the course of ray second-reading speech, that I preferred conciliation committees to arbitration. That is perfectly true; but the honorable member should not draw from that the inference that I am against compulsory arbitration altogether. Chat is quite a different thing. I believe in settling all disputes that may arise, if at all possible, by conciliation. I have always advocated that, but I do not wish my position to be misunderstood. I have repeatedly informed this committee that if some of the clauses of the bill are given effect, they will assuredly destroy compulsory arbitration; so honorable members must realize from that statement that the honorable member for Riverina has gained a wrong impression of my attitude. The amendment foreshadowed by the Attorney-General is important. If conciliation committees are to be a success we must allow the parties to a dispute to decide, if possible, who shall be the chairman. If they fail to agree, then, of course, the appointment must be left to the discretion of the Chief Judge. Before the system of compulsory arbitration was introduced, the parties to a dispute appointed their representatives to meet in conference, and on one or two occasions in my district I was so appointed. When a chairman could not be agreed upon, some prominent person in the community, a judge or a Minister of the Crown, was asked to recommend someone for the position. In that respect the amendment foreshadowed by the AttorneyGeneral is satisfactory.

Mr Scullin:

– That is the procedure in connexion with the Victorian Wages Board.

Mr CHARLTON:

– It was the procedure before compulsory arbitration was introduced. In one instance, the late James Curley and myself represented the workers. We could not agree with the other representatives as to the chairman to be appointed, and one was appointed by ait outside authority. That chairman decided against us; and let me say that we found no fault with his decision, although it was against us. A similar provision to that foreshadowed by the Attorney-General should be included in the Industrial Peace Act. The great trouble in connexion with disputes, especially in the mining industry, is that there is no v means by which immediate steps may be taken to deal with them as they arise. Although a special tribunal may be appointed to deal with disputes, it is impossible for it to deal with all the disputes that may arise throughout Australia. By the appointment of committees an/l boards, disputes can be dealt with on the spot, and this procedure, in many cases, would prevent the extension of disputes.

Mr Gregory:

– Would not a decision in one State affect other States?

Mr CHARLTON:

– I am coming to that point. If a dispute were dealt with on the spot by a committee of conciliation, there might be no stoppage of work at all. May I recite my own experience in support of what I am saying? The last mine at which I was employed, was the South Waratah. At that time, Mr. McGeaghie was the general manager. He had under him a number of mine managers. I regularly represented the men. He used to say to me, “If there is any trouble, do not bring about a stoppage; send for me. If I am not available immediately, I shall return as soon as possible. Even if it should take me a week to get back to the mine, I shall come. “ The result was that we kept the mine working even at those times when we could not agree with the mine manager. As soon as Mr. McGeaghie arrived he would send for me, and we would discuss the matter with the under manager and the manager. When we presented a good case to him, he yielded to our representations; but when we found that he had right on his side, we always accepted the position. There was never any trouble. During the whole of the time that I was there, although it was the dirtiest mine in the district, all our differences were settled in that manner, and we did not have one day of idleness. That is why I advocate so strongly the voluntary settlement of disputes.

My chief reason for rising was to draw attention to another aspect. The new sub-section 2 reads -

A conciliation committee may be appointed in relation to industrial disputes in an industry, or in a branch or section of an industry defined by reference to locality or otherwise.

I am doubtful as to how far we can go in that direction. As the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) has pointed out by way of interjection, an industry may extend beyond the limits of a State. It must do so before the Commonwealth has power under the Constitution to deal with it. A conciliation committee may be appointed to deal with a branch or section of an industry. Any agreement arrived at must be forwarded to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court for its ratification. Supposing some person outside the particular State in which the agreement is come to considers that the decision affects him, will it be valid even though it has the approval of both the parties to it? I am not sure that it will.

Mr Maxwell:

– Is not the right reserved to any person who is interested to intervene and show cause why the recommendation should not be accepted by the court?

Mr CHARLTON:

– It is. If there should be such an intervention and the court should find itself compelled to disallow the agreement on account of the limitation placed upon its constitutional powers, the honorable member must see that the work of these conciliation committees would be nullified. That is the sole difficulty that I apprehend. If some person should intervene and claim that the conciliation committee did not have the power to do this thing, even though the two parties had agreed to it, the court would be placed in the position of having to come to a decision according to its constitutional powers. I have doubts as to whether this can really be done; but I am not a legal man. The Attorney-General knows that I have advocated this principle in private conference with him. I had thought it would be possible to bind these committees legally so long as they were made subordinate to the Industrial Peace Tribunal or the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The whole question is, whether that can or cannot be done.. I have no objection whatever to the proposed new sub-section; I believe that it is a step in the right direction if it can be carried out constitutionally. The Attorney-General probably considers that it is within the constitutional power of the Commonwealth to enact it. If it is, I should like him to extend the principle to the mining industry so as to avoid, as far as possible, even those small troubles that from time to time cause a stoppage of operations for only a week or two. There has not been one hold-up in the coal-mining industry since the Industrial Peace Tribunal was appointed, some years ago. That is a fact that we should not forget. Practically all the troubles in the coal-mining industry are sectional in character, and if this principle were adopted, they would be fewer in ‘ the future than they are to-day. If action along those lines is possible under this measure, I see no reason why it should not be taken.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · NAT

– I am well aware of the efforts which the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. Charlton) has made to extend the scope of the Industrial Peace Act in certain directions; but difficulties of a constitutional character have prevented the consummation of his desires. However, I am prepared to investigate the matter once more, more particularly if representations upon it are made by the coal-mining industry.

The honorable member for Hunter has alluded to the constitutional aspect of this matter. I consider that the proposed new sub-section 2 is constitutionally valid. The action to be taken under it will depend on what is done in each case. The proposed new section provides in the first place for conciliatory procedure, and in so far as the parties succeed in agreeing, no constitutional difficulty arises ; but if compulsion has to be exercised or if any legal obligation is to be imposed on either party as apart from the law, then the constitutional aspect of the case has to be considered. Provision is made for that in this section. First of all it must be recognized that it would be a great mistake to urge the parties to a certain course of procedure and then leave them with something which afterwards might be found to be invalid. Provision is made to guard against that.

If an agreement is arrived at in the settlement of a dispute, it may be certified under section 24 and have the effect of an award, but yesterday the committee added a proviso to section 24 providing that the court shall not- certify an agreement unless it is satisfied that it is in settlement of an industrial dispute. That amendment was made to conform with the provisions of the proposed new section- 34 now under consideration. It was thought that it would be misleading to provide that an agreement arrived at should be certified and have the effect of an award under section 24 unless it was in settlement of an interstate dispute ; and the proviso therefore requires the judge to satisfy himself that the agreement hae been made in settlement of an interstate dispute before he purports to give it the effect of an award by certifying it. From the legal stand-point therefore that possibility is provided against.

If the parties fail to arrive at an agreement the proposed section provides for the service of a summons to show cause why an award should not be made. Every person concerned thus has an opportunity to attend before the court and submit reasons why an award should not be made, and the court is given power to make whatever award it chooses to make. The matter will then be in the hands of the court, and it will operate under the constitutional limitation that it can deal only with an interstate dispute. When the work of the conciliation committee results in either of the conclusions contemplated by the proposed section, that is to say, an agreement or an award, there is a provision which secures in the opinion of the court the validity of the agreement or the award as the case may be.

I come now to the matter mentioned by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. Charlton), the position as to small disputes which are not interstate in character. The circumstances referred to by the honorable member indicate a difficulty which is inherent in all our legislation on this subject, and nothing that this Parliament can do would avoid or abolish it; but a great deal may be done on a. legal basis, and that is provided for in sub-section 2, which sets out that conciliation committees may be appointed in relation to an industrial dispute, not only in an industry, but also in a branch or a section of an industry defined by reference to locality or otherwise^ There are Federal awards in existence in most of the in- dustries of Australia which desire to obtain them, and it is hoped that even in cases where an award has been made, it will be possible to appoint a conciliation committee to deal with matters arising in the industry in relation to the award. For example, take the case of an award which prescribes certain conditions of labour. A difficulty may arise under that award in a single State, and it oan be dealt with by a conciliation committee.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– But what wil happen if the subject-matter of the difficulty is not in relation to an award, and is confined to one State?

Mr LATHAM:

– In those circumstan-‘ ces the Federal Arbitration Court would have no constitutional power to handle it, and nothing this Parliament can do would alter the position. Nevertheless something may be achieved by the appointment of a conciliation com:mittee. It may successfully handle even such a matter as that referred to by the honorable member. If the machinery exists the use of that machinery will be a matter for the parties, and I hope that many difficulties will be satisfactorily adjusted without legal proceedings.

Mr Maxwell:

– Is that possible if the court cannot take cognizance of a local dispute ?

Mr LATHAM:

– I hope that the effect of this legislation will be that conciliation committees with some permanence of character will be appointed in relation to industries and sections of industries, that they will meet from time to time, and that a great many matters will be adjusted on the basis of agreement after conference without going through the legal formulas of certifying an agreement or making an award. I hope that giving to the parties an opportunity to meet will result in the settlement of difficulties among themselves which, perhaps, could not be dealt with satisfactorily under the Commonwealth’s powers. The utmost we can do is to provide machinery for dealing with those matters which are within our constitutional powers in the hope that when the parties meet face to face they will utilize that machinery for the adjustment of other difficulties between them-‘ selves.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- In regard to this provision, I am anxious to preserve the interests of persons engaged in industry in the smaller States. I understand that the Attorney-General is prepared to amend the clause and provide another method of appointing conciliation committees. It is possible that the amendment will afford a better opportunity to persons engaged in the industry in the smaller States to secure representation on these committees, but if that is not done these persons will be at a great disadvantage compared with persons engaged in industries in New South Wales and Victoria, whose prominence and importance will give them almost the whole of the representation on the appointed committees. I am afraid that that will have a serious effect on industries in States like Western Australia and Tasmania.

Mr M CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP; NAT from 1925; UAP from 1931

– And South Australia.

Mr GREGORY:

– And probably South Australia. I do not think that it should be left to the Chief Judge to make these appointments, except on recommendation. I understand that the Attorney-General proposes to have proposed sub-section 12 omitted with a view to inserting another sub-section.

Mr Latham:

– That is so.

Mr GREGORY:

– I am advised that there is a possibility of a common rule being made under this clause, and I should like the Attorney-General if he speaks again to tell me if that will be possible. If industrial disputes could be settled by the means provided in this proposed section it would be preferable to having them submitted to judges, but we have to take into consideration the enormous area of Australia, and the difficulty of having the remote States represented on conciliation committees. For instance, if a dispute in the timber industry breaks out in Queensland, it will be difficult for South Australia and Tasmania to be represented on any conciliation committee which may be appointed to deal with it. To my mind the States themselves can best handle and regulate State industries, because of the great difficulty there is in making Federal awards applicable to the varying conditions of each State.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · NAT

– The honorable member has raised the position of the smaller States under the provision which provides for conciliation, particularly if there should be a recommendation by the majority of the members of the conciliation committee for arbitration on a certain basis. Under the conciliation provisions of the bill the employer cannot be bound unless he has agreed, and the employer in the smaller States is, therefore, fully safeguarded. On the other hand, under the arbitration provisions it is provided that notice of a proposed award must be given in a manner set out. It must be either by personal notice to him or by a representative order which is published in the Government Gazette. Before any of these circumstances arise, there must be a dispute and that means, in the ordinary case, that the employer has been served with a log in the ordinary way. Summarizing the position, the employer either agrees to that by which he is bound, as the result of conciliation to which he is a party, or is made aware of the existence of a dispute by means of the service of a log so that he knows that something is happening to which he had better pay attention, or, after the service of the log, he is either personally served with an order setting out the recommendations of the conciliation committee, or a representative order is made subject to the safeguards mentioned in the section. This provision does not compromise the position of employers in the smaller States, nor does it alter the situation in regard to a common rule, which can be declared by any industrial tribunal in Australia with the exception of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. In that court, the procedure has to be followed of creating a dispute between all the persons concerned. The honorable member apparently believes in that procedure and prefers it to the wages board system and other State procedure which enables a common rule to be made applicable to the whole of an industry within a State. The position in that respect is unchanged by this legislation and, as the decision of the High Court at present stands, the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has no power to declare a common rule.. No employer can be bound by an award unless he has been served with notice of the proceedings, and no employee is entitled to the benefit of an award unless he is a member of a union which has been a party to the proceedings.’

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- I wish to thank the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Killen) for seeking to give effect to his declaration that there is too little conciliation and too much force in this measure. Other honorable members have also expressed themselves in that way. I believe that every honorable member, in his heart, would prefer to see 99 per cent, of conciliation, and 1 per cent, of force. I should like to give honorable members the benefit of the information I gained in South Africa, a dominion that has had the most bitter experience of any dominion under the British flag in the matter of strikes and lockouts. Before a striker in South Africa is permitted to see if other men seek employment in an industry where a strike exists or before the employers in the case of a lockout, endeavour to fill the places of the strikers, the representatives of the parties must meet. Picketing is not allowed by the unions, and the employers are not allowed to engage nonunion labour until both parties have appeared before a council duly appointed by the law of the South African Union. That is a system that is worth considering, because the Attorney-General and other honorable members know that in that country at one time there were terrible industrial struggles resulting even in bloodshed. Almost every clause in this bill provides a punishment or a penalty, many of which should be removed. Honorable members will agree with me that Mr. Stewart, who was Registrar of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, and whose conciliatory efforts were in most cases unknown to the general public, has done more in preventing strikes or cases going to the court, than any other man in Australia. My principal reason for speaking to-day is because I see nothing in this measure, or in this clause in particular, that will prevent heavy and unnecessary expenditure. I propose to quote some of the figures in connexion with the Councils of Prud’ hommes, a system under which 70 per cent, of the cases are settled by con ciliation. These councils started first under the genius of Napoleon and the influence extended from France to other parts of Europe. The principle was accepted in Belgium, from Belgium it extended to Germany, and from Germany to six Swiss cantons, which have sovereign rights in respect of certain matters. Under this system two committees are appointed. In the first place a committee representative of the employers and employees is appointed in exactly the same way as our wages boards. If the committee cannot agree on the appointment of a president or vice-president, such an officer is selected by the authority which has the power to appoint the committee. The first committee, which consists of three members, deals first with the disputes. Pulgrave’s Dictionary shows that of the 43,000 cases dealt with under this system 60 per cent, were in connexion with wages, 13 per cent, for dismissals, 10 per cent, for alleged misbehaviour, 5 per cent, in relation to apprenticeship, and 12 per cent, for various other reasons. Of the cases heard 70 per cent were not carried beyond the first committee and the cost incurred was only 3d. which was for a letter of invitation to attend. If the first committee of conciliation fails to settle the dispute, the case is heard by a higher court or committee consisting of five members. According to The Contemporary Review, vol. xliii, page 546, the costs of a suit are borne by the loser unless the court specially orders each side to pay some costs. The following is the table of fees: -

That is sufficient to show that there are at all events some schemes which are worthy of emulation. The Federated

Tramways Employees’ case cost the men over £10,000 before the case was settled by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, and I feel sure that it is not the wish of any honorable member* to assist in passing legislation under which such heavy expenditure is incurred. Of the 43,000 cases which have been heard in France, the 8,000 in Belgium and 97,000 in Germany, fully 70 per cent, were settled by the first court at the nominal fees I have mentioned.

Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

– I strongly support the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) and other honorable members who have expressed the belief that the appointment of conciliation committees, as provided for in this clause, can do much to prevent and settle industrial disputes. I listened very carefully to the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Killen) who, if I understood him aright, said that he believed compulsory arbitration in this country had failed. I am sure the honorable member will agree with me when I say that that view is not shared by the majority of those engaged in the great pastoral industry.

Mr Killen:

– I am not sure of that.

Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

– I am. For the information of the honorable member I quote the following, whcih appeared in the Sydney Mail of the 16th May of this year-

Compulsory Arbitration.

While compulsory arbitration is being seriously questioned by the leaders in a number of industries, the pastoral industry in New South Wales is standing solidly for it.

For many years arbitration has been the industrial policy of our pastoral interests, as expressed by the Graziers’ Association. There is no evidence whatever that our organized pastoral interests have any desire to change this policy. They have found that compulsory arbitration ° has worked satisfactorily in their industry, and they desire to continue it. It is especially worth noting that in the shearing, which is the main section of the pastoral industry covered by compulsory arbitration, there is piecework. The shearer is paid according to the amount of work he does. For example, the shearer who shears 150 sheep in the day makes 50 per cent, more money than the man who shears 100 sheep. “ This means “, Mr. F. H. Tout, president of the Graziers’ Association, points out, “ that the more efficient men make more money, and this is on the side of progress and a square deal. “ Mr. Tout further expresses the opinion that “ it would be ever so much better for the secondary industries and consequently for the Commonwealth, if piecework were introduced generally. “ It is a remarkable fact that, while se many unions express the keenest hostility to piecework, the Australian Workers Union, which is one of the largest and most powerful unions in the Commonwealth, finds that piecework works well in the pastoral industry, and accepts it as the right policy. It is true that there is a small extremist section in the Australian Workers Union that occasionally attacks the principle, but the great majority of the members have shown that they are not prepared to fall in with this small though militant minority. Shearers, it is generally admitted, make “ big money “, but the point is that the better they work the more money they make. There is no suggestion whatever in the shearing industry of “ slavedriving, “ or of undue speeding-up”. It is left to the individual shearer as to how many sheep he will shear, and the fact that shearers continue in the industry for a great many years shows that the piecework principle is in no sense of the word a menace to them - rather it is an attraction. It is pleasing to note that serious industrial troubles in the pastoral industry are very rare. Wages and conditions are amicably settled in the Federal Arbitration Court, and the awards are in the main, loyally accepted. Both sides are well organized, and it can be said that official relations between the Australian Workers Union and the organized graziers, are very satisfactory. Here is certainly an example of the value of compulsory arbitration.

It is also interesting to note that among the registered organizations of employers under the Federal Arbitration Act are the Graziers’ Association of New South Wales, the Pastoralists’ Association of West Darling, the Pastoralists’ Union of South Riverina, the Pastoralists’ Association of Western Australia Incorporated, and the Shearers Contractors’ Association of New South Wales. During the second-reading debate on this bill, the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) referred to the fact that I was once associated with the pastoral industry, as my family has been for generations, and also to an article which was published in the Pastoral Review of 1921. I have not been able to find in the Library the copy in which it appeared, but I think it referred to migration, and in it, according - to the honorable member, it was said that the view of the graziers was that no advance could be made until compulsory arbitration was abolished. Personally, I think that the more conciliation we can bring into our legislation the better for all sections of the community, but :that in no way detracts from my view that while the present system is in operation we should try to make it as acceptable and workable as possible.

Amendment negatived.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · NAT

– I move -

That after proposed sub-section (1) the following sub-section be inserted: - “(1a) An application for the appointment of a conciliation committee by the Chief Judge may be made in the prescribed manner to the Industrial Registrar by any party to an industrial dispute.”

This and the next amendment I intend to move are in accordance with what I stated in reference to the proposals of the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Killen). This is one of his suggestions which I am very glad to accept.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments (by Mr. Latham) agreed to-

That at the end of proposed sub-section (3) the following proviso be inserted: - “Provided thatif the other members of the committee concur in nominating any other person as chairman, the Chief Judge shall appoint that person as chairman.”

That after proposed sub-section (3) the following new sub-section be inserted: - “(3a) The chairman of a conciliation’ committee shall preside over meetings of the committee, but shall not be entitled to vote on any question before the committee.”

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · NAT

– I move -

That proposed sub-section (12) be omitted.

This is in accordance with the amendment already carried dealing with representative orders in an earlier part of the section. It is really a consequential amendment. I propose to insert another sub-section providing the right for any party toappear if he so desires.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments (by Mr. Latham) agreed to-

That the figures “ 10,” proposed new subsection (13), be omitted and the figures “ 11 “ inserted in lieu thereof.

That after proposed sub-section ( 13 ) the following proviso be inserted: - “ Provided that the making of an order under sub-section (11) of this section shall not prevent any person from appearing separately if he so desires in any proceedings relating to the dispute.”

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 31 agreed to.

Clause 32-

After section 38b of the principal act the following sections are inserted: - “ 38c. The court shall, in the caseof every industrial dispute, consider if there is anything….. which makes it more desirable that the dispute …. should be dealt with by the court than by any State industrial authority . . . “

Mr BRENNAN:

Amendment, by leave, amended accordingly.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- In my opinion the clause is unnecessary, and the only change that would be effected by the amendment is objectionable. If the parties conform to the law they have a right to go to the court, and we should not make it mandatory on the judge to declare that it is more desirable that a case should be heard by the Federal court than by a State industrial authority. Unless the judge made such a declaration, he would have to dismiss the plaint. I can quite understand that, if he thought it desirable that a State court should hear the case, he should dismiss it; but suppose that the case might just as well be heardby by a State court as by the Federal court.

Mr Latham:

– Then I should say that the State court should deal with it.

Mr SCULLIN:

– That is inconsistent with previous clauses, and with the contention of the Attorney-General that the awards of the Federal court should prevail. One of the objects ofestablishing Federal courts is to obtain uniform laws throughout the Commonwealth. The existing provisions are ample to meet every possible case. The present clause savours of instructing the court to drive the parties away from it. Numbers of clauses that have already been passed, are calculated to have that effect, and now the committee is invited to agree to another of the same nature. I oppose the clause.

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

.- The more I consider this clause the more unnecessary it seems to he. It appears to cast a reflection on the court. We give the Federal court power under paragraph h of section 38 to refer a matter to a State court, if it seems to the court to be desirable that it should be dealt with by a State tribunal. This clause seems to be a reflection on the court, because one ought to assume that if the court thought it desirable to refrain from dealing with the matter, or to refer it to a State court, it would do so as a matter of duty. If we require the court to determine whether it is more desirable to hear a case in the Federal than in a State court, it will open up a tremendous field of discussion.

Mr Latham:

– But the honorable member says that that field of discussion might be opened up in every case under the existing powers.

Mr MAXWELL:

– I suppose that it would be under paragraph h of section 38; but we ought to leave the matter at that.

Amendment agreed to.

Question - That the clause as amended be agreed to -put. The committee divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 16

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 verbally amended and agreed to.

Clauses 34 to 40 agreed to.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– I am not asking for an increased staff.

Mr SCULLIN:

– We cannot avoid dual inspection. Take the case of an inspector whose duty it is to inspect the clothing trade and the workshops in connexion with it. If he is to carry out his work properly, he must be continually employed in that industry. We know from experience that several officials of the clothing trade union are constantly employed in visiting workshops and policing the awards under the direction, instruction and authority of the court. These mcn have been commended by the court for their work, and I know of no case in which their actions have been objected to by the employers. The only employers who would object to their inspection would be those who are evading the awards. It would bc a serious blow to arbitration to take away from the court the power to authorize representatives of organizations to police awards. If the awards were not effectively policed, it would mean the beginning of the end as far as arbitration is concerned. The organizations at one time asked that the representatives of the unions should be given a statutory right to police awards, and there is a lot to be said in favour of that request. The other extreme has been requested by the employers. The AttorneyGeneral has taken the middle course and the existing conditions are to stand. That certainly meets with my approval. Under this clause a few inspectors may be appointed, but it would need a large army to police properly and effectively the awards of the Arbitration Court.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

.- Neither the Attorney-General nor the Leader of the Opposition has stated my objection to this clause correctly. All that I ask is that in localities in which inspectors under this section are appointed to police awards, prior appointments shall terminate-

Mr Scullin:

– What does the honorable member mean by locality ? The city of Melbourne is a locality.

I welcome the provision for the appointment of inspectors, because I think that such action is necessary. I have no objection, either, to awards being policed by union officials, where inspectors have not been appointed. All I ask is thai duality shall be avoided.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 5736

BRIBERY ALLEGATIONS

Subpna of the Clerk.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Six Littleton Groom:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– I wish to inform honorable members that the Clerk of the House of Representatives has been notified that a subpoena has been issued requiring him to appear in Sydney on Monday next, 11th June, before the royal commission presided over by Judge Scholes, and to produce the letter dated 18th January, 1927, in which Mr. W. G. Mahony tendered his resignation as an honorable member of this House. Unless objection is raised, I shall take it that the House approves of the Clerk or some other officer of the House attending before the commission and producing the letter asked for.

Mr McGrath:

– Is it not necessary for the House to give authorization by specific resolution ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– On the previous occasions on which a similar request has been made, Mr. Speaker has merely announced the fact to the House, and no objection being taken, has assumed that the House approves of the course proposed.

Mr McGrath:

– I have always understood that the officers of the House are under the control of Mr. Speaker. If that is so, why is it necessary to consult Parliament in the matter?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Standing Order 43 expressly requires that if the House is sitting its consent must be obtained to the production of documents which have been laid before the House. If the House is not sitting, such consent may be given by Mr. Speaker. Adopting the practice followed on two previous occasions in similar cases - in 1904 and in 1912 - I have brought the matter before the House.

Mr McGrath:

– I certainly have no objection to the Clerk appearing before the royal commission.

page 5736

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Latham) agreed to -

That the Holme, at its rising, adjourn until Monday next, at 11 o’clock a.m.

House adjourned at 5.31 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 June 1928, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1928/19280609_reps_10_119/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 9 June 1928

QUESTION

FLIGHT OF CAPTAIN KINGSFORD SMITH

Mr LATHAM:AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · NAT

Mr LATHAM:

Mr SCULLIN:Yarra

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Dangerous Corridor

Mr SEABROOK:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Littleton Groom:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY TYPING STAFF

Mr A GREEN:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

DUMPING OF PETROL PUMPS

Mr McGRATH:BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr LATHAM:NAT

QUESTION

MURRAY FLATS MAIL SERVICES

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr GIBSON:Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

WIRELESS BROADCASTING

Mr FENTON:MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr GIBSON:CP

Mr RODGERS:WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr LATHAM:NAT

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr MAKIN:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:Minister for Health · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Mr FENTON:

Mr LATHAM:NAT

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Mr A GREEN:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:NAT

WIDGEON AMPHIBIAN

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:NAT

LORD HOWE ISLAND

Wireless Station

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:NAT

PAPERS

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

Mr LATHAM:AttorneyGeneral · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1925; UAP from 1931

Mr Blakeley:

Mr LATHAM:NAT

Mr BLAKELEY:Darling

Mr Latham:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Hughes:

Mr Latham:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Latham:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Latham:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Maxwell:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Maxwell:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Maxwell:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Latham:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Nelson:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Latham:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr Hughes:

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr LATHAM:AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · NAT

Mr Blakeley:

Mr LATHAM:

Mr Hughes:

Mr LATHAM:

Mr LAZZARINI:Werriwa

House of Representatives
9 June 1928

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · NAT

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

Mr SEABROOK:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Littleton Groom:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr McGRATH:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr LATHAM:
NAT

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr GIBSON:
Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr GIBSON:
CP

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr LATHAM:
NAT

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
Minister for Health · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr LATHAM:
NAT

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
NAT

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
NAT

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
NAT

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1925; UAP from 1931

Mr LATHAM:
NAT

Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · NAT

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · NAT

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · NAT

Mr KILLEN:
Riverina

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr LATHAM:
Attorney General · Kooyong · NAT