View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
13 March 1947

18^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- THE PARLIAMENT
QUESTION
- COMMUNISM;
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- ALUMINIUM
QUESTION
- PALUDRINE
QUESTION
- LANDING SHIPS
QUESTION
- WAK PENSIONS
QUESTION
- WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT
QUESTION
- BICYCLE TYRES. AND TUBES
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- HOSPITALS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR,
QUESTION
- PRICES CONTROL
QUESTION
- WHEAT
QUESTION
- PENICILLIN
QUESTION
- ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY
QUESTION
- UNIVERSITY OE WESTERN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- DEFENCE
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH SEBUM LABORATORIES
QUESTION
- MEAT
QUESTION
- SOUTH-EAST REGIONAL CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- LIVE-STOCK
QUESTION
- INTERNATIONAL MONETARY
ALIENS BILL 1947
ORDER OF BUSINESS
STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1947
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Public Service
- National Film Board

Mr.Speaker (Hon. J. S. Rosevear) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 581

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Motion Picture of Proceedings

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you had the authority of the House, whose servant you are, for the introduction of strangers not authorized by any rule of the House during question time yesterday, and for the continuance of their presence in the Parliament to the great inconvenience of members for an inordinate length of time?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I received a request from two sources - the Department of Information and an English moving picture producing company - that the proceedings of the House should be recorded on a film. The writer of the letter pointed out that the object of making the picture was to explain to world audiences the method of the Australian Government.

Mr Francis:

– It needs explanation.

Opposition members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am astonished that members of the Opposition should show such gross discourtesy to the Chair. The letter asked for permission to film the proceedings at any time when the House was in session and speeches were being broadcast. On receiving that request I thought that the leaders of parties ought to be consulted, and so I immediately communicated with them. They all readily consented to the making of the film. Before the pictures were taken I also saw the persons in charge of the operations, and pointed out that as there had been some discussions of previous films made while the House was in session I wanted their assurance that similar treatment would be given to honorable members on both sides of the chamber. That assurance was readily given. The honorable member for Batman desires to know whether I consulted the desires of the House in the matter. The negotiations took place- when the House was not sitting, but I thought that members of all parties had confidence in .the judgment of their leaders iri a matter of this kind, and as I had consulted the leaders of parties who readily gave their consent to the making of the film, and obtained assurances that both sides of the House would be treated in the same way, I thought that nothing more was necessary on my part. I am sorry that the honorable member for Batman was unduly inconvenienced, and when my attention was drawn to the fact I immediately asked the people concerned to discontinue, which they did. That is the only explanation I have to make. I think that I treated the House with due courtesy when I consulted the leaders of all parties in the matter.

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– In view of the obvious interest of honorable members in the swearing-in ceremony of the GovernorGeneral, and the filming of question time yesterday in this chamber, and as few honorable members will see the Cinesound newsreels of those events, will the Minister for Information arrange for the films to be screened in order that all honorable members, the staff of Parliament House, secretaries and pressmen may see them?

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I shall be glad to arrange for a screening of the films so that honorable members will be able to see themselves “ as ithers see us “.

page 582

QUESTION

COMMUNISM;

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister seen a press report that it is proposed to introduce legislation in the United States of America to outlaw the Communist party? Is he also aware that Mr. J. P. Ormonde, a member of the Australian Labour party executive, stated in an article in the press that Communist propaganda is being directed against Labour governments, and not against the Opposition parties? In view of the fact that the jobs of 45,000 workers are imperilled by Communist-inspired strikes in Sydney at Austral Bronze Company Proprietary Limited, and Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zealand Limited, Botany, what action does he propose to take to ensure that the Government fights back against the Communists, who now appear to be embarking on a continuous series of strikes in key industries ? Is it proposed to. take . in Australia action similar to that which it> being taken in the United States of America ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not seen the report about what is being done in the United States of America in regard to Communists, nor have I seen the article mentioned by the honorable member which, I presume, expresses the personal opinion of Mr. Ormonde. On the general question of the outlawing of the Communist party, I have previously expressed my opinion, as have also other honorable members, including some members of the Opposition. I believe that the outlawing of the Communist party might well do no more than drive it under ground.

Mr Harrison:

– The old, old story !

Mr CHIFLEY:

– It may be quite true, nevertheless. If the honorable member cares to make the’ inquiry he will find that some members of his own party have stated that they do not believe that the outlawing of the Communist party would solve the problem. I do not propose to make myself responsible for what somebody else has said or done in regard to this matter.

page 582

QUESTION

QUESTION

LANDING SHIPS

Offer of Crews to aid Great Britain-

Mr HOWSE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Realizing that the Government might have difficulty in releasing naval personnel, I have widely canvassed my former naval colleagues and found strong support for the formation of volunteer crews to man the landing ships, tank, now on loan from the Royal Navy which are not at present in commission because of the serious shortage of naval officers. Realizing the desperate plight of the people, of Great Britain, owing to <a shortage of food which has been’ severely rationed in the United Kingdom, these men are prepared to volunteer to man these ships as a good-will gesture on behalf of the people of Australia. Will the Minister for the Navy give urgent consideration to using these vessels for the carriage of food to Great Britain ?

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for the Navy · KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The “10th Flotilla comprises six landing ships, tank, three of which, owing to the manning position, have been paid off. As the policy of this Government is to do everything possible to help Great Britain,, urgent consideration will he given to the suggestion of the honorable member.

page 584

QUESTION

WAK PENSIONS

Appointment o:ir Chairman to Entitlement Appeal Tribunal.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Has the Minister for Repatriation seen the article appearing in a weekly newspaper alleging among other things that in selecting a chairman for the No. 2 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal lie ignored the advice of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia? Did he so ignore the choice of the league, in making that appointment, and will he state the reason which . actuated him in his selection of a person to fill this important position?

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Repatriation · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

– I have seen the article to which the honorable member has referred. It is not true, as has been suggested, that I ignored the representations of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia. As a matter of fact the league submitted a panel of names for my consideration and one of the persons whose name was included on it was chosen for appointment as chairman of the No. 2 Tribunal. The reasons prompting my choice of that person to fill this important position were that he was a reasonably young man and that he had had experience in the World War I. and very considerable experience in World War LT. It is the policy of my department to appoint to -such positions men who- have had experience in the recent war ‘because their knowledge of men with whom they were associated during the war enables them to make a symphatic approach to the problems confronting ex-servicemen generally.

page 584

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– As the Government is probably aware more- than 70’ ships are tied up -in Sydney harbour owing to the refusal of waterside workers to load them, and tens of thousands of tons of cargo are’ piled up waiting to be shipped. The1 position is made infinitely worse, how ever, by the fact that perishable cargoes are already lying in the holds- of many of these ships. I have received the following telegram from the chairman of the Southern District Council of Primary Producers s -

South coast cheese rapidly deteriorating ships holds Sydney. Please try everything unload.

In view of the great need for conserving food supplies destined for Great Britain, will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture take steps to have this produce saved from deterioration and loss?

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP

– My information is that there was a danger of butter and cheese not being unloaded from these ships. However, I am happy to be able to say that I understand that arrangements have been made for the unloading of the butter, and that the cheese is in no immediate danger of deterioration.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Cheese is not a refrigerated cargo.

Mr POLLARD:

– That is so. Every effort is being made to have the cheese unloaded before it deteriorates.

page 584

QUESTION

BICYCLE TYRES. AND TUBES

Mr FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– It has become impossible to buy bicycle tyres and tubes in country areas since the Government control of the sale of such articles was removed. The supply position in country areas is now worse than it has ever been and school children in bush areas particularly, are required to walk many miles to and from school. Will the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Shipping make inquiries as to the cause of this acute shortage of bicycle tyres and tubes, and if it be found to be due to the reason given to me, namely that manufacturers are eliminating the manufacture of bicycle tyres and tubes in order to concentrate on more profitable lines, will he re-introduce a sufficient measure of control to ensure the supply of these necessary commodities- to people in country areas?

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– My attention was drawn to this problem- 1’ast week by the honorable member for Hume. I shall again take up the matter with the- Minister for Supply and. Shipping and see whether anything can be done in the direction desired by the honorable mem- iter. If the manufacturers are to be compelled to manufacture cycle tyres and tubes in preference to more profitable lines it “will mean the re-imposition of a control that the Government abandoned.

Mr Fraser:

– It is very essential.

Mr DEDMAN:

– I think the case would have to be strong indeed for the Government to re-introduce a control of that kind.

page 585

PRICES CONTROL

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether it is a fact that many hundreds of prosecutions for breaches of the price fixing regulations are pending. Also, is it a fact that many hundreds of convictions for such breaches have been recorded? Will the right honorable gentleman consider compelling persons so convicted to display in their shop windows declarations stating that they have been convicted, as is done in respect of breaches of the black marketing law?

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– Yes, there have been many convictions, and many thousands of cases, covering the whole period of operation of the regulations, are still pending. The suggestion made by the honorable member was considered by this House when the Black Marketing Bill was being debated, and the matter of compelling offenders to display declarations in their shop windows was then left to the discretion of the courts. I do not think that il would be advisable to amend the law on that point, because of the decision of the House which I have mentioned. The position is that, in the most serious black marketing offences, the court can do what the honorable member has suggested. However, such action has very seldom been taken. I do not think that it would be just to have a general rule applying to every conviction for breaches of the prices regulations, nor do I think that such a rule is necessary.

page 586

QUESTION

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY OE WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Prom time to time, the Western Australian press has published reports concerning the establishment of a medical school at the University of Western Australia. It has been stated that the Commonwealth will meet onehalf of the estimated capital cost amounting to £125,000. Will the Treasurer inform me whether this report is accurate ?

If so, what proportion of the working costs, if any, does the Commonwealth propose to bear? Is it expected that the medical school will be ready by 1948?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The Premier of Western Australia, Mr. Wise, asked whether the Commonwealth Government w ould be prepared to assist the establishment of a medical school at the University of Western Australia. The capital cost was estimated at £250, 0Q0, and the annual maintenance costs, I believe from memory, would be about £30,000. Cabinet considered this request, and on behalf of the Government, I intimated to the Premier of Western Australia, that the Commonwealth would be prepared to meet one-half of the estimated capital cost. That is to say, the Commonwealth would provide £125,000. A condition was imposed that a representative of the Commonwealth should be attached to the board associated with the work, in view of our general proposal for the introduction of a free medical service in Australia. We did not offer to share any maintenance costs. Yesterday afternoon, I received from the Premier of that State a further communication relating to this matter, but I have not yet had time to examine it closely. After I have studied it, I shall supply additional information.

page 587

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– Can the Prime Minister say whether Cabinet recently conferred with the Defence Council regarding Australia’s defence, and will he make an early announcement as to whether adequate training and establishments for the Navy, Army and Air Force are’ being laid down, and what measure of cooperation is proposed with Great Britain in regard to Empire defence generally?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– A meeting of the Defence Council was held yesterday at which the Chiefs of Staffs were present. As the honorable member knows, the Defence Council is merely an advisory body to the Cabinet. The discussions yesterday covered the whole range of defence - regional, collective and internal - and further discussions will take place at an early date, after some of the proposals discussed yesterday have been examined more closely. I regret that I am unable to give any further information on the subject to the honorable member.

Mr White:

– Will the right honorable gentleman make an announcement soon?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Certain technical aspects of the matters discussed yesterday have to be investigated, and that will take some time. Until reports have been received and considered and a recommendation made to Cabinet by this advisory body, I shall not be able to make any announcement.

page 587

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SEBUM LABORATORIES

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health say whether it is a fact that reports of the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are not published, and if so, will he say why that course is followed ?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I shall refer the honorable member’s question to the Minister for Health and ask him to supply the. information sought.

page 587

QUESTION

MEAT

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture a question relating to the present dispute in the meat trade which has resulted in the City of Melbourne being practically without meat for a couple of weeks. In view of the fact that the absence of yardings of livestock is the direct result of an anomalous position arising from the Government’s decision to maintain a ceiling price for meat which is inconsistent with uncontrolled prices at auction, and that thedispute arose as the direct result of the Government’s administration, can he say whether the Government intends to bring the dispute to an end, and whether its policy is to work in the direction of reestablishing open auctions in Melbourne?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– I am unable to agree with the honorable member’s reasons for the dispute in the meat industry, because there are a num’ber of reasons for it. I understand that the Premier of Victoria will attend a further conference in Melbourne to-day. In the event of a satisfactory settlement of the dispute not being reached, the Common”wealth Government proposes to take a certain course of action which, on the one hand, will enable producers to market live-stock under conditions which will ensure a full return to them in accordance with the ceiling, price, and will also (ensure to butchers and. the general public 1hat, meat will be obtainable at the ceiling price. I trust that a satisfactory settlement of the dispute will be reached this afternoon and that it will not be necessary for the Commonwealth Government to take action, but if not the Government will act along the lines that I have indicated.

Mr McEwen:

– Is it the policy of the Government to work in the direction of re-establishing open auctions?

Mr POLLARD:

– The Government’s policy is to ensure that producers receive full ceiling rates for their stock and also that the public shall not be charged more than the ceiling price for meat.

page 588

QUESTION

SOUTH-EAST REGIONAL CONFERENCE

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for External Affairs aware that Radio Australia, the Government’s short-wave broadcasting station, recently broadcast overseas an announcement that thirteen nations, which were named, would be invited by Australia to the South-East Regional Conference to be held some time this year? If so, can he say why that announcement was broadcast overseas before any notification was made to this Parliament or to the people of Australia ?

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– I am not aware of any such broadcast having been made, or that any such decision has been arrived at. Should such a decision be made, it will be communicated to the Parliament.

page 588

QUESTION

LIVE-STOCK

Prices in Great Britain.

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture say whether it is a fact that a bill to be introduced shortly into the British Parliament will guarantee prices to raisers of live-stock for a period of four years ? If so, will he have the bill examined with a. view to ascertaining whether any of its provisions could be applied to Australia ?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– I cannot answer a question relating to a bill which has not yet been introduced into the British Parliament.

Mr Fadden:

– Then what is the use of the Minister’s department issuing trade journals ?

Mr POLLARD:

– Probably a particular article in a trade journal was based on press reports, or on assumptions arising out of information obtained from certain sources. I cannot say what may be contained in a bill which has yet to be introduced into the British Parliament, because in Great Britain, as in Australia, a lot of water sometimes runs under the bridge before legislation is introduced.

page 588

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) proposed -

That leave be given to bring in a hill for an act to approve of Australia becoming a. Member of the International Monetary Fund and of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and to make such provisions as are necessary or expedient by reason of the Membership of Australia of the fund and nf the bank.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– I rise, not to oppose the motion, but because this may be a convenient moment at which to raise a certain matter. Does the Prime Minister intend to deliver the secondreading speech this morning?

Mr Chifley:

– Yes.

Mr MENZIES:

– This is an important matter which has engaged the attention of the Government for a long time. The Government has had the advantage of the assistance of expert opinion, notably the opinion of Professor Melville, for whose views I, for one, have a very great respect. I should like to know whether it would be possible before the debate on this measure is resumed for the members of the Opposition to have the assistance of Professor Melville to explain any technical or other points which might arise. We desire to have the fullest possible information placed before us when we resume consideration of the measure.

Mr Holt:

– Will we also have placed before us all the documents which were placed before the Labour caucus?

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– in reply - As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) is aware, Professor Melville is an employee of the Commonwealth Bank, his services having been lent to assist the Government in connexion with the agreement. I will ask the Commonwealth Bank to make his services available to members of the Opposition, either collectively or individually. Mr. Wheeler a Treasury official who accompanied Professor Melville during the discussions abroad, will also be available at such times as are convenient to ‘honorable members. Only one document wascirculated by me in caucus on this subject, and I have already given a copy of it to the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons). It is a very brief document, and ifother honorable members wish tohavecopiesofit, I shall be glad tomake them available.

Mr.FADDEN (Darling DownsLeader of the Australian Country party) [11.18] . -Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The speech of the Prime Minister closed the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented. firstReading.

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Mr.FADDEN (Darling DownsLeader of the Australian Country party) [11.20].-I take this, the first opportunityavailable to me, to ask the Prime Minister–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! This is not an appropriate timeto ask the Prime Minister anything. The motion for the first reading of the bill cannot be debated.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read afirst time.

Second Reading.

Mr,CHIFLEY.- I ask for leave to move the second reading of the bill forthwith.

Mr Fadden:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Do I understand that the righthonorable member is unwilling that leavebe granted?

Mr Fadden:

– I am prepared to grant leave, but I want to ask the Prime Minister a question.

Mr Chifley:

– The Leader of the Australian Country party has indicated that he is not opposed to the second reading of the bill beingmoved forthwith, but he wishes to make an inquiry.

Mr Holt:

– Give him leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am quite capable of conducting the affairs of the House without advice from the honorable member for Fawkner. What has happened is quite in order. The Leader of the Australian Country party did not rise for the call when the motion for leave was before the House and the Prime Minister replied to the Leader of the Opposition, thus closing the debate. There are two ways in which the Leader of the Australian Country party may make anexplanation. If debate has ensued, and he believes that he has been misrepresented, he maymake a personal explanation. Alternatively, hemayasktheindulgenceoftheHouse to make a statement and, iftheHouse concurs, he may do so.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling DownsLeader of the Australian Country party

-byleave - I intended to ask the Prime Minister to postpone as long as possible the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill for theobvious reason that honorable members on this side of the House havenot had an opportunity to consider this very important matter. I assure the Government that honorable memberson this side are fully aware oftheirresponsibility in this regard. Therefore, we ask that all possible data and information be made available to us, and that ample time be allowed for the studying of this data.

Mr James:

– We have been two years on it now.

Mr.FADDEN.-That isthe justificaition for my request. TheGovernment hasbeenconsidering this matter in season and out of season. It Las been before outside Labour organizations, before caucus and before Cabinet. It is not fair to ask the Opposition to consider such an important measure at short notice.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– by leave - The same facilities will be made available to members of the Australian Country party as to other members of the Opposition. I do not know just what he has in mind when he asks for time to consider the bill, but I will consult with him, and with the Leader of the Opposition, re- garding the time for the resumption of the debate on the motion for the second reading.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As there is now no objection the Prime Minister has leave to move the second reading of the bill forthwith.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill bc now road a second time

The purpose of the bill is to seek approval by the Parliament of Australia becoming a member of the International Monetary Fund and of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. These institutions form part of the general structure for peace, security and welfare in the post-war world in the building of which Australia has taken a most active part, and towards which the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) has made no small contribution. The United Nations is the apex of this structure, but, recognizing that economic welfare is a fundamental basis for peace and security, there has been developed within and around the United Nations special machinery for world economic collaboration. The broad object of this machinery is to promote throughout the world expanded production, employment, trade and higher standards of living all round.

Mr Anthony:

– I rise to order. Some time ago the Prime Minister promised that when statements of this kind were to be made to the House he would circulate copies of them to honorable members. We are extremely interested in this subject, and we would be better enabled to follow the Prime Minister’s remarks if he made copies of his statement available to us.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is not a point of order.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I regret that sufficient copies of my statement have not yet been made, but I shall arrange to supply a copy of it to each honorable member.

Australia has consistently maintained the view that the successful working of international economic organizations, and the expansion of international investment and trade, depend to a very great degree on the achievement and preservation of full employment in the major industrial countries. After a long series of formal and informal discussions at London. Washington, Hot Springs, the Philadelphia Conference of the International Labour organization and at the Bretton Woods Conference, we finally succeeded, at San Francisco in June. 1945, in amending the purposes of the United Nations to include the promotion of “high standards of living, full employment and conditions of economic and social progress and development “. Since then, with the strong support of the United Kingdom Government, we have gained the acceptance of the Preparatory Committee on Trade and Employment to the inclusion of an International Employment Agreement in the proposed Trade Charter.

But employment and trade undertakings can be defeated by exchange manipulations, and it is the special object of the International Monetary Fund to avoid the recurrence of these evils. Competitive exchange depreciation, discriminatory exchange controls and the blocking of currencies were destructive weapons in the economic warfare which raged throughout the thirties and contributed to the outbreak of armed conflict in 1939. Their effect was to deprive international trade of a stable basis, and, by greatly diminishing its volume, to impoverish people in all countries, especially in those which, like Australia, depend largely upon external trade. By providing a permanent institution to promote international monetary co-operation, it is hoped to avoid these evils, to facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade and to contribute thereby to the promotion and maintenance of high levels of employment and real income.

The International Monetary Fund represents an attempt to avoid the errors of the past. It has already been commenced with 44 member governments. The chief nations which have not yet joined are Australia, New Zealand and Russia. The articles of the fund are the result of two years’ intensive study by representatives of over 40 countries. Australia was represented at the several conferences and successfully pressed important amendments. Inevitably, they represent, at certain points, a compromise ; and experience may well prove that some changes are required. The fund is an inter-governmental organization and is wholly controlled by governments. On the board of governors, which determines policy, each member government has one representative, and voting power is allocated according to quotas. At present, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the United Kingdom, Sir Hugh Dalton, is chairman of the board of governors of both the fund and the bank. Day to day management rests with executive directors, of whom there are at present twelve.

Broadly, the fund comprises on the one hand an international pool of gold and currency reserves to meet emergencies, and, on the other hand, a code of rules to regulate exchange relationships between members. Each member joining the fund is assigned a quota which measures two things: First, its obligation to contribute to the pool of gold and local currencies; and, secondly, its right to draw foreign exchange from the fund. Australia’s quota is £A.62,500,000 of which £A.2,000,000 to £A.3,000,000 would be paid in gold, and about £A.60,000,000 would be subscribed either in . its own currency, or by transferring to the fund non-negotiable non-interest bearing securities. Australia’s subscription could only be used for expenditure in Australia by other countries and could only be so used if we had a favorable balance of payments.

Our drawing rights would total about £A.65,000,000. This would constitute an addition of that amount to our inter national exchange reserves, and would be available if our overseas funds should run down, for instance, as the result of drought. It would also assist overseas loan obligations in times of difficulty. Australia would be entitled to draw foreign currencies from the fund at a rate not greater than 25 per cent, of the quota in a twelvemonths period. Under certain conditions, and with the consent of the fund we ‘ could draw on the pool beyond these limits.

Certain obligations are undertaken by member countries under the fund agreement in relation to exchange controls and the par value of their currencies. In general, members may not impose restrictions upon payments or transfers for current international transactions with other members. This however, does not apply to capital movements, and it is subject to what is known as the “ transition period clause “ which, broadly, allows members to retain necessary exchange restrictions for five years after the fund begins operations.

When a country joins the fund, it must agree with the fund its initial par value, i.e., its exchange rate. In all cases to date members have agreed their existing exchange rates, and, in our case, the Government would propose to retain the present exchange rate of £A.125 to £100 sterling. Thereafter, exchange rates may be altered only to correct a fundamental disequilibrium. A member can, however, make one alteration of ten per cent, upwards, or downwards, without the consent of the fund. All other changes must be approved by the fund, but the fund is compelled to approve any change necessary to correct a fundamental disequilibrium.

Finally, there is the important provision that a member may withdraw at any time without penalty. A more detailed exposition of the articles of agreement of the fund is available to honorable members in the review made by the leader of the Australian delegation to the Bretton Woods Conference which is contained in Parliamentary Paper No. 13b of 1944.

The undertakings which a member gives regarding exchange stability and the convertibility of its currency in ‘respect of current transactions are clearly important commitments. There are, however, adequate safeguards to ensure that reasonable exchange stability shall not become excessive exchange rigidity, and that movements in exchange rates required for employment reasons shall be achieved. I have already explained that the fund is compelled to concur in movements in exchange rates required to correct a fundamental disequilibrium. It is further provided that the fund may not object to a proposed change because of the domestic, social or political policies of the member proposing the change.

Like ourselves, the United Kingdom Government is pursuing a full employment policy, and, as a further and final safeguard, the United Kingdom Government sought and obtained from the fund a ruling that “steps necessary to protect a member country from chronic or .persistent unemployment arising from pressure upon its balance of payments are among the measures necessary to correct a fundamental disequilibrium”. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated, this “removes any doubts “which may be lingering in men’s minds regarding the interpretation of the phrase ‘ fundamental disequilibrium ‘ in relation to employment”.

Further, in return for the exchange undertakings given, a member is assured of assistance from the fund in time of need and is freed from, the fear of its external trade being disrupted by fluctuations in the exchange rates of other countries and by the restrictive currency practices which caused so much trouble in the past. External trade is in itself an important determinent of levels of employment, especially for countries like Australia. Our major primary industries and all their related trades and services depend upon the sale of proceeds of our exports, while much other economic activity depends upon the flow of imports. It is a point too often overlooked that a great part of Australia’s secondary industry relies upon imported materials, equipment and some processed goods, and this need will grow as secondary industry expands.

The par value of the currencies of members is to be expressed in terms of gold as a Common demoninator or in terms of the United States dollar. ‘and this has been described as equivalent to the gold standard. But that is not so. The central feature of the gold standard was rigid exchange rates, with currencies so linked to gold that countries were compelled to expand or contract the volume of credit within their territories as gold flowed in or out of ‘their reserves. In contrast the monetary fund envisages controlled! ‘flexibility of exchange rates and also, by providing additional currency reserves for members, seeks to avoid the need for contractions of credit where members are subject temporarily to an adverse balance of .payments.

The purpose of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development is to provide a source of capital funds for the reconstruction of countries devastated by war and for >the development of industrially backward countries. The ban’k lias a share capital to which member countries subscribe according to quota’s, our quota being £A. 62,500,000, the same as for the monetary fund.

Mr Menzies:

– Apparently these quotas have been worked’ out on the basis of the volume of international trade conducted by each country.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– That is one of the main principles upon which they have been determined. Australia would subscribe 2 per cent., or £A.1,250,000, in gold and 18 per cent., or £A,11,250,000, to be called up as required, in Australian currency. This £A.11,250,000 could be used by the bank only with the consent of Australia. The balance of £A,50,000,000 would be a surety fund subject to call only when required to meet our pro rata share of contingent liabilities of the bank. Loans issued or guaranteed by the bank would not be “ tied “, and Australia, as ah exporting country, would benefit from the resulting expenditure. Australia would share with all other countries in any losses incurred by the bank, but they should not be great and would be spread over a long period. It is unlikely that Australia would itself require to borrow from the bank.

The bill seeks provision for certain % payments that will have to be made if Australia becomes a member of the fund. These include our subscriptions to the fund and the bank, of which details have been given, and also certain contingent liabilities. Authority is sought to borrow money necessary to make payments required by reason of membership of the fund and of the bank, and also for the issue of special non-negotiable, noninterest bearing securities. Such securities may be -accepted by the fund or the bank in lieu of a member’s currency to meet a part of its subscriptions or other payments.

A feature of these Bretton Woods organizations which commends them to the Government is that, taken with related bodies in the United Nations scheme, they constitute an attempt for the first time in history to grapple with world economic problems by concerted action on a world scale for the common good. They recognize the vital fact that the complex and ever-changing problems of international trade, finance and economic relations generally can no longer be allowed to drift as they did formerly when individual nations followed separate and often discordant policies. They represent a bid to pull the world situation together, get it under control and set it upon a steady and coherent course. The Government will review Australian membership of the fund and the bank when the final outcome of the present trade discussions is known. The Government’s application for membership will also be on the basis of admission on the same conditions as those applying to an original member. We cannot, of course, now be admitted as an original member but the condition of this proposal is that we be admitted on the same basis as original members.

Mr Francis:

– What will happen to the bill if Australia is not so admitted?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– That would have to be /considered. The Government would not be prepared to accept any new condition as a prerequisite to admittance to the fund and the bank.

Mr Francis:

– The approval of the bill is, I take it, subject to the condition that Australia shall be admitted on the same conditions as apply to original members.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– That is a condition which the Government would make when presenting its application to become a member of the bank and the fund. Everyone can agree with the fundamental objectives of Bretton Woods, I do not say that the fund is perfect as a piece of mechanism. No international agreements, however necessary they may be to promote the peace of the world, can be so regarded. Necessarily the scheme is experimental and capable of improvement, and its success must depend upon intelligent adaptations in the light of experience. But that is a strong reason why we should take part in its activities and contribute to its development. Just as political isolation in the world would be an impracticable policy for Australia, so do I think that economic isolation would be disastrous.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Menzies) adjourned.

page 593

ALIENS BILL 1947

Motion (by Mr. Calwell) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an dct relating .to aliens.

page 593

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr FADDEN:
Leader of the Australian Country party · Darling Downs

– I move -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent Notice of Motion No. 2, General Business, being considered forthwith.

I do so because, upon consideration and study of the orders of the day, honorable members on this side of the House are seised of the greater relative importance of the Government adopting a definite attitude towards the requirements of the starving people of Great Britain. We appreciate the prime importance of doing everything possible to come to the aid of the British people, particularly in view of the extraordinarily adverse climatic conditions which are confronting them to-day. Opportunity was not afforded on private members’ day to debate the notice of motion of the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page). I ask honorable members to consider the relative importance of the various orders of the day that are to be proceeded with, if the Government has its way, in preference to the right honorable gentleman’s notice of motion. The Stevedoring Industry Commission Bill, we are led to believe, is not likely to be proclaimed, even if it should be passed by the Parliament. It certainly will not be implemented, if the history of this Government is any criterion. The notice of motion reads -

That in the opinion of this House the Commonwealth Government should immediately make a gift to .the United Kingdom Government of foodstuffs to the value of £25,000,000 in order to assist in alleviating the undernourishment of the British people and encouraging them in their heroic efforts towards recovery.

This country, an integral part of the British Empire, owes a great deal to the Mother Country, and it behoves this Parliament to give every consideration to all means of alleviating the plight of our kith and kin there.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. J. S. Rosevear).

Order! The right honorable gentleman has read the notice of motion and therefore is acquainted with its terms. Accordingly he ought to be aware that he is trespassing against the Standing Orders by attempting to discuss the merits of the notice of motion until the Standing Orders have been suspended to enable him to do so.

Mr FADDEN:

– That being so, I shall deal with the demerits of the other matters that the House is asked to consider before it discusses the right honorable gentleman’s notice of motion. The Stevedoring Industry Commission Bill, for example, is of a doubtful character if all that we have read about it is correct. Even if it should be passed, it is not likely to be proclaimed, or, if proclaimed, adequately enforced.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The right honorable member knows quite well that he may not at this stage discuss the merits of a hill on the notice-paper. He may not continue in that way. He must discuss the expediency of suspending the Standing Orders.

Mr FADDEN:

Mr WHITE:

– I refer to that onlyin passing. Both matters are of far greater importance than any other matter on the notice-paper. I urge the Prime Minister to re-allot the items in order that both of them may be given their merited priority.

Mr.CHIFLEY (Macquarie- Prime Minister and Treasurer) [11.58]. - The Government cannot accept the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable debate on the notice of motion of the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page). The Government is fully aware of all aspects of the need to help Great Britain, and no further statements on the subject in the House can affect the position. I therefore move -

That the question be now put.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. j. S. Rosevear.)

AYES: 36

NOES: 25

Majority…… 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent Notice of Motion No. 2, General Business, being considered forthwith.

The House divided. (Ms. Speaker - Hon. j. S. Rosevear.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 37

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 596

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 12th March (vide page 576), on motion by Dr. Evatt-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- This bill is bad in principle, .and contains many .bad administrative practices. Ii seeks to perpetuate so much that is repugnant to honorable members that those of us who claim to speak for a free democracy should not tolerate it. The House should reject it. Although a long debate has taken place on this bill, many important phases of it have not yet been fully covered, and without going over the same ground again, I shall endeavour to emphasize some of the principles which are obnoxious to a freedom-loving people and which this House t should resist. The way in which the Government has dealt with some of these issues is most significant. The Government gives Hp service to the cause of freedom. In this instance, the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt), who is in charge of the bill, has talked at length in other parts of the world about the need for an International, Charter of Rights. He has also spoken of the desirability of including in the Australian Constitution certain safeguards of the liberties of the subject. In order to estimate just how much weight we can put upon those utterances, I propose to SUPmit them to the test of their practical application to a bill of this description.

Let me cite one illustration, namely, the treatment by the Government of the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union. On the waterfront to-day, there are two unions-the Waterside Workers Federation, and the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union. The last-named organization was formed at the time of the waterfront strike in 1917. The union caine into being then as a body of volunteers who responded to .the request which the government of the day made to people to come forward in that time of national emergency and get the ships moving. Men did so; and their organization” has since .been describes! by many unionists and by some honorable members in this chamber as a “ scab “ union. That in itself is an interesting indication of the muddled thinking and distortion pf values that has taken place hi Australia. These men came forward, not in a dispute between employers and employees - they were not strike breakers in that sense - but at the request of the freely-elected government of the day which had declared: “In a period of crisis, we must keep the ships moving”. “In that way, the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union was formed. It became registered with the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and has been in existence for approximately 30 years. Its numbers were augmented during the waterfront strike pf 1928. A general hold-up occurred on the waterfront, and. again, the government of the day, in order to keep the ships moving, called for volunteers. “Men came -forward, and joined the Permanent and Casual Wharf

Labourers Union. This organization bas been lawfully constituted, and has conducted itself in a proper manner. In the ports where its membership has been strong, it has a fine record of labour, and continuity of work. Because of this, the Waterside Workers Federation set out to smash the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union. What is significant in that regard is not so much that one rival union seeks to smash another - that is perhaps human and probably inevitable - but that the numericallystronger union has been able to apply pressure on the Government to take up its cause, and, by a gross abuse of political power, condemn to death the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union. For what reason? For no good cause thai can be directed against the organization itself! It cannot be shown that the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union has misconducted itself, or has no right to exist as in a i rae community bodies of men should have the right to exist. This union is to be condemned to death by slow strangulation because the Government has succumbed to the pressure which the Waterside Workers Federation, controlled by Mr. Healy, has applied to it.

This is not the first time that .this particular issue has been discussed in the House. A few years ago, I moved, on behalf of the Opposition, for the disallowance of a regulation made under the National Security Act. The effect of that :regulation, among other ‘things - and this is the particularly obnoxious provision to which my protest was directed - w,as that .from that time forward, the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union should not be permitted to recruit members. The Government stepped in, and said: “There shall be no more recruitment to that organization “. At the time, I pointed out in the House that in the port of Melbourne - I could not give the figures for other ports - the Waterside Workers Federation had about 1,100 members and the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union about 700 members. .By directing that the organization should not recruit new members, the Government said in effect: “ We are sentencing to death this union, -which is regarded :by many unionists and by some honorable members in this House as a ‘ scab ‘ organization “. In the course of that debate, certain assurances were given, and I propose to recall them. Honorable members will be interested to hear them in the light of what has happened since. The Opposition was concerned about the future of the members of the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union. Honorable members of this side of the chamber, considered that the Government’s proposal was monstrous. The waterside industry is not the only section of industry in which rival unions represent much the same class of occupation. In the metal trades group, there are two big unions, namely, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and the Australasian Society of Engineers. For railway employees, different groups represent men who do much the same kind of work. Therefore, there was nothing peculiar about this particular set-up on the waterfront. What was peculiar was that the pressure which the Waterside Workers Federation was able to apply to the Government succeeded in bringing about the death of its ;competitor.

During the debate, we pressed for assurances that the members of the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union would be -able to get continuity of work on the waterfront. I refer honorable members to Hansard of the 26th March, 1942, at page 500. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) was addressing the House when the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) interjected. The ‘Hansard, report reads -

Mr Hughes:

– I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service whether -these men .can join the Waterside Workers Federation, but he did not reply to me.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Of course they can.

Mr Hughes:

– ls the honorable member sure of that?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Definitely. - The right honorable -member knows more than I do about this problem.

Honorable members will agree with that. The passage continued -

He knows that whenever a conflict in an industry ‘results in the formation of a second organization of employees, the legitimate organization gradually absorbs members of the other body. I submit that there could bo no better time than the present to deal with this problem on the waterfront because sufficient men are not available for the work now offering.

The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) then asked -

Will the Minister give a guarantee that the Waterside Workers Federation will accept members of the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union?

The Minister replied -

I am not an officer of the federation; but I have been closely associated with its activities for the last twenty years. 1 have the confidence of the federation and I know the men who control it. I am mindful of what has happened before when the federation has been confronted with a problem similar to that with -which we aTe dealing to-night. Inevitably the members of the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union will become members of the federation.

Events have shown how false that prediction or assurance was, because only recently the Waterside Workers Federation, in conference, rejected a proposal for absorbing the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union. The last-named organization did not seek absorption earlier, but later found difficulty in continuing because it could not recruit members. Having been brought to this desperate situation, it is now, no doubt, prepared to be absorbed by the federation. But will the federation admit it on the footing suggested by the Minister for Labour and National Service. Not on your life! And this Government, far from backing up the promise made by its Minister in 1942, has sentenced to death by slow strangulation a union which during two separate crises came forward to help the nation, not at the- request of the employers, but at the request of the democratically elected government of the day. Now it is to be victimized. If the bill did nothing more than that, it should be condemned out of hand, but it does much more. It provides that, henceforth, the only persons who can obtain employment on the waterfront are members of the Waterside Workers Federation. Thus, although the Government has no power under the Constitution to compel a man to join a union, it can achieve the same end in this oblique way. It can say that it will deal only with the federation and its members. Therefore, if a man wishes to be employed on the waterfront in the stevedoring industry, he must first become a member of the Waterside Workers Federation. Honorable members on this side of the House have made their attitude clear on this point. We believe in unionism. We believe that a man who follows a trade should give his support, by becoming an active member, to the organization which has established his rights for him, but we will not compel a man, contrary to his scruples or belief, to join a union. To-day, the unions are very much more than bodies set up merely to safeguard the industrial welfare of members. They are active political organizations, and many members of unions are forced, by virtue of the contributions they have made, to support a political policy which, in their hearts, they would wish to oppose. For that reason, this aspect of the bill calls for condemnation.

There are other aspects of the bill which also call for close scrutiny. For instance, it is proposed to create a monopoly in this kind of work. It is unusual for a government to limit the number of persons who may be engaged in any particular industry. In this instance, the Government is enforcing such a limitation by law, and is creating a close preserve for a union and the members of that union. There are dangers inherent in such a policy. I appreciate the problem with which the Government is confronted. I know that if we are to keepa pool of labour on the waterfront under conditions in which the workers cannot be guaranteed continuous employment, there will always be trouble. For that reason, any scheme designed to give each man a reasonable amount of work throughout the year is deserving of consideration. However, there are obviously practical difficulties and natural factorswhich cannot be guarded against. During a spell of bad weather, ships may be held up outside a port. The longer thebad weather lasts the greater the accumulation of shipping, and then, when the weather improves, the vessels all comeinto port at once. While the ships aredelayed outside, there is probably very little work offering, but when they come- in much labour will be required to handle- the cargo expeditiously. It would be difficult for any government instrumentality to provide against a situation of that kind. There is also the practical difficulty that many of those who work on the waterfront do not want work continuously. They prefer to work through three days and nights and to earn as much in that period as an ordinary worker would earn in a week, and then they like to have a few days to themselves. That is natural with men of a certain temperament, and I predict that the Government will find, when it tries to introduce a system of regular employment, that it will be faced with that human problem. Some men will resist a scheme requiring them to present themselves regularly for work.

The Government proposal for solving the problem is to create a monopoly, hut where does that take us? I have said that the creation of a monopoly establishes a vested right. There are, of course, comparable situations. Quite obviously, there must be a limit to the number of employees working locomotives in a railway system. There must be a limit to the number of persons employed in a police force and in a fire brigade, and this limitation is usually enforced by government restrictions. However, if we examine these occupations it will be found that considerable obligations are imposed upon the persons employed. It would be impossible to run a fire brigade efficiently if half the employees did not turn up when called, and the same applies to a railway system. A considerable measure of discipline is imposed, and men are required to present themselves for work when called upon. Those who do not perform their duty regularly, and in a proper manner, are dismissed, and places are found for somebody else. Therefore, if men are to be given a monopoly of work on the waterfront, they must be prepared to submit to a high measure of discipline, and to present themselves for work when required. I may be told that the bill makes provision for this. I do not care what the bill says, but I know what has been the practice in the port of Sydney in recent years under a system which, for all intents and purposes, is practically the same as that for which the bill provides.

I have here some figures which I elicited in answer to a series of questions which I asked of the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley). I asked how many members of the Waterside Workers Federation were registered in Sydney by the Stevedoring Industry Commission, and I was told that the number was 5,424. I asked whether there had been any shortage of waterside workers on any day, and if so. on how many days did this occur from 1st October last. I had no particular reason for mentioning that date, except that the House was sitting at the time, and I wanted the figures to be as up-to-date as possible. I was told that between the 1st October and the 20th November there were shortages on 42 days. When I asked what was the average daily shortage, I was told that, between the 1st October and the 20th November, the average daily shortage was 2,044, but this figure included the period from the 14th October to the 24th, inclusive, when the port of Sydney was idle due to members of the federation not offering themselves for work. It is clear that a big proportion of those who are registered and enjoy this monopoly right do not present themselves when required, and also that on 42 days of the period mentioned the shortage of labour on the waterfront averaged about 2,000 men. If the scheme covered by this bill is to be a success there must be a rigid enforcement of the obligation on the men to present themselves when required for work.

But there is an even more serious aspect^ namely, the power which this legislation will give to the unions. If only those men who are members of the Waterside Workers Federation can be employed on the waterfront, obviously the federation will be able to exercise tremendous power over its members, because expulsion from the federation would deprive a man of his livelihood. A situation could arise in which a union could exercise tyrranous control of its members. I do not need to enlarge on that possibility; honorable members have enough knowledge of trade unionism and its methods to realize what a tremendously powerful weapon this bill will place in the hands of a union secretary who may have enemies in his union - men who have opposed him and his policies. What guarantee is there that unionists will, in future, he free to express their views frankly and courageously in opposition to recommendations submitted by the executive of the union? In no country which claims to follow the principles of freedom and democracy should such power be vested in an uncontrolled union executive. If men may be expelled from a. union, and thus he deprived of their livelihood, their expulsion should be possible only with the authority and approval of the Government through its own. administrative instrumentality. There is no provision in the bill which guarantees members of the union against a tyrannous exercise of authority.

The next aspect of this bill which I propose to mention has already been dealt with by other speakers. I should not have referred to it had not the Minister who introduced the bill shown clearly how ineffective Opposition protests had been. Therefore, we on this side must continue to emphasize our views because we believe that they are sound and, indeed, represent the only proper policy for this country to adopt; I refer to the preservation of the arbitration system. In our opinion, this measure is another link in the chain of Communist policy in this country. This bill is a direct attack on the arbitration system. The honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan), than whom few members have more experience of industrial matters, drew attention to this fact. He wanted to know why it is thought necessary to appoint other tribunals to regulate industry when we have an Arbitration Court to deal with industrial issues. That criticism has not yet been answered effectively by any spokesman on behalf of the Government. This bill is a continuation of the policy of “ divide and smash “ advocated by Communists in their determination to destroy our arbitration system. Having pressed for a similar control of the coal-mining industry they are now carrying their policy to a further stage. This approach to industrial disputes ignores a fundamental aspect of our arbitration system, namely, consideration of the public interest. It is not right to say that there are only two parties to an industrial dispute. Most people consider only the claims of employers and their employees, and forget that the general public is deeply concerned in every industrial dispute. The real strength of the case for the arbitration system is that it is the only system which preserves the public interest.

We are told that the conciliation aspect of a dispute is to be emphasized in the future. We agree that there must be conciliation. What is the usual practice when a dispute arises, or threatens, in an industry? The parties meet together in conference and discuss what concessions can be made by each side. Generally, some adjustments are made, and thus the field of dispute is narrowed to those matters on which the parties cannot agree. When that stage has been reached there must be arbitration. I have not known the arbitration system to fail when a union has had a genuine desire to improve conditions for its members and to ensure continuity of employment for them. If the representatives of a union attend a conference in good faith, setting out clearly what conditions of their employment should be improved and what alterations should be made, the arbitration system will succeed. But if the men attending a conference say, “ To hell with the arbitration system; we are out to smash it “, all the courts of conciliation and all the conciliation commissioners in the world will not preserve industrial peace. That is the issue which confronts the Government to-day. And so I come back to the point that the interest of the public is important notwithstanding that it is frequently overlooked.

It is not sufficient for employer* and employees to agree as to what should be done. One could- imagine employers in the coal-mining industry, for instance, acceding to the demand of the miners for improved pay and conditions of work, and saying that the extra cost of, say, 8s. a ton would be met by increasing the selling price of coal by 10s. a ton. That may be the result of conciliation between’ two parties; but if the process of conciliation be left there - and that is what the Government proposes in this bill - the public interest, suffers. In such circumstances all that happens is that two groups meet and agree to pass the burden on to the public. We must have an authority which is able to say that an agreement entered into by employers and employees shall not be sanctioned because it is not fair to the public.

As I have said there must be conciliation, but if the system is to work satisfactorily, the interests of the general public must also be safeguarded. Let us examine the tribunal which the Government proposes to set up. It is the Stevedoring Industry Commission. It is outside the Arbitration Court; yet it is expected, in some respects, to function like the Arbitration Court. Well, it will not function like the court. The existing commission has not functioned like a court, and, quite obviously, it would not be able to do so. The commission sits in rather an informal atmosphere. On the one hand, are the representatives of the employers, and on the other the representatives of the employees, whilst there is also a representative of the Government and a chairman, who has a final say in all decisions.

Judge Foster, who examined this problem, recommended that should the tribunal be continued it should be presided over by a judge of the Arbitration Court. He did not say a conciliation commissioner. It is significant that the bill itself mentions both, a judge and a conciliation commissioner as the person who could preside over this body. That provision becomes still more significant following the remarks of the AttorneyGeneral when he introduced the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill last evening; because if the arguments he advanced in favour of increasing the number of conciliation commissioners, under that measure have any validity in. relation to the arbitration fieldas a whole, they apply with equal force to a tribunal such as this. From what the Attorney-General said the conclusion was sticking out a mile that although this bill mentions a judge, if the Government believes conciliation commissioners are adequate to find a solution of the general, problem then a conciliation commissioner will be> appointed to do the. job in thisinstance.

We can picture a conciliation, commissioner sitting in conference, with the representatives of both sides.. The commission. ,can work smoothly where there is scope for the parties to get together; but when the parties become deadlocked as, inevitably, they must when grave issues arise,, then the final decision is thrown back upon the man in the chair. What is the ordinary experience under such conditions? In such a situation who is likely to exercise the greater authority - the man who has been sitting around the table with the parties in an informal atmosphere, perhaps, lunching, smoking, or even, occasionally, having a few drink. with them - or the man who has been able to sit above the storm remote from the issues? When the latter, after hearing the arguments presented for both sides gives- a decision, naturally it will appeal to the parties as fair, honest and without bias. Of course, the latter is preferable when a deadlock arises between the parties and some one must give an independent decision on matters in dispute. That view is borne out by the experience of the existing tribunal. It was set up to bring peace to the industry, to give better conditions to the waterside workers, and to produce greater efficiency in war-time in the handling of our shipping.

What has been the result? So far as peace in industry is concerned, the record on the waterfront has been blacker since the commission was appointed than ever before. Certainly, the commission has gained better conditions for the men in terms of wages; indeed,, to-day those conditions are out of line with rates of pay given to men who have gone through six years’ apprenticeship in skilled trades. As> the result, the commission has created a focus of friction which has already led to the metal trades dispute hi Victoria, or, at least, contributed to that dispute. The men involved, in the metal, trades dispute see that waterside workers,, possessing nothing like their own skill, are- receiving very much higher rates of pay for fewer hours of: work. The workers, in other industries are envious of the waterside workers, and ask themselves, why they cannot be treated on an. equal footing.

– I share it with the honorable member. A man wanting to get on wantsthe opportunity to make money. Therefore, I cannot accept the great outcry about overtime. If a man is completely exhausted at the end of six or seven hours of work on the waterfront :. there is nothing to prevent him from knocking off.; but. if there are other men who want to. earn extra money, the law and conduct of the union, should- be such that they will, be allowed to earn it. 1 concede that the incentive is not great” because the wharf labourers’ political leader, the right honorable member for’ Macquarie (Mr. Chifley), in his capacity” as’ Treasurer, will no doubt ensure’ thai they shall contribute additional taxesin” due course. But’ this matter of overtime is: important. I .think if is” a longtime since so much cargo was held upon the wharfs of Australia as to-day. There was’ never a time in” my lifetime; and I doubt if there” Was’ ever a” timein* the lifetime’ of any honorable ge’ntle’man opposite, when the’ cargoes” that-

Australia has to export were so badly needed in the markets overseas. Those cargoes are not wanted so much for commerce as on purely humane grounds, but this is the time when the great union leaders in the stevedoring industry decide that, humanitarianism or not, the greatest hold up shall take place. Their conduct is shameful, and it cannot be defended by any honorable gentleman opposite, and the fact that it cannot be defended is proved by the Government’s act in introducing this bill under which it hopes to dispense with some of the difficulties that face it. Consider two things - the time wasted in turning ships round and the reduced tonnage handled per gang per hour on the wharfs. There can be only one result of those two things. The man exporting from: Australia will be penalized and the man using goods imported to Australia for production or consumption will also be penalized. Prices must rise as the result of the behaviour of the waterside workers. In this House I endeavour to represent the interests of every section of the community, and I cannot remain oblivious to the welfare of the big exporting industries and the vast consuming public, the members of which are the victims of this industrial war which is being carried on by the waterside workers against the rest of society. Obviously, if the principles embodied in this measure were applied to all industries, production would decrease and the standard of living would fall. Government supporters may talk as much as they like about the division of labour, but they cannot alter the fact that an essential factor in a high standard of living is a high output per man per hour in industry. Without high production we cannot have a high standard of living.

Many features of the bill can best be debated in the committee stages, when I shall move to amend clause 5 and clause 10 by adding a new sub-clause in each instance in the following terms: -

known or reputed Communist shall be ineligible for appointment under this section; proof whereof to the contrary shall lie upon him.

These clauses provide for the appointment of the commission and of the staff which it will employ. I have deliberately framed the amendment so as to put the

Australian Labour party and the Chifley Government right “ on the spot “. There has been a lot of talk about the Labour party’s hostility towards communism. I do not accept the truth of those statements. Honorable members opposite were merely shadow-sparring when they made them. If the Government is sincere in its professions, it will accept the amendments, and if it does so, I shall adopt a very different attitude towards the bill at the third reading stage.

Mr James:

– If we accept the amendment we will be non-democrats like honorable members opposite.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Communists are not democrats, and I do not believe that the honorable member for Hunter is a democrat.

Mr James:

– The honorable member does not believe in men having the right to work.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I am glad that the honorable member raised the point. I have just been arguing in favour of that right. The substance of my speech is that any man who is prepared to work according to the law of the country, which is expressed in the awards of the Arbitration Court, should not be prevented from doing so by any tin-pot union dictator. Can the honorable member understand that? If the Government would knock the chains of union control from many trade unionists, they would be the most willing workers in Australia. They are prevented from working to-day, not because they do not want to work, but merely to suit the wishes of their union masters. We should not overlook clause 13 of the bill, which deals with amenities. This word “ amenities “ has recently become a feature of debates in this House. Previously, the most commonly used term in this chamber was “ the new order The position has changed, and now “ amenities “ is dragged in whenever possible. Obviously the AttorneyGeneral does not understand very much about amenities, because clause 13 requires the provision of canteens, cafeteria, dining-rooms, rest-rooms, and adequate sanitary and washing facilities for waterside workers. According to the honorable member for Hunter, the clause should be amended so as to include hairdressers, manicurists, chiropodists, Turkish baths, beauty parlours, Geisha houses, and invalid chairs. That would remove from clause 13 any taint of superstition, about misfortune. It would provide for everything that a reasonable waterside worker could wish to have, in this life at any rate. If the amendment which I have foreshadowed is accepted by the Government, the bill will be considerably improved and may be workable. At least it will be understandable. As it stands at present, it will take the stevedoring industry holus bolus out of the influence of the Arbitration Court and set it apart as the coal-mining industry has already been set apart. Other industries in Australia have equally strong claims to separate treatment. Consider the railway workers, postal workers and the seamen. What about their claims? Why should not they he removed from the influence of the Arbitration Court? If the Attorney-General continues along the course which he seems to have mapped out for the coal industry and the stevedoring industry, the Arbitration Court will have to go by the board and we shall have to resort to collective bargaining, or the making of decisions by tribunals of five, two of whom, will represent the employers, two of whom will represent the employees, and one of whom will perhaps be a spineless person nominated by the Government and instructed to carry out government policy. The Government says that it is dissatisfied with the general output of industry in Australia, but I have grave doubts as to whether it is facing up to the realities of the situation. It should take a firm stand, call in the heads of certain unions, and say to them, “Look here, comrades or chaps “, or whatever term the Government uses in talking to these men, “these strikes have gone far enough. From now on there must be full production, and men who will not produce will be dealt with severely “. The Attorney-General should have full power to punish men who will not work, and he should exercise it without mercy.

Mr DALY:
Martin

.- Before commenting on the merits of the bill, I have something to say regarding the observations of the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) and some of his colleagues. According to them, the most fearsome figure in the community is the Communist. The honorable member for Barker said nothing new when he told us what he would do with the Com.munists. We .know his capacity for taking fascist action against people with whom he disagrees. His attitude is no different from that of the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale), who last night was so upset about conditions in the stevedoring industry that he almost frightened everybody in the House with his dreadful tales about the Communist party. It was difficult to tell whether he thought he was addressing a jury or lecturing a group of sixth grade school children. I inform members of the Opposition that they will not defeat Communists by “red-baiting”. Imposing a ban on the Communist party will not eradicate industrial unrest. The only way in which to beat the Communists is to ensure that the Australian workers realize that members of the Communist party are the arch enemies of industrial progress and the Labour movement. They represent people who oppose an improvement of their conditions. Only by a more thorough understanding by the men and women employed in industry and by impressing upon them the necessity to attend the meetings of their unions for the purpose of ensuring that Communist agitators shall not be elected to executive positions shall we remove them, without creating further industrial unrest, from the offices that they occupy. The imposition of a ban on the Communist party, as the honorable member for Barker recommended, would have small beneficial results. I hold no brief for members of the Communist party, and I name them for what they are - the arch enemies of the Labour movement, who are doing everything possible to defeat its purposes. It is futile for the Opposition to attempt to link members of the Labour party with the Communist “arty, because there is no connexion between them.

The honorable member for Barker stated that the Sydney branch of the Waterside Workers Federation has Communist officials. In the House to-day is

Mr. J. B. Mullins, general secretary of the Sydney branch of the organization. He is a member of the Legislative Council of New South “Wales, and a member of the official Labour party. He has never had any affiliation with the Communist party. It is idle for honorable members opposite to make these wild accusations which they cannot substantiate.

Mr Rankin:

– Is Mr. Healy a member of the Communist party ?

Mr DALY:

– I do not hold a brief for Mr. Healy. He has been elected by the rank ‘and file of the union, and cannot be democratically dismissed overnight without creating widespread discontent in the union. Interference with the right of every individual to -vote for the person who, he considers, should be an officer of the union would have serious repercussions.

The honorable member for Barker viciously attacked the attitude of the “Waterside “Workers Federation towards the employment of members of the armed forces during World War II. I desire to clarify that point for the benefit of the people of Australia in general and honorable members opposite in particular. The reason why service personnel were introduced on the wharfs in war-time was that a dispute occurred over what was known as the “ gang system “. This new method of supplying labour was opposed not only by the waterside workers, but also by the employers. Evidence can be adduced to show that a number- of employers encouraged waterside labourers in Sydney to go on strike against the introduction of this system. The federation, which supported its introduction, instructed the Sydney branch to .accept it. After a fortnight’s .stoppage, a majority of the members of the organization agreed to do so. .The use of labour supplied by service personnel on the wharfs was agreed to by the Waterside Workers Federation in order to ensure that war materials should not be -delayed by this unauthorized .stoppage. This agreement, which -was reached in April, 1942, following a conference between .representatives of the Department of the .Army .and representatives of the .Stevedoring “indus try Commission, provided that the shipping companies “ which employed the service personnel, should pay for each man at the rate prescribed by the award.

Mr Holt:

– Did the honorable member obtain that information from the commission ?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) is entitled to be heard in silence.

Mr Holt:

– I rise to order. The Standing Orders provide that if an honorable member reads from a document, the House is entitled to know its origin, and whether he vouches for the accuracy of the information it contains. I ask the honorable member to inform the House where the document from which he is reading was obtained..

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That is not a point of order.

Mr DALY:

– This information is taken from my typewritten notes. The document is confidential. The agreement, of which the Waterside Workers Federation approved, was observed during World War II. At .various times, the federation made strong recommendations, through its general secretary, to the Commonwealth Government that the money collected for the shipping companies for this work should either be paid to the servicemen actually working on the wharfs or be distributed among all the members of the unit from which the ‘labour -was obtained. The Department of the Army continually rejected these representations on the ground that when soldiers’ food, clothing, allotment, medical attendance and other benefits, were -taken into consideration, the department did not make any profit out of the employment of service personnel on the wharfs. Subsequently, the department agreed to pay -an additional ls. or 2s. a day to servicemen in -dock operating companies who worked as winchmen, -hatchmen and holders. Therefore, in these matters, the ‘Waterside ‘Workers Federation -at -all times had the well-being of service personnel in min.d, and unlike what .-members of <the Opposition would h.av.e .us .believe, .gave practical .assistance.

My scholarly friend, the honorable member for Parramatta last night declared that a number of clauses in a bill which Mr. Healy had prepared had been incorporated in the bill now before the House. He stated that the bill now under consideration was virtually drafted by Mr. Healy, whom he described as a Communist member of the Waterside Workers Federation. The honorable member read certain clauses for the purpose of proving his statement that the Government had taken its instructions from Mr. Healy. I shall state the facts. Mr. Healy took the clauses to which the honorable member referred, from the National Security Regulations under which the Stevedoring Industry Commission was established. He adopted those provisions because he agreed with them.

Mr Beale:

– He inspired them.

Mr DALY:

– The honorable member will not escape so easily. His remarks will not bear a factual investigation.

Mr Harrison:

– As usual the honorable member is holding up the business of the House by making interjections, knowing little of the subject under discussion. Judge Foster stated -

These special considerations may be regarded as justifying (if any justification be necessary) a special treatment of this industry and its singling out for the exercise of that legislative power that is absent in regard to most industries. It has always been clear that the main work of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration ig legislative in character (see Alexander’s case 25 C.L.E.. page 434) and that legislative power was exercised not by the elected Parliament but by officers (presidents and judges) appointed by the executive and almost beyond reach of the legislature. In respect of this industry, however, a very large section of it is capable of being dealt with, if it is so proposed, by the people’s representatives in the Commonwealth Parliament.

That comment would not have been made by Judge Foster had he not considered it to be desirable that his recommendations should be adopted. This industry has suffered more than most industries have suffered. In 1928, Judge Beeby, when making an award covering members of the Waterside Workers Federation, said -

The true line of progress of wharf workers is in the opposite direction to that of the moment. With those of all other casual workers their difficulties are entitled to much closer consideration by the community than has so far been accorded. As this Court has frequently pointed out, the need for community effort towards better organization of casual labour, year by year, becomes more urgent. The status of the citizen with no semblance of security in social life, hawking his labour for sale by the hour, is one of the greatest dangers of the present economic system. It is easy to sit back and criticize the actions of men who gain their livelihood under such conditions. Their actions, to ordinary individuals not concerned with economic problems, may appear to be arrogant, selfish and unreasoned, when in reality they are the natural result of the indifference and neglect of society.

It will be seen that twenty years ago a judge of the Arbitration Court considered that a special tribunal should be set up to deal with matters associated with this industry. In the light of the recommendations of Judge Foster, the reasons for introducing this bill are obvious to any person who considers the matter fairly and has regard for the best interests of both employers and employees.

As during this debate it has ‘been said by honorable members opposite that the Stevedoring Industry Commission ha3 failed, I direct attention to the following comment made by Judge Foster on page 15 of his report : -

My investigation does convince me that the commission achieved a substantial measure of discipline; that it won and had a measure of co-operation to this end from the workers’ organization, greater than had been achieved in this industry before; that it achieved its main war-time purpose; that its actions and policies were dictated by the paramount considerations of war, and that the alleged disciplinary failure was conditioned by those special war considerations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Martin is entitled to be heard in silence.

Mr DALY:

– Honorable members opposite will be interested to hear what a man who is probably one of their supporters has said about the Stevedoring Industry Commission. I refer to Sir Thomas Gordon, who was, until recently, Director of Shipping and representative in Australia of the British Ministry of Transport. He gives the lie direct to the Opposition’s statement that industrial stoppages interfered unduly with shipping during the period that the commision was operating. In a letter addressed to Mr. Healy, the secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, Sir Thomas Gordon said -

You may have seen from press reports that as from 1st February my assignment as personal representative of the British Ministry of Transport ceased, but I take this opportunity of officially informing you of same as I would like to place on record the friendly relationship which existed during the years of the war between your organization and the British Ministry of War Transport (later changed to Ministry of Transport).

We know that on many occasions there were differences of opinion as between you, representing your members, and myself as representing the Ministry and charged with the responsibility of keeping British tonnage moving, but I feel that overall the relationship between our organizations was on a generally harmonious plane, and I think results show that despite difficulties, essential cargoes were moved where required and when required, and that at least as regards these essential cargoes required by the Allied Forces in the Australian area and other areas, industrial disputes with your members was not a factor that materially interfered with their delivery on time.

Mr Rankin:

– I rise to order. In view of the ruling of Mr. Speaker that we are not allowed to introduce propaganda statements from the press, is the honorable member for Martin in order in reading this propaganda statement ?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order involved.

Mr DALY:

– The communication continues -

I take pleasure in recording the above because I appreciate many of the difficulties you personally must come up against, representing as you do such a large body of men spread right throughout Australia and with perhaps varying viewpoints as to the essentiality of some of the commitments they were asked to undertake, and I repeat that the best evidence of the working between your organization and the British Ministry of Transport is the quantity of cargo that was moved to its destination as required by the Allied Commanders in the various theatres of action.

That is a striking tribute to the Stevedoring Industry Commission, and is a telling argument in favour of its continuation. I come now to the matter of time lost through stoppages and hold-ups, and I take my figures from the current maritime services report. An examination of the records available for the last six months of 1946 shows that the present number of man-hours lost because of disputes and strikes in all ports of the Commonwealth was approximately 850,000, the worst month being October, with 416,324 man-hours lost, and the lowest being for August, when only 16,312 manhours were lost. The approximate number of man-hours worked in all ports of the Commonwealth during that period was 15,000,000 so that, in the period of six months, approximately 5 per cent, only of the available working time was lost.

Honorable members opposite have complained of the hold-ups on the Australian waterfront, but the figures which I have cited on this and other matters, taken from the current Maritime Services Report, compare favorably with the records for Great Britain and New Zealand. Although there have been stoppages which I do not condone, they are no different from those which are taking place all over the world, including Great Britain, and the honorable member for Parramatta exhibited a colossal lack of knowledge of what has been happening in that country. He did not even know that, during the war, there were industrial stoppages in Britain for certain reasons, although the enemy were much closer to Britain than they ever were to Australia. I do not justify strikes in any country, but it is wrong to mislead the people of Australia and of the world generally into the belief that this is the only country in which there are strikes. The fact is that, for causes arising out of the war, industrial conditions are disturbed everywhere, and it is probable that they will not become settled again for a considerable time. The Government has an unanswerable case in support of this bill. It has been endorsed by the judge who investigated the industry, by the employees, and by all those with a reasonable knowledge of what takes place on the waterfront. It is on record that, as far back as the period between 1924 and 1928, more than £1,000,000 was lost because of delays in the turn-round of ships as the result of industrial disturbances. That was in what an honorable member opposite called the “ good old days, “ when all a man had .to worry about was getting a job. We know, of course, that conditions were such as to make it impossible for men to give of their best. We must look at this problem fairly. It is not a matter of the employers against employees. The bill represents an honest attempt by the Government to bring harmony to the stevedoring industry, to promote efficiency and to ensure that the workers enjoy better conditions. It is an attempt to ‘bring about such a state of affairs as will enable Australia to progress industrially, and this is possible only if cargoes are expeditiously handled, and ships assured of a quick turn-round. I trust that the employers and employees will play their part, and accept the decisions of the tribunal, whether in their favour or against them. Even if this attempt fails, it will not be the fault of the Government, but will be due to the lack of co-operation of others, and because of the activities of honorable members opposite who are endeavouring, for political reasons, to prevent the commission from functioning.

Mr HOWSE:
Calare

.- It may appear at first sight that there is little connexion between the primary producer and the disputes, stoppages and hold-ups on the waterfront, but actually the connexion is close and real. Primary producers, who live hundreds of miles away from the seaboard, need stability. They are at the mercy of the ‘elements. They cannot predict a good season or a bad one - except that, for the last ten years, it would have at any time been fairly safe to predict a bad season. As an offset to this they need, more than anything else, security and stability in the world’s markets, but no market can be secure unless there is continuity of supply, which, in turn, is dependent upon trouble-free transport. That is why the primary producers, even those who live great distances from our sea ports, are vitally interested in the way the business of those ports is conducted.

Let us examine what the continual stoppages on the waterfront mean to our primary producers. I believe that the people in the country are extremely patriotic. By this I do not mean that they are merely jealous of their own interests as against those of the city. They h.ive a patriotic attachment to the British Commonwealth of Nations and to Great Britain. Thousands of them who have never been to Britain have responded to the appeal for food foi” Britain, and have given all they can. They resent keenly the fact that Great Britain is not getting the food it needs because transport is held up by industrial disputes. The primary producers are also affected because overseas markets, which should be ours, are being lost to us through transport hold-ups, and it will be extremely difficult for us to regain those markets from our competitors. For instance, we know that the exasperated Dutch Government was forced to cancel a £6,000,000 contract for the purchase of goods in Australia, represented largely by primary products, because we could not maintain continuity of supply to the

Netherlands East Indies. We have lost the goodwill of the Dutch Government as well as a very valuable market. Moreover, when this bill becomes law, the cost of working cargo at Australian ports will be increased, and this will be reflected in higher freight charges to exporters, the bulk of whom are primary producers.

The real cause of all the trouble is that industrial orders have not been observed. Mr. Healy and his friends have taken charge of the situation, and the Government, instead of governing, has sat back and allowed things to drift. We remember that the Stevedoring Industry Commission ordered waterside workers to handle double-dumped bales of -wool. I am not going into the merits of the dispute, but, rightly or wrongly - I believe rightly - the commission gave a certain ruling, but that ruling was simply disregarded. What hope is there of industrial order unless the law is enforced?

We claim that our arbitration system is the best in the world. I do not think that any one disputes that. It has its faults, but we have felt justified in holding it up as an example to the world, and now this authority, of which we have been so proud, is being pushed aside. Indeed, for some time past, its decisions have been contemptuously disregarded, The real solution of the problem lies in supporting and enforcing the decisions of the Arbitration Court, not in trying to undermine it, and destroy it piecemeal.

Mr Beale:

– I desire to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly), in the speech which he recently concluded, stated in bold terms that I had said last night that clause 3 of this bill was identical with clause 22 of Mr. Healy’s bill, which I was then discussing and comparing with this bill. I did not say that. What I actually said was this -

Let us consider clause 22 of Mr. Healy’s bill, which provides that the commission shall have power to do so and so, and then are set out in detail the powers which Mr. Healy thinks the commission should possess. These, which appear in Mr. Healy’s hill in paragraphs a, 6, c, d and e, appear in identical terms in clause 3 of the present bill. Indeed, the gentleman who drafted the bill now before us was apparently so mesmerized by Mr. Healy that he simply lifted the provisions from Mr. Healy’s bill verbatim, and included them in the present measure without altering a word.

The point I make is that I did not say that the two hills are identical, but that paragraphs a, b, c, d and e of sub-clause 2 of clause 3 of the bill are to be found in identical terms in Mr. Healy’s draft.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- it is now three weeks since this bill was introduced, and the debate having proceeded in the meantime little is left to be said by honorable members who wish to speak at this stage. However, I should like to make some observations. First, no one can overstress the importance of this industry to the welfare of Australia. It has been made quite clear by authorities which have investigated it, such as the Rural Reconstruction Commission, that transportation is the very life-blood of the economy of this country; and, since our marine transport is almost wholly over long distances by sea, I do not need to emphasize the fact that any measure which is designed to deal with that problem should receive, as it has, the intense and careful investigation and scrutiny of honorable members. My second observation is that there is nothing new at all in the bill. The only thing given to us for the first time on this occasion is a real opportunity to discuss the continuation, because that is all it is, of war-time administration in respect of the stevedoring industry. It will be remembered that the regulations which established the Stevedoring Industry Commission during the war were introduced under the National Security Regulations, and that we were not give any opportunity to debate those regulations in this chamber. So, this is the first opportunity given to us to consider their operation and efficacy. I should like to say over and over again that no government can legislate for prosperity, and no government can bring peace to the waterfront by legislation alone. A number of things are needed first, there must be a change of heart on the part of those who direct the destinies of the unionists who work in the stevedoring industry. There is need for better leadership from this Government in dealing with the vital problems which confront the nation to-day. The Government is sadly lacking in such leadership. One would have thought that during the time the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has been the leader of this Government he would have made clear to the people, because the urgency is apparent, the problems with which we are confronted, and would have given leadership to the people in his handling of such matters; but he does nothing except make occasional statements on the basis that one cannot do anything to any section of the community that defies the law. I repeat that what is urgently needed, from the Prime Minister down to the most junior Minister, is leadership. That leadership cannot be exerted merely by the Prime Minister; it must be a concerted policy adopted by the Government. Upon industrial matters we know that usually the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General makes some pious statement as to what is needed, and then other Ministers, whom I shall not bother to name, do their utmost publicly and privately to excite disaffection among certain unionists. The most important of all factors is that government be restored to the people of this country. It must be obvious to those who have seen the industrial turmoil to-day that a direct challenge is being levelled by extra parliamentary bodies such as unions to the constituted government of the day. It must be clear not only to those who sit on this side of the House, but also to honorable members opposite, who are more intimately associated with the industrial movement, that there must be restored to the Parliament the right to govern the country. It is idle to pretend that this Parliament governs to-day. I was somewhat touched when, in the concluding portion of his second-reading speech, on this bill, the Attorney-General said that it was left to this Parliament to clothe the commission to be established under this bill with the high functions it possessed. With what authority is the Parliament clothed? This Parliament is nothing more than a talking shop. It must be apparent to the people that this Parliament does not govern in the slightest degree. I want to see government restored to the people, through their representatives, not the granting of legislative authority to some commission to do this or that. Parliament does not govern and in respect of all industrial matters it may be equally said that neither does the Executive govern. The challenge has now been made. The big industrial unions are prepared to “take on” the Government at any time, well knowing that, ultimately, through the force of numbers, the Government will adopt its usual policy and surrender. We are experiencing a condition of serious drift not only in industrial matters but also in the morale of the people associated with industrial labour. This challenge by outside authorities must be resisted by the Government. It will be seen that as far as the Government’s desire to assert its authority is concerned, there is no blood or bone in this bill. One of the major problems confronting Australia to-day is the vast monopolist power of the industrial unions. There was a time when it was customary for the Labour party to challenge monopolies as if they constituted one of the most serious evils that beset the community. Is anyone prepared to deny that the industrial unions, such as the Waterside Workers Federation, have developed all the powers and characteristics of monopolies, but suffer none of the inconveniences to which other monoplies in other days were subjected? They are not subject to taxation ; they are not disciplined ; they are beyond the law. It is at this stage that the Government must take up the challenge. I am not seeking to suggest that it is simple to do these things, or that they could be done very quickly; but I do suggest that as long as the Government allows this state of affairs to drift for just as long will the ultimate solution of this problem be postponed.

In discussing this bill one has to consider what is the purpose ‘and what are the functions of the Stevedoring Industry Commission, and in what way it is to be given authority to exercise its powers. It may be said at the outset that discipline is essential to industrial peace and that discipline cannot be maintained without proper sanctions. When we examine the sanctions in this bill and have regard to the history of the wartime commission which the new body is to replace and perpetuate can we believe that the purpose of the bill will be achieved? Does any one believe that during the last three or four years the Stevedoring Industry Commission had real sanctions to enforce its orders and decisions? We all know that when the commission exercised its power by making an order or a decision its directions have been defied by the union and on more than one occasion the Government has overridden the commission. Is that the way to get industrial peace? If there be no discipline there can be no order. Is it any wonder there has been such chaos and disorder in this industry? I do not suggest that there are not in this industry many ills that need to be cured. I do not for a moment confine my criticism to the waterside workers; they have already been severely and in my opinion justly criticized; I am concerned more with a matter of principle. In bringing down this measure is not the Government acting somewhat like the Irishman who gave his creditor a promissory note, and said, “ Thank God that is paid “?

Mr Scullin:

– The honorable member should read Dickens again. The character to which he refers was not an Irishman.

Mr SPENDER:

– Does the Government believe that it can “ pass the buck “ in this way ? That it can shelve responsibility by introducing a bill such as this ? During the war years and since, time and time again we have witnessed the spectacle of the Government granting authority to a commission to carry out certain functions only to find that in time of crisis it has failed to uphold the deci- . sions of the commission which it has appointed. The difficulty that confronts the Government resolves itself into one of disciplining its own supporters. When unions are able to play such a vital part in the destinies of members of the Parliament is it any wonder that there is a reluctance on the part of the Government to discipline them?

The importance of this bill has not been sufficiently emphasized. It is equivalent to a measure for the nationalization of the stevedoring industry. It is true that the bill is expressed in terms of control, but if one has regard to the purpose of the commission and its functions as set out in clause 11 one will see that it is an attempt, to borrow a phrase used by Judge Foster, to bring about the “ quasi nationalization of the industry as a permanent feature of our economy”. Clause 11 (1) (Z>) provides among other things that the commission shall regulate and control the performance of stevedoring operations in relation to interstate and overseas trade and shipping. I believe that I have correctly summarzed it, .but if I have not the Attorney-General can correct me. They are general words, hut, in content, they are exceedingly wide. Clause 13 gives to the commission, amongst other things, power to do all such things as it thinks fit for the purpose of exercising its functions under clause 11. No wider charter could be given to any authority. In other words, there is to be given to this socalled commission - I call it “so-called” for reasons that I will advance later - the most plenary authority to control every aspect of stevedoring. If that is not nationalization by the backdoor, I should like to know what it is.

I come now to the manner in which the commission is to be constituted. The Attorney-General told us that in drafting the bill the Government placed the utmost reliance on the report of Judge Foster. I should like to know how the Government can make that claim when one of Judge Foster’s prime recommendations was that the chairman of the commission should be a judge of the Arbitration Court. That recommendation has not been carried out. In clause 5 are words of such significance that they would not appear in the legislation unless it were intended to make them effective. The clause provides, inter alia, that -

The Chairman shall be a Judge of the Court or a Conciliation Commissioner appointed under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1946.

At this point I am not debating whether the chairman should be a judge or a conciliation commissioner - I am prepared to debate that at any time - but I am directing attention to the fact that the AttorneyGeneral has told us that the Government gave grave and weighty consideration to Judge Foster’s report and that the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) has claimed that, in all essential particulars, the report has been given expression to in this bill. That provision enables the Go vernment to claim that it is carrying out the recommendation when it has no intention of doing anything of the sort. Judge Foster went into the matter of the chairmanship of the commission at great length. I do not intend to repeat all that he said about the matter, but his fourth recommendation was that the chairman of the commission should be a judge of the Arbitration Court, and, in making that recommendation, he rejected the proposal of no less a person than the Labour party’s friend, Mr. Healy, that the chairman should be a layman. Yet clause 5 provides the machinery by which a layman may be appointed chairman. I ask the Attorney-General why, in the face of the direct recommendation of J udge Foster that a judge of the Arbitration Court should be appointed chairman, the Government has inserted the provision that a layman may be appointed. Is it because it intends to ignore the judge’s carefully reasoned recommendation? I think so. I can understand reasons, even if I do not agree with them, for appointing a lay chairman, but that has nothing to do with the issue, because the Attorney-General said that the Government intended to keep the stevedoring industry tied, in effect, to the Arbitration Court, and gave, as a sign of the Government’s good faith, the fact that provision was made for the appointment of an Arbitration Court judge. Both those aspects require further examination by honorable members and demand a reply from the Attorney-General.

Sanctions are essential if the authority of the commission is to be upheld. We are witnessing an upheaval on the Sydney waterfront. If newspaper reports are correct - and they have not been denied - the chairman of the present commission, Mr. Morrison, is about “ fed up “ with the way in which his authority is flouted by the waterside workers and the fact that he is not getting any assistance from the Government in exercising that authority.

Mr Beale:

– He has invited the Government to abandon the bill.

Mr SPENDER:

– Yes. If this bill is to receive the approval of the House - if “approval of the House” is a phrase that can be applied to any legislation fostered by this Government - it is the duty of the Attorney-General to say frankly whether any recommendation has been made in respect of the present dispute and this bill. We are entitled to know, because if those who have sought to exercise the powers of the Stevedoring Industry Commission, as it now exists, have come to the conclusion that it cannot function efficiently, of what purpose is it to spend two or three weeks debating this measure and to expect the pious hope of the Government in respect of it to be realized. The sanctions provided are what? The AttorneyGeneral said, “We do not believe you can accomplish anything at all by any severe penalties “. So the sanction is ‘ to be the sanction of registration. Again Judge Foster’s report is not being complied with, because in paragraph 10 d of his report, as a part of the disciplinary measures, His Honour recommends that the commission be empowered “ to register and refuse to register, or to suspend such waterside workers and foremen as it deems necessary and proper, and to classify those workers, and to arrange transfer of workers when conditions require it “. He leaves it to the Government to decide how it shall be done, and recommends the provision of -

Power to secure compliance with its orders by employers, employees, stevedores, foremen and their organizations.

I ask the Attorney-General, who at the moment is showing no interest in this debate for reasons best known to himself, why the bill contains no provision for carrying out the specific recommendations of Judge Foster in respect of discipline, apart from the matter of licences. It may be said that the provision in respect of licences means discipline, but how futile such a claim would be were it advanced is shown by the present -dispute on the waterfront. The wharf labourers have stopped work. Licences have been cancelled wholesale. But, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, no matter how rauch the workers defy the Stevedoring Industry Commission, the licences will be restored ultimately. In clause 16, the bill provides that the commission shall not alter the standard hours of waterside workers otherwise than in conformity with the awards of the Arbitration Court in respect of standard hours. That means little, because standard hours are never likely to be altered to any degree. The clause also provides that the commission shall not alter the basic wage applicable to waterside workers or the principles on which it is computed otherwise than in conformity with the awards of the Arbitration Court in respect of the basic wage. That also has little meaning, because the waterside workers are paid more than the basic wage. I think I am correct in saying, in the words of the AttorneyGeneral, that, with those two exceptions, the Stevedoring Industry ‘Commission will exercise complete jurisdiction in the stevedoring industry. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, the second reading of which was moved yesterday by the AttorneyGeneral, contains provisions for the policing of awards in various ways, including the deregistration of unions and the punishment of “employers, measures that may be taken by the Arbitration Court to discipline any industry, but this bill contains no similar provisions, and I want to know why means by which the stevedoring industry may be disciplined are omitted from this measure. The only disciplinary power provided is that of deregistration, and the workers can snap their fingers at that, as they have done in the past.

Mr Duthie:

– What of clauses 26 and 27?

Mr SPENDER:

– Apparently the honorable member has not been listening closely. I have been discussing the provisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, the second reading of which was moved yesterday and which the honorable member should examine. That measure provides for the enforcement of awards arid the disciplining of workers who engage in industrial insurrections. Such provisions have been deliberately omitted from the bill. I want to know why this industry, with its record of turbulence and defiance of authority, has been singled out by the Government for such special treatment. Does anybody believe for a. moment, having regard to the history of the industry in the last three years, and even in the last three weeks. that the provision with regard to deregistration will have any effect at all upon the wharf labourers? The Government should give a lead in this matter and support the commission with its full authority. It has shown no sign of doing so, and I fear that it will not do so in future.

The bill falls into two categories. The first relates to executive, or administrative, functions and the second consists of arbitral provisions. Subject to the observations which I have made regarding the need for discipline, the administrative provisions mark an experiment which, in principle, may, if exercised reasonably, be well worth trying. I consider that, in the field of conciliation and arbitration, there is a need for the expert knowledge which can only be acquired by a tribunal which deals only with a specific industry. If sufficient disciplinary measures were applied, the experiment might be justified in order to ascertain the degree to which a specially constituted body, acting within the framework of the arbitration system and giving special attention to the problems of a particular industry, could improve industrial relations. The Government should give the experiment a chance of success by exerting its disciplinary power and supporting to the full the authority which it appoints. But unless it does as I suggest, the bill will be merely so much legislative rigmarole and will be of no practical use. The arbitral provisions of the bill must be tied to the Arbitration Court in respect of general principles; otherwise, the most serious consequences will flow from the measure as the result of the pressure which will be applied by the waterside workers. It has been made clear to us that they expect to receive many major concessions within the next twelve months. I have already drawn attention to the loop-hole in the bill which exists in clause 5. I now refer honorable members to clause 9, which gives to the commission the power to delegate authority. This provision requires careful consideration. The commission is vested with plenary power Tinder clauses 11, 12 and 13 - a power which I have described as one of quasi-nationalization Clause 9 gives to the commission, either generally or in relation to any port, the power to delegate to an officer by writing under its seal any of the powers or functions conferred upon it by this measure. That is an extreme power of delegation. The chairman of the commission, as the Attorney-General has said, will be charged with one of the most important duties imposed by the bill. On vital issues, his word will be law. On such issues, there will probably be an equal division of opinion between the other four voting members of the commission. Therefore, the vote of the chairman will be decisive. The bill lays down no qualifications regarding the exercise of power by conciliation commissioners, and, in this respect, the Parliament is being called upon to hand over one of the most important functions of government to an outside body. I suppose it is too late for us to arrest that process, which has been encouraged by this Government. We are being gradually bereft of our authority, which is exactly what the Communists wish to achieve.

The hill represents no departure from the practice of the past four years. It cannot accomplish anything that is hoped of it unless the commission is vested with power to discipline workers in the stevedoring industry. It will be useless unlessthe Government supports the commissionand gives leadership to the people andi unless the authority of government is restored to this Parliament. I am not opposed to some of the general principles of the bill, provided that .the industry is closely linked with the arbitration system and the powers in the bill are reasonably exercised. However, I believe that it will be severed from that system. The experiment may well be worthwhile if the Government will embody in the measure provisions analogous to those existing in the arbitration law, which give power to de-register unions, to call for secret ballots, and to operate the other machinery which was designed, first, to give union members control over their unions, and, secondly, to enforce orders of the courts and awards made by the commission. It is futile to appoint any body to deal with such a vital economic function as transportation unless that body is clothed with ample power to enforce its orders. I see no indications of such power in this bill. I do not wish to see heavy penalties imposed upon individuals merely because they obey the orders of their union leaders to strike. I have always said that one of the best ways of dealing with industrial intimidation and defiance of the Government is to bring to bear the full process of the law against the leaders, after giving due warning to them. The law must be observed, if it is to survive. At no time has the Government made any attempt to enforce industrial law in Australia. Subject to those observations, the bill can be considered in committee with a view to determining the degree to which the arbitral provisions can be tied to the Arbitration Court. Before the debate concludes, the Attorney-General should explain to the House why certain of the recommendations by Judge Foster have not been incorporated in the bill. 3)r. EVATT (Barton- AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs) [4.6]. - in reply - The outstanding feature of this long debate is the fact that 90 per cent, of the criticisms which members of the Opposition levelled at the bill totally ignored the basis upon which the measure is put forward. The Government did not attempt to convince the Parliament that peace and contentment prevail in this industry. We frankly admitted that the industry had been most difficult to control, and that the difficulties had not ceased during World War II. I also explained to the House that we were in great difficulty about its future control from the standpoint of industrial regulation and general regulation. The Government appointed a distinguished judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court for the purpose of recommending to the Parliament what should be done in connexion with this industry. Some members of the Opposition have paid so much lip service to the Arbitration Court, and its judges, that I might be excused for thinking that they would show more deference and respect to the recommendations of Judge Foster. We have followed almost slavishly his recommendations, because he heard the evidence of he shipowners, stevedoring companies, officials of the Waterside Workers Federation and Com monwealth officers who had experience of this important industry during the critical years of the war. Having heard that evidence, His Honour put his recommendations before the Parliament in the form of a written report. In my secondreading speech I did not read the whole of the document to the House, but I made copies of it available to honorable members. Whilst I do not propose to read the whole of the document now, I desire, for purposes of illustration, to quote one passage from it. On page 14, Judge Foster stated -

It has been urged that it would be a tragedy to abandon this experiment at the outset and to sacrifice the experience it has gained since 1942.

It was in 1942 that the National Security Regulations were promulgated establishing the commission. The report continued -

Much has been learned from its many failures no less than from it successes.

His Honour was dealing with the contention that it would be a tragedy to abandon the experiment and sacrifice that experience had gained. The report proceeded -

My concurrence in this view is strongly fortified by the support it has from the Oversea Shipping Representatives Association.

I could read page after page of the report in support of the bill. I reserve, for the moment, the point which the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) made and on which His Honour did not express a final opinion, namely, the general power of regulating stevedoring operations. Another point to which I shall return is the matter of who shall be the chairman of the Stevedoring Industry Commission. Apart from those two matters, the bill follows the recommendations of Judge Foster’s report.

The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) referred to a bill which had been prepared by the secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, Mr. Healy. I inform the honorable gentleman that no such draft legislation has ever come to me, to my department, or to the Parliamentary Draftsman. ‘ I verified that this afternoon.

Mr Beale:

– I have a copy of the bill prepared by Mr. Healy before me.

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– The so-called Healy hill never reached the Attorney-General’s Department, and did not play any part in connexion with the drafting of the measure now before the House. The National Security Regulations, which established the Stevedoring Industry Commission, were promulgated in 1942. If Mr. Healy submitted a draft bill, so also did the shipowners.

Mr Beale:

– Of course they did!

Dr EVATT:

– They laid their draft bill before Judge Foster, and the two documents appear as annexes to Hi9 Honour’s report. He considered them when drafting his report, and recommended what should be done. We are following, not Mr. Healy’s draft, but the, recommendations of Judge Foster. That is the proper thing for us to do. When we requested His Honour to conduct this inquiry, many of us felt a doubt as to whether this industry should be separated from Australian industries under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) has expressed a similar view. Some of us, including myself, rather shared that view ; but the Government decided to have an inquiry into the matter and obtain judicial recommendations. That has been done. Yet, for a number of days in this House, honorable members opposite have repeatedly attacked the workers in this industry, and have not made any reference to any faults on the part of the employers. I shall not now attack the employers. Tables have been incor- porated in Hansard dealing with the alleged reduction of tonnages handled on the wharfs. That aspect is dealt with in His Honour’s report. Some honorable members quoted a portion of his remarks but not his final conclusion. On page 19 of the report, His Honour said -

It is especially noteworthy, however, that according to the evidence a falling of output has occurred and was continuing before. It occurred prior to the 1928 waterside workers strike in Australia. It was cured by the depression which followed. It occurred before this war and continued up to and through the period of the commissi in. It would stem now if the figures arc of any value, to have been arrested, anr! some improvement indicated Whether the neurea show it or not, some witnesses and others believe that the through-put is increasing and may be expected to improve.

– Interjections must cease. The AttorneyGeneral is entitled to be heard in silence.

Dr EVATT:

– I am not objecting to interjections; but it is extraordinary that, after several hours have been occupied by honorable members opposite in emphasizing the necessity of having a judge as chairman of the commission, now, when 1 am indicating the Government’s intention to appoint a judge, if possible, they want to tie the Government down, and restrict the choice to a judge. The bill will remain in its present form; but I repeat that, if possible, a judge will be appointed. The various documents from which quorations have been read, and the figures which have been cited during this debate, were previously furnished to the Government by the shipowners and the stevedoring companies when they met Ministers at deputations. I publicly acknowledge the assistance whichboth employers and employees have rendered by making suggestions for improving the bill. I think that it is fair to say that most of the criticism to which the bill has ‘been subjected would not be supported by employers in this industry if they knew that the chairman would have the status and standing of a judge of the Arbitration Court. All that I have told the House to-day I have previously said to these people. The Government does not submit the bill as a cure-all for the ills of this industry, as the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) has suggested. The Government admits frankly that this is an experiment in a most important province of our economic and industrial life which may not be wholly successful, and may even fail. Should the experiment not be a success, this Parliament or some succeeding parliament will have to review the legislation. The Government, however, hopes that this experiment will be a success, and that the enactment of this legislation will open up a new prospect in this industry, and a recognition that workers on the waterfront are entitled to the standards claimed by others because they, too, are rendering a valuable service to the public as members of a great public utility. Stevedoring is, indeed, a special utility ; there is little competition among employers, because the industry is organized on the lines of the shipping companies. There is a close liaison, if not an actual integration, between the stevedoring companies and the shipping companies. The shipping companies which control vessels trading between Australia and other countries believe that the experiment which was begun in 1942 should be continued. That also is the view of the Government.

Reference has been made to the obligations that will be cast on those who will benefit from the continuation of this experiment. I speak not of law or of sanctions, but of ordinary fair play and decency. On that point, I agree with the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) that an obligation does rest upon them, and that that obligation should be recognized more fully than in the past. It is unreasonable to expect this experiment to be completely successful without the wholehearted support of the workers in this industry. There must be cooperation by them in the same way as there must be co-operation on the part of the coal-miners if there is to be peace and harmony in the coal-mining industry where a similar experiment is being undertaken. It is impossible to lay down a rule, and say that every industry must conform to a pattern set by the court. I ask the House to pass the second reading, thereby giving to both employers and employees a chance to work together for the betterment of all associated in any way with the stevedoring industry.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. J. S. Rosevear.)

AYES: 37

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 11

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

Message recommending appropriation reported.

AYES

NOES

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I regret that I omitted to announce that this message was dated the 27th February, 1947 on which date the Governor-General had not assumed office.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I should still like your ruling on the point I have raised.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I rule that it is in order for the committee to consider the message.

In committee (Consideration of Administrator’s message) :

Motion (by Dr. Evatt) proposed -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to provide for the prevention or settlement by conciliation or arbitration of industrial disputes in connexion with stevedoring operations, to regulate industrial matters in connexion with stevedoring operations in the course of trade and commerce with other countries or among the States, toregulate and control the performance of stevedoring operations, to provide for the establishment of a Stevedoring Industry Commission, and for other purposes.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I submit that the committee should not agree to the motion until such time as the Stevedoring Industry Bill has been passed; because, obviously until that measure has been passed, and a decision has been made as to what is to be its scope, we cannot determine the amount of expenditure which it will be necessary to incur under it. Therefore, I suggest to the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) that the proper course for us to follow is to report progress and to conclude the consideration of the Stevedoring Industry Bill.

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– As the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) is always anxious to forward the business of the Parliament, he will appreciate that in following this coures we are adhering to the practice which invariably has been adopted by the House in respect of legislation of this kind.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

. - I do not agree with the AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt). Previously, I have had occasion to protest that after the message recommending that an appropriation be made has been agreed to, honorable members have not been permitted, by a ruling of the Chair, to discuss any matter relating to the financial aspect of the measure to which the message relates. In this case, the Minister is putting the cart before the horse, unless he intends to argue that the procedure now being followed is merely a matter of form. However, it is not what the AttorneyGeneral thinks about the matter, but what the Chairman will rule when we consider the Stevedoring Industry Bill at the committee stage. Therefore, we should not proceed along these lines until we know the amount of expenditure which will be involved under the Stevedoring Indus try Bill.

Question put -

That the motion be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 35

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported and - by leave - adopted.

In committee: Consideration resumed.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 - (1.) Part V. of the National Security (Shipping Co-ordination) Regulations is repealed. (2.) Notwithstanding the repeal effected by the last preceding sub-section -

all officers and employees of the Stevedoring Industry Commission constituted under Part V. of the National Security (Shipping Coordination ) Regulations holding office or employed immediately prior to the commencement of this Act shall continue to hold office or be employed as if they were appointed under this Act;

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), I move the following amendment which has been circulated in his name: -

That paragraph (a) of sub-clause (2.) be left out.

The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) stated that this was an experiment. It is an experiment that has been going on since 1942; and protects a number of officers, and a tradition which, I suggest, is not as favorable as the AttorneyGeneral would lead us to believe, because the existing commission has not been anything like 100 per cent. efficient in the carrying out of its duties. Indeed, the whole record of the present commission has been one of placation and complete retreat. It has been instrumental in failing to uphold the law under the powers vested in it. Yet, under the bill we are asked to give to the present officers of the commission the right to retain their positions. This experimental body has not proved successful at all. I should like to know why the Attorney-General considers that these officers should have established for them a vested interest as members of the staff of the commission. It is quite possible - indeed, it is very probable - that with the return to Australia of a number of servicemen, the commission could draw from their numbers men who possess greater capacity, determination and administrative ability and who would be able to administer the powers conferred under this measure in a way which would establish peace and harmony on the waterfront. The Government should not say, in effect, to officers of the present commission, “ Yours is a vested right. You are in positions, and you cannot be challenged. Nobody has the right to take away from you the position you now hold.” The staff of the present commission has been drawn in the. main from non-ex-servicemen. Are we now to admit that they have established a vested right in their positions by virtue of the fact that they were in Ausralia while other men were serving in the fighting forces on the other side of the world? Are the latter, who are hopeful of obtaining positions under the re-establishment and employment legislation, to find that key positions on the staff of the commission have already been filled? They will have no opportunity to apply for those positions. If this is to be a new industry, and the Attorney-General is trying to shear it of the tradition of frustration and maladministration associated with the existing commission, he should make a clean sweep and appoint a new staff of men who will be able to give effect to the powers to be conferred upon them under this legislation. He should not establish a vested right for any person in a position on the staff of the commission.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– The effect of this provision is simply to continue in office, officers of the existing commission. It does not alter the power of the commission to appoint new officers. It would nc-t be a good thing for a commission which was established as a war-time experiment to throw open every office in the duties of which the present occupants have gained considerable experience. Judge Foster recommended the continuation of the experiment and therefore the Government cannot accept the amendment. “We believe that it should be left to the commission, if it so desires, to improve its staff in the light of its experience in the control of the industry.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I support the amendment which is intended to delete the provision that all officers and employees of the Stevedoring Industry Commission constituted under Part V. of the National Security (Shipping ‘Co-ordination) Regulations holding office or employed immediately prior to the commencement of the operation of this measure shall continue to hold office or he employed as if they were appointed under it. The body of men at present employed by the commission represents a not inconsiderable number and it is to be expected that that number will be considerably increased. The AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt) could not have exercised a more happy choice in the selection of the word than he did when he said that the commission was an “ experiment “ which Judge Foster suggested should be continued. It is an experiment, but unfortunately an experiment of a very desperate nature. Although the Attorney-General has been experimenting with the Stevedoring Industry Commission for the last few years the only result of his experiment is that because of the inefficiency of the commission and its staff 73 ships are now tied up in the port of Sydney and the people of Great Britain are prevented from getting urgently needed food. Who are these employees and whence did they come? They are those who, during the period of the greatest conflict in which this nation has ever been engaged, held down safe jobs in this country.

M.r. SPENDER - They did not fight.

Mr ABBOTT:

– Perhaps they could not fight because their physical and mental inefficiency was such that they could not be enlisted in the armed forces. Whatever may have been the reason they are to be given an advantage over those who served their country in the fighting forces from 1939 until peace was declared in 1945. Why should our ex-servicemen be denied an opportunity to apply for a lucrative appointment in the Stevedoring Industry Commission? Common decency demands that they should at least have an equal right to apply for appointments to a commission which the AttorneyGeneral describes as an experiment. The war-time body was not in existence for a long period and accordingly there is no question of infringing the rights of long and tried employees. The AttorneyGeneral has admitted, and Judge Foster in his report has pointed out, that labour of the best type was not available, to the commission during the waT years because it was being used for other purposes. The commission, therefore, has had to employ a proportion of men unsuited to the posts which they occupy to-day. The right honorable gentleman knows that the commission has an inefficient staff, but he is allergic to pressure groups, particularly that led by Mr. Healy, the Communist secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation and so he proposes to retain in this experiment, which is designed to cure all the ills on the waterfront, the inefficient men now employed by the organization and to exclude ex-servicemen from appointment.

Amendment negatived.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– I move -

That at the end of the clause, the following new sub-clause be added : - “ (3.) The Transport Workers Act 1928 and the Transport Workers Act 1929 are repealed.”

These acts were referred to during the debate. Part 3 of the Transport Workers Act 1928-29 which deals with a system of licensing and gives power to cancel licences and to prohibit men working without licences, was unaccompanied by any provisions for the control of the waterside industry. Such a provision of the law is inconsistent with the bill now before us. Under Part II. of the Transport Workers Act 1928-29 power is given to the Governor-General to make regulations, but no rules were prescribed for observance by those concerned. The Government believes that as these existing acts are inconsistent with the bill now before us they should he repealed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4. - (1.) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “ employer “ means -

a person who engages persons for employment in the capacity of dragger, mechanical truck driver ormobile crane driver engaged on haulage from ship to shed or shed to ship. “ stevedoring operations “ means -
the loading and unloading of ships, including the loading into and the unloading from ships of ships’ stores and coal and fuel oil (whether for bunkers or not) ; and
the handling and storage of cargo and other goods at or adjacent to any wharf; “ waterside worker “ means a person who accepts, or offers to accept, employmcnt for work in stevedoring operations, and includes draggers, mechanical truck drivers and mobile crane drivers engaged on haulage from ship to shed or shed to ship, but does not include -
persons in or working alongside a ship in connexion with the direction or checking of the work of waterside workers ;
members of the crew of a ship on the ship’s articles.
members of the crew of a lighter who do not handle cargo, ships’ stores, bunker coal or fuel oil; or
members of the Sydney Coal Lumpers Union while loading or unloading coal in the port of Sydney; (2.) For the purposes of this Act -
a person who puts another person to work in stevedoring operations, or as a dragger, mechanical truck driver or mobile crane driver engaged on haulage from ship to shed or shed to ship shall be deemed to engage that other person for employment as a waterside worker; and
a person who is put to work in stevedoring operations, or as a dragger, mechanical truck driver or mobile crane driver engaged on haulage from ship to shed or shed to ship, shall be deemed to accept employment as a waterside worker.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– I move -

That, in sub-clause (1.), the definition “ stevedoring operations “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following definition : - “ ‘ stevedoring operations ‘ means -

the loading or unloading of cargo into or from ships;

the loading or unloading, into or from ships, of ships’ stores, coal or fuel oil (whether for bunkers or not), passengers’ luggage or mails;

the handling or storage of cargo or other goods at or adjacent to a wharf;

the driving or operation of mechanical appliances used in connexion with the loading or unloading of ships or with the handling or storage of cargo or other goods at or adjacent to the wharf; and

haulage or trucking from ship to shed or shed to ship, and includes the work specified in paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the definition of ‘ waterside worker ‘ when performed by a member of the Federation or a person registered as a waterside worker under Part V. of the National Security (Shipping Co-ordination) Regulations immediately prior to the commencement of this Act; “.

Dr Evatt:

– Certainly.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Because it takes thirteen lines to define “ waterside worker “ in the bill, as it stands, and about 32 lines, as it is proposed to be amended, it appears to me that the more words there are the greater the chance there is of disagreement. The two things around which the success of this bill will revolve are the definitions of “ stevedoring operations “ and “ waterside worker “. Yet, on his own showing, the Attorney-General is dissatisfied with the first draft and has moved for its amendment in a much more elaborate way, at the same time signifying to the committee that there are some difficulties about that, too. If the Government itself does not know exactly what it wants in this bill how in the name of common sense can the AttorneyGeneral ask the committee to be happy about these proposed definitions. I am not.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

.- I move -

That, in sub-clause (1.), the definition of “ waterside worker “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following definition : - “ ‘ waterside worker ‘ means a person who accepts, or offers to accept, employment for work in the loading or unloading of cargo into or from ships, and includes a member of the Federation or a person registered as a waterside worker under Part V. of the National Security (Shipping Co-ordination) Regulations immediately prior to the commencement of this Act who accepts, or offers to accept, employment for work in -

the loading or unloading, into or from ships, of ships’ stores, coal or fuel oil (whether for bunkers or not), passengers’ baggage or mails;

the handling or storage of cargo or other goods at or adjacent to a wharf;

the driving or operation of mechanical appliances used in connexion with the loading or unloading of ships or with the handling or storage of cargo or other goods at or adjacent to a wharf;

haulage or trucking from ship to- shed or shed to ship;

the removal or replacing of beams or hatches;

the handling of dunnage or ballast;

the preparing or cleaning of holds; or

the preparation of gear for use in connexion with the loading or unloading of ships, but does not include -

persons working in or alongside a ship in connexion with the direction or checking of the work of waterside workers;

members of the crew of a ship on the ship’s articles;

members of the crew of a lighter; or

members of the Sydney Coal Lumpers Union while loading or unloading coal in the port of Sydney; “.

Referring to the remarks of the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), I thought that the original definition was good, and my advisers, who know a great deal about precise definition, thought so, too; but the shipowners and the unions worked out, practically by consent, the definition now proposed. Again I do not mean that there is agreement that stevedoring operations should be brought within the regulation-making power of the Stevedoring Industry Commission, but, if they are, the definition of “ stevedoring operations “, which has just been agreed to, and the definition of “waterside worker “, which the committee is now invited to agree to, are accurate descriptions, and provide the necessary safeguards. A broader answer to the honorable member is that sometimes the short definition causes difficulty, whereas the longer definition by enumeration is safer in the interests of all concerned.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I observe that both the original definition of “waterside worker” and the definition in the proposed amendment conflict with, sub-clause 2 of clause 24. I would be quite satisfied with the definition of “ waterside worker “ either in the original or in the altered form. The definition in the amendment states - “ Waterside worker “ means a person who accepts, or offers to accept, employment for work in the loading or unloading of cargo into or from ships. . . .

However, clause 24, sub-clause 2, states -

Except at such ports as the commission determines, a waterside worker shall not be registered under this Act unless he is a member of the Federation. . . .

In the light of the definition of “ waterside worker “, that sub-clause is sheer nonsense. The two things are in utter conflict. I do not know how the courts would interpret the bill, because the’ definition provides that any person who accepts or offers to accept employment is entitled to be engaged, whereas, according to sub-clause 2 of clause 24, a person cannot be employed unless he is a member of the Waterside Workers Federation. How does the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) explain that situation?

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– Sub-clause 2 of clause 24 contains a very important provision, lt takes a group of men known as the waterside workers, and says that the members of that group cannot be registered unless they are members of the Waterside Workers Federa tion. The “ waterside workers “ referred to in the bill are defined by reference to their job. They are men whose job is to accept, or offer to accept, employment for work in a certain industry which is defined in the amendment now ‘before the committee. In order to bring waterside workers within the purview of the act, they are generally defined so as to exclude, for instance, storemen and packers, who work in close proximity to them but are not covered by this bill. Having defined the class, the bill imposes a prohibition on registration in clause 24, sub-clause 2. There is no conflict between the two provisions. The definition of “waterside worker “ has been carefully prepared so as to apply to those men who come within the intention and the scope of Judge Foster’s report. This definition is expressed in the amendment now before the committee.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

.- The Minister (Dr. Evatt) has missed the point of my argument. All that is necessary is to say that a waterside worker means a member of the Waterside Workers Federation. If the right honorable gentleman leaves the amendment as it is drafted, any person who is not a member of the federation but who accepts or offers to accept employment will be entitled to receive employment. That is stated in the proposed new definition.

Dr Evatt:

– That makes him a waterside worker.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Yes. He need not be a member of the federation.

Dr Evatt:

– He will have to be a member in order to be registered under the act.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Why not state that a “ waterside worker “ means a member of the Waterside Workers Federation? Why go to the trouble of including a long definition of “ waterside worker “, when the Government’s intention could be expressed in one line ?

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– My view is supported by the officers who drafted the bill. First, we must define the trade or calling with which the bill deals, namely, that of the waterside worker. Then we must define those who belong to the trade as -

A person who accepts, or offers to accept, employment for work in the loading or unloading of cargo . . .

That is according to the amendment now before the committee. If a person comes within the meaning of the definition stated in the amendment, he is a waterside worker within the meaning of the bill. Does the honorable member follow that?’

Mr Archie Cameron:

– No, I do not.

Dr EVATT:

– As an illustration, if the honorable member goes to the Sydney waterfront and offers to accept employment for work in the loading and unloading of cargo, he will be a waterside worker within the meaning of this bill. But if he should apply for registration, clause 24 might be brought into operation because he could not be registered unless he were a member of the Waterside Workers Federation. There must be a definition of the calling or trade.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I agree with that.

Dr EVATT:

– That is done in the amendment now before the committee. But, having done that, it is still necessary for certain purposes, such as registration, to require that a man shall be a member of the Waterside Workers Federation or, at the time of the passing of this law, a registered member of the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union. There is no conflict between the two provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– by leave - I move -

That paragraph (d) of sub-clause (1.) be left out.

This is amendment No. 2 in the list of printed amendments, consideration of which was deferred as it was consequential on the acceptance of the amendments that have already been agreed to by the committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Dr. Evatt) proposed -

That, in sub-clause (2.), paragraphs(a) and (6) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraphs: - “(a) a person who puts another person to work shall be deemed to engage that other person for employment; and

a person who is put to work shall be deemed to accept employment”.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– This amendment provides that a person who is put to work shall be deemed to accept employment. The point that I wish to stress to the AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt) is that, according to the new definition of “ waterside workers” to which the committee has agreed, the only persons who can accept employment are those who are approved by the Waterside Workers Federation. In other words, the Commonwealth Government is handing over to an outside body the sole right to decide who shall be employed on the waterfront.

Mr James:

– Provided he is a member of the federation.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Beinga member of a union is not a passport to heaven or anywhere else.

Mr James:

– Does not the honorable member believe in unionism?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I do not believe in present day unionism, because I see very little difference between it and tyranny. The first responsibility of a democratic government is to ensure that the law shall be impartially administered, and that all persons shall have an equal opportunity under it. The bill provides that the only persons who shall obtain employment on the waterfront shall be those who become members of the Waterside Workers Federation. If my interpretation of this provision be wrong, I should like the Attorney-General to say so. If I am right, I should like him to justify this provision.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– The purpose of this amendment is to cover permanent employees. Every time a permanent employee is put to work, that is deemed tobe an engagement. He cannot be put to work at any particular time unless he is registered.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– That explanation does not answer my question.

Dr EVATT:

– No; the point raised by the honorable member will be considered later.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

– The definition of “officer” is “an officer holding office under this Act”. I should like from the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) an assurance that the definition does not include any members of the Stevedoring Industry Commission. I seek that assurance, because clause 5 provides that the chairman shall be appointed by the Governor-General, and shall hold office subject to good behaviour for five years. The other members of the commission will also be appointed by the Governor-General and will hold office during His Excellency’s pleasure. Subclause 2 of clause 3 provides that all officers and employees of the Stevedoring Industry Commission shall “ continue to holdoffice or be employed as if they were appointed under this Act. “ The Attorney-General will see that the word “ officer “ is msed there. I seek an assurance that the definition of “ officer “ in clause 4 does not include a person who is a member of the commission. If it does, sub-clause 2 of clause 3 will apply.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– It is quite clear that an officer holdingoffice under this legislation is not governed by the general provisions relating to officers. If he be a judge of the Common wealth Arbitration Court, he has a judge’s tenure of office. If he be a conciliation commissioner, he must be a person answering to that descripton under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Four members of the commission will be appointed respectively by the employers and the employees, and will not be officers within the meaning of this legislation. The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) believes that their security would disappear if that were not so. I think that a definite assurance can be given to the honorable member.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 - (1.) There shall bo a Stevedoring Industry Commission, which shall consist of a Chairman, an officer of the Commonwealth andfour other members, of whom one shall represent overseas shipowners, one shall represent Australian shipowners, and two shall represent the Federation. (2.) The Commission shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal. (3.) The Chairman -

shall be appointed by the GovernorGeneral;
shall be a Judge of the Court or a Conciliation Commissioner appointed under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1946; and
shall hold office, subject to good behaviour, for five years but shall be eligible for re-appointment. (4.) The other members of the Commission -
shall be appointed by the GovernorGeneral;
shall hold office during his pleasure; and
except in the case of the member who is an officer of the Commonwealth, shall he paid fees and allowances at such rates as the Minister determines.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) I move -

That, in sub-clause (1.), the words “, an officer of the Commonwealth “, be left out.

Dr Evatt:

– The honorable member was dealing with Chief Judge Piper.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr HARRISON:

– When I suggested that the chairman and deputy chairman of the Stevedoring Industry Commission had resigned because of government interference, the Prime Minister said that Chief Judge Piper had resigned because of ill health. I accept that assurance, but I now ask the Attorney-General whether he can give the same assurance in regard to Mr. Nicholls, the deputy chairman?

Dr Evatt:

– I do not know the facts.

Mr HARRISON:

– It is well known that Mr. Nicholls resigned because of Government interference. No officer in his position could continue in the face of Government interference. That is why the Opposition objects to the proposal in this clause. There should he no place on the commission for a government officer who can be of no value to it. Is it suggested that he is to act in a purely advisory capacity? There is no need to appoint a permanent officer for that purpose. The services of Commonwealth officers could be co-opted from time to time when their advice was required. However, the Government proposes- to place on the commission a man who will be charged, I have no doubt, with the performance of certain duties on behalf of the Government. The AttorneyGeneral said that the last officer who filled such a position on the commission did a good job of work. I now invite the Attorney-General to say what that work was. We on this side of the House have a very strong suspicion that a Commonwealth officer is to be appointed in order to influence the commission regarding government policy; to warn it if it attempts to take action contrary to government policy; in other words, to act as a stand-over man on behalf of the Government.

This would place the commission in an intolerable position. It is to he asked to work with a man who will be in a position say, “ Steady boys, the policy of the Government is so and so. If you act contrary to that policy the Government may give certain directions, as is provided in the bill “. Then the commission will find itself in the position it occupied in regard to the “ payday “ dispute, when it had to reverse its decision, and say that certain men whom it had deregistered were to be reregistered. That was what caused the resignation of Mr. Nicholls. The Stevedoring Industry Commission is ostensibly to be given powers almost equal to those of the Arbitration Court; but, the Government says, in effect, “ Whereas it was not competent for us to put a Commonwealth officer on the Arbitration Court Bench, here we have something of our own creation, and we propose to stultify it by placing on it an officer who will have no vote, and no actual value except to influence the commission on matters concerning government policy “. If the Attorney-General desires the appointment of a commission that will be of value to the community he must not hamstring it at the outset by placing on it a “ stand-over “ man for the Government. Therefore, I ask the Government to accept the amendment so that the commission may exercise its functions unhampered.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

.- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) is very careless in the use of expressions. To suggest that Mr. Sutcliffe, of the Department of Supply and Shipping, has acted as a “ stand-over “ man on the commission, or a “ stooge “ for the Government, is ridiculous. It must be well-known to many honorable members that this man, who is a distinguished officer in the service of the Commonwealth, has done very useful work during the period of his association with the commission. Let me read a note on this subject that I have received from the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) -

The proposal is to omit the provision for an officer of the Commonwealth to be a member of the Stevedoring Industry Commission. The bill provides that the officer of the Commonwealth who is a member of the commission shall not be entitled to vote. The purpose of his appointment is to provide a liaison between the Government and the commission. The commission will doubtless inaugurate negotiations with State authorities, and these in many instances will be most appropriately dealt with on a governmental level. The services of the government member will be most useful in this connexion. It is felt that the appointment of a senior government officer to assist in planning and supervising the commission’s administrative activities will be of benefit to the commission. The government member will also be an informed channel of communication between the Minister and the commission, and his presence should - be of material assistance to the commission.

There is no principle in this to which objection can be raised. The provision for the appointment of an officer of the Commonwealth as a member of the commission which is contained in the existing regulation should we believe be retained.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I support the amendment. If anything were needed to strengthen my view on this matter it was the speech of the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) to which we have just listened. In his secondreading speech the right honorable gentleman told us that grave and careful consideration had been given by the Government to the report submitted to it by Judge Poster, of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, who had conducted a long inquiry, with many public sittings, at which evidence and opinion were taken from both employers and employees. The right honorable gentleman added that the measure which is now before us followed the broad .recommendations contained in Judge Poster’s report. Dealing with the constitution of this body Judge Foster recommended that it consist of a chairman and four members representative of employers’ and employees’ interests in the industry, that the chairman be a judge of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, and that the representation on the commission be two members nominated by the “Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, one member nominated by the Commonwealth Steamship Owners Federation and one member nominated by overseas ship owners. The clause dealing with the constitution of the commission is one of the most important clauses in the bill as this commission is to be the body which is to usher in the golden age on the waterfront in Australia. Notwithstanding that the Attorney-General told us that grave and careful consideration was given to Judge Foster’s recommendations, one of the most important recommendations made by the learned judge has been rejected. The right honorable gentleman then read a statement from some document prepared for the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley), explaining the reason for the failure to adopt these recommendations in toto. Of course, one would expect that any docu ment prepared for the Minister would be in accordance with government policy.

When a representative of the Government was appointed to the war-time commission there was some excuse for his inclusion, as that body was expending funds provided by the Government. The new commission, however, will not draw its funds from the Government; it will collect them through additional freight rates on export and interstate cargoes which will have to be borne by the primary producers of Australia. Country people and the members of the party to which I belong know only too well that the producers of Australia will suffer in two ways as the result of this bill; they will be “hit” by increased overseas freights, and they will be “ hit “ by rising interstate freights on machinery and other commodities necessary for the working of their properties. The Attorney-General has advanced most extraordinary reasons for continuing to have a Commonwealth representative as a member of the commission. He said that Mr. Sutcliffe, the government nominee, is an excellent man who had rendered great service to the war-time commission throughout the whole of the war period. He must be an excellent officer because, as far as I know, there has been no criticism of his work either by the owners, the waterside workers or by honorable members on the Government side.

Mr Holt:

– Or by members of the Opposition.

Mr ABBOTT:

– That is so. I remind the Attorney-General, however, that Mr. Sutcliffe is a mere mortal, who will not live forever. Heaven alone knows who may be appointed in the future. For all we know some future appointee may be the nominee of Mr. Healy, the Communist secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation. Still reading from the brief prepared for the Minister for Supply and Shipping, the AttorneyGeneral said that the government representative is to act as a liaison officer between the commission and the Government. When I interjected that he would be a sort of commissar of the Government, the right honorable gentleman said, “ Oh no ; not a commissar ; a sort of liaison officer “. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. On the admission of the right honorable gentleman the Government representative is to be a kind of liaison officer, a “ stooge “, a sort of peeping Tom, a snooper whose duty it will be to report to the Government exactly what goes on at the meetings of the commission, and whose very presence at such meetings will prevent free and open discussion of the problems with which it has to deal.

The Government probably will not even consult the chairman, who should be the official channel of communication to the Government, as to decisions made by the commission. The government nominee will go behind the back of the commission and tell the Attorney-General any story he likes, irrespective of what the commission decides. It bodes ill for the successful working of this commission if it is to be made impotent from the very commencement of its operations by the inclusion in its membership of a government spy. The right honorable gentleman also said that the government representative will be the informal channel of communication between the commission and the Government. Neither the members of the commission nor the chairman will know what this informal mouthpiece reports to the Government. He said, too, that the commission will have a lo,t of work to do on a government level. If that be so, surely it should be handled by Ministers of the respective governments concerned. Is important work on such a high level to be undertaken by the watchdog, the reporter, the snooper, the peeper for the Government? If so, it must be intended that he shall be clothed with powers greater than those possessed by the commission itself. The case made by the Attorney-General in support of the continuance in office of this gentleman is entirely wrong and accordingly I trust that the . amendment will be carried.

Mr McBRIDE:
Wakefield

.- I hope that the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) will accept the amendment. Honorable members on this side of the chamber are extremely keen to make this commission a workable authority. To appoint a liaison officer to such a commission is quite a new idea. Tho

Constitution limits the Commonwealth Government’s industrial powers. From 1904, when the Arbitration Court was set up under an act of the Commonwealth Parliament, until the Stevedoring Industry Commission was appointed as a wartime body, there was never a suggestion that there should bc a liaison officer between the court and the Government. The suggested purpose of the liaison officer between the Stevedoring Industry Commission and the Government may appear perfectly innocent to the AttorneyGeneral and those who sit behind him, but it was demonstrated throughout the second-reading debate that the great need of the day is that not only employers and employees but also the general public shall have confidence in the arbitration system. On two occasions since assuming office, the Labour party has sought from the people expanded industrial powers, and, I think fortunately, on both occasions, the people have said, “ No ! “

I see in the appointment of a liaison officer between the commission and the Government an effort by the Government to get around that refusal. The statement that it is a completely innocent proposal will deceive no one. In the war years, extraordinary circumstances prevailed, and, under its defence powers, the Commonwealth had wide industrial powers ; but, in spite of the claim that in that period the liaison officer between the commission and the Government performed useful functions, the AttorneyGeneral has given a poor account of them. The cold fact remains that the Government, from time to time, would not accept the decisions of its own authority, and, using its war-time powers, overrode them. That happened to the decisions of not only the Stevedoring Industry Commission but also the Maritime Industry Commission and other war-time authorities. Now that peace reigns, the Government is not in possession of powers of the same magnitude, and, in order to overcome its loss of power and the refusal of the people to give it extra powers, it has decided to appoint this liaison officer. I believe that the Stevedoring Industry Commission will operate under a tremendous handicap if the appointment of the liaison officer is insisted upon. I think there is no doubt in the minds of the people that the liaison officer will be on the commission, not to express publicly the government views, because if the Government wanted public expression of its views, it could submit evidence on any matter considered by the commission, hut to convey to it reports of the commission’s activities. The Government wants to act not frankly but behind closed doors. The appointment of a liaison officer would tend to destroy the confidence in the commission of not only the employers and employees but also the people. Whatever merits there may be in the reasons for the proposed appointment that were given by the AttorneyGeneral, the dangers outweigh them.

I hope that the Attorney-General will appreciate that every honorable member wants to improve the industrial position, not only on the waterfront but throughout industry generally, and that the amendment has been moved with that end in view. So I trust that he will agree to drop the proposal. Whether or not Mr. Sutcliffe was on the commission during the war, there is no certainty that he will be appointed to the new commission, or that, if he should be appointed, he will remain on it, because he could be removed from it at any time. I have no doubt that, should the commission, if appointed, not give the kind of decisions wanted by the Government, he will be “ axed “. It is no reflection to say that he will be appointed, if he is appointed, to carry out the wishes of the Government, for, as a public servant, it will be his job to do so. We are not criticizing the individual. Our criticism is directed at the Government’s loading the commission with an extra man who will be its mouthpiece. That is an indication that the Government is ‘beginning to set up a “ gestapo “, a secret service, in order that it may be kept informed of what the various Commonwealth authorities are doing. I am glad that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, the second reading of which was moved yesterday by the Attorney-General, does not provide for a liaison officer between the Arbitration Court and the Government, but it is not beyond the Government’s capacity to amend that bill to pro- vide for one because, although this bill was introduced only recently, after a great deal of consideration, as we know from the Attorney-General, we have had placed before us by the Government three pages of amendments, and a government capable of such comprehensive reconsideration of this bill may be expected to be equally diligent in re-considering the other. 1 ask the Attorney-General, in the interests of industrial peace, to put the Stevedoring Industry Commission beyond reproach and to have the employers, the employees and the people generally realize that the Government has accepted the people’s will and is operating under the Constitution as it is and not as the Labour party would have it.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

– The Opposition has not moved the amendment merely as a talking point, but because it believes that if the Stevedoring Industry Commission is to operate successfully it should be unhampered. It is extraordinary that as we discuss this matter we are unaware whether a commission is or is not to be re-appointed. We know that, although it was appointed in the first place to ensure a speedy turnround of vessels, the reverse has applied. Only yesterday the chairman, Mr. Morrison, was reported to have said that, in his view, it had failed in that it could not discipline the waterside workers. A strike of unparalleled proportions was raging on the Sydney waterfront and he recommended that the commission should be abolished. We do not know whether, if this bill is passed, it will ever be proclaimed.

Mr Abbott:

– We do not know whether the Attorney-General is presiding at a birth or a funeral.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– Quite so. We could discuss the bill with more assurance if we knew the Government’s intentions, and were certain that after the passage of the bill a permanent Stevedoring Industry Commission would arise from the ashes of the war-time body. If a new commission should be established, the people of Australia will look upon it much more favorably if the employers and the employees are represented equitably under the chairmanship of a judge of the Arbitration Court without any representative of the

Commonwealth Government being a member of it. The commission will control the affairs of an industry employing a body of men who can do more to affect the public welfare than perhaps any other group of unionists in Australia. Their actions affect exports of primary products, and they can materially affect imports of goods necessary for the development of our secondary industries and the prosperity of the community. The interests of the nation will best be served if the commission is not influenced directly by the representative of any political party. The commission will be presided over by an Arbitration Court judge.

Mr Beale:

– We hope.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– I accept the assurance given by the Minister that he intends to appoint an Arbitration Court judge as chairman of the commission. The chairman will not be subject to the conditions which normally apply to Arbitration Court judges. His appointment will be made by the Minister of the day, and he will be eligible for reappointment after a term of a few years. Notice that the term of appointment is limited. It will not be for an indefinite period, as is the case with appointments to the Arbitration Court.

The commission will not be able to alter standard hours of work in the stevedoring industry, but it will have power to do anything that it wishes in connexion with wages, and it will also have important managerial and administrative powers. It will be able to take managerial control entirely out of the hands of a shipowner. Its rule will be supreme on the waterfront. Intruded into the membership of this commission will be a representative of the Commonwealth. What is the reason for this provision? We have been told by the Attorney-General that the appointment will be made because, from time to time, there may arise problems which will need intergovernmental action. This officer will institute negotiations leading to such action. That is not a valid reason for the appointment. The Arbitration Court judge who will be appointed as chairman of the commission could approach the government and ask for appropriate action to be taken whenever such a problem arose. Therefore, the only argument advanced by the Government in favour of this appointment is invalid. In the past, the Government has shown a strange lack of resistance to trade union influence, and, unfortunately, to Communist influence. As the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale) has proved, there is a remarkable similarity between this bill and the bill drafted by Jim Healy, the Communist boss of the waterside workers. On frequent occasions in recent years the Government has danced to the tune of the union bosses. I believe that the Commonwealth representative will be appointed so that the views of the waterside workers and their Communist bosses, or of the trade unions in general, can be brought to bear in the deliberations of the commission. There is ample evidence to support my belief that the Government is willing to yield to tho influence of the waterside workers. During the dark days of the war, when ships were pulling into Brisbane and Sydney to load urgently needed war material, the waterside workers engaged in strikes. Despite the fact that strategic plans had been made and dates had been fixed for offensives in New Guinea, these men continued with their policy of disruption on the waterfront. The Government took no action against them, and we do not know whether its representative on the commission advised it to take action or not. Instead of penalizing the strikers, the Government called out soldiers on “ six bob “ a day to load the ships.

Another instance of the Government’s weakness in its dealings with the waterside workers was its feeble acceptance of the union policy towards the Dutch in Indonesia. In this instance, too, it failed to discipline the waterside workers. What role did the Government’s representative on the commission play on that occasion? We have not been told. We can only judge the Government by its record, and its record on the waterfront is deplorable. There have been numerous hold-ups, costs have been forced up, and the turn-round of ships has been delayed with consequent interference to the trade and commerce of the country. Because of these facts, the public will view with grave suspicion the Government’s decision to appoint to the commission a man who will have a voice in its discussions but will have no responsibility for its actions. For its own benefit, if not for the good of Australia as a whole, the Government should remove the cause of this suspicion by abandoning the proposal. Such an appointment is not necessary. The judge who will preside over the commission could approach the Government on any matters which required intergovernmental action. The Government could consider his advice and take action immediately. It would certainly meet with little obstruction from the State governments, five of which are controlled by the Labour party. We consider the amendment to be of vital importance. Let us have a commission in which we can have faith. On its past record, the Government cannot command the trust of any reasonably intelligent person who has taken an interest in affairs on the waterfront. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

Mi-. BEALE (Parramatta) [8.39].- The committee is considering clause 5 of the bill, which provides that, in addition to the chairman, two representatives of the employees and two representatives of the employers, an officer of the Commonwealth shall be appointed to the commission. The Opposition has submitted an amendment proposing to delete that part of the clause which provides for the appointment of an officer of the Commonwealth. A very important principle is involved here. At the outset, we asked the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) this very pertinent question : Why was the recommendation of the royal commissioner, Judge Foster, not followed in this connexion 1 Judge Foster recommended that the commission should consist of a chairman and four other members. He did not say anything about the appointment of an officer of the Commonwealth. The Attorney-General has a most acute mind, and very great clarity of expression, but T have never heard him at worse advantage than when he sought to explain this matter. Indeed, he was driven to express, not his own views, but the views of the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) regarding the retention on the commission of the Commonwealth officer. What does the Minister for Supply and Shipping know about it? I could have understood, and I could have been very much impressed by a closely reasoned argument by the Attorney-General, who is a man of very ‘great experience; but I suggest that the case exposed its own weaknesses when the right honorable gentleman had to import the views of the Minister for Supply and Shipping in order to justify the retention of this official.

Judge Foster made no bones about it. As the royal commissioner, he heard the evidence of the representatives of all parties. After having sat for some months, he brought in a most voluminous report, and he was satisfied that it was a bad thing to have a Commonwealth officer on the commission. Despite His Honour’s finding, we .are now asked to perpetuate something which was done during World War II. Mr. Justice Dixon and Judge Foster specifically stated that what was done during World War II. in connexion with the Stevedoring Industry Commission was purely temporary, and was to cease at the termination of hostilities. That statement appears on page 12 of Judge Foster’s report. Notwithstanding that opinion, we are asked to agree to the retention on the commission of the Commonwealth officer. I should like to know what functions this officer will perform that cannot be exercised by the secretary or the chairman of the commission. I am completely unconvinced by the reason advanced by the Minister for Supply and Shipping for the retention of the Commonwealth officer. The suggestion is, among other things, that this would be on a “ Cabinet level”. I do not understand that. The suggestion is that negotiations would take place from time to time with State governments, officials, or industrial tribunals. In my experience of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales, the State judges have not had any difficulty on any occasion in negotiating with Ministers of the Crown, departmental heads, and Commonwealth officers. They do not need a government nominee on the commission. On none of the industrial tribunals in New South Wales is there such a nominee. I should like to know why the Attorney-General proposes to perpetuate this temporary measure, and depart from established practice.

Mr DALY:
Martin

.- As was pointed out by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James), we have been treated to-night to an exhibition of stonewalling by members of the Opposition, who have made a deliberate attempt to put political propaganda over the air, careless of the welfare of the nation which this bill is designed to promote. The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) criticized the AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt) for leaving the chamber for a few moments in order to pick up some notes on the bill. Judging by the speech of the honorable member, 1 should say that it is a pity he did not take the trouble to provide himself with some notes, because his whole speech was nothing but stone-walling, and had nothing to do with the clause before the committee. Honorable members opposite have taken exception to the proposal to appoint to the commission a government representative.

Dr Evatt:

– They admit that he is a capable man.

Mr DALY:

– Yes, and that he has rendered great service to the Commonwealth. There is no consistency in the arguments of the Opposition. Surely it is reasonable that the Commonwealth should have a representative on any authority which is charged with the expenditure of £600,000 a year, or with the expenditure of any amount, for that matter. This practice was always followed by governments which were supported by honorable members opposite. Therefore, their objection to this provision is merely an attempt to find fault with the bill which, in their hearts, they know is likely to usher in a period of industrial peace. Honorable members opposite are palpably inconsistent. First, they said that the Government should not have implemented Judge Foster’s recommendation. At the same time, they found fault with Judge Foster’s record and made various insinuations against him. In the next breath, they criticized the Government for failing, in this instance, to follow the judge’s recommendation.

Dr Evatt:

– And Judge Foster did not recommend against this provision.

Mr DALY:

– No. Obviously, honorable members opposite have cast consistency to the winds. Their sole purpose is to find fault. Consequently, their arguments lack substance. No reasonable man can support their proposition that the Government should not appoint a representative on an administrative body for which the Government is responsible. But, viewing this provision in the least favorable light, what damage can be done by appointing a Government representative on this body? That representative will not have power to exercise a vote. His duties will be purely those of an observer on behalf of the Government. In the last resort, on any issue which goes to a vote, and in the nature of things many such issues will arise, he will not be able to influence the decision of the commission, because he will not have a vote. All decisions of the commission will be majority decisions, and the government representative will have no say when the vote is taken. Therefore, we can dismiss the arguments of the Opposition on that point. Honorable members opposite are merely stone-walling.

The honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) said ‘that this measure had been inspired by the Communists. In that respect, he repeated groundless statements by the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale), who said that the wording of certain paragraphs of the measure was identical with that of provisions in what he termed “ Mr. Healy’s bill “. The honorable member, apparently, is not aware that the particular provisions to which he referred in that respect are taken verbatim from regulations of the National Security (Stevedoring Industry) Regulations, and that, obviously, Mr. Healy took his wording from that source when drafting the bill which he submitted to Judge Poster. Honorable members opposite deliberately misrepresent the facts when they say that any clause of this measure has been inspired by the Communists. The honorable member for Parramatta in speaking against the measure has been “ off the beam “ altogether. At the appropriate time I shall read to honorable members figures which completely answer the arguments advanced by the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony). Honorable members opposite have no intention of endeavouring to make practical suggestions for improvement of the measure. I am appalled to find that responsible members of Parliament should endeavour to hold up this measure which is designed to establish peace on the waterfront.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I strongly oppose the setting up of a stevedoring industry commission which is provided for in the clause now before the Chair. I oppose this provision, first, because it meets the desires of the Communists, who have deliberately instigated unrest on the waterfront with the sole idea of giving the Government a pretext for the proposed alterations of our arbitration system. The objective of the Communists is to weaken, and then destroy, the existing arbitration system. Under this measure, the Government is helping them to achieve that aim by takthe stevedoring industry away from the Arbitration Court and placing it under the exclusive control of a commission. Under such conditions the Communists will be able to hold up shipping in every port in Australia to the grave detriment of our commerce and consequent loss to our producers.

Much has been said with respect to the appointment of a government representative on the commission. I am unable to work up indignation on that point, because, under the measure, the commission will be so constituted that it would not make any difference at all were it to consist of half a dozen government representatives. The commission is to be composed of a chairman who will be appointed by the Government. Of the other four members, two will represent the “ Com “-directed Waterside Workers Federation, one will represent the Australian shipowners - and we know that the Government now controls 90 per cent, of the ships plying in Australian waters - and the other member will be a representative of the overseas shipowners in whose selection I have not the slightest doubt the Government will have a very large say. Thus the Government will have the “ bag “. I oppose the setting up of this commission for many reasons, the chief of them being that I do not believe that such a body will be capable of establishing peace on the waterfront. I do not believe that honorable members opposite sincerely think that the setting up of this commission will achieve any worthwhile results. It will not enable parties in the industry to become friends. It will not be able to make the men work, and thus enable the country to carry on its industries and commence, particularly with countries which are now in such dire distress and are clamouring for supplies of foodstuffs. Although the Arbitration Court is quite capable of carrying out the duties which will be allotted to the proposed commission, the Government doesnot hesitate to set up this new body at ». cost of £600,000 a year and appoint to it two “ Corns “, a government representative who will also he a “ Com “, and a representative allegedly of the Australian shipowners who also will, in fact, be another government representative. No doubt, after the next general elections, a defeated Labour candidate will be appointed to that position.

The cost of maintaining the commission will have to be passed on. to whom? It cannot be passed on to the Government, because the Government does not produce commodities. The Government merely talks about what it does for the producers, and the subsidies which it gives to them. It does not give anything at all to the producers. All subsidies come out of the pockets of the taxpayers. This £600,000 will be taken by compulsion by the authorities 6n the wharfs by a charge of 4£d. for each man-hour worked by stevedores and waterside workers. That charge will be passed on to the primary producers and manufacturers of secondary products, who ship their commodities either interstate or abroad. As the establishment of the commission was desired by the Communists we have no confidence in its ability to bring about peace on the waterfront and a quicker turn-round of ships. I believe in the maintenance of the arbitration system. I go further and say that we should continue in existence only the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court. Many years ago a former Prime Minister, Mr. Bruce, expressed a strong request for one arbitration system. He asked the States to abolish the state system, claiming that if they did not abandon it he would ask them to agree to the abolition of the Commonwealth court. I see nothing in this bill which will improve conditions on the waterfront, and accordingly I shall vote against the clause providing for the establishment of the commission.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Burke:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I uphold the point of order. The honorable member is not in order in discussing the Indonesian situation.

Mr WHITE:

– I was not discussing it. All I said was that the Attorney-General had made no reference to it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The honorable member is not in order in discussing my ruling.

Mr WHITE:

– There seems to be little that I may say, but I have a few minutes left.

– Of course he will have a voice unless he is completely dumb. A man with long experience in a government department and with an intimate knowledge of the industry must have some influence on the commission. That will be a very good thing, because the commission will have many administrative functions which will affect the Commonwealth Government. This officer will not have a vote, but he will report to the Government which, after all, will bear most of the criticism from the community, and certainly from the Opposition, in the event of disruption occurring on the waterfront. There is nothing consistent about the arguments of honorable members opposite. Those arguments are completely out of harmony with their usual line of propaganda, by which they endeavour to sheet home to the Government all responsibility for industrial unrest. The amendment should be rejected.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Mr. Harrison’s amendment ) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman -

Mr. T. P. Burke.)

AYES: 31

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Foes .. .. ..22

Majority . . . . 9

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), I move -

That, in sub-clause (3.), paragraph (6), the words “ or a Conciliation Commissioner appointed under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1346” be left out.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the chairman of the Stevedoring Industry Commission shall be a judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and shall not, as has been suggested during this discussion, be a conciliation commissioner appointed under the Com monwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. This is one of the most important clauses of the bill. The whole of the arbitral powers of the commission will be abrogated unless the chairman is a judge of the Arbitration Court. When replying to the second-reading debate, the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) declared that the provisions of the bill almost slavishly followed the recommendations of Judge Foster regarding the establishment of the commission. In this instance, however, the right honorable gentleman departed radically from the recommendations. On page 24 of the report, His Honour said -

I have accepted the proposal of the Oversea Shipping Representatives Association that the chairman should be a judge of the Arbitration Court, and rejected Mr. Healy’s claim that he be a laymen. Mr. Healy feared that” a judge would bring a legalism and legalistic outlook and a cumbersome legal procedure which would militate against the commission’s effectiveness. Mr. Shand, and in this he had of course the support of Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Sholl, made what to mc was an unanswerable case.

Those are strong words. Having heard evidence and argument, His Honour came to the conclusion that the contention that a judge of the Arbitration Court should be appointed chairman of the commission was unanswerable. Mr. Healy had claimed before the royal commissioner that the chairman should be a layman. What constitutes a layman? He is a man who has no judicial authority - a man who might be appointed as a conciliation commissioner, because a conciliation commissioner need not possess any judicial experience or be a legal practitioner. For example, he may be a defeated Labour politican, a Communist from the Waterside Workers Federation or a union secretary or organizer. In short, a layman may be anybody whom the Government desires to appoint to this position. The AttorneyGeneral has compromised between the finding of the royal commissioner and the views expressed by Mr. Healy. He said, in effect, “I shall not offend Judge Foster by excluding from appointment as chairman of the commission a judge of the Arbitration Court”. Earlier, the right honorable gentleman had stated that a judge would be appointed, if possible. I ask honorable members to mark the qualification. At the same time, the Attorney-General did not desire to offend Mr. Healy, so he decided to permit the possibility of the appointment of a conciliation commissioner. Of course, the conciliation commissioner would be a layman, and Mr. Healy advocated the appointment of a layman to that position.

The honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) attempted to reply to the statements by members of the Opposition that this is a Communist-inspired bill. I direct attention to the following observation by Judge Foster, in reference to Mr. Healy : -

His wide proposals envisaged the running of a very big business by the Stevedoring Industry Commission throughout Australia as actual employers.

Let us consider the advantages of appointing a judge of the Arbitration Court. As has already been pointed out, he will be in a position to maintain a close liaison with the Arbitration Court, so that there will be a degree of co-operation which could not otherwise exist. The whole purpose of the bill is to remove the stevedoring industry from the control of the Arbitration Court. Members of the Opposition have pointed out that this may well involve grave dangers. It will tend to sectionalize industry, and unrest may be caused if this industry is placed in too favorable a position compared with others. However, if a judge of the Arbitration Court is appointed chairman of the commission, there is a chance that a< common policy may be applied in making determinations for waterfront work, and for other branches of industry still under the control of the court.

The next obvious advantage of appointing a judge as chairman - and in this T think the Attorney-General will agree with me - is that a judge is possessed of an authority under the Constitution that no conciliation commissioner can in law possess. We know from many judgmentsof the High Court the weakness inherent in appointing judicial- officers who lack life tenure. The appointment of someoneless than a judge may very well lead usinto a legal maze which everyone wouldwant to avoid. The Attorney-General iswell aware of this, and he must be influenced by this consideration in desiring: that a judge should be appointed.

Another point is that a judge would: possess qualifications for the position aschairman of the commission which noother citizen could have. I am not referring now to merely legal training, but to judical training, to the forensic experience which he has gained, and which must make him peculiarly fitted to exercise judicial functions. Some one who’ has had experience in the courts, who hasfought now on one side and now on the other in the almost infinite variety of cases which come within the experience of alegal practitioner, must be better qualified to see both sides of a situation than any layman, no matter what his training or experience. Therefore, a judge,, also by reason of his training, is more suited to fill the position than any other citizen could be. The next qualification which he possesses over and above any possessed by a layman is independence of mind, because the whole of his training has taught him to take a stand, ignoring public opinion and pressure from one side or the other which, in an industry like this, will certainly be applied. It would be idle and foolish to shut our eyes to the fact that in an industry such as this, in which there is so much conflict and hot feeling on both sides, endeavours will be made to bring pressure to bear on the chairman. The chairman is the key man, because with two representatives of each side, and the chairman having a casting vote, he will be the really effective member of the commission. A person with the training and background and the quality of independence of mind of a judge is the ideal candidate for this position.

Mrs Blackburn:

– Does not the honorable member believe that a person who accepts the position will be capable of exercising independence of mind?

Mr BEALE:

– Even assuming that a person has honesty of intention, will he possess qualities equal to those possessed by one who has had judicial training? I suggest that the whole of our experience in these matters during the last 100 years indicates that that is not so. It is not merely a question of honest intention. Assuming, for the purpose of the honorable member’s argument, that any person who is appointed is honest and intends to do’ his best, the fact remains that in matters of this kind, where bitter pressure will be brought to bear, it will not be sufficient for him to have honest intentions. The person appointed to this position must have the sort of training which will enable him to stand up to pressure. Let us take the position of the conciliation commissioners. They may be anybody. I assume that they may have honest intentions; but they may not have. In this sphere, we have all sorts of people who may be appointed. It has been disclosed that defeated Labour candidates and members of the Australian Labour party have been appointed as conciliation commissioners. They may turn out to be good people; but in New South Wales, again and again, union secretaries, and ex-union secretaries, have been appointed conciliation commissioners under State legislation. Those people have spent their whole lifetime absorbing one point of view. Even given honesty of intention, it is very difficult, indeed, for persons like that to become fair and impartial ; and it would be equally wrong to appoint as chairman of this commision a person who has been identified all his life with the shipowners’ point of view. Such a person, by occupation and by association, cannot help but be influenced. In a position of such vital importance to the coun try, and having regard to the need to maintain public confidence in this tribunal, it is necessary to appoint as chairman of it a person who is quite removed from the interests of any one party. I am quite sure that every word I have said meets with the approval of the AttorneyGeneral, and that if he had his way he would appoint to this position a man -with a trained judicial mind. I regret that he will not accept the amendment because the sole object of it is to give effect to what the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General believe in.

Mr MCBRIDE:
Wakefield

.- I am certain that the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) will agree to every word uttered by the honorable “ member for Parramatta (Mr. Beale). The more we examine the bill in detail the more depressed we become. The Government realizes the necessity for this commission, and is aware of the importance of the job which will be entrusted to it. It realizes that competent people should be placed in control of the tribunal; but it also realizes the difficulty of securing the services of competent people for positions of this kind. For that difficulty the Government itself is to blame. Although it has paid lip service to the principle of arbitration, it has rarely supported that principle in fact. Consequently, it will experience difficulty in obtaining persons with suitable qualification for appointment as chairman of the commission, as, I have no doubt, it will also have difficulty in inducing people with suitable qualifications to accept judgeships in the Arbitration Court. The Arbitration Court has, since its establishment in 1904, earned for itself outstanding prestige in the public mind. It is only during recent years that the status of the court has diminished. That process is still going on. The Attorney-General has said that he would appoint a judge to this position, and, indeed, he gave the committee an assurance that he will appoint a judge if it is physically possible to do so. Does he suggest that there is not a competent person in the community who is prepared to accept a judgeship in the Arbitration Court? Such a suggestion would be preposterous, were the prestige and status of the court as high to-day as it was in the past. We have ample evidence of the difficulty of the Government in this respect. One after another, the appointees of the Government to various authorities which it has established have resigned. After the Government established the Joint Coal Board months elapsed before it could obtain a person competent and willing to accept the position of chairman of that body. This commission is being set up under a cloud. It will notstart off with the prestige, or the status, which a body of such importance should enjoy. To-day, industrial organizations are passing resolutions in direct conflict with the accepted practice of the Arbitration Court. There must surely besomething wrong in this land if no person with the necessary qualifications is prepared to accept a judgeship of the Arbitration Court. I trust that the Attorney-General will prove his confidence in this commission by accepting the amendment. If he does so it will convey to the people that he believes the commission to be a worthwhile authority and to the legal fraternity it will be an earnest of his belief that it will serve a useful purpose. There will then be no difficulty in securing a competent person willing to accept a judgeship of the Arbitration Court and the chairmanship of the commission. If the right honorable gentleman wishes to launch this commission on a sound basis, to ensure that it shall do its job, and at the same time hold the confidence of those upon whose affairs it is to adjudicate, hewill accept the amendment. The people generally and those working under the commission will then feel that its originators have confidence in its powers to do the job it will be asked to perform.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Mr.

Harrison’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Cchairman - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 32

NOES: 21

Majority…. 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

.- I move-

That the following new sub-clause be added: - “ (5.) A known or reputed Communist shall be ineligible for appointment under this section, proof whereof to the contrary shall lie upon him “.

This is one of the most important amendments that could be made to the bill. Government supporters have indulged in a great deal of talk about the necessity for a fight with the Communists. The Government itself has already taken action in trade union circles to establish an alternative to the Australasian Council of Trade Unions. We have witnessed the banning of a Labour league in the Macquarie district; we have read statement after statement by Government spokesmen to the effect that the great trouble in industry to-day is due to the influence of the Communists and their followers. Therefore, the Communists should be rooted out of all unions and industrial tribunals. As I have grave doubts about the bona fides of the Government in this respect, I introduce this amendment to test ite sincerity. If the Government really believes what it has been asking the people to believe, it will have no hesitation in accepting this amendment. If it is not prepared to do so it may, if it so desires, appoint a Communist to the commission.

Mr James:

– I shall consider voting for the amendment if the honorable member will alter it in such a way as to preclude the appointment to the commission of a member qf the Liberal party.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a member of the Liberal party to secure an appointment through the good offices of the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James). The Communist menace is no laughing matter, and, if the Government desires to deal with it, it will have no hesitation in accepting the amendment. I leave the matter for the moment, because I want to hear the Attorney-General on it. He should have at his disposal, through the various departments that he administers, complete information as to the activities of these gentlemen in the community. Not long ago, he placed before honorable members authentic information as to what the Communists are doing in other countries. The time has come for the Commonwealth Parliament to face up to these fellows and say that no job shall be made available to any member, or reputed member, of the Communist party and that if any one wants to clear himself of that reputation -the onus shall rest upon him.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- I support the amendment to exclude Communists from appointment to the Stevedoring Industry Commission. Here is a great opportunity for the Government to show its sincerity. We know that privately many members of the Labour party are fiercely opposed to communism and to Communist domination of the trade unions. Moreover, the men within the unions will thank the Government if it declares itself. Many honest men in the stevedoring industry and other industries who want to work are forbidden to work by the machinations of men who owe no allegiance to this country. If those men can be segregated, forced from the dominant positions they occupy, many good Australians will have the right to work returned to them. The opportunity is here for the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) to advise his followers to support the amendment. When he returned from one of his trips abroad the right honorable gentleman had favorable things to say about Russia. The Russians feared for their defence, he said. But he has seen and learnt a lot since then, and has made statements that the world is in a large measure menaced by the policy of Russia to-day. We have the fifth column of Russia operating in our midst. Honorable members saw the report of the Canadian spy ring inquiry. What happened in Canada is happening in Australia. Australia is suffering from the activities of the Communists, who, if justice were done, would be prosecuted and gaoled or deported to the country whence they draw their inspiration. Let the Government declare itself when the division comes by saying that it, too, wants to see the Communists eliminated.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– The amendment proposed by the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) applies to the clause under which the Stevedoring Industry Commission is proposed to be set up. The clause provides that the chairman shall be a judge of the Arbitration Court or a conciliation commissioner; but, in all probability, as I have indicated, he will probably be a judge of the court. The commission shall also consist of an officer of the Commonwealth, who will represent the Government and will not have a vote, two representatives of the shipowners and two elected representatives of the union. The amendment proposes the addition of a new sub-clause providing that -

A known or reputed Communist shall be ineligible foi appointment under this section, proof whereof to the contrary shall lie upon him.

Who is to determine whether he is a reputed Communist? Is it to be a case of give a dog a bad name and of saying to the dog, “ You must prove that you have not a bad name “. That is the kind of thing that was introduced by the Hitler regime in the early days of the Nazi terror, when cries against the Jews and the “ reds “ were raised. Such a law is absolutely unworkable. If any attempt be made to deal with the Communist problem it will have to be made in quite a different way from that envisaged by the honorable member for Barker. I can indicate no support from my party for the disqualification of a person simply because of his being reputed to belong to an organization or to have political views, unless he proves that he does not belong, to it and does not have those views. That would introduce a tyrannical system quite out of keeping with industrial arbitration. The whole plan is that the union shall have the right to elect its representatives. If it were said that certain groups were to be disqualified on proved facts, it would be serious, but if the disqualification rested merely on suspicion or reputation, it would1 be tyranny at its worst, and’ it would create industrial chaos in the community.

Mr Rosevear:

– And the onus of proof is to be on the accused.

Dr EVATT:

– Yes. If the amendment were agreed to and applied literally, the judge of the Arbitration Court whom we asked to take the position of chairman of the commission would’ have to prove to some one not stated that he was not a Communist. In fairness to the honorable member for Barker, I do not think lie ‘advances Ids amendment as a serious contribution to the solution of a .serious problem. In any case, the proposal is not practicable and is wrong in principle.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

– lt is evident that the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) is anxious to meet the spirit of the amendment of the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron). All he takes real exception to, from his reply, is the use of the words “ reputed Communist “. Perhaps in that respect the right honorable gentleman’s objection has a great deal of merit, especially as the onus of proof to the contrary is proposed to be on the reputed Communist, and I am inclined to agree with him.

But I think too that the Attorney-General is anxious to include in the bill a provision that will bar known and admitted Communists from appointment to theStevedoring Industry CommissionTherefore, if the amendment moved by the honorable member for Barker should be defeated, I shall move a further amendment, in the terms of the honorablemember’s amendment, to provide that known and admitted Communists shall be barred. That would conform to the views of the Attorney-General.

It is well known that the Communist party has one purpose, namely, to harrass established forms of government. Its members boast that their object is to overthrow the existing order of society and bring about the downfall’ of democratic government, whether it be a Labour government or otherwise, and that in order to achieve this they propose to foment strikes and general dislocation of industry. The object of the bill is to bring about harmony on the waterfront. How could that object be achieved if a man appointed to a commission was a Communist pledged to bring about chaos on the waterfront? The speech made by the Attorney-General was in line with the views of the majority of honorable members. For instance, the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Edmonds) expressed similar views in his maiden speech in this chamber, and the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) and the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) have done so in numerous public statements. Honorable members on both sides of the chamber regard members of the Communist party as a menace to constitutional government in this country.

Me. Rosevear. - What would happen if a Communist selected for appointment to the commission happened to be an exserviceman ?

Mr ANTHONY:

– He should be treated as a Communist, even if he had been awarded the Victoria Cross. Every Communist is pledged to bring about the downfall of the democratic system. Nothing can alter that fact. I consider that the honorable member for Barker has done a service by submitting his amendment to the committee, although I do not agree with him that reputed Communists should be disqualified arbitrarily. If the committee defeats the amendment, I shall move another amendment to give effect to the views which were enunciated by the Attorney-General and which are supported by many other honorable members.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I wholeheartedly support the amendment. All of our industrial troubles on the waterfront and elsewhere are due to the activities of the Communists, who are determined to prevent people from working whenever possible. In spite of all their claims to the contrary, they have achieved nothing of any value for the waterside workers or for the remainder of the community. The only ‘benefit that the waterside workers have obtained as the result of Communist agitation is a provision for special payment for handling odorous cargoes, such as hides or bad potatoes, which is known as “smell money “. I watched several of these Communists going through a wharf shed on one occasion. They went from one bag to another, sniffing at each in order to see whether they could claim “ smell money “ for the men handling the goods. In this instance, they decided to “ demand half-a-crown “ for handling buffalo hides. I do not know whether they meant half-a-crown an hour, or half-a-crown for each hide; probably the result would have been the same in either case. Under Communist pampering, the waterside workers will probably begin to carry beauty compacts and scent bottles. I hope that the Government will not permit avowed Communists to be appointed to the Stevedoring Industry Commission.

Amendment negatived.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

– I desire to move -

That the following new sub-clause be added : - (5.) A member of the Communist party shall be ineligible for appointment under this section.”

This amendment is more specific than the amendment which has just been defeated. It does not place on individuals the onus of proof that they are not members of the Communist party.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am of the opinion that the amendment is out of order. The honorable member should have submitted it in the form of an amendment to the amendment which the committee has just negatived. I rule that the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) is substantially of the same character as the amendment which has been defeated, and I cannot accept it.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I rise to order. I distinctly heard the honorable member for Richmond state that, if my amendment were defeated, he would submit another amendment of which he gave notice at that time. You did not then call his attention to the fact that you would not accept his amendment in that form. I contend that, in the circumstances, the obligation was upon you to point out immediately that, if the honorable member for Richmond desired to move that amendment, be must submit it while my amendment was under consideration.

Mr Rosevear:

– I rise to order. The onus is not on the Chairman to point out to an honorable member whether a motion that he proposes to submit will be in order or out of order. The onus is on all honorable members to read and understand the Standing Orders.

Mr Spender:

– Surely the test of whether this amendment is in order is whether it is similar to the amendment which was negatived. The amendment which was negatived covered a much wider field than that which the honorable member for Richmond has submitted. The amendment submitted by the honorable member for Barker was to the effect that a known Communist, or a reputed Communist, should be ineligible for appointment to the commission and that proof of non-membership of the Communist party should be the responsibility of any person so challenged. Many honorable members on this side of the chamber might take exception to the wide provisions of such an amendment. The defeat of that proposal by no means negatives the lesser proposal submitted by the honorable member for Richmond. I contend that your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is wrong..

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The Chair has ruled that the amendment is substantially of the same character as the previous amendment, which the committee rejected. The honorable member for Richmond should have moved an amendment to the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Barker, with a view to striking out the words to which he objected. The onus does not rest upon the Chair to inform honorable members what they should do under the Standing Orders. Honorable members are entitled to submit amendments at the appropriate time, and it is for the Chair to rule whether such amendments are in order. In this instance, the amendment which the honorable member for Richmond has moved is not in order.

Mr SPENDER:

– I move-

That the ruling be dissented from.

Mr Abbott:

– I rise to order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no point of order.

Mr Abbott:

– I desire to raise a new matter under the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member will not be in order in doing so before the motion has been disposed of.

The honorable member for Warringah having submitted in writing his objection to the ruling,

Question put -

That the ruling he dissented from.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. j. j. Clark.)

AYES: 21

NOES: 32

Majority.. 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 11.28 to 12 (midnight).

Friday14, March

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 - (1.) The Chairman shall not, except with his consent, be required to perform any duties as a judge of the Court or as a Conciliation Commissioner, as the case may be.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– I move -

That, in sub-clause (1.), after the word “except”, the following words be inserted: - “ as otherwise provided by this Act or “.

The additional words cover the position which would arise should the judge, as chairman, exercise jurisdiction under a clause which I shall move later to provide that the chairman of the commission shall exercise the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court in respect of legal questions. With the clause in its present form the judge could decline to perform that duty. The amendment simply makes itclear that he must perform the duties to which I have referred.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 - (1.) The Governor-General may appoint a person to be the deputy of any member of the Commission.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

– I move -

That, in sub-clause (1.), after the word “ Commission “, the following words be added: - “but such deputy shall not be a member of the Communist party “.

The Government and its supporters claim that they are fighting the Communist party and that the Labour party stands as a bulwark against communism. It is well known that it is the policy of the Communist party to obtain control of certain organizations in this country, and thereby place the government of the day in a powerless position. Accordingly they set out to ensure that key positions in various organizations shall be filled by Communists. Their tactics have been successful in the Waterside Workers Federation, the Ironworkers Union, and other organizations. The amendment, if agreed to, will prevent a Communist becoming the deputy of a member of the Stevedoring Industry Commission. The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) has spoken in terms which leave no doubt that he is opposed to the activities of Communists. Indeed, he has told us that he would welcome assistance in combating their activities. The amendment should, therefore, be acceptable to him.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– As the committee has already rejected a similar amendment in relation to the members of the commission it would be inconsistent to agree to this amendment in relation to the deputy of any of such members. As the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) has said, I am opposed to the activities of Communists, but there is also an obligation to guard against the activities of other organizations or persons who in season and out of season exaggerate the activities of Communists. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– When the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) was speaking to my amendment some honorable members gained the impression that if they watered down their proposals, the right honorable gentleman would be prepared to accept them. I did not hold, that view because I was firmly convinced that the AttorneyGeneral would not accept any amend ment. The Opposition is determined to have a vote on this subject, and will, if necessary, move a similar amendment to clause 10, and unless it be out of order it will move the same amendment later as a new clause should the occasion warrant such action. The AttorneyGeneral may wriggle, but the Government must face this challenge. The vote of every honorable member will be on record.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– I foreshadow a further amendment, namely, the addition of a new subclause 4 to read, “A person who is, or becomes, a member of the Communist party shall no longer hold any office under the commission to which he is appointed

Question put -

That the amendment (Mr. Anthony’s) be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. j. j. Clark.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 30

Majority…. 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment (by Mr. Spender) proposed -

That the following sub-clause be added: - “ (4.) A person who is or becomes a member of the Communist party shall be disqualified from becoming, or, if already appointed from continuing, to be an officer or employee of the Commission.”

THE CHAIRMAN- The amendment is out of order. The clause relates to the appointment of deputies, and the honorable member’s proposed amendment is, therefore, not relevant.

THE CHAIRMAN. - I have ruled that, because clause 7 deals with the appointment of deputies, the honorable member’s amendment is out of order.

THE CHAIRMAN. - The honorable member is familiar with the contents of the bill, and he must know the appropriate place at which to move the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN.- Clause 7 is the only matter before the Chair.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 - (2.) The Chairman may, and shall if so directedby the Minister, at any time call a meeting of the Commission.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) I move -

That, in sub-clause (2.), the words “and shall if so directed by the Minister “ be left out.

Once again we find that the Government proposes to exercise direction over the commission. Already, we have charged the Government with directing the present commission. The result of that has been to rob the commission of the powers it already possesses. Interference by the Government with the commission has caused the resignation of valuable officers. Further, the commission has been held in contumely, and the waterside workers have refused to take any notice whatever of the commission’s rulings. When we pointed out those facts, the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) and the AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt) assured us that the Government had no intention of interfering with the commission. However, dealing with the clauses, we found, first, that the Government proposes to appoint an officer of the Commonwealth to the commission, and that his duty will be to report to the Government. Obviously, the Government intends to use that officer for the purpose of implementing its policy, that is. for party political purposes, because through him it will direct the commission what it must do. Now, in the clause under consideration, in the words for the deletion of which I now move, we find an admission by the Government, an admission naked and unashamed, that it intends to direct the commission. If the commission is to be vested with the same functions as the Arbitration Court, surely the Government will not need to direct the chairman to call a meeting of the commission. We are told that the chairman may be a judge, in which case he will have undoubted standing. He will be fully competent to ensure that the commission carries out its functions because he will be versed in arbitration procedure and will not fail to call meetings of the commission when it is necessary to do so. It would appear that there is an ulterior motive underlying this provision, because it says, in effect, that whilst the commission is actively employed about its duties the Minister may direct the chairman to call a meeting of the commission.

The next question that arises is for what purpose would the Minister direct the chairman to call a meeting. In this, we have revealed the Government’s purpose in appointing a representative on the commission. He will say to the chairman, “ There has been some alteration in government policy and you must call a meeting of the commission”. When the chairman asks the reason for such a meeting, the officer will reply, “ I have been directed by the Government to inform you that it considers that a certain decision made by the commission is contrary to government policy. You have deregistered a number of men, and the Government now directs you to reinstate them. You must call the commission together for that purpose “. I remind the committee that the Government ordered the reinstatement of men who were deregistered as the result of the pay day dispute. In that instance, the Government said, in effect, to the present commission, “ You deregistered fourteen men, and now you have a strike on your hands. Now, we direct you to reinstate those men”.- That is what happened in the past. Under this measure, the Government will have power to call the commission together and to direct it as to what it should do. I have not the slightest doubt that that is the object of this provision, and, that being so, honorable members on this side of the chamber will vigorously oppose it. We are opposed to the setting up of a party political junta which seems to be the Government’s objective in appointing the commission. Such action will not be tolerated by the people for one moment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 - ( ] . ) Subject to the approval of the Minister, the Commission may appoint such officers and employees as are necessary to assist it in exercising its powers and functions under this Act.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– I move -

That, after sub-clause (1.), the following new sub-clause be inserted: - “ ( 1a. ) In the appointment of all officers and employees under this section, preference shall be given to returned servicemen and servicewomen.”

Up to date, the Government has merely indulged in shadow-sparring in professing its support of the principle of preference in employment, to ex-service personnel. In making any worthwhile appointment up to date is has invariably found some excuse for wriggling out of its obligations to grant preference to ex-servicemen. It has made many appointments for which hundreds of ex-service personnel, out of the 750,000 members of the fighting forces, were highly qualified and would have carried out their duties with efficiency and benefit to the community. I ask the Government to demonstrate its bona fides in the matter of preference for ex-servicemen by accepting the amendment. Under the Rehabilitation and Employment Act preference to exservicemen is limited to a period of three years. I object to the whole basis upon which the Government has professed to grant preference to ex-servicemen. If the Government is really desirous of honouring its obligations to ex-servicemen it should grasp the opportunity now presented to it by accepting the amendment.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

.- Under the Reestablishment and Employment Act provision is made for preference to exservicemen according to a plan accepted by the Parliament. That provision applies to employment with the Stevedoring Industry Commission just as it does to employment with the governments of the Commonwealth and the States or under awards of the Arbitration Court or industrial tribunals. The Government proposed to adhere to the law of preference as laid -down by the Re-establishment and Employment Act. If the honorable member wishes to amend that law he will have to endeavour to do so on some other occasion.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– If an ex-serviceman is not a registered member of the Waterside Workers Federation how may he obtain employment under this clause? The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) knows very well that the claim that exservicemen are protected under the Rehabilitation and Employment Act is mere sham and hypocrisy. He is well aware that if an ex-serviceman be not registered by the Waterside Workers Federation he cannot secure employment with the commission as the clause now stands.

Dr Evatt:

– The clause deals only with the appointment of the commission.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I am aware of that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s remarks are not relevant to the clause under discussion.

Mr ABBOTT:

– Then I shall take a later opportunity to express my views on the subject.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

– I am somewhat surprised at the reply given by the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) to the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis). The right honorable gentleman knows very well that the specific preference granted to exservicemen under the re-establishment legislation is inoperative in all cases where it may be of value. If the AttorneyGeneral and the Government are sincere in their protestations about the welfare of ex-servicemen, there can be no possible objection to the insertion in every bill which proposes the establishment of authorities or commissions of a clause providing for preference to ex-servicemen in such appointments as may be made. Sub-clause 2 provides that officers and employees appointed to the commission shall not be subject to the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1946. Only a fortnight ago the Government introduced a bill the purpose of which was said to be to bring additional public servants under the Commonwealth Public Service Act, yet to-day it includes in another measure a clause specifically excluding the employees of the Stevedoring Industry Commission from the provisions of that act. The only, difference between the employees of the Stevedoring Industry Commission and employees of the Repatriation Department and the War Service Homes Commission, with whom the recent legislation had to deal, is that the latter are almost exclusively ex-servicemen. As the subclause stands at present the employees of the commission may apparently be anything but ex-servicemen. The manner in which the proposal of the honorable mem.bev for Moreton was brushed aside by the

Attorney-General seems to indicate that ex-servicemen are the last people to be given consideration by this Government. No doubt the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) will ask what is the position of Communist ex-servicemen. I am strongly of the opinion that all Communists, whether they be exservicemen or not, should be excluded from appointment to the commission.

Mk. Rosevear. - Even those decorated with the Victoria Cross?

Mr ANTHONY:

– Yes. Tens of thousands of ex-servicemen who are not Communists possess the requisite qualifications for appointment to the commission, and accordingly it is not necessary to consider members of the Communist party when selecting ex-servicemen for appointments such as this. I have no doubt, however, that some honorable members opposite when considering applications for such appointments would think first of members of that party. The reply given by the Attorney-General in relation to the commission and its staff being excluded from the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act is inconsistent with the principles of the bill which was before us only a fortnight ago. I support the amendment.

Mr. WHITE (Balaclava) [12.37 a.m.J. - I support the amendment, and I appeal to the Government to accept it as embodying a principle in which it professes to believe. Honorable members opposite know only too well that the preference provisions of the Rehabilitation and Employment Act are honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Instances of this which have arisen in the past may well be repeated. Too often has the Government ignored the principles in which it professes to believe. There have been instances of that kind in connexion with recent appointments of trade commissioners. Of the applicants for the post recently filled by Mr. Breen and Mr. Frost, the former members for Calare and Franklin, respectively, 219 out of a total cf 319 were ex-servicemen, yet their rights were ignored. Hundreds of young ex-servicemen who have had the reponsibilities of command, and who lost five valuable years of their lives while serving their country, have come back only to find themselves laughed and jeered at by honorable members opposite. I have had many letters about ex-servicemen being taken from the services of the States into the Department of Supply and Shipping who have never been able to secure permanent positions. I support the amendment.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– I makea further appeal to the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) to accept the amendment. I stress the need for such an amendment because every time there has been a worthwhile appointment ex-servicemen have been excluded because of some technicalities or some hidden features in the Rehabilitation and Employment Act. We had an instance of this in a recent appointment to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. When we objected we were informed that the council was not subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act. Is it proposed that the employees of the commission shall or shall notbe public servants? Will the Attorney-General say whether all appointments under this bill will or will not be subject to the Re-establishment and Employment Act? I do not like the way in which the Government has been making appointments of late. It never lets an opportunity pass to side-step the preference sections in that act. It exercises a skilled hand in drafting legislation in order to avoid granting preference rather than carry out the letter and spirit of the Re-establishment and Employment Act. I want on this occasion to put the issue beyond a shadow of doubt. All honorable members with regard for the welfare of ex-servicemen will support the amendment if it comes to a division, but I hope that the Attorney-General will reconsider his amazing attitude of hostility to the amendment and accept it without dividing the committee.

Question put -

That the amendment (Mr. Francis’s) be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. J. J. Clark.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 31

Majority…… 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– I move -

That the following new sub-clause be added : - “ (4.) Aperson who is or becomes a member of the Communist party shall be disqualified from becoming, or if already appointed, from continuing to bo, an officer or employee of the Commission “.

The amendment speaks for itself. My purpose is to see precisely where the Government stands in relation to its contention that it is opposed to the Communists. It is acknowledged that Communists are at the root of the troubles wherein the Government is defied on the waterfront. I should particularly like to know where the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) stands when it comes to a vote on the proposed new sub-clause because for a long time he has pretended opposition to the Communists. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) has also expressed views against the Communists, but I doubt whether it Was more -than mere talk, and I shall be very surprised if he ever does more than talk about the Labour party being opposed to them. The Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward), who is endeavouring to interject, is a notable exponent of the Communists’ tactics of branding as a fascist anybody who opposes communism. Indeed, I am inclined to believe that the honorable member is a secret member of the Communist party. If we held an inquiry into the activities of that party, the result might be upsetting to him. T. Lave reasons for making that statement. This proposed new sub-clause will give Government supporters an opportunity to indicate clearly whether they are opposed to communism or not. They have frequently expressed their opposition to the party. Now they have a chance to give expression to that opposition by disqualifying any member of the Communist party from being appointed as an officer or employee of the commission.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

. ‘ - I strongly support the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender). The Communist party is the most dangerous disruptive organization in Australia to-day. Its members openly declare their opposition, to any form of constitutional government. I know of numerous instances in which Communists have led unions into industrial trouble. We must increase production .if Australia is to prosper, but we cannot do so while Communists are white-anting our key industries. They control the coal-mining industry, for example. The acting president of the miners federation in my home town is a professed Communist. Men like him have caused untold trouble in the industry. They have also caused unrest amongst waterside workers ami seamen. Australia to-day is suffering from the effects of scores of strikes and disturbances from Cape York to Wilson’s Promontory. There are many industrial disputes in northern Queensland. Thos*; have not been actively fomented by Communists, but the workers involved in them have found that to strike is the only way in which they can impress their grievances on the Government. Dairy men have discovered that they cannot secure a fair deal unless they strike or threaten to do so. They have learned this lesson, from Communist-controlled organizations. I shall do everything in my power to resist the disruptive tactics of the Communist party. Australia should now be on the crest of the greatest wave of prosperity in its history; but the Government, owing to its futility and weakness in dealing with militant unions and the Communists, has missed its golden, opportunity. I support the proposed new clause.

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

– This proposed new clause applies the acid test to the Government and its supporters. Nearly all of the honorable members whose bright shining faces I see before me have, from time to time, protested in throbbing tones their opposition to communism. Yet now that they have a clear-cut chance to exclude Communists from appointments to the staff of the Stevedoring Industry Commission, they “ squib “ the issue. The obvious inference is that all their anti-Communist talk is mere humbug and hot air. I believe that some honorable members opposite would support the amendment but for the fact that they are so regimented that they are not game to defy their masters. There is no doubt that others amongst thom, in their hearts, are enthusiastically in favour of Communists and their technique. Honorable members opposite say that the Communist party is “ only another political party “ and that therefore we should not interfere with it. But it is not a political party at all. It is a revolutionary party. Every tenet of its faith favours revolution. If, of course its members can achieve their objects by white-anting our’ constitutional institutions they will do so. If they fail to succeed in this way, they will do it by blood-thirsty revolution. That is their avowed policy, which is expressed in every Communist text-book and which is uttered by Communists in the Sydney Domain every Sunday afternoon. The central article of the party’s faith is revolutionary, not political. We say that members of this organization who are pledged to destroy our democratic institutions, by bloodshed if necessary, should be prevented from doing so. If it can be proved that they are creeping into important public positions, we should take steps to exclude them from such positions. I do not agree that a reputed Communist should be required to prove his innocence, but men like Healy, Roach and Thornton, who are confessed Communists, should not be permitted to occupy public positions, they should be banned from the commission, and this amendment will do it. We should provide in this bill that any man who is proved to be a Communist should be forced to resign. The matter of proof offers no more difficulty than in any other matter of proof in courts. Unless the protestations of honorable members opposite have been nothing more than hypocritical flapdoodle, they will vote for the proposed new clause before the committee. If they oppose it, we shall know them for what they are - fellow travellers with the Communist revolutionaries.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I cannot understand why the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) will not accept the proposal before the committee. He has listened attentively to the speeches made by honorable members on this side of the chamber, but he has not explained why he opposes the proposed new clause. He knows that Communists who will seek appointments to the Stevedoring Industry Commission will do so for the purpose of disrupting the industry. Knowing this to be the avowed policy of the Communists the right honorable gentleman should seek to protect the industry, which is susceptible to Communist infiltration. The president of the Waterside Workers Federation is a selfconfessed Communist, and there are many Communist cells within the federation. There is no doubt that the representatives of that organization on the commission will be Communists. Surely the Minister is anxious to ensure that the staff of the commission shall be free of the taint of communism. Our arguments have been clear and simple, and there is no reason for the Minister to hedge on this matter. If the Labour party sincerely desires to clear its ranks of Communists, it will accept the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender).

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

– I am not surprised that the AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt) does not reply to the Opposition’s contentions, because he is not able to do so; but I am surprised that my own colleagues have so little knowledge of political principles. It is well known that the Labour party is a socialist party, and that its members believe that no farm, business factory, or home should be owned by an individual.

Mr Ward:

– What rot!

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– Members of the socialist Labour party must believe that, if they are true to their election pledge.

THE CHAIRMAN. - Order ! The honorable member is digressing.

Mr Hutchinson:

– I am not.

THE CHAIRMAN.- The Chair has ruled otherwise.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– The Communist party and the socialist Labour party have the same objective. Both parties believe in the complete socialist state.

THE CHAIRMAN. - Order ! I ask the honorable member to relate his remarks to the amendment.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– I am referring to communism. The Attorney-General could not reply to the contentions of the Opposition because the objectives of the socialist Labour party and the Communist party are the same. The only point of difference is that the Communist believes that a socialist state can be attained and held permanently only by totalitarian methods. It is on the question of method only that these two political philosophies differ.

What argument could the AttorneyGeneral advance against the amendment except that no person should be debarred because of his political views from seeking employment and sustenance for himself and his family. He cannot use it, -because this bill deprives men of the right to work on the wharfs unless they are members of the Waterside Workers Federation. In truth, the right honorable gentleman is left without a feather to fly with. He cannot deny the contention that the objective of socialist Labour is the same as that of the Communist party. He cannot state that the

Communist can be debarred from entering this industry because of his political views, as the bill provides that a man may only be employed on the wharfs if he is a member of the Waterside Workers Federation. For those reasons, the Attorney-General is not able to reply to the contentions of the Opposition.

Mr Rosevear:

– Then why has the Opposition asked the Attorney-General to reply?

Mr.HUTCHINSON. - I am making it plain that there can be no reply. Honorable members opposite dare not vote for the amendment, but honorable members on this side of the chamber are bound, first, to tell the Australian people exactly what the Labour party stands for; secondly, to reveal that socialist Labour and the Communist party have a common objective; and, thirdly, to expose the tyranny involved in the bill.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.The Opposition, which has monopolized this discussion, has not attempted to define “ Communist “. If the Government accepted the amendment, it would be obliged to define “ Communist “, and would experience great difficulty in doing so. Many people who claim that they are supporters of the Labour party, actually are not. Some of them have “twisted” to the Liberal party. Many people who describe themselves as Liberals, are actually not Liberals. How are we to bring into the net by legislation all the persons that we desire to catch ? The task would be impossible. Wherever it has been tried, it has failed. For example, it failed dismally in Germany. Repressive measures will drive the Communists underground, where they work most effectively. Let the Communist party remain in the open, where we can. see it working. If we drive it underground, we shall not know what it is doing until it is ready to rear its ugly head. The Opposition has given the Communist party an excellent advertisement.

Mr Rosevear:

– The best “ boost “ that the Communists have ever had.

Mr.DUTHIE. - I agree. This advertisement which the Communists have received during this discussion is out of all proportion to the influence that they exercise in this country. The only effective way in which to dealwith the Communists is not the method which the Opposition proposes. I referred to it in my second-reading speech, when I pointed out that the workers themselves should get rid of their Communist officials by defeating them at the annual elections for executive positions in the unions. That is the democratic way. Any other method will give rise in Australia to conditions similar to those that prevailed for years in Germany and certain other countries.

Question put -

That the amendment (Mr. Spender’s) be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. J. J. Glare.)

AYES: 20

NOES: 31

Majority…. 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 - ( 1. ) The functions of the Commission shall be-

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I move -

That, in sub-clause (1.), paragraph (b), the words, “ and to regulate and control the performance of stevedoring operations,”, be left out.

If the amendment be agreed to, paragraph b will read - to regulate industrial matters in connexion with stevedoring operations, in so far as those operations relate to trade and commerce with other countries or among the States or are performed in a Territory of the Commonwealth.

This is a cleverly designed paragraph, the effect of which could be completely to nationalize or socialize the stevedoring industry. The words which the amendment would delete from the paragraph appear at first sight to be innocent enough, but they could lead to the Government taking over control of all stevedoring operations in Australia. On page 25 of Judge Foster’s report His Honour referred to certain recommendations made by Mr. Healy, the general secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation. Already during this debate honorable members on this side have pointed out that the object of the Communists is to bring about a nationalized State. Referring to Mr. Healy’s suggestions, Judge Foster said -

His wide proposals envisaged the running of a very big business by the Stevedoring Industry Commission throughout Australia as the actual employers.

His Honour referred to that matter earlier in his report, because on page 2 he said. -

Mr. Healy suggested that a commission be set up: which, in effect, would, as a quasi- governmental institution not only settle industrial relationships involved, but would also manage the whole industry.

That is clear. Mr. Healy submitted to Judge Foster a proposal for the control of the industry, and later His Honour said that Mr. Healy visualized the Stevedoring Industry Commission as one big business. One wonders whether the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) has fallen into a trap, but perhaps he has not done so because, after all, one object of the Labour party is the socialization of industry. It may be that the AttorneyGeneral, with the help of Mr. Healy hopes, in this way to give legislative effect to one plank of the Labour party’s platform. Paragraph b of sub-clauseI would give to the Government power to socialize the stevedoring industry. If that is the Government’s intention, the Minister should say so.

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– It is correct, as I pointed out this afternoon when replying to the second-reading debate, that the powers conferred on the commission go beyond the settlement of industrial disputes and the regulation of industrial matters in relation to stevedoring operations, and include the regulation of the performance of stevedoring operations in interstate and overseas trade. It is also correct that Judge Foster did not recommend that as a present functional purpose of the commission, but His Honour also said, in addition to what the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) has read, that this power should be a reserve power in the hands of the commission. On page 22 of his report Judge Foster said -

Further, the more remote future may hold developments in this industry with which it would be altogether impossible for the court to deal. The tribunal to be set up should be such as could offer advice about the future development of the industry and also grow up in experience and power with these foreseeable developments.

Speaking of the desirability of the chairman devoting his full time to the work, His Honour said -

There is a tremendous task ahead to lift the status of this industry to the plane where alone we may expect results satisfactory alike to the workers, the employers, and the community.

Ho dealt then with the matter of discipline and referred to the profit motive as a means of achieving efficiency and economy in the industry in times of peace, but that motive was largely lost during the war. He added -

Pence may restore it but in the meantime if employers will not or cannot, conduct .this industry with maximum efficiency, then in the interests of the industry and the community, the Stevedoring Industry Commission must be given some powers to this end.

On page 29, the judge again refers to the community having an interest, both in efficient management by owners and fair and reasonable work by employees. He then goes on to discuss the problem of decasualization. On page 33 of his report, the judge concludes -

The conduct of the industry depends, more than most industries, upon the successful cooperation with other bodies, and that provision should be made to enable this to be dime as far as is constitutionally practicable. “Whilst the judge has specifically rejected, at least for the present, any suggestion that the commission should be set up as a quasi-governmental institution, not only to settle the industrial relationships involved, but also to control and manage the whole industry, the references above to his report indicate clearly that he has in mind for the commission, functions beyond the settlement of industrial relationships between employers and employees. To enable it to carry out some of these functions, the commission has been specifically empowered, as will be seen by reference to clause 13 of the present bill. It will be incumbent upon the commission to encounter many novel situations in its efforts to supervise and regulate the industry, and to serve, by so doing, the public interest. It is not possible, at this juncture, to anticipate just what difficulties and problems will be encountered, nor to specify in the bill what powers could be given to the commission to equip it to deal satisfactorily with all the developments which may occur. Therefore, it is regarded as essential that there should bc some reserves of power, and this is provided for in paragraph b of subclause 1 of clause 11.

– The Government is selling out to these extremists. But honorable members opposite will suffer with the rest of Australia when the extremists take this power. There will be greater strikes on the waterfront; and honorable members opposite will soon know all about it.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Mr. Harrison’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. T. P. Burke.)

AYES: 31

NOES: 20

Majority…… 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– This clause is the one in which we find the considerations that must guide the commission. As the safety principle is not incorporated anywhere in the bill, I suggest that it should be inserted in this clause. It could appropriately be inserted after the word “ speedy “ in paragraph a of sub-clause 2, which would then read - (2.) The Commission shall exercise its functions with a view to securing -

the speedy, safe and efficient performance of stevedoring operations.

If that were done, I should regard the clause as satisfactory.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– Safety is one of the factors which have no direct relation to industrial matters and to industrial disputes. It should be one of the overriding purposes of the regulation-making power of the commission to ensure that adequate safety precautions shall be taken. The place suggested by the honorable member is a convenient one to insert the word “ safe “, and I am prepared to accept a suitable amendment.

Amendment (by Mrs. Blackburn) agreed to -

That, in sub-clause (2.), paragraph (a), after the word “ speedy “. the word “ safe “be inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 (Hearing, &c, of industrial disputes).

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– I move -

That, after sub-clause (2.), the following new sub-clause be inserted : - “ (3.) For the purpose of hearing the parties to the dispute, and of inquiring into and investigating the dispute, the Commission shall have the same powers as the Court or a Conciliation Commissioner has under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1946 in relation to industrial disputes.”

This will give to the commission the long list of powers possessed by the Arbitration Court in order to hear disputes effectively.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Powers of Commission).

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– I ask the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) to clarify the meaning of this clause. We know that another measure will be introduced to impose a tax on the stevedoring industry for the purposes of this bill. The clause as printed contemplates the imposition of an additional burden, or the granting of power to the commission to impose a burden in excess of the levy to be raised by the taxing measure. Sub-paragraph vi. of paragraph b gives power to the commission to provide, or require the provision of, canteens, cafeteria, dining-rooms, rest-rooms, and adequate sanitary and washing facilities for waterside workers. Am I to understand that in addition to the levy to be imposed upon the industry power is to be given to the commission to require those engaged in stevedoring operations to provide at their own expense any of the amenities to which I have referred ?

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

, - A. taxation plan has been devised for two purposes, first to provide the administrative expenses of the commission and secondly to make it possible for the commission to make payments as a charge against the industry as a whole rather than against individual employers. These powers may in a sense be regarded as imposing additional burdens. The commission- may exercise them within its discretion after hearing the evidence and according to the nature of the award or order made. To increase wages or to fix hours may impose additional burdens. I remind the honorable gentleman, however, that power to fix hours also implies power to reduce hours. With that reservation the meaning placed upon the clause by the honorable member is correct.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– The last sub-paragraph of paragraph b empowers the commission to make provision for the payment of guaranteed weekly or daily wages to waterside workers. I am not at all sure as to what is the policy of the Government on this matter. Sub-paragraph ii of paragraph b empowers the commission to make provision for annual and sick leave. Having regard to the industrial trouble on the waterfront to-day, does the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt), intend that a waterside worker may strike and break the law as often as he likes, and, in due course, after the expiration of every twelve months, be entitled to annual leave at the expense of the Crown?

Dr Evatt:

– As in the case of the Arbitration Court, the conditions under which such annual leave may be granted or withheld will bc at the discretion of the commission-.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Then some direction should be given to the commission limiting the condition* under which annual leave may be granted. The representative of the Government on the commission will be able to put the Government’s viewpoint in regard to these matters without reference to this Parliament. That is a matter about which we have already complained. I am firmly of opinion that if a man fails to carry out the job he has registered himself to perform - and I use the term “ registered” with a good deal of emphasis - severe penalties should be imposed upon him with respect to his rights to annual leave. These penalties should not be left for determination by the commission; they are matters upon which the Parliament should have some definite say. Is it likely that in cases of ordinary breaches of the law the Attorney-General would agree that the penalties to be imposed by the courts should be left to the determination of some outside body which may not include in its membership one member of the judiciary. The right honorable gentleman will say at once that the penalties should be incorporated in the act. Should, not that be also the case in this instance? Sub-paragraph iv of paragraph b empowers the commission to establish and administer employment bureaux for waterside workers. If all waterside workers are to be registered,, as is contemplated by this bill, what need is there for employment bureaux?

An employment bureau is an exchange where people who require labour and those who proffer their services meet and come to an agreement. Under this proposed law nobody will be offering for work unless he is a registered member of the Waterside Workers Federation. That is quite clear. Therefore, the necessity for an employment bureau in the generally accepted sense will not arise.

The clause further provides that the commission shall have power to make provision for the payment of attendance money to waterside workers. I have heard it described as “ appearance money “. I think this is one of the most remarkable things any government has ever agreed to. We have heard a lot about conditions on the waterfront. In the Sydney Daily Telegraph of last Saturday there appears a list of tax-evaders, some of whom are described by the Taxation Commissioner as fraudulent. One in that category is a waterside worker who understated his income from 1937-38 to 1939-40 and from 1941-42 to 1943-44 by £1,935, on which he was charged an additional penalty of £203. I am amazed that the “waterside workers have not proclaimed a general strike in order to have that gentleman’s penalty returned to him. That poor fellow is to get 16s. a day when he turns up for work and there is no work for him. If the payment of appearance money is to apply on the waterfront, it will not be long before the Commonwealth Government will have other industries applying for similar treatment - the building industry, for instance. When a wall is started and inclement weather intervenes, the men cannot work; but what is to prevent them from turning up to collect appearance money ?

Mk. Chifley. - A similar provision is contained in many awards.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Then, by heaven it will not be long before it is in every award. If that provision is to be incorporated in awards for the stevedoring industry, it must be incorporated in the awards for other industries. I say to the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) and to the Attorney-General that the conditions that they are putting into pieces of legistion like this connote such a financial responsibility that no government will be able to stand up to it. They are in the position of the lady friends of Louis XIV. of France who could idly say, “After us the deluge”. The flood will come after the present Ministry goes out aud a government from this side will have to clean up the mess that it is so glibly making now at the expense of other people.

Certain things in this bill cannot be justified by any government in any circumstance. The cost of handling on the wharfs has risen enormously as the result of reduced output per man-hour. More men do les3 work. It stands to reason that the value of our exports .must decline and the cost of our imports increase because of the increased costs of handling on the wharfs. I am surprised that this bill does not provide that anyone working overtime on the wharfs shall be guilty of a capital offence, because that is just about what we are getting to. The world was never in more need than now of the commodities that we have to export. Yet there is a deliberate, premeditated and malicious attempt by the waterside workers in the port of Sydney to keep those commodities from the people who want them. All we get in response to that from the Government is that extra good conditions are to be provided for the men responsible for that state of affairs. Claude 13 is wicked and unjustifiable. It is time that honorable members of the Opposition, who represent industry, stand for freedom of the individual and believe that something like common sense should be imported into legislation, took a firm stand.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 - (2.) The provisions of section forty-eight and of section forty-nine of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1941 shall apply to awards and orders made by the Commission which are of a legislative and not an executive character, in like manner as they apply to regulations.

Dr. EVATT (Barton- Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs [1.57 a.m.]. - I move -

That, in sub-clause (2.), after the word “ Commission “, the following words he inserted: - “ (not being awards or orders made to prevent or settle industrial disputes, or regulating industrial matters, in connexion with stevedoring operations) “.

The effect of the amendment would be, as in the case of awards and settlements of disputes made by the Arbitration Court, to require industrial matters to be kept within the province of the commission. All’ other orders, such as those regulating stevedoring operations, would be subject to disallowance in either chamber. The necessity for that was pointed out to honorable members in the second-reading debate. This is to meet requests expressed during the secondreading debate with which the Government is in agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 683

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1947, Nos. 15, 10.

Lands Acquisition Act- Land required for Commonwealth office accommodation purposesSydney, New South Wales.

House adjourned at 2 a.m. (Friday).

page 683

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Public Service

Mr Hamilton:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

How many (a) temporary and (6) permanent officers were employed in each Commonwealth department at the 3 1 st December, 1946, or latest available date?
How many (a) temporary and (6) permanent officers wore employed in each Commonwealth department at “ the 31st December, 1941 V

Mr Chifley:
ALP

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

The information required is contained in the attached statement. The figures supplied relate to persons who were employed at 30th June, 1941, and 30th June, 1946, under the Commonwealth Public Service Act. The actual figures at the end of 1941 and 1040 are not available.
See answer to No. 1.

National Film Board

Mr Hutchinson:

n asked the Minister for Information, upon notice -

Why is .there no longer a non-public servant representative of the public on the National film Board?
Is it a fact that Professor Stout, who was previously on the board and was dropped from it last year during its reconstruction, had urged production of documentary films giving a realist presentation of Australian life, problems and culture?
Is it a fact that Professor Stout campaigned against alleged financial starvation of the board, that he attacked .the Department of Information’s alleged pinpricking on expenses, and that he urged the establishment of a training scheme?
What films have been made by the board in the last year, what subjects have they been on, where have they been shown, and what have been the total costs of film-making by the department?

Mr Calwell:
ALP

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

Members of the Australian National Film Board are chosen not because they are members or non-members of the Public Service, but because of their capacity to contribute .to the work of the board.
During his membership of the board Professor Stout had no keener appreciation of the need for realist films than any other member of the board.
No. Professor Stout, like other board members, knew that if more money had been available more films could have been made. At no time did he attack the Department of Information for its insistence on treasury and audit requirements being adhered to in the interests of the Australian taxpayer. Pro fessor Stout favoured an elaborate training scheme prepared by the then Film Commissioner, but the scheme was considered to be both premature and beyond the financial and technical resources of the Department of Information.
The Films Division of the Department of Information, which is the production body of the Australian National Film Board, made 23 films during the twelve months ended the 28th February, 1947, and has another 21 in varying stages of production. The names of the films, the subjects they dealt with and the arrangements made for their exhibition are appended -

Cinderella on Strings (35 nun. and 16 mm.). - Experimental film showing use of puppets. A number of copies have been purchased by education departments.

Native Earth (35 mm. and 16 mm.) - The story of Australia’s work in the mandated territory of New Guinea. Commercially re’leased in Great Britain and France and in Australia. Copies circulated to all overseas points. Inquiries for commercial release in South Africa, Egypt and Singapore now under consideration.

Pacific Terminal (35 mm. and 16 mm.). - A picture on Sydney and its environs circulated to all overseas points and extensive showings reported. Inquiries for commercial release in Egypt and Singapore.

School in the Mail-box (35 mm. and 16 mm.). - Featuring Australia’s correspondence schools’ systems. Made for showing at Paris U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference. ls being shown commercially in Great Britain and France and inquiries received for commercial release from Egypt, South Africa, Singapore and Australian theatres.

Story of a City (1.0 mm.). - A documentary in colour on Newcastle, New South Wales. Made for special display at exhibition held at Newcastle-on-Tyne. Circulated to all overseas points. Copies sold to educational bodies.

Watch over Japan (35 mm. and Iti mm.). - Depicts the role of Australians as members of tha British Occupation Forces. Commercial release pending in Australia and several other countries. 16-nim. copies for release at all overseas points. - V ostein Gateway (35 mm. and 16 mm.). - A documentary on Perth made for special showings in Perthshire, Scotland. Screened theatrically throughout Australia. Inquiries for commercial release from Egypt and Singapore. Wide distribution at many overseas points.

Building a Brick House* (35 Ulm. and 16 mm.). - Produced for Department of Labour and National Service for training purposes.

Men Wanted (35 mm. and 16 mm.). - Produced for Department of Immigration for screening in United Kingdom.

Australian Diary No. 1, Australian Diary No. 2. - Produced in conjunction with Fox Movietone News. 35-mm. release restricted, but 16-mm. copies distributed to all overseas points for non-commercial screenings.

Australian Diary No. 3, Australian Diary No. 4. - Series of short “ way-of-life “ sequences produced by department’s films division. Commercial release being investigated. 16-mm. copies being printed for distribution to all overseas points. It is intended to produce one diary each month. Release in several countries expected.

Australia To-day (10 mm.).- A comprehensive four-reel ‘ film on Australia in colour. Widely in use overseas. Very well received and in keen demand. Many copies have been sold by the department.

Bushland Fantasy, Fine Feathers ( 16 mm. ) . - Two natural history colour films produced for’ use by overseas representatives of the Commonwealth. Widely released and in keen demand by educational bodies.

Journey of a Nation (35 mm. and 18 mm.). - A break-of-gauge film completed for Department of Transport. Theatrical release being arranged

Galling the Community (35 mm. and 16 . mm.).- Produced for Department of Post-war Reconstruction for educational purposes.

Something to Eat (35 mm.). - Released theatrically in Great Britain, for which country it was specially made.

Book in Circulation (35 mm.). - Produced for the Department of Repatriation to show what is being done for maimed servicemen; released theatrically.

Loans Films (35 mm.). - Three films were produced in connexion with the Security Loan.

The cost of these films was approximately £32,500.

In addition to the above subjects 21 films are in course of production and are nearing completion. Six of these are in 16-mm. colour and fifteen in 35-mm. black and white, which will also be reduced to 16-nnn. size for world distribution.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 March 1947, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1947/19470313_reps_18_190/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives13 March 1947

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr BRENNAN:BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Francis:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr DUTHIE:WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr CALWELL:Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

COMMUNISM;

Mr HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Harrison:

Mr CHIFLEY:

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr CLARK:DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:ALP

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Mr BOWDEN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

Dr EVATT:Attorney-General · BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

PALUDRINE

Mr LANG:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHAMBERS:ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

LANDING SHIPS

Mr HOWSE:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr RIORDAN:Minister for the Navy · KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

QUESTION

WAK PENSIONS

Mr DUTHIE:

Mr BARNARD:Minister for Repatriation · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr ANTHONY:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr POLLARD:Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr ANTHONY:

Mr POLLARD:

QUESTION

BICYCLE TYRES. AND TUBES

Mr FRASER:EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr Fraser:

Mr DEDMAN:

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr HUTCHINSON:DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr POLLARD:ALP

QUESTION

HOSPITALS

Dr GAHA:DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr CALWELL:ALP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR,

Mr TURNBULL:WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr CHAMBERS:Minister for the Army · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

PRICES CONTROL

Mr SHEEHAN:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EVATT:ALP

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:Postmaster-General · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Dr EVATT:ALP

QUESTION

PENICILLIN

Sir EARLE PAGE:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:ALP

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Mr RYAN:FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr RIORDAN:ALP

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY OE WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr BEAZLEY:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

House of Representatives
13 March 1947

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr BOWDEN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General · BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr LANG:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHAMBERS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr HOWSE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for the Navy · KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Repatriation · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Defence · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

Dr GAHA:
DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr CHAMBERS:
Minister for the Army · ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EVATT:
ALP

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Dr EVATT:
ALP

Sir EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr RYAN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr RIORDAN:
ALP

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mrs BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EVATT:
ALP

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

Mr FADDEN:
Darling DownsLeader of the Australian Country party

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

Mr FADDEN:
Leader of the Australian Country party · Darling Downs

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava