House of Representatives
26 November 1948

18th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. J. J. Clark) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read! prayers.

page 3580

MINISTERIAL DUTIES

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

by leave - I desire to inform the House that the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard) will be requested to act as Minister for Air and Minister for Civil Aviation during the absence in New Zealand of Mr. Drakeford as from to-day, the 26th November.

page 3581

QUESTION

PETROL

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Prime Minister seen the report in the press that the price of petrol is likely to he increased by 2d. a gallon ? In view of the fact that the maximum price of petrol was 2s. 8Jd. a gallon when the war ceased, that thereafter it decreased by 4£d. a gallon but later returned to the same level, and that costs have increased by only a gallon, has the Australian Government any jurisdiction in relation to the proposed increase? If not, will the States allow the petrol companies to add a margin to their existing profits?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have not seen any statement about the matter, but I heard a radio “ newsflash “ this morning to the effect that such an increase is proposed. [ believe that a statement was made by a representative of one of the oil companies indicating that an application had been made for a price increase of 2d. a gallon and also indicating that there was no possibility of ending petrol rationing before the end of 1952. The Commonwealth, of course, has no power now to fix prices. Therefore, I presume that the matter will be arranged between the States. Although the proposed increase seems to be excessive, I know that there are factors affecting the cost of petrol which would tend to make an increase necessary. Shipping freights have increased very greatly, and other expenses involved in the production of petrol have also risen. I certainly thought that the suggested increase of 2d. a gallon was excessive, but no doubt the gentleman who made the statement is confident that he can convince the State prices authorities that such a rise is warranted.

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Fuel say whether a high official of the Liquid Fuel Control Board in Victoria was recently suspended? If so, was the official suspended because of alleged irregularities in the issue of petrol tickets? If the Minister cannot make a statement to the House to-day,, will lie cause inquiries to be made and advise the House of the result ?

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

– I shall obtain from the Minister for Shipping and Fuel theinformation for which the honorable gentleman has asked, and supply him. with an answer as soon as possible.

page 3581

QUESTION

EIRE

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a ministerial statement, reported to have been made in the Parliament of Eire, that special legislation may be necessary in, the United Kingdom and Australia and other dominions before Eire can repeal its External Relations Act and sever its last link with the British Crown. In. view of the statement to the contrary made in this chamber last night by the Minister for Information on behalf of Australia, I ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to statewhether the cabled report puts the position correctly. If so, will he indicate theGovernment’s attitude towards suchamending legislation as is necessary?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Yesterday a statement was made by Mr. McBride in theParliament of Eire, and in the British Parliament one was to have been made.. I am seeking confirmation of the precisetext and I hope that it will be received: within the next half-hour. I do not wish, to make a statement to the House that may not cover the exact position. “Whenthat confirmation comes to hand I shall1 ask the permission of the House to makea statement on the subject.

Later:

Mr CHIFLEY:
PrimeMinister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

by leave - I wish to inform the House regarding theaction of the Government and Parliament of Eire in repealing what is generally known as the External Relations Act. Some time ago it was announced by theGovernment of Eire that it intended torepeal the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act of 1936. It was alsoannounced by the Government that it did not regard Eire as any longer a member of the British Commonwealth of” Nations. This view seems to commend! itself to all parties in the Eire Parliament and a bill giving effect to the Government’s intention has now been introduced. The effect of that bill, when it becomes law, upon the relations of Eire with the United Kingdom and with other countries of the British Commonwealth was stated in the Eire Parliament by the Eire Prime Minister, Mr. Costello, as follows : -

So far we have :been unable to deal with British or Commonwealth subjects by means of the appropriate provisions of our Nationality Act. The appropriate provisions are of course those contained in Section 23, which provides that, where a country grants to our citizens certain rights, we may grant to their citizens like rights in our country. Inasmuch as Irish citizenship was not recognized in Britain, the provisions of Section 23 were inapplicable and various devices had to be adopted to afford British and Commonwealth subjects the rights which they enjoyed and which we intend to continue. Reciprocity is of course the basis of all exchanges of citizenship and trade preference rights. Accordingly, we propose as and when the Commonwealth countries grant our citizens recognition and rights to make orders provisionally under Section 23 (2) giving their citizens comparable rights. At a later stage, but in the near future I hope, it as the Government’s intention to review our whole nationality law and to bring before the Dail a comprehensive measure to rectify many of the anomalies that now exist in the Act of 1935. In the new Bill provisions will be made to ensure that Commonwealth citizens shall be afforded comparable rights to those afforded to our citizens in the British Commonwealth. There is one thing I should like to make clear to our friends in Britain and in the Commonwealth generally; it is that after the passage of this Bill we will continue, provided they so desire, the exchange of citizenship rights and privileges. Ireland does not now, and when the External Relations Act is repealed Ireland does not intend to regard their citizens as foreigners or their countries as foreign countries. Throughout, the position of the trish Government is, that while Ireland is not a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, it recognizes and confirms the existence of a specially close relationship arising not only from ties of friendship and kinship but from traditional and long-established economic, social and trade relations based on common interest with the nations that form the British Commonwealth. This exchange of rights and privileges, which it is our firm desire and intention to maintain and strengthen, in our view constitutes a special relationship which negatives the view that other countries could raise valid objections on the grounds that Ireland should be treated as a. foreign country by Britain and the Commonwealth countries, for the purpose of this exchange of rights and privileges. These are the considerations which we put forward to Britain and the Commonwealth countries. We found that they on their part were equally determined not to regard the passage of this Bill as placing Ireland in the category of foreign countries or our citizens in the category of foreigners but were prepared to continue the exchange of citizenship and trade preference rights. Accordingly, the factual exchange of rights that has existed hitherto will continue unimpaired. By reason of the fact that we have eliminated from this exchange controversial forms, we may. reasonably hope that a greater spirit of goodwill and co-operation will actuate this factual relationship.

Mr. Attlee has now made in the United Kingdom House of Commons a complementary statement as follows : -

In 1937, a new constitution was enacted in 1:ire in which no reference was made to the Crown. This, however, left in force the Eire Executive Authority (External Relations 1 Act of 1936 which authorized His Majesty the King to act on behalf of Eire in certain matters within the field of external affairs as and when advised by the Eire Executive Council to do so. In .December, 1937, the United Kingdom Government stated, after consults tion with the governments of Canada, Aus tralia, New Zealand and South Africa, that it. like those governments, was prepared to treat the new constitution as not effecting a funds mental alteration iii the position of Eire as a member of the Commonwealth.

On the 7th September last, the Prime Minister of Eire, Mr. Costello, announced that the Eire Government were preparing to repeal the External Relations Act. Subsequently, Mr. Costello confirmed this intention.

As the House is aware I took advantage of the presence in London during October of the other Commonwealth Ministers to arrange on the 17th October for preliminary discussions with Eire Ministers in order to explore the consequences which would flow from the legislation proposed in Eire. Representatives of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in which there arc particularly large numbers of people of Irish ancestry, participated in these discussions.

Since then the matter has been under constant examination here. When the Eire Government announced that the Repeal Bill (to be entitled the “Republic of Ireland Bill “) would be introduced on the 17th November, I thought it right that the situation should be further discussed -with members of the Eire Government and with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, all of whom were in Paris for the meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Discussions took place accordingly in Pari* last week. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my warm appreciation of the constructive part played by Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Fraser, Dr. Evatt and Mr. Pearson in the preliminary discussions. J have also discussed this matter personally with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and informed him fully of the position.

As a result of these discussions the United Kingdom Government has been able to give the most careful consideration to the relations between the United Kingdom and Eire when the Republic of Ireland Bill comes into force. The United Kingdom Government recognize with regret that Eire will then no longer be a member of the Commonwealth. The Eire Government have, however, stated that they recognize the existence of a specially close relationship between Eire and the Commonwealth countries and desire that this relationship should be maintained. These close relations arise from ties of kinship and from traditional and long-established economic, social and trade arrangements based on common interest.

The United Kingdom Government for their part also recognize the existence of these tactual ties and are at one with the Eire Government in desiring that these close and friendly relations should continue and bc strengthened.

Accordingly the United Kingdom Government will not regard the enactment of this legislation by Eire as placing Eire in the category of a foreign country, or Eire’s citizens in the category of foreigners. The other governments of the Commonwealth will, we understand, take an early opportunity of making a statement as to their policy in the matter.

So far as Eire citizens are concerned the position in the United Kingdom will be governed by the British Nationality Act 1948. The Eire Government have stated that it is their intention to bring legislation into line with that in Commonwealth countries so as to establish by statute that, in Eire, citizens of Commonwealth countries receive comparable treatment. [.’he Australian Government’s attitude has been one of deep regret that the association of Eire with the United Kingdom and the Dominions in membership of the British Commonwealth should he broken. Nevertheless, it was realized that this was ultimately a matter for the exclusive judgment of the Government and Parliament of Eire. The Ministers representing Canada, Australia and New Zealand at the recent British Commonwealth Conference agreed with United Kingdom Ministers that every effort should be made either to prevent altogether or at least to mitigate any lessening of the close association which has existed between Eire on the one hand, and the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other Dominions on the other. Accordingly, as is indicated in the statement which was made on behalf of the United Kingdom Government discussions took place along these lines.

It was agreed that the repeal of the External Relations Act could not be regarded as converting the status of Eire into that of a foreign country vis-a-vis Australia, Canada and New Zealand and the other countries of the British Commonwealth. The statements both of the Eire Government and of the United Kingdom Government as to the law and practice in relation to citizenship and nationality support this contention. The Australian Government supports the contention that the enactment of the new legislation will not place Eire in the category of a foreign country in relation to Australia, or the citizens of Eire in the category of foreigners here. At the same time, Australia must reluctantly accept the factual position, which we hope will be only temporary, that Eire, because of its own free choice, cannot now bc regarded as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It should be remembered that, as long ago as 1936, the Irish constitution was amended to remove from it the declaration that Eire’s status was that of a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Although the other governments of the British Commonwealth desired, and, in fact, have since continued to treat Eire as a member of the Commonwealth, that position is no longer tenable in view of specific declarations recently made by the Government of Eire. The External Relations Act, which is being repealed, is an act of a very peculiar form and character. A perusal of it suggests that, while His Majesty the King could lawfully be authorized by the Eire Government to execute instruments on its behalf in matters pertaining to external relations, the King does not, in so acting, exercise any legal powers or prerogatives in relation to Eire, but is merely a personal designation for the particular purposes of the statute. Nevertheless, it was thought that this statute could be deemed sufficient connexion with the King to warrant the declaration made in 1937 that Eire was still to be regarded as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

The sound and practical way to approach the question is to accept the declaration of the Eire Government to the effect that, while Eire does not regard itself as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, it does not regard itself, nor do the other nations of the Commonwealth regard Eire, as a foreign country. Particularly important is the declaration of the Eire Government that there is a special association with the nations of the British Commonwealth which it is the firm desire and intention of Eire to maintain and strengthen. The net result of all this is that the position of Eire for the time being is not that of 4i member of the British Commonwealth, but squally is not that of a foreign country. The general question of Commonwealth status need not be reviewed now. Australia’s position, however, is simple, clear and direct. Australia regards the British Commonwealth as based principally upon our relationship with the King, not as a mere symbol of association, but as our Monarch evoking precisely the same loyalty and affection in Australia as in Great Britain itself, and as exercising Royal powers and prerogatives in relation to Australia, although acting at all times constitutionally and exclusively on the advice of His Majesty’s Ministers of State in and for Australia. Therefore, we tend to emphasize not so much legal forms as real and substantial ties and sentiments and affection, not only for the King but also for other members of the Royal Family, who have had such close associations with this country. So looking at the matter, we prefer the specific continuance of the name “ British “ in the phrase “ British Commonwealth “ and everything this country and its Ministers have done has been based upon this fundamental premise.

At the same time, our policy has been not only to retain within the British Commonwealth all its membership but also, of course, to include within its scope new nations like India, Pakistan and Ceylon, and to take every possible step with a view to the re-inclusion in the British Commonwealth of their own free will of nations, like Burma, which were formerly within the Empire. The fact is that the British Commonwealth, in passing through the critical period of post-war stresses, has to adapt itself to new conditions and changing internal constitutional systems. It would be utter folly to contract this unique association at any point unless one were absolutely compelled to do so. It may even be that, subject to certain safeguards, common rights of citizenship as now envisaged in relation to Eire will ultimately be found to afford an additional basis of association which will not merely sustain the negative position that Eire is not to be treated as a foreign country, and that its citizens are not to be regarded as aliens, but also, on the positive side, will constitute a sufficiently close connexion to permit of the free re-entry of that country, to which so many Australians are attached by the closest ties of kindred, into full membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations of the future.

page 3584

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Loss of Aircraft “Lutana”: Report of Air Court of Inquiry.

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– On the opposition side of the House there are several honorable members who are well qualified to express opinions on matters relating to air travel. I refer particularly to the honorable member for Balaclava, who was a group-captain in the Royal Australian Air Force, and to the honorable member for Franklin, who was a Pathfinder pilot, in which capacity he had vast navigational experience and was awarded the Distinguished Service Order and the Distinguished Flying Cross and Bar. In view of the great importance of the report of Mr. Justice Simpson on the Lutana disaster, in which thirteen lives were lost - and additional lives have since been lost in other air tragedies - will the Prime Minister afford the House an opportunity for a short discussion to ventilate the report of Mr. Justice Simpson before the end of the current sessional period? That would give the honorable members that I have mentioned, as well as qualified members on the Government side of the House, an opportunity to state their views, in the light of their operational experience.

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Before the Minister for Air left Australia last night to attend the Joint Dominion Conference on air matters in New Zealand, I discussed this matter with him. Although I do not consider that anything could be gained by dealing with this matter in detail in the absence of the Minister for Air, I shall give consideration to the request of the honorable member. ‘Of course, the disaster was very unfortunate, but despite all precautions that might be taken in regard to air travel, and all reports that are furnished, inevitably, when men endeavour to imitate the birds, there will be accidents. That has happened in every part of the world. Although I have read the report carefully, I have not yet read the Minister’s reply. The report contains many matters of opinion and judgment. I am not reflecting on Mr. Justice Simpson in regard to that matter-

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– It is a matter for discussion.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– We could discuss it interminably. Although suggestions have been made that ex-pensive navigational aids should be installed, I point out that the equipment at present in use in this country is up to world standard. From talks that I have had with operating pilots, T am convinced that aircraft services in Australia ‘are equal to any in other parts of the world.

page 3585

QUESTION

GREECE

Mr BEALE:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I refer to recent comments in .the British and American press regarding Australia’s action at the General Assembly of the United Nations and suggesting that our delegation took up an .attitude on the Greek question more appropriate to a- satellite country in the Russian orbit than to a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Mr Chifley:

– Who made that statement?

Mr BEALE:

– The statement was made in the British and American press. In particular, it was made in Stephen King-Hall’s Newsletter, a well-informed periodical that comes to Australia regularly. It was published in the issue of the 4th November. I ask the right honorable gentleman why the Australian delegate on the special Balkan Committee, Mr. Terence Glasheen, abstained from the otherwise unanimous decision of the committee that -

The conduct of Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia lias been inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Who is Mr. Terence Glasheen, and what is his departmental background % Why also did .Colonel Hodgson, speaking at Paris a short time .ago on the United Nations Political Committee, oppose Great Britain, the United ‘States, France, and China and give support to Russia, on the resolution for the continuation of the Balkan investigation of Greece ? Does the Prime Minister not think that it is of the utmost importance that the Australian Government, and its Minister for External Affairs, should have -a consistent policy of support for Great Britain and the United States of America in .the present crisis in Europe.?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– In the first place, it is useless for honorable- members to ask questions in this chamber based upon press statements. My experience has been that many of those reports are incorrect. For instance, earlier this week, we heard an extraordinary explanation of how certain misunderstandings had occurred in the seamen’s dispute. Some press reports are honest opinions or conjecture by journalists, but, .generally speaking, I am not prepared to accept newspaper reports, and I have not seen anything which would warrant me .accepting them as accurate on the .matters that have been mentioned by the honorable member for Parramatta. The situation in Greece has been extraordinarily difficult for some .time. It has not brought very happy thoughts to me, or the Prime Ministers of other Dominions. I have given some study to the matter, .and I am not at all .satisfied about the efforts of the Balkan Committee to smooth out the Greek trouble. .It is true that certain countries abstained from participating in the work of that committee. With regard to the latter portion of the honorable member’s question, I wish to make it quite clear that when the Government believes a course of action to be correct, it will not be deflected from that course by any one. We earnestly desire to co-operate with the United Kingdom and, so far as possible, with the United States of America also, but I made up my mind a. long time ago that, at any conference which I attended, I would express clearly and firmly the view of the Australian nation. Australia is entitled to its own opinion on all matters. I shall prepare a statement for the honorable member on certain matters associated with Australia’s abstention from voting.

page 3586

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr HADLEY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Immigration read the report in this morning’s press that two young Scotsmen who stowed away in Empire Brent in an attempt to settle in Australia are to be returned to Scotland? In view of the urgent need for desirable migrants, will the Minister give sympathetic consideration to allowing those young men to remain in Australia?

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

– I did not think that Scots people would stow away, because they have a reputation for paying their way, and being very honest in all financial matters. On purely sentimental grounds, it would be quite easy, of course, to say that every stowaway who came here should be allowed to remain, but the shipping companies have a say in that matter, and if the Australian Government were to encourage people to stow away, the shipping companies would probably make very strong representations about the undesirability of such an attitude on our part. I shall examine the cases and see if we can deal with them sympathetically. Although we have allowed a number of stowaways to stay we have warned people on the other side of the world who intend to follow the bad practice of stowing away not to do so lest they be returned. The warning has fallen on deaf ears. I have no doubt that the same feeling exists in Scotland as has existed ever since the settlement of Australia ‘ by Europeans namely that, whilst Scotland is a very good place, Australia is a good place, too.

page 3586

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICA

High Commissioner to Australia

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs whether the South African Government is likely to appoint a High Commissioner to Australia in exchange for the Australian appointment of a High Commissioner to the Union two years ago, or is the present one-way representation likely to continue?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– When Field-Marshal Smuts was Prime Minister of South Africa it was understood that the South African Government might refrain for some time from appointing a High Commissioner to Australia in reciprocity for the appointment of an Australian High Commissioner to South Africa. The present Prime Minister of the Union, Dr. Malan, has not indicated that he proposes, at any rate at an early date, to make an appointment. I understand that the matter is under consideration.

page 3586

QUESTION

CUSTOMS SEIZURE OF LUGGAGE

Mr RANKIN:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs ascertain from him the name and address of the purchaser of lot 955 at a Customs auction sale in Sydney yesterday; the list of articles comprising lot 955 including a full description of the type of metal of which each article in the lot was composed ; whether there was any breach of banking regulation if such articles, or any of them, were made of gold or had a predominant gold content ; whether the seventeen metal keychains listed were of gold; and whether the links of each were in the form of letters comprising the following names : - W. Urquart, E. J. Ward, Ossie Porter, Pat King, Virgilo Frittolis, Stan Hunt, Edward McMahon, Len Currey, Harry Goodman, Jo Goldstein, Frank Carberry, Percy Page, Andy Buck, Robert Mitchell, Ken Horman, Stan Nielson, and John Heighway?

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

– I know nothing of the sale, but I shall pass the honorable gentleman’s question to my colleague andask whether he can throw any light on the problem.

page 3586

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Reconstruction Training Scheme

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I wish to raise a matter concerning ex-servicemen receiving Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme living allowances while earning a weekly wage in the Education Department or elsewhere. I understand that they may earn up to £3 a week without deductions being made from their allowance. Sometimes their wages are increased beyond the allowable maximum. [t so happens that often the allowance continues to be paid to and drawn by the trainees. When the overpayment is discovered, the allowances are stopped completely, often for several months. This results in hardship, particularly to married trainees. Will the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction consider the possibility of recoupment of overpayment by instalments from allowances instead of by the abrupt termination of allowances as at present?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– The whole matter of allowances for reconstruction trainees has received the careful consideration of the Government, initially, when the allowances were introduced and, since, when the allowances have been reviewed in the light of changing and current circumstances. Of course, it has to be recognized that the prime purpose of the allowance is to permit of a trainee maintaining himself and his dependants while undergoing training. It is not quite proper to encourage trainees to earn substantial incomes by working outside, because they cannot, at the same time, devote all their time to training. The purpose of the scheme is to give them proper training to enable them to rehabilitate themselves. Consequently, some limit must be placed upon the amount which trainees may be permitted to earn. Otherwise, to a great degree the scheme would be wasteful because trainees would not be taking full advantage of the opportunities provided under it. However, I shall examine the matter which the honorable member has raised, and should any anomaly he found to exist I shall endeavour to have it rectified.

page 3587

QUESTION

VICTORIAN ESSENTIAL SERVICES,

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– Has the Prime Minister received a request from the Premier of Victoria, Mr. Hollway, that coal ships intended originally for Victoria, but sent elsewhere because of the Communist blockade of Victorian ports, should be diverted back to Victoria ? Has the right honorable gentleman despatched any reply to Mr. Hollway’s request; if so, what is the Government’s decision? Does the Government intend to intervene generally to assist the State Government to maintain essential services in Victoria? Has the right honorable gentleman yet conferred with the Acting Attorney-General, as he promised me he would do, with a view to prosecuting the secretary of the .Seamen’s Union, Mr. Elliott, under the Crimes Act?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Replying, first, to the latter part of the honorable member’s question, I understand that the statement made by Mr. Elliott was misreported in certain aspects. I think that that was explained in some sections of the press. All I can say with regard to that matter at the moment is that I discussed it with the Acting Attorney-General last night and he is investigating the whole of the circumstances. With respect to the position in Victoria, I have received two telegrams from the State Premier, Mr. Hollway. I have not had any conversation with him on the subject. One telegram informed me that the wharf labourers had agreed to unload coal if coal ships were brought into port; and in the other Mr. Hollway asked on whose authority some coal ships which were going to Melbourne had been diverted to Adelaide. I made inquiries regarding those two matters. I found that although two ships, Amicus and Rideau Park, were presumably at the gasworks wharf, and had already been unloaded, a third ship, Gettinglon Court, which had reached Melbourne on Tuesday was lying out in the stream and was not being unloaded. I consulted with the Minister for Shipping and Fuel, and as I could see no point in putting ships into port where ships were not being unloaded, and as it was necessary with coal flowing down to the dyke at Newcastle to utilize the full capacity of all coal ships, it was decided to divert two ships originally intended for Melbourne to Adelaide to build up coal stocks there. It was intended that as soon as the difficulty at Melbourne was resolved, ships which normally would be bound for Adelaide would be diverted to Melbourne.

Mr White:

– Does not the Government intend to help Victoria in the meantime?

Mr CHIFLEY:

Gettington Court has been lying out in the stream fully loaded since Tuesday and nothing is being done about unloading it. I made it clear that in view of the necessity to utilize all coal ships to their full capacity it was not desirable to ha.re fully loaded ships standing by. If arrangements can be- made to unload Gettinglon Court, other coal ships will be sent immediately to Melbourne. I shall make no further comment on the matter because information which I received just before coming into the House was that further consultations were taking place this morning between representatives of the Victorian Cabinet and the Australian Council of Trades Unions with a view to settling the dispute. Any further comment I might make now might imperil the- success of those discussions.

page 3588

QUESTION

AIM MAIL. SERVICES

Mr ADERMANN:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minis, ter representing the Postmaster-General investigate the serious delays, that are taking place in the delivery of letters carried by air mail from Brisbane to Canberra? I received only this morning an air-mail letter marked for special delivery which was posted in Brisbane on. Monday. Another air mail letter which was posted in Brisbane on Monday was delivered, to me here on Wednesday night. Will the honorable gentleman ask the Postmaster-General to investigate the cause of the delay and’ to ascertain whether it is due. to a breakdown in the delivery of air mail matter by TransAustralia Airlines?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– I shall certainly ask the Postmaster-General to investigate the matter. I am sure that the fault will not be found to lie with Trans-Australia Airlines. Complaints have been made in this House by the honorable member for Hindmarsh and the honorable member for Fremantle about seemingly unavoidable delays which occurred in respect of mails sent from Adelaide to Canberra and from Canberra to Fremantle. The complaint made by the honorable member for Fremantle related,. I think, to, the unsuitability of the closing times for mails. That matter has been adjusted.

Mr Harrison:

– Delays occur even in the delivery in Canberra of mails posted in Sydney.’

Mr CALWELL:

– If there are other complaints - the Acting Leader of the

Opposition has indicated by interjection that there is trouble even in regard to the delivery of mails in Canberra whichhave been posted in Sydney-

Mr Harrison:

– Letters posted in Sydney on Wednesday are often not delivered here until Friday.

Mr CALWELL:

– Then there is something radically wrong. I should be glad’ if the honorable member for Maranoa, would lend me the envelopes of the letters to which he has referred so that I may bring them to the notice of the PostmasterGeneral as factual evidence of the delay..

page 3588

QUESTION

TOWELLING

Mr CONELAN:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Development. I have received a letter from the Morningside branch of the Queensland Housewives League, soliciting my aid and asking whether there is any possibility of the Government taking control over towels. I understand that the Australian Government has no jurisdiction in the matter. Will the honorable gentleman state whether there is any way in which the Government can assist these- people to obtain towels which are in short supply?

Mr Calwell:

– The Opposition is prepared to throw in the towel at any time.

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I realize that the honorable member has interested himself in this matter because of the difficulties facing the housewives in Brisbane in securing adequate supplies of. towels and towelling. If I remember aright, he asked” a question previously on this subject: I am unable to see how the Australian Government can assist. If certain- powers sought by the Government had been granted, we might have been able to do so. I shall discuss the matter with the Minister for Supply and Development. I am sure that if anything can be done, he will be only too pleased to do it..

page 3588

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister indicate whether it is the intention of the Government to establish a Commonwealth shipping line? Is it true that the interstate shipping position is- such that the volume of shipping on the Australian coast now is 33 per cent, greater than it was in 1939, whilst the annual tonnage carried has fallen from 8,000,000 tons in 1939 to a rate of 6,500,000 tons in the current year? If these figures are accurate^ is the position due to the deplorably slow turn-round of ships in Australian ports? Can the right honorable gentleman say what action the Government intends to take to remedy the position, and if it be remedied, will not the existing- shipping be more than sufficient to carry the cargoes offering?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The honorable member is no doubt aware that the Government already controls certain ships in the interstate trade, some of which are owned by the Government and some operated under charter. In reply to the honorable member’s inquiry whether the Government intends to establish a Commonwealth shipping line, all I can indicate at the moment is that the Australian Labour party has endorsed the recommendation of the Cabinet that the Government should establish such a line. T.t will not be possible to introduce the enabling legislation during the present sittings of the Parliament, but it is hoped to do so during the next period of the session. That legislation, when enacted, will authorize the Government to operate a shipping line on the Australian coast, perhaps also in the overseas trade, and, certainly,, to the- Australian territories and islands in the Pacific. The Government’s policy will be explained in detail, and the terms of the measure and the statements which will accompany its introduction should satisfy the honorable member for New England^ as far as it is possible to do so. For the information of honorable members generally, I may say that Australian shipowners are already aware of the Government’s intention. Another reason for our decision to establish a shipping line is the necessity for developing the shipbuilding industry in Australia,, and it is intended that the vessels for the proposed’ line sha-11 be constructed in Australian shipyards. Because it will not be possible for some years to build vessels in Australia at costs comparable with those of the old shipyards overseas, it will be necessary to subsidize the local industry. “With regard to the honorable member’s complaint concerning the slow turn-round of ships, I discussed certain aspects of that matter with representatives of overseas shipping companies, during the past week, and apparently in all ports of the world the rate of turnround of vessels is much slower than it was. before the war. The slower rate of turn-round is due to a number of reasons, including the discontinuance of certain shifts, interruption of work on the waterfront, and the reluctance of shipowners, not so much in Australia as abroad, to pay the extra rates demanded by the waterside workers,

page 3589

QUESTION

OATS

Mr DUTHIE:

– Because the present crops of oats will shortly be harvested, many farmers are concerned about the probable demand for oats in the overseas market and the price which will be paid. Can the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture furnish any information on the matter?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– I cannot prophesy whether there will be an open market overseas for oats. At the moment all I know is that the overseas price of oats is about 4s. 3d. a bushel, which gives to the growers a return of approximately 3s. 3d. a bushel at sidings. I cannot prophesy whether that price will rise or fall, and I regret that I am unable to supply any further information to the honorable member.

page 3589

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– It was recently stated in the press that in the near future the home-consumption price of wheat may be increased by a few pence a bushel1. In view of the continued rise of the costs of production, does the Minister intend that the home-consumption price shall be increased’, and, if so, will he give an assurance that the amount of any increase will be related to the actual increase of the costs: of production, and will not consist merely of a few pence?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– In accordance with the- promise made by the Government when it recently announced its plans for the stabilization of the wheat industry, proper notice will be given of any alteration of the cost of production of wheat, and any alteration, up or down, of the present home-consumption and guaranteed price will operate from the 1st December next. An analysis has been made of the increased costs, and the Government has made a decision thereon. A representative of the Australian Agricultural Council, Mr. Miller, has, with the approval of the State Ministers, inspected the basis on which the cost variation has been calculated. In addition, a representative of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation has had access to the figures. In due course, an announcement of the variation will be made.

page 3590

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture able to make an announcement regarding the final payment that will be made to growers in respect of this year’s apple and pear acquisition scheme?

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– I am not in a position to announce the final payment that will be made in respect of the 1947-48 apple and pear crop. Such an announcement will be made when stocks have been cleared and the financial position has been clarified. I do not think that it can be made for some time, because substantial stocks have still to be disposed of.

page 3590

SUGAR

Mr POLLARD:
ALP

– I lay on the table the following paper: -

Sugar - Protocol relating to the International Sugar Agreement (signed in London, 31st August, 1048).

This protocol was signed in London on the 31st August, 1948, by representatives of the Governments of the Union of South Africa, the Commonwealth of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican Republic, the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Haiti, Netherlands, Peru, the Republic of the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, the United States of America and the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia.

This protocol is similar in content to that which is signed on the 29th August, 1947, and extends the International

Sugar Agreement, which initially operated from 1937, for a further period of one year from the 1st September, 1948. The original agreement was to remain in force for five years until the 31st August, 1942, but has been continued by successive protocols. The first protocol continued the agreement unchanged until the 31st August, 1944, but in the four subsequent protocols which extended the agreement until the 31st August, 1948, it was provided that certain portions, particularly the quota provisions, should remain inoperative. The present protocol also declares such portions inoperative during the period of one year ending the 31st August, 1949.

The main purposes of the renewal of the agreement are to maintain the central machinery for establishing an orderly relationship between the supply and the demand for sugar, and to facilitate the conclusion of a new scheme, when the time is considered appropriate. Article 3 (3) of the protocol provides that in revising the agreement due account shall be taken of any general principles of commodity policy embodied in any agreement which may be concluded under the auspices of the United Nations. In the event of an agreement based on such revision coming into force before the 31st August, 194.9, the present protocol shall thereupon terminate.

At a meeting of the International Sugar Council in London, on the 28th August last, a committee, on which Australia is represented, was appointed, first, to study the change in the sugar situation as it relates to the need or desirability for negotiating a new agreement, and, secondly, to report to the council, as occasion arises, its findings and recommendations as to the possible bases for a new agreement in the future.

page 3590

LORD BERTRAND RUSSELL

Mr BEALE:

– Has the Prime Minister seen a statement reported in the press, as having been made by Lord Bertrand Russell, the English philosopher, that it has become obvious that Communist-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable gentleman knows that he may not introduce argument into a question in the House. -Standing Orders forbid such a procedure. The person to whom the honorable gentleman has referred has no rights in this House and hi9 arguments should not be introduced during question time.

Mr BEALE:

– I shall put my question in this way. Has the Prime Minister seen the statement of Lord Bertrand Russell with reference to the European situation ? Lord Russell is a celebrated English philosopher. Is the Prime Minister also aware that Lord Russell, in addition to being a distinguished man of letters in Great Britain, is a very well-known publicist on political and international matters ?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! What is the honorable gentleman’s question ?

Mr BEALE:

– Is the Prime Minister aware of these facts ? If he has not seen the statement but is aware of these facts, what view is he prepared to express on behalf of the Australian Government in support of Lord Russell’s opinion?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! I do not consider that the honorable member has yet asked a question that the Prime Minister can answer.

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– That is indeed so. I do not know to what the honorable gentleman is referring.

page 3591

HIDE AND LEATHER INDUSTRIES BILL 1948

Bill presented by Mr. Pollard, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr POLLARD:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Ballarat · ALP

hy leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to give effect to understandings reached in discussions between Commonwealth and State Ministers that the Commonwealth would be prepared to co-operate with, the States in a co-ordinated effort to ensure the orderly marketing of hides and leather in Australia after the existing Commonwealth marketing scheme, which has been administered for the past nine years under National Security Regulations, expires on the 31st December, 1948. The States have been concerned, not without good cause, regarding the problems likely to arise in relation to the home-consumption price structure and the supply position in respect of leather, boots and shoes and other essential leather goods unless some effective marketing machinery should continue to operate until conditions became more normal. It was thought at one stage that it might be possible to rely solely upon existing Commonwealth powers under which exports of hides, leather and leather goods could be regulated. On close examination, however, it became apparent that the exercise of such powers by the Commonwealth would not alone be sufficient to avoid serious dislocation of activities in the leather and boot and shoe industries so long as the wide disparity between export prices and Australian home-consumption prices should remain.

A proposed new arrangement was then evolved on lines somewhat similar to the present Commonwealth marketing scheme which has operated so effectively. This provided for a central pool of Australiangrown hides, from which Australian requirements would be allocated to the tanning industry at fixed prices and the balance sold in the open market for export. The returns from home consumption and export sales would be pooled and the hide producer would receive the equalized returns. It was found that complementary Commonwealth and State legislation would be necessary to implement the plan. The States unanimously agreed among themselves to introduce any necessary legislation before the end of this year and requested the Commonwealth to do likewise. The Australian Government agreed on the explicit understanding that a Commonwealth act would not become operative unless and until the States had passed their own legislation. Commonwealth and State legal representatives have conferred in the preparation of the Commonwealth and State draft bills.

In many respects, the general marketing arrangement that will be provided by the Commonwealth and State legislation is on lines somewhat similar to those of the marketing provisions of the wheat industry stabilization legislation, the main points of difference being that there is no Commonwealth guarantee behind this plan and that .acquisition by the Commonwealth in respect of territorygrown hides and by the States in respect of State-grown hides is provided for in lieu of delivery to a central pool. The foregoing briefly covers the nature of the plan and the Commonwealth’s part in it. Unless the plan is implemented, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for a homeconsumption price structure to be maintained for leather products in Australia. A failure in that direction would mean a dislocation of important industries, a probable shortage of footwear for the public and an increase of prices of boots or shoes of up to £1 a pair.

The bill provides for the appointment by the Australian Government of a central marketing board comprising a chairman and eleven other members. In contrast with the present Australian Hide and Leather Industries Board, on which there is only one representative of cattle raisers as such, provision is made on the proposed new board for six representatives of cattle raisers, one from each State. There is a special provision in the bill which will enable .any section of the hide and leather industries with particular problems to be present at a board meeting by invitation..

The bill provides for the appraisement and acquisition of territory hides and the basis of payment for hides thus acquired. It also makes similar provision in respect of hides acquired in .pursuance of powers conferred by a State act.

The administrative machinery necessary for the appraisement and the allocation of hides is stated in the hill, also the procedure to be adopted in the marketing of hides, namely, disposal nt home consumption and export sales. The general powers of the new board are stated in the bill. These include the taking over of the authorities, functions, assets, rights and liabilities of the present Australian Hide and Leather Industries Board for the purpose of winding up the existing Commonwealth scheme. Other provisions in the bill include the licensing of dealers, the exportation of hides and leather, the furnishing of returns, financial .arrangements, offences, the operation of State laws ;and the making of regulations.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Harrison) adjourned.

page 3592

KEMIRA TUNNEL (ARBITRATION) BILL 194S

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 25th November (vide page 3538), on motion by Mr. Holloway -

That the bill be now rend a second time.

Mr HARRISON:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · Wentworth

.- This bill arises out of a promise that was made to the Communist-controlled miners’ feneration by the Australian and New South Wales governments conjointly, that if work was resumed on the coal-fields, steps would be taken forthwith to set up an appropriate authority to determine the industrial organization to which the men carrying out the work at the Kemira tunnel, should belong. In the vernacular, this bill is the “ pay off “. As honorable members are aware the agreement to which the Minister referred was reached at a time when over 200,000 employees of Sydney factories and workshops were idle.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! In the debate on this measure, honorable members will not be entitled to discuss the merits or demerits of the dispute. The bill before the House refers to the agreement. It provides for the adoption of the agreement, the appointment of an arbitrator, and the powers that he shall enjoy. Although honorable members will be entitled to make passing references to the dispute, in. the main, they must confine themselves to the matters that are contained in the bill.

Mr HARRISON:

– Am I to be permitted to refer to the matters that led up to the .making of the agreement?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not to be entitled to refer in detail, to the dispute, or any matters of a general character concerning it. Only passing references to such matters are permissible.

Mr HARRISON:

– The circumstances associated with this dispute are so well known to the people of New South Wales, particularly those of .Sydney, that there is no need for me to elaborate to any great degree. The dispute was against neither the Government nor the employer. That is very important. It was an inter1111 len dispute; that arose because of a demand by the Communist-controlled miners’ federation that members of the anti-Communist Australian “Workers Union employed an the Mount Kemira tunnel job should join the federation. In union circles, that was looked upon as attempted body-snatching. When the Australian Workers Union refused to accede to that demand, true to Communist pattern, tha miners’ federation used intimidatory tactics and hooliganism against, not only the members of the Australian Workers. Union involved1, but also storekeepers and people who were transporting them to the Kemira tunnel.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Having made those references, the honorable member should get back to the bill.

Mr HARRISON:

– It was not merely another coal-mining dispute. It was a side issue of the big fight by the Communistcontrolled miners’ federation to take control of open-cut mining, such as that at the big project at Blair Athol in Queensland.

Following that dispute the Australian and New South Wales Governments intervened. It was remarkable how rapidly the respective governments intervened in this inter-union dispute. They have not been so ready in the past to intervene in strikes that affected government instrumentalities and private employers. The explanation is that they knew that they could not, in any circumstances, afford to permit a dispute between unions to continue. In view of the complete machinery which exists within the Arbitration Court, one would have thought that the Government would have said, “ This dispute comes within the scope of the Arbitration Act. It should be dealt with immediately by the application of Arbitration Court law “. That should have been done in order to preserve* the strength of the Arbitration Court. Surely honorable members on both sides of the House desire that the strength of the court should be preserved. The promise to appoint a special arbitrator who- may, according to the terms- of the bill, be outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court, has weakened the structure of the machinery of the court. Time and again the Opposition has pointed out that the strength of the Arbitration Court has been weakened by the appointment of industrial commissioners.. The two governments concerned, in a placatory approach to this matter, promised to. appoint an independent arbitrator with power to determine this matter only. Why could not the dispute have been dealt with by the Arbitration Court, or by one of the industrial commissioners who were appointed to handle such matters? The appointment of a special arbitrator in this instance will create a precedent. In determining this matter there will be involved the conditions and awards under which the men are working. The award governing the members of the Australian Workers Union working on the Kemira tunnel provided for higher rates of pay than that governing the miners’ federation. An agreement was made between the Australian Workers Union and the miners’ federation. In effect, the members of the Australian Workers Union said to the members of the miners’ federation. “ We will come over to you, provided that we can get the same terms and conditions as we now enjoy, and that you will agree not to go into the metalliferous mining”. The miners’ federation tore up that agreement. Under the bill, the arbitrator will be empowered to make a more favorable award for the miners’ federation, should he decide that its members only should enjoy the right to carry out the work. It cannot be said by any stretch of the imagination that this is mining’ work. It is tunnelling- work. Obviously, the coal-miners believe that if they do not gain control of this class of surface work, open-cut mining will pass from their control, and they will lose their stranglehold, not only upon industry, but also on the people of Australia generally. Therefore, this matter is of great importance to the miners’ federation. The Australian Workers Union is anti-Communist. It is a strong union which has won great rewards for its members through constitutional practices. This dispute is a trial of strength between a. Communist-controlled union and an antiCommunist union. Instead of upholding the decision of the Arbitration Court in this matter, the Government has decided to appoint an arbitrator who, according to this measure, may be outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. The Government is saying, in effect, “We must not have an industrial atmosphere associated with this matter. We shall give the arbitrator full power to make awards overriding the existing awards of the Arbitration Court “.

Mr Edmonds:

– The parties agreed to the appointment of an independent arbitrator.

Mr HARRISON:

– Yes, after intervention by two governments. The honorable member knows well that members of the Australian Workers Union refused to come out of the tunnel, I understand, at the request of the executive of that union, believing that they had definite rights. If that is so, it appears that the men have been bull-dozed by this Government into accepting something which, originally, they would not have considered for one moment, because the miners’ federation tore up the agreement on metalliferous mining.

Let us have a look at the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act so that we may be quite clear that the Government had no need to consider the appointment of a special arbitrator. I am always suspicious of special arbitrators. We already have ample machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes of this kind, and the appointment of special arbitrators tends to prejudice the working of that machinery. Such appointments suggest that the existing machinery is not to be trusted. A special arbitrator may have special leanings, and may be inclined to favour one party or the other, according to the degree to which those parties are likely to incommode the Government. Sub-section 2 of section 11 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act states -

The Chief Judge may assign a Conciliation Commissioner to a particular industrial dispute.

J ask honorable members to note the words, “ to a particular industrial dis pute “. Clause 4 of this bill provides, in sub-clause 4, that -

The person appointed as Arbitrator shall be a Judge of the High Court of Australia-

Immediately, therefore, we are out of industrial jurisdiction if such an appointment should be made - or of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration or of the Supreme Court of a State or a member of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales-

So we find that an industrial commissioner may be appointed - or a person who is or has been a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of Australia, or of the Supreme Court of a State, of not les» than five years’ standing.

The Government has a wide field from which to select a special arbitrator who will make a suitable decision. And what will that suitable decision be? Why has the machinery of the Arbitration Court not been used to settle this dispute? In the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, “ Industrial dispute “ if defined as -

  1. a situation which is likely to give rise to a dispute as to industrial matter? which so extends,

That is, beyond the limits of any one State. There is no doubt that the Kemira dispute has all the possibilities of extending beyond the limits of one State. The definition of “ Industrial matters “ in the act is - all matters pertaining to the relations of employers and employees and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes -

  1. all matters or things affecting or relating to work done or to be done:

That is perfectly clear.

Mr Beazley:

– It is perfectly clear that it relates to matters between employers and employees.

Mr HARRISON:

– For the information of the honorable member, I point out that paragraph n of the definition of “ industrial matters “, states - (it) any question arising between two or more organizations or within an organization as to the rights, status or functions of the members of those organizations or of that organization or otherwise, in relation to the employment of those members;

That completes the picture. There is ample power to deal with a demarcation dispute, but the Government was not prepared to use the existing machinery. It wanted a special arbitrator, and I should like to know who that arbitrator will be, and what he will decide. The existing machinery is quite adequate to provide for a settlement of this dispute. Subsection 2 of section 14 of the act states -

Subject to sections eleven and twelve of this Act, if it appears to a Conciliation Commissioner that an industrial dispute has occurred or is likely to occur, he shall (whether lie has been notified under this section or not), immediately ascertain the parties to the industrial dispute and the matters which form the subject of that dispute and shall take such steps as he thinks fit for the prompt prevention or settlement of that dispute by conciliation or arbitration.

There we have the machinery for speedy settlements. I remember that when the act was last under discussion in this chamber, the Government laid stress upon the stream-lining of arbitration procedure. Wc were told that the conciliation commissioners would be able to settle disputes on the spot because, as they would deal with only certain sections of industry, they would be experts. Numerous conciliation commissioners have been appointed. Admittedly it would be possible, under this bill, to appoint a conciliation commissioner to determine the Kemira tunnel dispute but, as I have pointed out, it will also be possible to appoint persons who are outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court, including even a solicitor of not less than five year’s standing. Undoubtedly this is a “ pay off “ to the Communist-controlled miners’ federation. Sub-section 1 of section 16 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act states - (1.) An award or order of a Conciliation Commissioner shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed, or called in question, or be subject to prohibition, mandamus or injunction, in any Court on any account whatever.

Therefore, once a conciliation commissioner has made his decision, it cannot be questioned. The machinery is complete, but the Government has thrown it into the discard. Instead, it proposes to appoint a special arbitrator who may be a Judge of the High Court, and therefore, outside industrial jurisdiction, or a Judge of the Supreme Court of New

South Wales - again outside industrial jurisdiction. It is true that he may be a judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and I have no doubt that that provision has been inserted for good measure, but also he may be a solicitor of not less than five years’ standing. What hand-picked arbitrator is to be given this job which rightly is within the province of the Industrial Commission? The miners’ federation wanted the Coal Industry Tribunal to handle the matter. The Communists do not believe in the Arbitration Court or in arbitration. They said, “If you will not allow us to have the matter settled by our tribunal, we will not allow you to have it handled by the Arbitration Court or the Industrial Court”. I9 that why the two governments said, “ We will hand-pick an arbitrator to handle the matter “ ? It is the prerogative of a government to achieve its ends by devious and various means. Doubtless, the Prime Minister, when closing the debate, will say, “ You blame us when a strike is on, and when we intervene and effect a settlement you blame us again. Can we do no right in the eyes of the Opposition ? “ My reply is, “ There are ethics to be observed and you cannot destroy the machinery that you have set up. We have an Arbitration Court. Do not submit to the Communist dictum that arbitration is outmoded. Remember that you cannot weaken your own machinery and hope that it will produce the best results. Strengthen the machinery whenever you can. If you believe in arbitration do not forgo your rights “. I had to make those observations. I realize that it is urgently necessary to pass this bill. The New South Wales Parliament has already passed its counterpart. I am glad that the dispute was ended. Rut I should have preferred the Government to go from strength to strength and use the arbitration machinery to make the necessary adjustments rather than back down to the Communist-controlled miners’ federation and compromise on such an important matter.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I thank the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) and the

Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) for having agreed to deal with this bill this morning at short notice. It is not easy to draft joint Commonwealth and State legislation. It is difficult for the draftsmen to reach terms that satisfactorily meet the position. We are anxious that the bill be passed expeditiously in order that the undertaking given by the Australian Government and the Government of New South Wales to appoint an arbitrator to deal with the Kemira tunnel dispute may be carried out as soon as possible. I do not want to discuss the merits or demerits of the dispute, because that will be a matter for the arbitrator. My information from the Crown Law officers, both Commonwealth and State, is that this is one of those extraordinary cases that neither the Arbitration Court nor the Industrial Court of New South Wales, to both of which the Acting Leader of the Opposition referred, is competent to deal with. The matter of the work on the Kemira tunnel has been the subject of disputation between the Australian Workers Union and the miners’ federation for about nine months. The Arbitration Court deals largely with relations between employers and employees and not with disputes between trade unions, which are known as demarcation disputes. It was hoped that the two parties now arguing about demarcation would agree to arbitration without governmental intervention and would be prepared to accept that arbitrator’s decision. The Australian Workers Union was prepared to accept arbitration and the decision of the arbitrator, but the miners’ federation was not. This Government did not enter into the matter until the Saturday before the coal-miners agreed to go back to work pending a settlement of the dispute. The Acting Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Baddeley, who is also Minister for Mines, offered to act as arbitrator. His offer was declined. There did not seem to be any legal procedure that would have enabled the dispute to be dealt with by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court or the Industrial Court of New South Wales. The Acting Leader of the Opposition may have better legal advice on that point than I have, but I take leave to doubt it, because the advice that I have was received from the Crown Law authorities in both the State and the Commonwealth spheres. I discussed the dispute with Mr. Baddeley and some of his Ministers at Bathurst on the Saturday before the coal-miners agreed to return to work. That was the Saturday on which Mr. Baddeley and I made our joint offer to provide administratively or legislatively for the appointment of an arbitrator. I do not propose to express any opinion as to who should do the work, because it will be the job of the arbitrator to determine that. I only say, in passing, that the Acting Leader of the Opposition will not be able to cavil at the arbitrator selected by Mr. Baddeley and me. He will be completely impartial.

Dame Enid Lyons:

– What effect will the arbitrator’s decision have in Tasmania where work similar to that at the Kemira tunnel is carried out by members of the Australian Workers Union?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– None. His decision will, relate only to work on the Kemira tunnel. The arbitrator will determine who shall do the work. If he determines that the Australian Workers Union men shall continue to do it there will be no change of conditions, because the Australian Workers Union, as the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Edmonds) knows better than I do, is already working under award conditions. If the arbitrator determines that all or some of the work should be done by other than members of the Australian Workers Union, he will have power to determine the rates of pay at which and the conditions under which the work shall be done. If, in his wisdom, he decides to refer that matter to some” other authority, the Coal Industry Tribunal or a conciliation commissioner, he will be able to do so. No one need be uneasy about the standard of the man who will be appointed as arbitrator. There has been no “fixing”. We intend to seek the services of an impartial man in whom the public may have full confidence.

Mr Anthony:

– Will he be appointed by this Government or by the two governments?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The two governments. His choice is a -matter for the Premier and myself. That has been agreed .upon. There has been no discussion with the Australian Workers Union or the miners’ federation about who should or might be appointed. We have declined to discuss that matter or to receive any representations on it. No representations have been received. The Acting Leader of the Opposition said that some existing authority should deal with this dispute, but the Government’s legal advisers are of opinion that no existing authority, Federal or State, has power to deal with it adequately because of its peculiar nature. It is a dispute, not between employers and employees, but between two unions about which union’s members should do particular work. The dispute has no relation to anything else such as rates of pay or conditions of employment. I ask the House -to give the bill a speedy passage. No agreement, has been made with -anybody ‘about Who the arbitrator should be. That is a matter for decision by the Acting Premier of New South Wales a’nd myself, and we shall -make -a joint announcement ‘of the appointment. I assure the House that it will have -complete confidence in the impartiality of the appointee.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

. -The Prime .Minister (Mr. Chifley) has given all sorts of assurances to the House with respect to the appointment of the arbitrator to adjudicate upon this dispute which involves simply the demarcation of work in the driving of a tunnel at Kemira to join two coal-mines. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), when introducing the bill, described it as only a little measure. He implied that there is really nothing in it and that honorable members have no reason to be afraid about it. However, “when we examine it we find that it strikes nt the root of the whole arbitration system. It may be, as the Prime Minister said in answer to the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons), that this measure is limited only to the Kemira tunnel dispute.

Mr Duthie:

– Of course it is.

Mr ABBOTT:

-In that fact lies a great danger, because the people who have been putting pressure upon the Government to appoint a special arbitrator to deal with this dispute are the very people who in their writings persistently over the years have demanded that the arbitration system .of the Commonwealth shall be destroyed.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I hope that the honorable member will not proceed along those lines. I ask him to confine his remarks to the bill.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I am simply pointing out that certain people in the Commonwealth desire to destroy the arbitration system, and that this bill is the wedge which will split that system. The Prime Minister said that no Federal or State arbitration authority or the Coal Industry Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with this matter and that consequently, it is necessary to appoint a special arbitrator. Under the Coal Industry Act, which was passed in 1946., and which is limited to matters in the coal-mining industry, “ industrial matter “ is defined as - any industrial matter in relation to the wages, rates of pay or terms or conditions of employment of members of the Federation in the coal mining industry, other than members of the Federation excepted by the Board by order ;

The Joint Coal Board has no power to deal with any industrial matter outside the .coal-mining industry. Under that act provision is made for the constitution of a Coal Industry Tribunal, and section 33 provides that the tribunal is to have cognizance of -

  1. any industrial matter arising under any award of the Court or of the Tribunal relating to the coal mining industry in the State referred to it “by the Federation or the employers or associations affected by the matter or by the Board;
  2. any other matter affecting industrial relations in that industry which the -Board declares is in the public interest proper to be dealt with under this Act.

From those paragraphs it is perfectly clear that the Coal Industry Tribunal is limited to dealing only with matters in tl,e coal-mining industry. However, under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act as -amended in 1947, that is a year after the enactment of the Coal Industry Act, the definition of “ Industrial matters “ with which the court has power to deal, includes the following paragraph : -

  1. any question arising between two or more organizations or within an organization as to the rights, status or functions of the members of those organizations or of that organization or otherwise, in relation to the employment of those members;

That provision was made in order to give power to the court or conciliation commissioners to deal with demarcation questions arising in any industry. Under that act, “industry” is defined to include -

  1. any business, trade, manufacture, undertaking or calling of employers.

    1. any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of employees. . . .

So, it would appear that the draftsman believed that under that act the court or a conciliation commissioner had power, which the Government now claims neither of those authorities possesses, to deal with a matter of this kind. Section 40 of that act provides -

The Court or a Conciliation Commissioner may, in relation to an industrial dispute, and the Court may, in relation to any other proceedings before it -

make an order or award (including a provisional or interim order or award relating to any or all of the matters in dispute) or give a direction in pursuance of the hearing or determination ;

And section 42 of that act provides -

In making an order or award in relation to an industrial dispute, the Court or a Conciliation Commissioner shall not be restricted to the specific relief claimed by the parties to the industrial dispute, or to the demands made by the parties in the course of the dispute, but may include in the order or award any matter or thing which the Court or Commissioner thinks necessary or expedient for the purpose of preventing or settling the dispute or of preventing further industrial disputes.

Thus, at the time at which that legislation was passed - and it was described by Government supporters as legislation for streamlining the arbitration system - it was evidently believed that the court, or a conciliation commissioner, would have power to deal with demarcation disputes. Clause 8 of the bill now before us reads - (l.) For the purpose of conducting any inquiry under this Act the Arbitrator is to have (in addition to any other powers conferred on him by this Act or the State Act) all the powers winch are given to the Court or the Chief Judge of the Court or to a Conciliation Commissioner as regards an industrial dispute of which the Court or Commissioner has cognizance.

Thus the arbitrator to be appointed under this measure for the specific purpose of dealing with this single dispute is to be given the full powers of a judge of the court or of a conciliation commissioner. Why could not the State of New South Wales have referred this specific power to the Commonwealth to enable the court, or a conciliation commissioner, to deal with this demarcation dispute? If that had been done no breach at all would have been made in the fabric of the arbitration system, and no precedent would have been set for the appointment of independent tribunals for the purpose of dealing with single disputes. Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, you have ruled that I cannot quote the authority for my statement that this legislation is ,a part of the deliberate policy-

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The Chair hopes that the honorable member will not offend against its ruling. He must confine his remarks to the measure, in which the sole issue is whether an arbitrator shall be appointed to deal with a particular dispute.

Mr ABBOTT:

– This measure will breach the fabric of the arbitration legislation of the Commonwealth.

Mr Edmonds:

– What rot!

Mr ABBOTT:

– The honorable member for Herbert, who has been a representative of the Australian Workers Union, and has a wide knowledge of arbitration, knows that everything I have said is true. There is an alternative. The State of New South Wales could refer to the Commonwealth limited power to deal with this specific dispute. When dealing with other legislation which came before us, and was afterwards the subject of a referendum, we were informed that it wai not necessary for all States to refer a power, but that a power referred by any State to the Commonwealth would bc binding as between the Commonwealth and that State. This referred power, in this particular case, should have been limited and vested in the Arbitration Court so that a conciliation commissioner operating the machinery specially provided in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act as amended in 1947, a year before the dispute occurred, could have heard the dispute. The sections of that act which I have quoted indicate that its draftsmen anticipated the very things that happened in the Kemira dispute. Even if there was a gap between the power of the Commonwealth and that of the States, as the result of which it would become necessary for the Parliaments of the States and the - Commonwealth Parliament to pass legislation simultaneously, there was still another course open to the Prime Minister. He could have taken advantage of the provision in the Constitution which enables specific powers to be referred to the Commonwealth to enable the Arbitration Court to function fully. The right honorable gentleman has said that he has acted on legal advice. The exact line of demarcation between the powers of the Commonwealth and of the States to deal with a dispute of this kind has never been tested in the courts. There is no doubt that the dispute has become an interstate dispute, the effects of -which are felt throughout the Commonwealth. By introducing this bill the Government has betrayed the arbitration system and has breached the arbitration laws of this country. It has established a dangerous precedent which will undoubtedly be cited in the future by those political interest which are desirous of wrecking the arbitration system of this country.

Mr BEALE:
Parramatta

.- This bill arises out of a scandalous industrial dispute which has taken place on the south coast of New South “Wales. It is a dispute not between employer and employee, but between two unions. The people of Australia generally and, I believe, the Prime Minister himself, agree that the merits are all on one side, and that the members of the Australian Workers Union working the Kemira tunnel were in the right, and the members of the miners’ federation were utterly in the wrong. In Australia, we have an arbitration system which has been established to determine industrial disputes, even disputes of this disreputable kind. Having such an elaborate, extensive and expensive arbitration system, and in office a Government which is pledged to assert and maintain it, one is naturally driven to inquire why it was not followed. The reason is that the Government proposes to establish a sort of ad hoc official arbitrator to determine this dispute, and this dispute only. The . arbitration system of Australia has been ignored and by-passed by the introduction of this bill. If the Prime Minister can convince the people of Australia that there is no power whereby the arbitration system may be used in this case, he may have some justification for the introduction of the bill. The onus is on the right honorable gentleman and his advisers to justify it, and to prove that under the existing legislation this dispute could not have been referred to the Arbitration Court.

Mr Chifley:

– I was so informed.

Mr BEALE:

– The right honorable gentleman says that he was so informed. It is not usual or desirable for honorable members to give legal opinions on matters that come before them. But I have looked at the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and, as the Prime Minister probably knows, I am not unfamiliar with its provisions. I support the contention expressed by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) and the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) that on a fair, logical, and common-sense reading of the act, the Arbitration Court should have this dispute before it.

Mr Chifley:

– In law, what may be fair, logical or common sense is not necessarily the governing factor.

Mr BEALE:

– Not when the Government is averse to the application of those principles. Having decided to avoid the ordinary channels of arbitration the Government does exactly what it wants to do. That is the gravamen of my attack on this bill. It is merely another illustration of a deplorable trend in politics under the present .administration. “ Fixers “ have been at work once more. Again and again when industrial disputes have occurred the ordinary channels of settlement have been ignored in order to save the faces of people who are palpably and blatantly in the wrong. Among the

Government’s “ fixers “ the Ministerfor Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley)has the reputation of being a champion. Once again the Government has acted so as to save the face of those who are in the wrong and has appointed a fixer “.

Mr Chifley:

– The correct word is “ negotiator “.

Mr.BEALE. - I must at all times use the correct parliamentary terms. If the Prime Minister prefers the word, “ negotiator” to the more homely term, “ fixer”, I shall bow to his wishes.What does the “ negotiator “ on behalf of the Government do if ho does not do a bit of fixing? Why did not the right honorable gentleman treat this dispute as an interstate dispute, as it palpably is? He knows very well the strong line of authorities on what constitutes an interstate dispute.

Mr Chifley:

– The members of the honorable gentleman’s own profession have advised the Government on the matter.

Mr BEALE:

– I should imagine that no practising member of my profession has been invited to express an opinion on it, and that all that has happened is that some departmental officer has expressed a departmental opinion without giving proper consideration to the case. To refer this dispute to the Arbitration Court was surely worth a trial in the interests of maintaining the prestige of the system. Instead of that, or because the Government did not want to do that, and merely on the say-so of some departmental officer, the Government said to the miners’ federation, “ There is a little doubt about this; we shall establish a special tribunal”. Let us have peace. If this tribunal can bring about a genuine settlement of this dispute, the people of Australia will be relieved;, but peace can sometimes be bought at too high a price. If it turns out, as indeed it may, that, there is no peace at all, or that this legislation is merely a piece of face-saving for somebody who is grossly in the wrong, we shallhave done ourselves a grave injury. This action has been taken to save the faceofthosewhoareinthewrong. It hasbeentakendespitetheexistenceof anestablishedtribunalwhich,inmy view,hasauthoritytodealwiththisdis- pute, and because of that, it has been wrongly taken.

Question resolved in the affirmative:

Billreadasecondtime, and reported from committee without amendment or debate ; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3600

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Colonial Light Dues (Rates) Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 147.

Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 140.

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department of Commerce and Agriculture - D. S. Burnet, D. R. Meadley.

Control of Naval Waters Act - Regullations. - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 148.

House adjourned at 12.21 p.m. .

page 3600

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Dollar Deficits.

There is every indication that this estimate may fall short by perhaps 3,000 to 4,000’ tractors, mainly due to the English “ Standard Ferguson “’ not coming forward as anticipated. However., after allowing foi: this reduction it will be seen that considerably more tractors will become available this year than in any previous 3’ea>r.

In addition to wheel) tractors, provision has been; made in the dollar budget which will permit the importation of 575 crawler-type tractors for agricultural purposes.

In connexion with spare parts a very liberal dollar allocation is made available every quarter as a’n endeavour is made to provide parts for the maintenance of existing machinery; It is known that some parts are hi short” supply, but the problem- is one- of production more than import control.

On the subject of agricultural implements, [ reiterate that Australia is practically selfcontained. However, import licences are granted for any special types of machines which are considered necessary in the agricultural industry, having due regard, of course, to the present state of the dollar exchange.

It is considered that the number of machines to be licensed from North America together with those from other sources, including local production, should be sufficient to meet the essential requirements of the agricultural industry.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

– On the 18th November, the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Lang) asked whether dollars had been made available to Mr. George Moore and Mr. Romano, junior, to enable them to visit the United States of America. I am now able to inform the honorable member that, the Commonwealth Bank, which deals with all applications’ for foreign currency for travel to countries outside the sterling area, advises that no approval has been given by the bank to the provision! of dollars- in connexion with these visits to America.

Maranboy Tin Mines.

China.

Mr White:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

  1. Are British Commonwealth Occupation Force postage, stamps still on. issue in Japan?
  2. What was the- number issued, in each value?
  3. If these stamps are not on issue now, is it likely they will be again issued?
  4. How was it possible that large quantities were obtainable by stamp dealers, who, as the Australian Stamp Monthly shows, are selling them at £3 .per complete set of id- to ls1., and £7 each for the- 6s. type?

Telephone- Services.

Mr Calwell:
ALP

– On the 18th November, the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) asked the following question : - 1 ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, who is in charge of broadcasting, whether his colleague is aware that the correspondent in Darwin for the Australian Broadcasting Commission is also the correspondent for the Sydney Daily Telegraph, or at least he was when I was in Darwin three months ago; does the Minister consider that to be a happy arrangement for the journalist or the Australian Broadcasting Commission ?

The Postmaster-General has supplied the following information: -

The Australian Broadcasting Commission has advised me that it does not employ a fulltime journalist at Darwin. A freelance correspondent is employed, and at the time of his selection the commission was unaware that he was connected with any other news organizations. The commission proposes to review its news gathering arrangements at Darwin.

Mr Calwell:
ALP

– The PostmasterGeneral has received the following information from the Australian Broadcasting Commission in reply to the honorable member’s questions : -

  1. The commission has a freelance correspondent in Darwin.
  2. Robert Freeden
  3. Yes.
  4. The text of the correspondent’s report is follows : -

The Deputy Chief of Imperial General Staff - Lieutenant-General Sir Kenneth Crawford - arrived at Darwin last night on two weeks’ visit to Australia. General Crawford is here at invitation of Commonwealth Government and in addition to visiting Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, will inspect the rocket range, which is joint British-Australian project. General Crawford was asked about America’s recently reported ban on passage of secrets on atomic energy to other nations, including Australia. He said he understood reported refusal by America was authentic. He had not come to Australia on this matter but would discuss it while’ here. General Crawford said that par of his mission was to acquaint the Australian General Staff with Britain’s defence measures as result of international developments.

Wool

Mr Abbott:

t asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. What was the total number of bales ot greasy wool (Australian produce) exported in the year 1947-48 to (a) Czechoslovakia and (6) Soviet Russia?
  2. What were the values f.o.b. (Australian currency) ?
  3. Was there a decline in (a) the number of bales and it) the values f.o.b. (Australian currency) in the export of Australian greasy wool to the United States of America between the years 1946-47 and 1947-48; if so, what were the amounts and values of such decline in each case?
  4. Was there an increase in (a) the number of bales and (6) the -value of Australian greasy wool exported to Soviet Russia and Czechoslovakia between the years 1940-47 and 1947-48; if so, what were the amounts and values of such increases in each case?
Mr Pollard:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1. (a) 12,093, (6) 42,090. 2. (a) £A.663,682, (6) f A.2,852,130.

  1. During 1945-46, 4,370.000 bales of wool were sold in Australia. This may he compared with a normal clip of about 3,000,000 bales. Because of shipping difficulties a lane portion of this wool was shipped after the 30th June, 1940, and it is estimated that 433,000 bales of the backlog are included in the 1946-47 exports to the United- States of America. Bearing this in mind, the answers are- (a) Yes; 623,013 bales. (5) Yes; £A.8,344,547. 4. (a) No increase in bales exported to Czechoslovakia; increase nf 42.006 bales to Russia, (h) Increase nf £A. 184.0(10 tn Czechoslovakia; increase of £A.2, 852,130 to Russia.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 November 1948, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1948/19481126_reps_18_200/>.