20th Parliament · 1st Session
Mr. SPEAKER (Eon. Archie Cameron) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 4271
– Will the Prime Minister indicate whether honorable members will be given the opportunity, before the termination of the sessional period this week, to discuss item S on the notice-paper, which deals with the employment situation, and which has been listed for a couple of months? If such an opportunity is not to be provided, has the right honorable gentleman any announcement to make that will put some hope and encouragement into the hearts of many thousands of unemployed workers and immigrants, a considerable number of whom are m my electorate, so that they will be able to enjoy the festive season in the same happy spirit as other more fortunate sections of the community .and confidently expect a brighter New Year, with full employment and prosperity for themselves and their families?
– Order!
– Insofar as the honorable member’s question relates to the order of business to be disposed of, I shall convey his suggestion to the Leader of the House.
– Is it a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the hairdresser, who worked in ‘this House, has left us as a result of his activities in connexion with recent sporting events, and that the premises which he formerly occupied are now vacant? Is it, also a fact that the parliamentary under-secretaries are without offices of any sort in this building? Finally, will you, sir, consider, as a atop-gap measure in this situation, accommodating the parliamentary under-secretaries in the rooms that were formerly occupied by the hairdresser, even though, as honorable members generally will agree, it would bc much better to have hairdressers of experience?
– If the honorable member has asked his ‘ question in a facetious sense, I point out to him that certain very foolish attempts have been made recently to magnify into a national issue a very minor matter associated with the management of Parliament House. T think that the actions of the persons concerned ill become them. No doubt the leader of the honorable member’s party will attend to the accommodation of under-secretaries in due course. I have already informed certain persons who have made inquiries about the cutting of hair that, so far as I can ascertain, their needs can he met outside Parliament House. There are other hairdressers in Canberra. In the event that none of them should be working, we could revert to the customs of our ancestors, wear our hair long, curl it, and put it in ribbons.
– I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is an offence to record on a wire recorder speeches broadcast from this chamber, or whether any offence is limited to the re-broadcasting of such speeches after they have been recorded ?
– The broadcasting of speeches made in this Parliament i* covered by the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act. It is an offence for any person without authority to broadcast proceedings of this House by means of a wire recording or by any other method. It is also an offence to rebroadcast proceedings of this Parliament, which have been recorded without the consent of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Committee, over which, by virtue of my office, I preside.
Later:
– I wish to make a statement with respect to the audit of parliamentary accounts. I understand that a reportfront the Auditor-General on this matter is. also available for presentation to the House. I have prepared a statement which contains an analysis of the position. In due course - I hope during the next sessional period’ - amending legislation will be introduced in order to clarify certain points. However, as I do not desire to inflict the matter upon the House, at length, at this juncture, I nsk for leave to incorporate my statement in Hansard. I also propose to move that, the paper be printed so that it will be open to debate. The amending legislation may be ready when the House re-assembles after the recess, and in that event we shall not need to have two debates on the subject. However, in thi event of the amending legislation not being ready, I desire to conserve the rights of honorable members to debate the matter. Therefore, I lay on the table the following paper : -
Audit of Parliamentary Accounts - Statement by Prime Minister. and move -
That the paper he printed.
– (Hon. Archie Cameron). - I must again raise the question, which I have had occasion to raisepreviously, of the wisdom, or unwisdom, of incorporating in Hansard matter that has not formed a part of the spoken proceedings in the House. In one instance, not long ago, the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey), very much against my wishes, was granted leave to incorporate a certain statement in Hansard. We have had trouble in respect of this kind of procedure. I simply raise the matter again because I think it is my duty to do so. It is also my duty to impress upon the House the necessity for taking a clear stand in respect of matters of this description. I have no desire to prevent the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) from making a statement on the matter, in which I am, to some degree, directly interested. Is leave granted to incorporate the statement in Hansard ?
Opposition Members. - No.
– Leave is not granted. I heard several “ Noes “.
– Leave is granted. There is somebody leading on this side of the House. Will you put the question again, Mr. Speaker?
– That is putting me in an awkward position. I put the question, and I heard at least four or five “ Noes “.
– I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that on a recent occasion you resubmitted a similar question when you were requested to do so.
– Is leave granted to incorporate in Hansard the statement to which the Prime Minister has referred ?
Opposition Members. - No.
– Leave is not granted. I distinctly heard two honor- able members call “ No “.
– This statement-
– Order ! The statement is not before the House.
– Yes, it is. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has laid the paper on the table.
– I was not aware that he had done so. The Prime Minister, in that event, may move that the paper be printed.
– He has already done so.
– If he has done so, the Leader of the Opposition may proceed.
– I have not had an opportunity to peruse the statementthat: the Prime Minister has laid on the table, but as I gather, from his remarks, that it is of great importance and should be fully debated, I move -
That the debate be adjourned.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 4273
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that the Queensland Government has now come to an agreement with the Commonwealth with regard to hospitals on exactly the same terms as were proposed to it by the Commonwealth at least eighteen months ago ? Secondly, is it further a fact that this agreement is identical with those already made by the Commonwealth with the other State governments? Thirdly, is it not also a fact that no suggestion was ever made by the Commonwealth to the Queensland Government that would require the imposition of a means test, or otherwise interfere in any way with that Government’s management of its public hospitals? Fourthly, are not all statements to the contrary, including those of the Premier of Queensland, mere political’ propaganda ?
– I rise to order, and direct attention to Standing Order 145, which reads as follows: -
A question fully answered cannot be renewed.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that exactly the same question was asked yesterday.
– Order ! I recognize some resemblance between the question asked by the honorable member for Oxley, and a question asked yesterday, but I am unable to compare the two and say that they are exactly the same. I point out that if Standing Order 145 is to be interpreted strictly, many of the questions that I have heard during this sessional period have been asked time after time.
– It is a fact that the Queensland Government has now come to an agreement with the Commonwealth with regard to hospitals on exactly the same terms as were proposed in a letter sent by the Prime Minister to the Premier of Queensland, and to the Premiers of all the other States, in February, 1951. That letter stated definitely that the resolution which had been carried unanimously by a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers for Health on the 16th January, 1951, recommended a revision of the hospitals benefits agreement, in accordance with which heads of the agreement were omitted.
– The Minister is reading his answer.
– No, I am reading the actual statement in reference to the matter. All those heads of agreement limited the freedom of action of the States, and, accordingly, the Government was prepared to negotiate with the State governments with a view to drawing up a new agreement which, would be substituted immediately, if the States so desired, for the existing agreement under which those limitations would be completely removed. The limitations concerned means tests and charges at hospitals which were instituted by the Chifley Labour Government. The letter concluded with this statement from the Prime Minister -
I shall be glad to receive advice from you concerning the views of your Government relating to a subsequent agreement at your earliest convenience.
The honorable member also asked, “ Is it further a fact that this agreement is identical “,-
– I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. You have repeatedly’ ruled that questions that are asked at the commencement of the sitting should be without notice. It is quite obvious that the question of the honorable member for Oxley was not asked without notice, because the Minister for Health appears to have a typewritten copy of the question in front of him and he is now proceeding to read the second part of the question asked by the honorable member. It is quite apparent that a copy of this question was given by the honorable member for Oxley to the Minister long ago.
– I have repeatedly suggested to this House that it is high time that there was a thorough review of the method under which questions shall be asked and answered. As long as the present Standing Orders and procedure continue in force, there is not much that I can do about it. If I have to rule out an answer of the description now being given by the Minister for Health, I am afraid that some of the honorable member’s colleagues will also suffer.
– The Opposition seems to hate the truth as much as the devil hates holy water. The honorable member for Oxley asked me whether this agreement that has been drawn up is identical with those already made by the Commonwealth - -
Opposition members interjecting,
– Order ! I must ask the House to come to order. The right honorable gentleman has a right to be heard.
– The agreement signed by the Queensland Government last Monday is identical in its main operative clauses with the other agreements that have been made with various State governments. The operating clauses indicate two lines of action. The first is that there shall be a proposal by the State Government of a scheme which will be acceptable to the Australian Government and which will ensure that there will be increased hospital revenue in Queensland. Secondly, if the State approves the scheme and implements it the Commonwealth is prepared to pay 8s. a day for each uninsured patient, and 4s. a day for all those who are insured. The Queensland Government has made a very definite statement with regard to this matter. If any honorable member cares to read the statement made by tha Premier of Queensland last Monday, he will find that that gentleman gave instances of the extent to which he -;s prepared to go to increase hospitalization for paying patients in Queensland. The next part of the honorable gentleman’s question-
– Order ! I suggest that the right honorable gentleman might conclude his answer.
– No suggestion has been made by the Australian Government which may interfere with hospital policy in any State or which deals with charges made by any State, or the imposition of the means test or any other condition. There has been an explicit declaration that that would not be done with regard to any State. Finally, the honorable member asked whether the statements he referred to should be regarded purely as having been made for political propaganda purposes. It has been suggested that the Queensland Government has won some extraordinary fight. I cannot understand where the fight took place because there are no signs of conflict on myself or this Government. The fight must have been conducted within the Queensland Government, hut, the propaganda that it has been putting out is quite false.
– Is it not a fact that under the arrangement that has been made with the Queensland Government, the Premier of that State has been able to announce that, unlike the position that exists in some of the other States, his Government is continuing to carry out its policy of providing free hospital treatment to the people of Queensland?
– The position is that under these agreements any State, if it wishes to do so, can make provision for free hospital treatment.
– Is Queensland doing that?
– Every State government is doing that to a great degree. This matter is entirely one of State policy which is determined by the respective States. Every agreement that has been made with the States has been sufficiently elastic to enable each State to give effect to its own desires and, in fact, to impose different charges even in respect of every ward. There is no reason why any State government should not provide free hospital treatment if it wishes to do so.
– On the 7th October, I asked the Minister for Health a question in relation to certain hospital and medical . benefit companies in South Australia which are not registered under the provisions of the relevant legislation. I now ask the right honorable gentleman whether he is aware that the South Australian Premier pointed out in the .State Parliament recently that his Government was experiencing difficulty in framing legislation to protect the public against the activities of such companies. He said that there was some doubt whether companies of that type would be able to pay any benefits to subscribers. Will the Minister discuss this matter with the South Australian Premier and ascertain whether it is possible for this Parliament, or the State Parliament, to enact legislation that will protect the people against the activities of such organizations, which can offer them little or no benefit.
– I am glad that the honorable member has raised this matter because, four or five months ago, this Government introduced a measure to provide for the protection of the public in the way that the honorable member desires. Unfortunately, because of the activities of the Opposition, that measure was lost with the result that we have not been able to bring about the reforms that the honorable member has in mind. I am prepared at all times to discuss this matter with the State Premiers with the object of arranging for the protection that this Parliament cannot give to the people. In the meantime, in order to prevent people from subscribing to companies which are not of the highest standard, I am arranging for the names of approved companies to be advertised frequently so that every Australian will be able to make sure that benefits will be available to him in time of sickness.
– In directing a question to the Minister for Health, I refer to the fact that a number, if not all, of the hospital insurance funds reserve the right to determine whether a person is suffering from a chronic illness and to accept no further financial responsibility for such persons. I have in mind two cases in which people had paid into a hospital fund for more than 20 years and were then told that they could not receive any benefit from the fund because their cases were chronic. In view of the fact that the Government’s hospitals scheme must add to the income of such societies, has the Government brought any pressure to bear on them not to discriminate against chronic cases in relation to the payment of hospital fees from the funds?
– I am pleased to be able to say that some organizations which, during the period of what might be called the hospital insurance famine, of the Chifley Government, managed to remain in existence have proposed to me that they will pay benefits in all chronic cases. I have in mind especially some organizations such as those which apply to the Kurri Hospital and the “Wollongong Hospital Funds, which are situated in areas where there are miners’ lodge organizations that deal with prepaid hospital insurance. Many other organizations, including major organizations, have decided to take a liberal view of what constitutes chronic disease, and have decided that if in any period, contributors have not been paid from the funds concerned, more than twice the total annual liability, the funds will not regard the particular disease as chronic. There are also other organizations which are willing to insure in regard to such diseases. Gradually the position is being corrected, and I think that, as the procedure extends throughout the whole community, the anomaly to which the honorable member has referred, will be capable of complete correction.
– In view of the fact that the Queensland Premier on Monday last made a completely incorrect statement in relation to the Commonwealth and State hospitals agreement, for purely political propaganda purposes, will the Prime Minister in the future, as far as possible make the first public announcement in connexion with matters requiring Commonwealth and State approval, giving the correct context of the agreement concerned, rather than allow the public to be wrongly informed?
– I do not think it is good practice to publish communications between governments until the second government concerned has, in fact, received the relevant communications. That is a rule that I have myself acted on, although, I am sorry to say, it is not always acted on by other people. I agree with the honorable member that as soon as some arrangement has been made, and both parties are aware of it, it would be desirable that it should be announced by us as soon as possible.
page 4276
– Last week, I addressed a question to the Minister for Supply that related to tinplate, but a part of my question was not answered. I asked whether it was true that Australia is committed by government contract until the end of 1954 to take 40 per cent, of its requirements of tinplate from the United States of America at a time when steel mills in the United Kingdom are able to to supply all Australia’s requirements but are unable to obtain this business because of that contract.
– It is not true to say that Australia is committed to take 40 per cent, of its requirements of tinplate from the United States of America. We have not placed any impediment in the way of British steel mills, which, apparently, have promoted comment of the kind that is implied in the question that the honorable member has asked, obtaining the whole of the Australian trade in tinplate. Before the war all of our requirements came from Great Britain, but during the war it was not possible for Great Britain to continue to supply our needs. Consequently, under an arrangement that we made with the British and American Governments we obtained all our supplies from the United States of America. Again, after the war, Great Britain could not supply all our requirements, and we again made arrangements to obtain a proportion of our needs from American steel mills. That arrangement was discussed with the British authorities, who acquiesced in it. If American mills were to supply us, naturally they desired some undertaking that they would have a market in this country for a foreseeable period. Therefore, an arrangement was made, first of all in 1947, whereby, on the condition that 40 per cent, of Australia’s requirements could come from the United States of America, Australia undertook to make available import licences in respect of that percentage of our requirements as a maximum. That agreement which has been renewed from time to time, will continue to operate until the end of 1953, or 1954. But that does not mean that we are compelled to take 40 per cent, of our requirements from the United States of America. All that it means 13 that the Government will make import licences available in respect of that percentage of our requirements. It is still open to Australian buyers to obtain all their requirements from Great Britain, and it is also completely open to British mills to supply all our requirements if they can do so on a competitive basis. I have replied to the honorable member’s question at length because the implication in his question conveyed a wrong impression about what Australia has done in this matter. Everything that we have done has been done after discussions with the British Government and with its acquiescence.
– My question is supplementary to the question asked by the honorable member for Isaacs, and is directed to the Minister for Supply. Has the shortage of tinplate in Australia yet been overcome, and, if so, is there any plan to stockpile surplus supplies of this commodity to meet possible future shortages in order to protect the Australian canned fruits industry?
– For the time being there is no shortage of tinplate in Australia. How long the present circumstances will continue is another matter. Honorable members who have been in this House for some time will remember that in the past we have gone through stages of plentiful supply and great scarcity. As to stockpiling tinplate, I have recently had conversations with representatives .of the tinplate consuming industry, and have impressed on them the need for themselves acquiring and putting by as large quantities of tinplate as they can against the day when tinplate might again be scarce. Some consumers have complied with my request, and others have not received the suggestion with enthusiasm. That is perhaps because tinplate is an expensive article and perhaps because, unfortunately, they have found it more convenient to let the Government stockpile it for them. I am making every attempt to impress upon the industry the necessity to acquire larger stocks of tinplate, all the more so because it is freely available from Great Britain and it is very desirable that we should buy as much as we possibly can from Great Britain against the time when it may be again short in Australia. We shall then have a valid argument for obtaining further larger supplies from Great Britain.
page 4277
– I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government has been endeavouring to secure capital from the United States of America in order to exploit the enormous deposits of sub-bitumenous coal at Blair Athol. If so, has an agreement been reached? Has the Government arranged for a dele.gation from Pakistan to visit Blair Athol with a view to Pakistan purchasing the greater portion of the output of coal from Blair Athol if American interests take over the coal-mining industry there?
– I ask the honorable gentleman to put the first of his questions upon the notice-paper. If he does so, I shall supply him with an answer to it as soon as possible. I have been informed that there were discussions and correspondence afoot about a proposed visit to this country by representatives of Pakistan to discuss purchases of Australian coal by Pakistan. Those delegates have not yet arrived here. I believe that they have not yet left Pakistan. Therefore, I cannot tell the honorable member whether they are coming here, or whether they wish to purchase coal from Blair Athol. I hope that they will come to this country, and I hope that they will purchase Australian coal.
– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Supply, relates to a conference in connexion with the coal-mining industry that was held in Sydney last week, at which the Premier of New South Wales and the Minister were present. Is it a fact that the conference discussed methods that might be adopted to improve the coal-mining industry in this country, and .to put back into employment miners who are unemployed as a result of over-production of coal and a lack of markets for it? Will the Minister inform the House of the result of the conference, and of the prospects of employment being found for unemployed miners?
– It is true that a conference took place between the Premier of New South Wales, the Minister for National Development and myself in Sydney on, I think, last Friday. I cannot tell the honorable gentleman, at any rate at this stage, what was said at the conference, because it was a private conference. I can say that the conference was concerned with the prosperity of the coal-mining industry. I believe that it was a valuable conference.
– I ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister for National Development, accompanied by the Director of Mineral Resources, will, in the near future, meet representatives of the Pakistan Government in Pakistan to discuss the development of the Blair Athol coal-field. Is it the intention of the Minister to seek foreign capital for tills purpose; or is it likely that the Pakistan Government will be invited to work and develop these deposits by agreement with the Australian Government? Should the Pakistan Government be allowed to work the Blair Athol deposits, does the Government intend to allow it to do so by utilizing its own man-power and machinery? Is it a fact that the New South Wales Government has ample coal for sale and that recently 1,000,000 tons of coal was offered to the Pakistan Government on. the basis of immediate delivery? If so, does the right honorable gentleman consider that it is necessary to seek outside financial assistance to develop our coal resources when we have much machinery and equipment being offered for sale and when there is a surplus of man-power available to the industry?
– There never has been any suggestion, and I have a shrewd idea that the honorable member well knows it, that a coal-field in Australia should be worked by capital from Pakistan. Nobody has ever made any such proposal, and nobody in Australia, believes that such a proposal has ever been made. The position is that a delegation from Pakistan is coming to Australia to discuss the obtaining of coal from this country; and, of course, it would be a good thing for this country if we could develop an export market in coal. Therefore, we have said that we would be delighted to see such a delegation. I am afraid that the Minister for National Development will have left Australia before that delegation arrives here. He will be travelling via Pakistan and while he is in Karachi perhaps this matter will be mentioned to him; but beyond those simple facts I have nothing to add to what has already been said on this point.
page 4278
– Will the Minister for Labour and National Service say whether surplus Italian immigrants are being given jobs in service establishments whilst some Australians in the same areas are unemployed? Will the honorable gentleman approach the Treasurer with a view to obtaining finance to commence railways in northern and central Australia, for which plans have been prepared? Would the construction of such railways involve the use of sleepers and steel, which are in strong supply in this country? Would that scheme be a constructive achievement during this period, and would it provide the main answer to the problems of our northern beef industry ?
– The Minister for Air has dealt very fully with the only aspect of the honorable member’s question that concerns service establishments. He has made it quite clear that such retrenchments as have taken place in establishments under his administration affected people who were doing types of work different from those in which Italian workers were engaged temporarily. The honorable member has suggested a possible way in which Italian labour could be usefully employed, but his suggestion raises a very interesting question of Government policy upon which it would not be appropriate for me to express a view now. I can say, however, that the construction of a railway in the area to which he has referred has already -received some attention by my colleagues. I shall bring to their notice the interesting and useful suggestion that he has :made.
– I ask the Minister for Immigration the following questions: -
– I regret that the honorable member has sought to confuse a specific matter which he has raised by dragging a red herring across the trail.
– It is not a red herring.
– I understand that Mr. Speaker has ruled, on other occasions, that a question should not contain two separate subjects. However, I am aware of the interest that the honorable member for Hunter and other honorable members have shown in his first question. As the honorable gentleman knows, we have given a good deal of attention to that matter. He will recall that he discussed with me a proposal whereby houses now occupied by those immigrants were offered to them on terms which, I understood the honorable gentleman himself to say, were reasonable in all the circumstances. It is a matter for some regret that such an offer has been rejected. A counter proposal has been made, I understand, that we should now examine the rents charged those persons for those places with a view to seeing whether some review can be made. I shall discuss that aspect with the Treasurer, who has a more direct interest in the financial implications than perhaps I have.
– Will the honorable gentleman go to that district?
– I have received an invitation to visit the area and I shall examine the request sympathetically. The second of the honorable member’s questions has been dealt with on more than one occasion by the Minister for Air, and I have nothing to add to the information which he has given to the House.
– Yesterday, I asked the Minister for Immigration a question about the immigration situation in Canada, and directed attention to the fact that the Canadian Government had practically closed the doors of that dominion to immigrants because it did not desire to add to the large number of unemployed, which is the result of its previous open-door immigration policy. The Minister, in his reply, said that he was surprised to hear of the position as I described it. Possibly the statement of the Minister may give rise to the suggestion that my information was not correct. I now ask the Minister whether he would support the view that the office of the Canadian Government Trade Commissioner in Sydney would be a reliable source of information on matters of Canadian Government policy, such as the subject under discussion?
– I have no reason to believe that the office of the Canadian Government Trade Commissioner in Sydney would not be an entirely authoritative source ; nor, for that matter, have I any reason to believe that the Minister for Immigration in Canada is not fully conversant with the policy of the Government of the dominion as it relates to his own department. My information on the matter comes directly from the Canadian Minister for Immigration. There may be some misunderstandings in this matter because of the seasonal employment of labour which occurs in Canada. As the honorable member for Mitchell may possibly be aware, when the winter season develops a good deal of unemployment of a seasonal character occurs in that dominion. According to my information, it has been the practice of the Canadian Government to slow down the intake of new settlers during that period when some local unemployment occurs, and to revive and resume the intake of new settlers at a normal level as the spring and summer seasons develop. That may, perhaps, have coloured the information which was passed on to the honorable member for Mitchell. However, I shall make a check with a view to seeing whether some more authoritative details can be given to him. I only add that Canada has undoubtedly pursued an energetic immigration policy in the post-war years to its own great advantage, and whilst conditions are not entirely comparable in the two dominions, I believe that we ourselves can take encouragement from the success which has been achieved in Canada.
– Will the Minister for Immigration give the most urgent consideration to the difficult case of a constituent of mine - whose name and address, Mr. Speaker, I supplied to the Minister’s staff before I entered the House - a former British seaman who was landed under bond from an overseas ship two years ago suffering from tuberculosis and who has now been cured and desires to remain in Australia but has been called on to leave within three days in accordance with the shipping company’s bond under which he was landed? In view of the very short time remaining - three days - will the Minister grant an immediate residence permit for, say, six months, to enable my constituent to establish the fact that he has been cured to the Commonwealth authorities; and will the Minister please ensure that the views of the eminent specialist who has been treating my constituent and who is, r understand, now satisfied as to his condition, are duly considered by the Commonwealth medical officers?
– The honorable member will be aware of the important considerations that make it necessary for the Government and its officers to insist upon a high standard of health of persons who come here with the intention of residing here permanently. It appears that the man to whom he has referred has had the misfortune to suffer from the dread disease of tuberculosis. While the honorable member has given an assurance that the man has been completely cured, it will be necessary for the Government’s medical officers to satisfy themselves on that point. If they are so satisfied, I shall see that the matter is investigated with a view to meeting the request that the honorable member has put forward.
page 4280
– I ask the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs whether he. will now, before the House goes into recess, give an assurance that action will be taken without further delay to clear out the nest of traitors stated to exist in the Department of External Affairs. I remind him that it is now many months since the Minister for External Affairs reported to the House the existence of that nest of traitors, and that although energetic action was promised at that time nothing has since been done to allay the public concern caused by the announcement. If, as I hope, the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs did not really mean what he said on the 29th October, when he stated that he considered the matter no business of his–
– Order ! The honorable gentleman is beginning to argue the matter now. In view of a point of order that was taken earlier to-day, I must point out that this question has been repeatedly asked during this sessional period.
– I ask the Minister whether he will give an assurance that there will be no further delay in arresting the persons concerned, charging them and placing them on trial for their crimes against this nation ?
– As the honorable member and the Hou3e know perfectly well, this question has been asked repeatedly, and the Minister for External Affairs has answered it repeatedly.. I do not propose, during the absence of my colleague for a brief period overseas, to take it upon myself to attend to matters which are within his peculiar province. In that sense, I do not regard it as being a part of my business to hold a sort of inquest into matters which are within his jurisdiction and under his administration. That is the only answer I propose to give for the present to the completely bogus attempt by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro to draw attention to this matter.
page 4281
– Yesterday, the honorable member for Newcastle asked the Minister for Air a question about the construction of an airport at Hexham, near Newcastle. I point out that Newcastle already has the use of the Williamtown airport, that it would cost many millions of pounds to construct an airport at Hexham, and that there are many places in the west that need allweather airstrips. In view of those facts, will the Minister for Air say whether there is any valid reason why another airport should be considered for Newcastle?
– This question should have been addressed to the Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation, but I am in a position to reply to it, because I received a deputation, on his behalf, when I was in Newcastle some weeks ago. At that time, the Mayor of Newcastle merely asked whether we could try to define the area where the Newcastle airport was to be built, so that the Newcastle City Council could go to the trouble of filling in the area, if that is necessary, in order to make it level No provision has been made in the budget this year either for the construction of an airport or for the installation of any airport facilities at Hexham. I agree with the contention of the honorable member for Gwydir that it would be far better, in the immediate future, to expend whatever money is available on the construction of airports in outback western areas rather than to build airports in too close proximity to the cities. However, I shall refer the honorable gentleman’s question to the Minister for Civil Aviation on his return to Australia, and supply the honorable member with an answer.
page 4281
– I remind the Prime Minister of a deputation which he received recently from councils in the metropolitan area of Melbourne on the subject of the provision of money by way of overdraft from the Commonwealth Bank and other financial institutions in order to finance private street construc tion. The right honorable gentleman stated in his reply that the central bank policy has not prevented local governing bodies from obtaining finance from banks for the purpose of constructing private streets. I mention, by way of explanation, that the Coburg City Council has been obtaining overdrafts from the Commonwealth Bank for many years. Last year it was refused financial accommodation of more than £100,000, and this year it has again been refused accommodation by way of overdraft. In view of the Prime Minister’s reply to the deputation, can he suggest any action that the Coburg City Council can take in order to obtain money by way of overdraft from the Commonwealth Bank so as to provide the necessary funds for the construction of private streets in that city?
– I stated, in the answer to which the honorable member for Wills has referred, and also in a public statement on the same matter, that there is no restriction, or no element of bank advance policy, which prevents banks from providing accommodation to local government authorities. That statement is true. Of course, I do not know about the negotiations between the Coburg City Council and the Commonwealth Bank. Naturally, those matters do not come within my immediate knowledge. But I shall ascertain what has happened in that case, and inform the honorable member of the position.
– On the 30th October, the Treasurer, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, said that as far as his memory was concerned treasury-bills had increased since the 1st July by about £120,000,000. In view of the fact that at the end of August the figure indicated was about £25,000,000, and that the figure that he stated last week, if correct, would indicate that there had been an increase of £95,000,000 worth of treasury-bills in October alone, will he now say what has been the net increase in treasury-bills since the 1st July of this year ?
– I misunderstood the original question asked by the Leader of the Opposition; but, as the right honorable gentleman knows, I corrected my answer later. I thought that he asked the amount of treasury-bills that were current, and not the amount of the increase. I had to answer his question from memory, and I said that it was unfair to expect me to be able to state the accurate amount. Since that time I have supplied the correct information to the Leader of the Opposition and, as a consequence of having given it to the Leader of the Opposition, the information is available to the honorable member for Melbourne.
– What is the correct figure ?
– The Leader of the Opposition knows it quite well, because I have supplied it to him. The question has been answered, and the information is now in the possession of the Opposition.
page 4282
– In view of the very serious menace of the Argentine ants in Australia, which may assume national proportions if it has not already done so, and the consequent necessity to control the ants, will the Minister give consideration to granting financial assistance to the Western. Australian Government to deal with them? That State Government is already taking definite and strong action to deal with Argentine ants, which is imposing a very heavy burden on its financial resources.
– The problem of the Argentine ants, which do not confine their activities to Western Australia or Sydney, but are well known in my own electorate, has been under consideration by my colleague, the Minister for Health. He has twice invited the attention of the relevant Cabinet committee to the matter. The position of the Commonwealth is that it has very willingly placed at the disposal of State and local authorities the knowledge gained by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization about this matter. It has also obtained supplies of a chemical known as chlordane, which is used for the purpose of eradicating the ant, and has indicated that it is willing to make that chemical available to the States or local authorities at the cost to the
Commonwealth of obtaining the supplies.. Beyond that, the Commonwealth ia not prepared to accept responsibility for a matter which is not within the Commonwealth jurisdiction.
page 4282
– My question to the Minister for the Navy refers to naval prize money that accrued during World’ War II. Can the Minister indicate thetotal amount that has been paid to each seaman, the amount still remaining in the fund and whether any action will be taken to make payments to those entitled to a share who have not yetreceived the share?
– I was under the impression that this matter had been closed for some months, and I cannot remember offhand the amount that has been paid to each member of the merchant service. If the honorable member knows of any case of an individual who claims that he has a right to money from -the fund, and will give me particulars of the case, I shall do my best to ensure that the person receives payment. The Department of the Navy has advertised on many occasions for claimants for thismoney, and during the last three or four months I do not think that we have received any new claims. However, if the honorable member has any case in mind I shall be glad of the particulars and shall have the matter attended to forthwith.
page 4282
– My question to the Minister acting for the PostmasterGeneral concerns a large-scale undertaking in the Gosford district of New South Wales.- Approximately two months ago I was informed, on behalf of the PostmasterGeneral, that the first part of this project with respect to the northern centre of Gosford would commence about six weeks from that time. In view of the urgent nature of the work and the number of applications for telephone services in Gosford, has the Minister any progress to report?
– During the last four days I had the privilege of visiting northern New South Wales with the Acting Director-General of Postal Services, and he ‘informed me that it would be necessary to have three cables to do the work that the honorable member has mentioned- in the Gosford district, and that they would not be available for about a year. He also said that he had made arrangements for a temporary intermediate development to take place which would enable 22 subscribers to be immediately connected by telephone. He said that his department was using all haste to finalize the job.
page 4283
– In view of the fact that private enterprise and the Commonwealth Employment Service have failed to provide work for all the available workers in Australia, I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service whether the Government has any plans for the carrying out of essential public works to absorb that labour, including native-born and new Australians, in productive work, or whether, Micawber-like, it is waiting for something to turn up?
– I am astonished to discover an honorable member who was a supporter of -a government at a time when private enterprise was in an unfortunate position as a result of the legislation and policy pursued by that government, with the result that some 32 per cent, of the Australian working population was unemployed, finding dissatisfaction with the situation to-day in which somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2 per cent. of. the population is unemployed. Rather than criticize the efforts of private industry in this country, the honorable member and his colleagues should be extremely grateful for the enterprise and energy of private industry which is giving many useful employment opportunities at the present time to the Australian community. It will be a matter. of continuing policy on the part of the Government to establish factors that will be favorable for the healthy .expansion of primary and secondary industry ,as a whole and thus ensure adequate opportunities for the employment .of the Australian people.
page 4283
– As Chairman, I prosent the fifth report of the Printing Committee.
Report read by the Clerk, and - by leave - adopted.
page 4283
Debate resumed from the 4th November (vide page 4100), on motion by Mr. McBRIDE -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This is a measure to give the force of law to certain regulations and orders, and for other purposes. Some analysis of it will be- of value to the House. Since 1945, a period of over seven years, the Parliament has passed, prior to the Christmas recess each year, a measure entitled the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Bill for the purpose of maintaining in legal effect a number of regulations and orders which derived their force, originally at any rate, from the defence power of the Commonwealth. The present Government parties, when they were in Opposition, argued that this procedure was wrong and that the regulations and orders should be converted into statutes legally supportable under some specific power of the Commonwealth, but they have not adopted that course since they have been in power. In 1950 and 1951, the Government continued in force the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act. This year, it proposes to take a somewhat different course, and, therefore, it is important that we should determine exactly what it intends to do by means’ of this bill. The number of regulations required to be continued in force has diminished as the years have passed. However, I do not think that the title of the measure, which is the Defence Transition (Residual Provisions) Bill, is an accurate description of it.
Three groups of regulations will be kept in force by the bill. They are specified in Part I. and Part II. of the
First Schedule and in the Second Schedule. The regulations listed in Part I. of the First Schedule are to continue in force for a further period of six months, and no longer. They are the National Security (Apple and Pear Acquisition) Regulations, the National Security (War Deaths) Regulations, and Regulation 66 of the National Security (General) Regulations. The Minister for Defence (Mr. McBride) has said - and I accept his statement implicitly - that these regulations are to be continued for the purpose of winding up certain matters. For instance, compensation may be payable to certain persons for the acquisition of apples or pears. Claims may not yet be finalized, although some years have elapsed since the acquisition scheme was terminated. In such circumstances, it is correct and proper that the regulations should be continued in force. Whether the desired result should be achieved by continuing the regulations or by passing an act is of little importance. We should be hypercritical, indeed, if we complained of the continuance of those regulations. The Parliament has passed measures that deal with the subjectmatters of the National Security (War Deaths) Regulations, and Regulation 66 of the general regulations, which refers to explosives. Those statutes will replace the regulations, and, no doubt, will come into force before the expiration of the period of six months. I turn my attention now to the Second Schedule and to Part II. of the First Schedule.
The Second Schedule specifies the Cordage and Fibre Order and the Jute Goods Order. In his second-reading speech, the Minister for Defence said -
The two orders listed in the Second Schedule will be continued until the end of 1953, and will then lapse if not earlier revoked. They are the Cordage and Fibre Order and the Jute Goods Order. The transition from emergency conditions has not progressed as rapidly or as far, in respect of these matters, as it has in most other directions. I am advised that the continuance of these orders will command general consent in the industries to which they relate.
These orders control the industries concerned. The view that the Opposition expressed on this subject last year is still tenable and correct. It is that, if the continuance of such control is warranted, it should be exercised by means of an act of Parliament and not by the mere continuance in force of regulations. Before I refer to the principle involved, I shall discuss the practical aspect. The regulations are difficult to discover. They are contained in a huge volume; but, even when the appropriate regulations have been found it is also found that they do not include the orders that have been made thereunder. The orders must be sought elsewhere. It is all right for the people in an industry to say that they want controls to be continued, but we must consider the people who are dealing with the industry from outside, and who find difficulty in ascertaining the law that is in operation with respect to the industry. Those regulations are to be continued for another twelve months. Therefore, the Minister was not accurate when he said -
The bill disposes finally of the remnant of the national security miscellany. Honorable members, I arn sure, will attend its obsequies without lamentation.
They are pretended obsequies. The fact is that the regulations will be continued in another form for at least another twelve months. That is not satisfactory. This Government has pledged itself to get rid of controls by regulation, but it is not doing so in this respect.
I have dealt with the regulations the continuance of which is clearly justifiable because they are necessary for the windingup of certain schemes, or are being replaced by statutes. They are contained in Part I. of the First Schedule. They are to be continued in operation for another six months. That is perfectly reasonable. The Cordage and Fibre Order and the Jute Goods Order, which are referred to in the Second Schedule, are to be continued for twelve months. They involve government control of industries more than seven years after the end of hostilities in the last war. The Opposition does not regard that as a proper approach to the matter. If control of an industry must be continued, it should be authorized by a statute. The Government knows that if this measure were called the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Bill, it would not be favoured. Therefore, the bill has been given a slightly different label. But the Cordage and Fibre Order and the Jute Goods Order are to be continued in operation. If the Government considers it necessary for the orders to be continued, they should be put into statute form.
I turn to the third group of regulations, which is contained in Part II. of the First Schedule. The group consists of five sets of regulations. They are even more important than those that I have already mentioned. The Minister, referring to them in his second-reading speech, said -
Broadly, the position with these is that they do not draw their support from the defence powers, and that they are not now needed except for winding up or for transitional purposes. However, it is not quite clear how soon they can be replaced or dispensed with. In these cases, therefore, no time limit is fixed. Indeed, no time limit is necessary because their continuance does not depend upon an emergency or on emergency powers.
The Minister illustrated that point by referring to regulations dealing with the occupation of property. He said that, in his view - -and I do not disagree with him - they were necessary for winding up purposes and for assessing compensation for the occupation of properties. Another of the regulations deals with the finalization of certain proceedings by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. If certain regulations are necessary for winding up purposes, the Parliament could not do other than agree to them being continued in operation. I turn now to a regulation which is very important, as honorable members will see at a glance. The Minister said -
The Shipping Co-ordination Regulations permit the exercise of certain powers in relation to interstate and overseas shipping, and will eventually be replaced by permanent legislation.
The Shipping Co-ordination Regulations are set out at page 342 of the Manual of Defence Transitional Legislation, which was published by the Chifley Government, of which I was a member, as long ago as 194S. Those regulations, which are to be continued in operation, contain no fewer than 49 clauses. They give the Government tremendous power over shipping and, thereby, over the commerce of Australia. They are very important.
The view of the Government is that they can be maintained in operation legally, not under the defence power but under the Commonwealth’s undoubted power in respect of overseas and interstate trade. If that be so, surely they should have been embodied in permanent legislation long ago. I should say that not one honorable member could sum up the effect of the Shipping Co-ordination Regulations, which, by this measure, will be continued in force indefinitely. I do not pretend to know all the details of the regulations myself, although I have looked them up for the purposes of this debate. They are very elaborate and very important. Therefore, they should be granted the honour of being included in the statute-book, but that is not to be done.
The industrial property group of regulations is set out at page 151 of the Manual of Defence Transitional Legislation, without which, during the last war, it was impossible to know what the law of the country was. The Industrial Property Regulations deal with two vital subjects - inventions and designs covered by patent legislation and jurisprudence, and trade marks. The regulations contain very important provisions. The Government has said that they have no relation to defence as such, although they had their origin in the defence power. They are to be continued in operation because in the view of the Government they are necessary. The Minister said in his second-reading speech -
The Industrial Property Regulations are being incorporated progressively into the revised patent, trade mark and designs legislation which is being prepared, and of which the first act has already been passed.
Let me sum the matter up. There can be no objection to the continuance of the regulations referred to in Part I. of the First Schedule, because they are necessary for winding up purposes and for the assessment of compensation. They relate to matters such as war debts, in respect, of which permanent legislation has been passed. The Cordage and Fibre Order and the Jute Goods Order are to be continued for at least twelve months, and may be continued thereafter. I do not express an opinion whether such regulations are justified, because I am not sufficiently conversant with the trades concerned. I have no doubt that persons in these trades support the continuance of the regulations because they enable them to exercise a substantial monopoly in these trades. That often happened during the last war, when such action was essential. The fact that people in a trade support the continuance of a regulation is not sufficient reason for its continuance. We must consider the interests of people outside the trade. The Third group of regulations is based, not upon the defence power, but upon the powers of the Commonwealth in relation to patents, trade marks, interstate trade and other matters. Because they are not based upon the defence power, they are to be continued indefinitely. I say that they should be continued, not as regulations, but as acts of Parliament.
The Minister overstated the Government’s case when he said that the bill would dispose finally of the remnants of the national security miscellany. It will not do 30. Controls which are supportable under powers other than the defence power of the Commonwealth should, if they are required to be continued, be embodied in ordinary acts of the Parliament, which honorable members could consider in detail. Who knows what is in the Shipping Co-ordination Regulations? They authorize the Commonwealth to exercise great powers. I do not believe that similar powers are exercised in Britain or any other part of the British Commonwealth. I do not believe that the Government has made out its case. We do not want to be hypercritical about these matters but we cannot forget that after 1945 the Chifley Government, year by year, got rid of many of these regulations. This Government came into office on a pledge to get rid of such controls altogether. In 1950 it made no move to get rid of them. In 1951, it was subjected to a merciless and devastating bombardment by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), and everything was to be in apple-pie order for this session. No more regulations having their basis in wartime powers were to be made. Everything was to be forthwith repealed or put in permanent legislation which the Par- liament would be able to discuss clause by clause. That has not been done, but I have no doubt that before the debate is over the honorable member for Melbourne will have something to say about whether the Government has kept the undertakings that it gave previously to this House.
.- Nobody can deny that in the general election campaigns of 1949 and 1951 this Government proclaimed itself as the champion of free enterprise. It went on record solemnly as opposed to all controls. Nobody can deny that the Government, and the members of the parties which support it, said that the Labour party believed in controls for the sake of controls, and that if we did not get rid of all controls exercised by virtue of regulations made under the National Security Act, and every other form of control, this country would be socialized within the lifetime of the , Nineteenth Parliament. Of course, having won the 1949 general election, the Government proceeded to contradict itself. It proceeded to give an exhibition of a lack of consistency that must be without parallel anywhere. Instead of repealing the regulations made under the National Security Act, which had been continued by the Chifley Government under the title of the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act, it re-enacted that legislation in 1950 and again in 1951. When Mr. Dedman brought down the 1949 version of the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act in this House, he said that the measure would not be re-enacted in 1950. Had we remained in office we should have honoured that promise. We were amazed to discover in 1950 that this Government had set out actually to continue the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act of 1946. Not only did it continue that act for one year from 1950 to 1951, but it also re-enacted it last year. This year, it attempts to fool the people by calling its bill the Defence Transition (Residual Provisions) Bill and blandly says, “We have come to the end of the road. The Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act is now on the way out. We shall make no more regulations under it”. But it introduces the Defence Transitional (Residual Provisions) Bill, which starts the whole process over again. Next year, the Government can bring down another version of this legislation and extend the controls.
– Most of them will have expired.
– They may have expired, but some of them, as the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) has pointed out, may not expire. The Shipping Co-ordination Regulations. for instance, would expire if the Government sold the Commonwealth line of steamers. I suppose it is waiting to get rid of the line before it decides what it will do about these regulations. If that is not the position, the Government should explain why it is continuing the regulations indefinitely. The regulation listed in the First Schedule to the bill is to be continued until midnight on the 30th June, 1953, whilst the orders specified in the Second Schedule are to be continued until the 31st December, 1953. A government can be judged only on its record, and this Government must be judged on the inconsistency it has shown over the last few years in relation to regulations. If, unfortunately, the Government is still in office at this time next year I have not the slightest doubt that it will bring down another bill of this sort to continue, for instance, the Cordage and Fibre Order and the Jute Goods Order listed in the Second Schedule. It is interesting to observe how easily Ministers can delude themselves. The Minister for Defence (Mr. McBride) said in his second-reading speech that we had seen the last of these regulations because of the introduction of the new bill which is to keep on foot, for varying periods, the small residual groups of regulations and orders listed in the schedules. The members of the present Government who sat in the Eighteenth Parliament used to attack us because we were continuing in 1947, 1948 and 1949 the regulations made under the National Security Act. As a matter of fact in 1947 they blitzed us properly because, two years after the end of the war, they said we were governing the country by regulation. The present Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison), as the Deputy Leader of the Liberal party, had this to say during the debate on the 1947 Defence (Transitional Provisions) Bill -
A great number of subjects are still shrouded in the semi-darkness of the regulations which continue to be applied under the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act.
He and all his colleagues actually forced the vote to a division, and went on record as opposing the continuation of the regulations for one year from 1947 to 1948. In his expansive way he explained exactly how he felt about the attitude of the Chifley Government on this issue. He said -
In seeking power to continue to impose government-by-regulation upon the people, the members of the Cabinet are flouting the Parliament and the people. They are, in fact, seeking to retain power and to vest it permanently in the hands of individuals whom we have described as bureaucrats.
Five years after he made that statement honorable members opposite who criticized the Chifley Government are doing precisely the thing that the Vice-President of the Executive Council protested against then. To use the terminology used in 1947 by the right honorable gentleman, they are about to “ vest the powers permanently in the hands of individuals “ whom they then described as bureaucrats. This Government ought to be a little consistent in some things. We know that it is a fits and starts government which starts on one policy-
– Its members fit in here very well.
– Of course they do, but that is only because they have decided that Benjamin Franklin’s dictum is right, and that if they do not hang together they will hang separately. It is just as well that they should fit in a little better here than their record fits outside. Another statement made by the VicePresident of the Executive Council on the same occasion in 1947 was -
This bill is designed to amend the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1940, and for other purposes. Immediately two points present themselves. The first is that this bill isdesigned to continue in operation for a period of twelve months certain regulations promulgated under the National Security Act for the control of certain aspects of our economy. The second point is: Should these controls at this juncture, in these days of peace, be continued for a period of twelve months?
I remind him again that five years have passed since that time, and, consequently, there is no justification for this bill. The present Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale), in the debate on the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1947, left no doubt about his view of the Chifley Government’s action. He said -
It is somewhat anomalous that four years after the end of the war the Government is still relying on the defence power of the Constitution.
Well, seven years have passed since the war ended, and the honorable gentleman is a member of a cabinet which relies, in part, on the defence power for the continuation of some of the regulations which, he argued in 1947, could be declared invalid because they were outside the scope of the defence power.
The Australian Labour party has never wanted to govern by regulation, when it could translate the regulations in force into statutory terms. We actually enacted a number of laws after 1945, and took them out of the regulation class. We were continuing to do so when we lost office in 1949. But the present Government did nothing, until yesterday, to enact as laws the regulations which have been in force for the past three years. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Bland), who used to attack the Chifley Government on the ground that it governed by regulation, is sitting meekly behind the Government and endorsing all the regulations that it brings forward. He has not spoken in this debate.
– I am sitting in front of the Government.
– I think that the honorable member gets as far away from the Government as he can on some occasions, but he is still behind it. Perhaps, in some respects, he can be in front of it, because that would not be difficult. The Government would be behind some of the views that he expressed in other days. He, like other honorable members opposite, who denounced the use of the regulationmaking power in the past, offers no criticisms of this bill. Last year, Ministers were really upset that any body should criticize the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1951. They expected that honorable members on both sides of the chamber would support that legislation. They said, in effect, “ It is difficult to translate some of these regulations into legislation, so let us have this brand of legislation for another year “. They did not make much of a defence of their position. They called in the honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne), the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) and the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) to defend the regulation-making power, and those honorable gentlemen performed their allotted task, either by speech or interjection. I do not see the honorable member for Mackellar at the moment, but I have no doubt that if he were in the chamber, he would defend the introduction of this bill. The Prime Minister has done one service to this Parliament. He has put the honorable member for Mackellar against a wall, but he has not yet eliminated him completely.
All the other honorable members, who defended this Government last year, now realize that the country will not accept explanations or excuses put forward by Ministers for the introduction of this measure in the light of all they said about the evil of controls and government by regulation, and the necessity to make the Parliament the real authority in the life of the country. We are told that only a few regulations remain. The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that one of them covers a vast number of matters. The Minister for Defence has tried unsuccessfully to mislead the Parliament. He should have been honest, and should not have stated that we are seeing the last of the regulations. We are not seeing the last of them. We shall see more of them next year, if this Government is still in office. The Minister has spoken about the obsequies of the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act, and has invited us to participate in the function with lamentations. It appears to me that the Government has performed a resurrection. The Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1946 is being interred, and the Defence Transition (Residual Provisions) Act of 1952 is being born. I suppose we are expected to be glad that the act of 1946 is dead, and to have no feelings at all because the act of 1952 is being born.
The Opposition does not accept the assurance of the Government that this legislation will not be continued in 1953. In the dying hours of next year, we shall be asked to re-enact this particular legislation or a variant of it. I add again the rider, “ if the Government is still in office”. I am amused at one interesting feature of this legislation. Clause 7 has that side note, “ Savings “. I suppose it means a qualification, and is intended to preserve the legality of some of the provisions of the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1946, which is to be interred. However, clause 7 deals with regulations, instruments and documents, and authorities constituted or holding office, or a person employed, immediately before the commencement of this act, in relation, to future happenings. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken the mind of the Australian people about legislation of this sort.
In my opinion, the Government should be ashamed of its failure to carry out its pre-election promise, and the policy of the Liberal party itself with respect to these matters. The Labour party is always consistent. It knows where it is going. It does not deviate or wander very far, one way or another, from the road to its objective, which lies ahead. But this Government is zigzagging all over the place. It does not seem to know what will happen next year on matters of this sort. I consider that the Government should express regret that it misled the people in 1949, and again in 1951, regarding this legislation. It should offer apologies for its action, and promise that, when it is returned to political oblivion, it will mend its ways, so that it may give a little better performance, should it ever regain office. We shall be sorry to see honorable members opposite go personally, but we shall attend the obsequies of this Government without lamentation.
– in reply - The Government appreciates the very moderate attitude adopted by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) and the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) towards this bill. However, I advise them quite- definitely that this
Government is opposed to government by regulation, and has endeavoured, as far as possible, to repeal regulations or place them in legislative form. It is a fact that whatever we expected in 1949 to do under the conditions that existed then, it has not been possible to give effect to our. plans for two reasons. The first is that conditions have substantially changed since 1949. When we came into office, we had no Korea on our hands, and the world position looked much calmer than it appears at the present time. Because of that fact, it has been necessary to continue some regulations which otherwise would have passed into the discard. Secondly, I make no apology for the fact that there is a physical limit to what the Government can do in dealing with matters of this kind. I remind the honorable member for Melbourne that, during this long session, the Parliament has passed a record number of bills.
– Mostly chicken feed.
– Every bill receives a great deal of consideration by the department which initiates it, and by the Government, and involves the Parliamentary Draftsman in a great deal of work before it is presented to, and discussed by, the Parliament. The record of this Parliament during the present session must be the envy of the members of the Labour Government in which the honorable member for Melbourne was a Minister. Some regulations are being continued for varying periods, but I assure the Parliament and the people that, at the earliest possible moment, the regulations will be discarded completely, or put into legislative form . It is particularly gratifying to honorable members on this side of the chamber to learn of the opposition of the Labour party to the system of government by regulation. The Chifley Labour Government imposed more regulations and orders on the people than had ever existed in our history. Those regulations and orders were promulgated under legislation passed by the Menzies Government at the beginning of World War II.
– We were at war then.
– I agree that some of those regulations and orders were necessary under war-time conditions, but [ suggest that many of them were retained for much longer than the exigency of the situation required.We are pleased to learn that the Labour party is opposed, in principle, to government by regulation. I assure Opposition members generally that the Government is completely in accord with their view on that matter, and will endeavour to give effect to the principle as early as possible.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Hill read a second time.
In committee :
The bill.
.- I understand that during the secondreading debate, the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) was kind enough to draw some inference from the fact that I supported the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Bill introduced’ by the Government last year, but was absent from the chamber when the debate was resumed on the Defence Transition (Residual Provisions) Bill 1952 this afternoon. Let me disabuse the honorable gentleman’s mind of any sinister conclusions that he may have drawn from my temporary absence from the chamber. I fully support the Government’s action in introducing this bill. The conclusion to be drawn from the time it is taking the present Government to Tepeal regulations promulgated in war-time is obvious to me. The Labour party, contrary to the protestations of honorable members opposite in this debate, saw fit to govern by regulation so completely that it has taken the present Government, which is determined to get rid of all Ihese regulations as quickly as possible, more than two and a half years to reach the present stage, and provide a way out of the morass. Therefore, in this matter T. support the Government.
– I do not know whether the honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne) was in the House during the second-reading debate on this matter. I presume that he’ was not, because if he had been he would have understood that the criticism offered by the Opposi tion was not as he suggests. We consider that this measure will not mean the end of government by regulation. On the contrary, in respect of shipping coordination, where control of the shipping industry is still continued by regulation, and in relation to patents and copyrights and so forth, the method of continuing control is by way of regulation. The Opposition strongly supports the view that legislation should be substituted for these regulations if legislation is deemed necessary. Therefore, the honorable member for Evans has misconceived our criticism, and should have been here to listen to it.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill - by leave - read a third time.
page 4290
In Committee of Ways and Means:
Consideration resumed from the 23rd October (vide page 3662), on motion by Mr. Holt-
That on and after the 28th day of October, (vide page 3661 ).
– I take it that I am entitled to postpone the remarks that I desire to make about this measure until the second-reading stage ‘of the bill. I hope that that course of action is agreeable to the Minister. I desire to move an amendment to the measure at that point.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Resolution reported.
Standing Orders suspended ; resolution adopted.
Ordered -
That Mr. McBride and Mr. Holt do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.
Bill presented by Mr. McBride, and read a first time.
. - I move -
That the bill bc now read a second time.
This bill gives effect to a resolution of the House, and at the time of the resolution an explanation of its objectives wai given by my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt).
– Undoubtedly the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board is performing important functions. One of those is the payment of what is called attendance, or appearance, money to waterfront employees. Other matters of greater value to the waterfront industry are also dealt with by the board. The Government is Continuing the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, and I think that in doing so it is taking the correct action. It was the Opposition’s original proposal that the functions of the board should be properly a charge on the industry, and that the industry should make up any reasonable deficiency in respect of payments made on its behalf by the board. The increase of appearance money now contemplated is startling, and the case made out earlier by the Government for this increase is .completely unconvincing. In 1947 the Chifley Government introduced legislation to impose a charge of 4-kl. a man-hour of employment. In October, 1949, the Chifley Government reduced the charge to 2-J-d. a man-hour of employment. It is obvious that all charges such as this are ultimately borne by the consumers, because they are passed on through the various stages of the industry until they reach the consumers. In the wonderful month of November, 1949,* the Government parties made the assertion that the cost of living would be reduced and value would be put back into the fi if they were elected to office. In December, 1951, the Government, after two years in office, increased the charge from 2-Jd. to 4d. a man-hour. Now this motion proposes to increase it to lid. a man-hour of employment. That is a startling increase of 7d. a man-hour and represents an increase of almost 200 per cent. There is no doubt, in the view of the Opposition, that the increase has been largely caused by the collapse of the Government’s policy to slow down inflation in this country. This could not be a better illustration of uncontrolled inflation. The Government has allowed the position to get completely out of hand and, indeed, it has run down our overseas funds. This Government got a windfall last year because of the wonderful price of our wool, but it has sadly depleted the overseas savings built up by the previous Labour Government. Of course, the import restrictions and other Government actions have all played their part.
The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) has stated that recently there has been a decline in inward cargoes. That is due to the Government’s import restriction policy. We all know that n certain situation had to be met, hut, uo doubt, the import restriction policy is one cause of the present position. The Minister has stated that that has resulted in less congestion on thu wharfs, and that for the first time in years there has been an ample supply of labour in most major ports. The import restriction policy has meant less congestion in an industry which has not kept up with modern wharf conditions in other parts of the world, as has been demonstrated by the Basten report. The Minister said that “ the consequence has been a much quicker turn-round of ships. This is to the- great . benefit of the economy generally “. However, this Government has in the past attributed the slow turnround of ships solely to the method of working of the waterfront employees. Now it is quite apparent that the slow turn-round was not entirely due to the method of working of these employees. Members of the Opposition have al way i maintained that the situation was dun to wharf congestion, insufficient berthing accommodation and a general failure to make provision for Australia’s rapidly expanding commerce. We have pointed out on previous occasions that no additional wharfage in longitudinal measure has been provided in Australian ports during the last 35 years. We have suffered its a result of the failure to modernize equipment for the handling of overseas commerce. All governments during the last 40 years must accept their share of blame for that failure. Now, because of the peculiar situation that has arisen following import restrictions, the truth is being revealed to the public.
The general manager of the Fremantle Harbour Trust, Mr. Tydeman, has criticized the recommendation of the Stevedoring Industry Board that the stevedoring charge should be increased from 4d. to lid. per man-hour. The trust received notification of the increase from the Commissioner of Taxation and estimated that the increase would involve the trust in a total additional annual expenditure of £30,000. Mr. Tydeman said -
This could only, result in increased handling charges, which would ultimately affect consumers. The stevedoring industry charge is designed to assist in meeting the expenses of the A.S.I.B., including the payment of attendance money.
Mr. Tydeman added that the increase was due to the recent increase of the attendance money payment by 4s. a day, and also to the large surplus of manpower in Australian ports following the recent decline in shipping activities. He continued -
Fremantle would be proportionately “ carrying “ eastern States ports where labour surpluses were larger and more consistent.
The proposed increase from 4d. to Hd. per man-hour is so substantial that I do not believe that it can be due entirely to the increase of the attendance money payment. The Government should thoroughly investigate all the facts and circumstances. Therefore, I move -
That all words after “That” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ the bill ,be withdrawn in order to determine whether the increase in charge from 4d. to lid. per man-hour is warranted by the facts and circumstances “.
If the House does not agree to my amendment, the Opposition will not oppose this charge, because we must face the fact that the attendance money payment has been increased and we also recognize the special circumstances that have arisen. However, having regard to the facts that in 1947 the charge was 4£d. per man-hour and that in October, 1948, it was reduced to 2M. per man-hour, the proposed in-, crease from 4d. to Hd. per man-hour is so startling as to warrant general support for the amendment that I have submitted.
– I must rule the proposed amendment out of order on the ground that this bill has been founded on a motion in the Committee of Ways and Means. I have no knowledge of what Occurs in committee, but when the report of the committee was put to the House, it was adopted unanimously.
– I rise to order. When this matter was considered in the Committee of Ways and Means, another Minister who was then in charge of the bill gave me the assurance that this matter could be raised on the motion for the second-reading stage in order to test the point that I have indicated. The rules of procedure in that committee precluded me from doing so at that stage. Now, the House is in possession of the matter. You, Mr. Speaker, know nothing about what occurs in committee. The purpose of my amendment is simply to have a chec’k made on whether the proposed increase from 4d. to Hd. a man-hour is warranted. The decision of the Committee of Ways and Means does not bind the House at this stage. The House can accept, or reject, the amendment that I proposed. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider your ruling.
– I am afraid that I cannot review the ruling that I have just given. It is my firm decision. I should be surprised if the Chair accepted an amendment to a bill that had .been founded on a motion in Committee of Supply or in Committee of Ways and Means. The right honorable gentleman is correct in saying that I have no knowledge of what takes place in committee; but. as one who has sat ih committee, I cannot imagine that the right honorable gentleman would have had any difficulty in raising in committee the matter that he now wishes to raise. ‘
– Although you, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with accepted .procedure and practice, have ruled that the amendment that the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) has submitted is out of order, the right honorable gentleman need not remain under any sense of grievance because it should not be difficult to supply him with the explanation that he has requested if, indeed, that was his purpose in submitting his amendment. I rather suspect, however, that his objective is not to obtain information, but to make party political capital out of this measure. If he desires the information that he has indicated, I shall gladly supply it to him, because it can be stated simply. It is true that the proposed increase of the charge appears to be substantial and to call for some explanation, but I have not heard the right honorable gentleman challenge any part of the foundation on which the charge itself is based. He acknowledges the desirability of continuing the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board and the various functions that it carries out. He acknowledges the desirability of having a system of attendance money payments. Indeed, it would be remarkable if he did not make that acknowledgment -seeing that the Government which he supported introduced that system some years ago. If we start from that point, the question before the House must be whether, if the board is to operate and if one of its functions is to fee the payment of attendance money, the charge proposed to be levied under this measure will be adequate, or excessive, for the purposes for which it is made. I propose to examine the matter on that basis.
Earlier I pointed out that three factors principally make it necessary to increase the charge on the scale now proposed. The first of them is that there has been a considerable increase in the incidence of attendance money payments. It is true that some years ago we were able to reduce the charge from 44d. to 2£d. a manhourfor the simple reason that at that time there was an acute shortage of labour on the waterfront.
– The Minister meant to say that the Chifley Government made that reduction?
– That is so. During that period and, indeed, for a considerable period afterwards, there was a shortage of labour on the waterfront and that shortage was one of the factors that contributed to the slow turn-round of shipping and to the increase of freight charges. But in more recent times, because of the application of import restrictions, there has been less movement of shipping to Australia and, as a consequence, attendance money payments have been much greater.
– And more unemployment.
– I shall go into that aspect later. In passing, I might say that until recent times it has been a chronic complaint of the shipowners that the labour force available to them has been inadequate to meet their needs. The attendance money payment has become such a heavy charge only since shipping has declined, partly as a result of import restrictions and partly because of the normal slack in the winter months. The second factor is that the court itself awarded an increase of the attendance money payment from 12s. to 16s. a day. Had there been a normal volume of employment and had the labour force been maintained at its previous strength, it would still have remained necessary to make a substantial increase of the charge although not on the scale that is proposed under this measure. The third factor is that the incidence of attendance money payments has been so high that the funds available to the Stevedoring Industry Board have been inadequate to enable it to meet its commitments under this heading and, consequently, its overdraft has increased considerably. Those are the three factors that have contributed principally to the necessity to introduce this proposal. Those who are responsible for the financial aspects of this matter have made the appropriate calculations and have come to the conclusion that a charge of lid. per man hour is required. Previously, I gave the assurance that as soon as these arrears have been overtaken the rate of the charge will be reviewed. I do not wish to add anything more on that aspect of the matter.
I cannot allow to pass without brief comment some extraordinary statements that were made by the Leader of the Opposition. He talked about this increase being due to some collapse and as being evidence of the Government’s failure to put value back into the £1. “Whilst 1 might expect criticism from many quarters regarding the abnormal increase of freight charges that have occurred on the Australian coast in recent years, I certainly did not expect to hear such criticism voiced by honorable members opposite because I recall that during the long term for which the Government that they supported was in office, not only did the rate of handling of cargoes decreaseto an unprecedented degree, but freight charges between Australian ports also shot up at an alarming rate. Undoubtedly, those factors tended to increase prices.
– The Chifley Government reduced this charge.
– Yes, and it did so for the reason that I have given. At that time, the labour force on the wharfs was inadequate, having regard to the volume of cargoes that had to be handled. As a consequence, the slow turn-round of shipping worsened, cargo charges were increased and the general cost of living rose sharply. The Government has been making its best endeavour to deal effectively with this problem.
– And its effort has been pretty poor.
– I agree with him that the results are far from satisfactory, and I say so without satisfaction. I should have welcomed some evidence from the Opposition that it had tried to impress upon those who work on the waterfront and on our ships the fact that, by giving a far better performance than they have given in recent years, they can make a substantial contribution towards the reduction of living costs. But what evidence is there that the Labour party has done anything to foster an improved performance on the waterfront? I am glad to say that, in recent months, there has been a substantial improvement. It has not been by any means so great as we wish, but at least there has been a movement in the right direction. The turn-round of ships has. been accelerated, and some shipowners are now able to advertise regular schedules for the first time in years. The right honorable gentleman has had to strain the facts and his sense of logie in order to develop some political propaganda from this measure for his party. I shall not try to follow him along that course, because other honorable gentlemen wish to debate this measure in the limited time that is available to us.
– The Minister always says that criticism is propaganda. Nobody, in his view, ever disagrees honestly with the Government’s measures.
– That, is not so. I said at the outset that I had no objection to a disagreement based on the facts, but on what facts is the disagreement based in this instance? The Leader of the
Opposition has not said that the proposed rate of charge is not needed for the purpose for which it is to be imposed.
– I want an inquiry to be held.
– I have explained why the proposed increase is necessary, and I should be astonished if the right honorable gentleman could fault my explanation at any stage.
– Does not the Minister think that an increase from 4d. to Hd. is extraordinarily high, and that it warrants some inquiry?
– It is extraordinarily high, and the Government has made an inquiry. I have informed the House of the facts that were disclosed by tha t inquiry, which suggest that the rate of Hd. should apply at least temporarily until the arrears have been overtaken. Whether this will give any satisfaction to honorable members I do not know, but it is a fact that, far from causing an increase of freight rates, the action taken by the Government in recent months has had the effect of bringing freight rates down. Overseas shipping rates have already been reduced, and there are indications that coastal freight rates will be reduced. When we discussed this matter at the committee stage, I was able to supply to honorable members details which showed the minute effect that the increased charge would have upon freight charges. We are far more likely to induce substantial reductions of freight rates as a result of the improved work performance, the greater rapidity of the turn-round of ships and the institution of regular shipping schedules, than to cause freight increases as a result of the higher charge for which the bill provides. The House can support the measure in the knowledge that, when the arrears are overtaken, the Government will introduce amending legislation to reduce the rate of charge in order to meet the needs that will then be apparent.
– The waterside workers will he able to say, when this bill becomes law, that the Government’s chickens have come home to roost. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) has endeavoured to convince the House that the proposed increase from 4d. to lid. an hour has been made necessary by the reduction of shipping traffic and the standing off of large numbers of men on the waterfront. The Adelaide Advertiser reported this morning that 1,200 men were idle at Port Adelaide yesterday. That was the largest number for about ten years. When the shipowners and the Government originally campaigned for an increase of the number of waterside workers, the men feared that an undue increase would give rise to the conditions that now prevail. The proposed increase of the charge from 4d. to lid. an hour is considerable, but I am not greatly concerned about that. I am gravely concerned about the cause of the increase, which is to be found in the large number of .men who will be stood off regularly at 16s. a day. The law provides that these men must not take other work if they are to qualify for attendance money. They must be available for work on the waterfront every day. The number of waterside workers at Port Adelaide was greatly increased less than two years ago notwithstanding the protests of the secretary of the local branch of the Waterside Workers Federation, whom no intelligent person will accuse of being a Communist or an industrial disruptionist The Minister has attributed the present situation largely to the effect of import restrictions. The Government’s import policy is less to blame than was its earlier action in throwing the door wide open to the importation of goods of all kinds. The import trade expanded to such a degree that ships were frequently obliged to anchor outside our harbours, not because of an insufficiency of labour on the waterfront, but because there was no wharf accommodation for them. The Government wrongly blamed the waterside workers for the slow turn-round of ships during that period. The truth is that the delay was principally due to the tremendous influx of goods from overseas.
Anybody who has been associated with shipping for a considerable length of time will be aware that the slow turn-round of ships was due to a sudden revival of the import trade after a slack period. A similar situation developed two or three years after World War I. Plenty of money was available for imports, and the result was that so many ships arrived at Australian ports that adequate wharf accommodation could not be provided for them. There was no suggestion then of a shortage of man-power Plenty of men were available, and the simple fact is that the slow turn-round of ships during that period was entirely due to the inadequacy of port facilities. The same situation arose about eighteen months ago, when a great cry went up for an increase of the number of workers on the waterfront. We have the increased numbers now, and the workers can justifiably say to the Government, “ Your chickens are coming home to roost “. There are more waterside workers in Australia to-day than can be fully employed under- normal conditions. . Therefore, the total cost of paying attendance money to men who are stood off has increased considerably. The workers consider that the attendance fee of 16s. a day is inadequate. I agree with them. If 12s. was adequate when wages amounted to only 50 per cent, of current rates, 16s. obviously is not adequate now. The Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) has reasonably asked for an inquiry into the amount of the proposed increase and also into the general employment situation on the waterfront in order to determine whether or not the number of waterside workers is excessive. About a week ago, there was a complaint that the men at Port Adelaide would not work overtime. Yet, when it suited the shipping companies to do so, they refused to engage men for overtime work so that they would not be required to pay more than the ordinary daily rate. The attitude adopted by the men to-day is the natural result of their treatment in the past. Nobody can say truthfully that our ships are delayed because of any lack of cargo. Harvests must be shifted, and there is a constant flow of goods between States. Large consignments are transported regularly by road. Therefore, there must be plenty of cargo available for ships. The situation has returned to normal, but we have an abnormally large number of men available for employment on the waterfront. That is the cause of the present trouble. I cannot sincerely oppose the bill, because the men must receive their attendance fee of 16s. a day when work is not available for them. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is out of order. The Minister for Labour and National Service indicated, in any case, that the Government would reject it. Therefore, there can be no doubt that it would have been defeated. However, I hope that the Government will give further consideration to the conditions that apply on the waterfront to-day and reach the conclusion that there are too many men in the industry.
.- It is an unusual circumstance for any honorable member on this side of the House to criticize the remarks of the honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson), for whom I have considerable respect. However, this afternoon we have . had the misfortune to listen to a most irresponsible speech by the honorable member. The whole tenor of his remarks was intended to suggest to the House, and to the country at large, that there were too many men employed on the waterfront, and, presumably, that some of them should be taken off. The effect of his remarks throughout the country will be to encourage the militant Waterside Workers Federation, under the control of the Communist, Healy, to deny the entry of further men to waterfront employment. The fact is that waterfront employment is, of its very nature, seasonal. The volume of trade is subject to seasonal variations and to fluctuations in the volume of imports from time to time. These and other considerations cause the demand for labour on the waterfront to vary considerably. At the present time, owing to the very severe restriction of imports into Australia and the fact that, “ consquently, many ships arrive here with their holds either empty or only partly filled, it is very easy to clear overseas ships. Therefore, for the time being, in what we hope and expect is only a temporary state of affairs, more labour is available on the waterfront than has been available for some time. But that does not mean that the surplus of laborer will be permanent, or that it is unnecessary. We most confidently expect that the volume of imports from overseas will increase in the near future. Therefore, there is a danger that we shall see again the chronic shortage of labour on the waterfront which delayed the turn-round of ships in our ports for so long, at such great cost to the community.
The honorable member for Port Adelaide said that there were more men available yesterday in the port of Adelaide than had been available there for eight or ten years. I ask the House to consider for a moment the state of affairs that existed on the waterfront during the last eight or ten years. In 1942, ten years ago, activity in Australian ports was almost at a record level, due to the movement of war materiel. That state of affairs continued throughout the wal’. The state of affairs on the waterfront after the war is so notorious that there is no need for me to remind the House of it. If more labour was available on the- waterfront in Port Adelaide yesterday than had been available for eight or ten years, that means that the chronic shortage of labour on the waterfront from which the country has suffered so grievously during the last ten years has been relieved to some extent. It is a cause for satisfaction rather than concern. Some members of the Opposition may say that I am advocating a continued surplus of labour on the waterfront, but I am doing nothing of the sort. The House knows that waterfront work is of a fluctuating nature. For waterside workers, there are periods of almost continuous overtime, high ra,tes of pay, and high weekly earnings. They are counterbalanced at other times by shortages of work and diminished earnings. That is of the very nature of waterside work. Men who work on the waterfront for year after year are aware of that . fact, and generally are prepared to accept it. Permanent work with almost continuous overtime could be given to waterfront workers only by holding up ships in our ports and making the availability of labour the only test of how fast ships could he turned round. The experience of the post-war years has shown that such conditions can be maintained only at a great cost to the community.
I conclude with a warning to the Rouse. The present improvement of the rate at which ships are cleared in Australian ports may prove to be quite temporary.. It is due to two factors: first, that fewer ships are coming to this country, due to import restrictions, and that frequently some of these ships are only partly filled or are in ballast; ‘ and secondly, that labour is available in more reasonable quantities than previously. If the flow of imports into this country were to return, not to the abnormal level of a year ago but to a normal level, the first of the two factors to which I have referred would operate no longer, and ships would again be held up. It is quite possible that the flow of imports will soon return to normal. The reasons for the slow turn-round of ships in Australian ports are complex and varied. A number of factors are involved, including a shortage of labour; reduced output per man-hour compared with pre-war years; congestion of wharfs; lack of proper wharf facilities; lack of warehouses behind wharfs; old wharfs which are too small; warehouses which are out of date ; lack of modern handling equipment on wharfs; congested roads behind wharfs in some ports - especially Sydney - and the introduction of the 40- hour week into the warehouse trade and carrier trade. Availability of labour is only one of the factors involved. It is only reasonable to expect that, when the flow of imports to Australia returns to normal, ships will again be delayed. I am very chary about finding any comfort in the present increased rate of handling ships in our ports because, for the reasons I have given, I think that the increase is likely to be only temporary.
I remind the House that many aspects of the problem are entirely in the hands of State governments and State instrumentalities. I direct attention particularly to the state of affairs in the port of Sydney. That port, which once was one of the best ports in the world, with natural facilities greater than those of almost any other port, is now antiquated, out of date and totally inefficient. Very little, if anything, is being done to improve it. It is notorious that the very considerable revenue derived from the port of Sydney is consistently milked by the New South Wales Government for general revenue and is not used to improve the port. It is time that the people of New South Wales and of Australia as a whole realized what the Labour Government of New South Wales is doing to the port of Sydney by taking its revenue and not attempting to improve the facilities of the port. I am afraid that no comfort can be derived from the fact that “ Sailor Jim” McGirr - Mr. McGirr, the former Premier of New South Wales - is now, with his long and well-known absence of any experience of marine affairs, in charge of the Maritime Services. Board of New South Wales. A situation that was bad before, will, certainly become worse in the future.. The most improper and unreasonable appointment of Mr. McGirr to the Maritime Services Board by the New South Wales Government is another indication of the contempt with which that Govern.ment treats the port of Sydney.
I turn to the increase of charges proposed in the bill. The Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) gave that matter some passing attention. We are aware that the duties of a Leader of the Opposition are many and varied, but this afternoon we witnessed the spectacle of the right honorable gentleman searching . for any argument that, with a semblance of reason, he could use as a stick with which to beat the Government. He reached the height of ridiculousness when he suggested that this increase is necessary because of the Government’s failure to keep down living costs in Australia. It has nothing to do with living costs. It has nothing to do with the Government’s activities in any way. [Quorum formed.”] Before I return to the bill, I direct the attention of the House to the settled practice of the Opposition in arranging for a quorum to be called by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) and for the Opposition Whip to direct members of the Opposition to remain out of the chamber. Honorable gentlemen on this side of the House saw him doing that at the door of the chamber just now. When a quorum was called, only six members of the Labour party were present, but the Opposition Whip followed his usual practice of directing members of his party to stay outside the chamber.
There are three reasons for the increase of the charge per man-hour for the payment of attendance money on the waterfront. First, there is now more labour available.
– That means unemployment.
– It means that the chronic shortage of labour that existed previously has been relieved to some extent. It does not mean that there is unemployment on the waterfront, as the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) has suggested. Perhaps he would not have made that remark if he had had the advantage of hearing what I said to the House a little while ago. T hope that he will read those remarks in due course. I shall not take up the time of the House by repeating them. The first reason for the increase of the charge is that the chronic shortage of labour that existed on the waterfront for the last ten years has been relieved to some extent, although not entirely. The second reason is that there was a considerable overdraft in the fund from which attendance money is paid. The third reason i,that there has been a temporary reduction of the demand for waterfront labour, due to a falling off of imports as a result o.r import restrictions. Those factors, together with the increase of the attendance money from 12s. to 16s. a day, have made a substantial increase of the charge necessary. Under this bill, it will be increased from 4d. to Hd. It is reasonable to expect that a fairly considerable portion of the Hd. will be used to wipe out the existing overdraft in the fund from which payments of attendance money are made. I hope that the Government will be able to review the charge when the overdraft has been wiped out, and reduce it to the level necessary to enable curren attendance money to be paid at the present rate of 16s. a day. I support the bill. I hope that the charge imposed will hp reviewed in the near future.
– This bill, like so much of the legislation that the Parliament has considered during the last week or two, has been presented in great haste, and the Opposition has not been given sufficient information to enable it to judge the merits or demerits of the measure. We feel that the Government has not disclosed facts that would justify an increase of tha charge from 4d. to Hd. The honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne) has implied that all of the money that is paid to the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board is used to pay attendance money. That is not true, as an examination of the last accounts available to the House, those for the year ended the 30th June. 1951, will show. I draw the honorable member’s attention to the balance-sheet and the statement of income and expenditure at page 51 of the board’s report, which show that out of a total expenditure by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board of £529,000 in the year ended the 30th June, 1951, only £260,000 was in fact paid as attendance money. The remainder of the expenditure was consumed in administrative expenses of one kind or another. It is interesting to note that in that year the hourly rate was only 2-£d., so that approximately l-Jd. of the 2^-d. hourly rate was used for the payment of attendance money. It is not true to say that the amount that will be derived from the proposed increase of the rate to Hd. will all go towards providing attendance money.
The Opposition seeks a fuller explanation of the measure than the Government has given. The Government should explain why the hourly rate must be increased from 4d. to Hd. It is true that the attendance money rate has increased from 12s. to 16s. a day, but that increase by no means offsets for the waterside workers the increase of the cost of living that has occurred under this Government. It is true, as the Government has suggested, that more attendance money is payable, but that fact is only an indication that unemployment, or partial unemployment, on the waterfront is more serious than the Government will admit. Such unemployment, whether it be full or partial unemployment, means a reduced weekly wage for the people concerned”, because even were a. waterside worker to receive 16s. a day for five or six days a week he would still be receiving only an inadequate dole. The board directed attention to the fact that there was a shortage of labour on the waterfront in June, 1951. Between that time and October, 1952, a surplus of waterfront labour has come into existence. That is simply an indication of the failure of the Government’s catastrophic economic policies, which have produced a shortage of work. This matter simply exemplifies in microcosm, as it were, the whole policy of the Government, and indicates that if economic conditions deteriorate in one direction the impact is felt throughout the whole community. The fact that the amount of attendance money payable has increased shows merely that the amount of unemployment, or partial unemployment, has increased.
The Opposition considers that the Government has not divulged the full facts on this matter. We want the Government to reveal how much of this hourly charge of lid. is to go towards the payment of attendance money.
– Where else does the honorable member think it is to go?
– If the honorable member for Canning (Mr. Hamilton) will examine last year’s accounts of the board he will find that about 50 per cent, of the money paid to the board was not used to pay attendance money, but was used to meet the board’s administrative costs. At that stage the hourly charge was only 2-id. It is now to be increased to lid. What wre want to know is whether the whole of the increase will go towards the payment of attendance money or whether it will be frittered away in meeting the administrative costs of the board. That is why the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) moved the amendment that the bill be deferred for the time being and thai more adequate information about it be presented to the Parliament. At least the Government ought to have made available to us a full statement of income and expenditure of the board for the year ended the 30th June last. Such information could have been incorporated in the Minister’s speech, but that course was not followed. The vital information on which we could base our judgment of the bill is not available. If we knew that the whole of the increase was to be devoted to the payment of attendance money we should have no objection to the measure, but it seems, on the evidence before us, that a large proportion of the amount that will be derived from the increase will be used for other purposes.
The fact that the Government has introduced this measure, about which it has given us so little information, during the dying hours of a session is, in a way, a blow at democracy. The practice of introducing unpopular legislation, accompanied by inadequate information, in the last hours of a session can be the death-knell of democracy. Bill after bill has been passed through this House during the last few days. That is legislation by exhaustion. We are asked to sit in this chamber until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m., and then we are expected to attend the sitting next day and examine important matters judicially. We are critical of the methods that the Government is using and of the inadequacy of the information that it has given to us. This bill provides evidence that unemployment, either full or partial, is more rampant in the community than the Government prepares to admit. Full employment has disappeared so far as waterside workers are concerned. It has certainly disappeared so far as workers in many other industries are concerned, because it is certain that when a smaller volume of goods is entering our ports there is a smaller quantity available for sale and less spending in the community. All these factors affect employment. This bill gives, in miniature, a picture of the Government’s ineptitude.
– I have listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean). Perhaps the most astonishing suggestion that he made was that the introduction of this measure in the closing stages of the session could be the death-knell of democracy. No more ludicrous comment r, 0111(1 be made. Many of us, including honorable members who were not members of the Eighteenth Parliament, which was controlled by honorable members opposite, know well how the business of the Parliament was conducted- during the regime of the Chifley Government. It was not unusual for that Government to dispose of millions of. pounds of public money in the early hours of the morning, even as late as 4 a.m. or 6 a.m. At the end of a session lasting fourteen weeks it is ludicrous for the honorable member for Melbourne Ports to make such a suggestion as he has made, particularly when we remember how honorable members opposite have wasted time in the last few days by .calling for unnecessary divisions, and have thereby eaten into the time available for debate on important measures. The honorable member has stated that inflation, which, he. alleges to be the result of this Government’s policy, has made it necessary for this bill to be introduced. One of the biggest contributing factors to inflation has been the increase of costs that has resulted from the activities of Communists in the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia. They have done a great deal more to increase inflation by delaying the loading and unloading of ships, than any Government has done. The honorable member also tried to show that the actions of the Government have substantially increased unemployment on the waterfront. That statement is foolish. There must always be variations in employment in any community, whether it be democratic or socialistic. An economy is never static. There are always variations in employment in certain industries. Certain classes of workers are unemployed at certain periods. It is ridiculous for the honorable member to introduce the subjects of inflation and unemployment into this debate. Unemployment and inflation are the results of the normal working of the economy. The reason for the increased charges provided for in the measure is that the moneys that have come into the fund that is used to pay attendance money have not balanced payments that have been made from the fund. The measure aims to place the fund back «n a basis of equilibrium. It is expected that the increase provided for will put the fund on a par basis within approximately twelve months. This is a reasonable approach to the problem. The Government might easily have decided to impose a heavier charge to produce equilibrium in a shorter period, after which the charge could have been reduced, but it has decided instead to spread the increase over a period so that the increased cost of goods, the prices of which will be affected by the charge, will not be too burdensome to the community. The increase of attendance payments is outside the control of this Parliament. The Commonwealth Arbitration Court decided that attendance money should be increased from 12s. to 16s. a day. That, in itself, imposes a further obligation on the fund, but the biggest contributing factor is the decline in the volume of inward cargoes. That position can be directly attributed to the imposition of import restrictions recently. I am one of those persons who make no apology for the introduction of those restrictions. Every member of the community who understands the situation, with the possible exception of those persons who have been seriously affected as individuals by the restrictions, appreciates the fact that the Government, in imposing them, has adopted the proper course in the interests of the greatest number of people. Many businesses were virtually saved from bankruptcy as the result of the imposition of the restrictions. In the administration of matters such as import restrictions, anomalies almost invariably occur, but the Minister has taken prompt action to remove them as soon as they have been brought to his notice.
Nevertheless, the imposition of import restrictions has had a serious effect on the waterfront, and has produced a great deal more unemployment temporarily than existed when goods were entering this country in such vast quantities that the public could not possibly consume them within a reasonable period. I believe that the existing situation is only temporary, and that, as the honorable member for Evans has stated, import restrictions will be tapered off in the notdistant future. The result will be an increasing flow of imports, with a bigger volume of inward cargoes and, consequently, more employment on the waterfront. Some overseas shipowners suggested recently, that despite the conditions now prevailing, consideration should be given to the advisability of increasing the supply of labour on the waterfront at the present time. I do not agree with that suggestion, but before many months have elapsed, the . conditions that existed only a few months ago may return, and the turn-round of ships in Australian ports may be considerably slowed down.
The last matter to which I shall refer relates to freights. The first question that the electorate will ask is whether the increase of the stevedoring industry charge by 175 per cent, will be reflected in a considerable increase of the cost of goods. I shall deal briefly with that matter. At the present time, the freight and handling charge for general cargo between Sydney and Melbourne is 135s. 6d. a ton. The increase of the stevedoring industry charge from 4d. to lid. a man-hour, if it were added to the freightwould increase it by approximately ls. 2d. a ton. That could justify only a small increase in the actual price of goods. However, I believe that shipowners should not find it necessary to pass the additional ls. 2d. a ton on to the consuming public. Since the turn-round of ships has been speeded up, ‘ overseas vessels and those engaged in the Australian coastal trade can be run more economically. That saving should enable shipowners to bear the additional charge. They should not pass it on to the consuming public. In view of the various factors that I have outlined, I consider that the Government is justified in introducing this bill. If the stevedoring industry charge is not increased, the additional expense must be borne by the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and, hence, will be a tax payable by the community. The principle embodied in the principal act is that the employers of labour on the waterfront shall meet the cost of attendance money and the charges of the Stevedoring Industry Commission. I whole-heartedly support the measure.
Mr. CLYDE CAMERON (Hindmarsh) T5.37]. - The purpose of this bill is to increase the stevedoring industry charge from 4d. to lid. a man-hour. If I am a reliable prophet of what is likely to happen, the Government will discover, as time passes, that lid. will not be sufficient to meet the commitments of the Stevedoring Industry Board. My reason for expressing that opinion is that I consider it will not be long before the attendance money will have to be reviewed. In any event, the amount will have to be considerably increased, whether or not it is reviewed, because an increasing number of waterside workers will be unable to get jobs. “When the charge was originally imposed, attendance money was fixed at 12s. a, day, which was equivalent to 60s. a week. I ask honorable members to bear in mind the fact that; at that time, the unemployment benefit for a married man with children was 50s. a week. To-day, the unemployment benefit payable to a person in that category is 100s. a week, yet the attendance money payable to a waterside worker is only 16s. a day, or SOs. a week. In other words, the waterside worker, who has a family, receives 20s. a week less than the recipient of the unemployment benefit. Surely that position supports my contention that the time is not far distant when the rate of attendance money will have to be reviewed. I am certain that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, in view of those facts, must grant an increase of the amount of attendance money proportionate to the increase of the unemployment benefit.
One matter that must be remembered, is that waterside workers, due to the intermittent nature of their work, are often deprived of the unemployment benefit. The Social Services Consolidation Act provides that the unemployment benefit shall not be payable to an applicant until seven days of unemployment have occurred after the date of his application. The effect of that provision is that a waterside worker, when he is unemployed for only seven days, receives SOs. attendance money totally, whereas a married man with a family receives 100s. a week as unemployment benefit.
– That anomaly is obvious, and should be adjusted.
– It is an obvious anomaly, which should be adjusted without delay. Attendance money, on the basis of the figures I have given, should be increased to at least 24s. :i day. When attendance money was fixed at 12s. a day, which was equal to 00s. a week, the unemployment benefit payable to a married man with dependent children was only 50s. a week. At the present time, the unemployment benefit payable to a person in that category is 100s. a week - an increase of 100 per cent. Attendance money has been increased by only 33^ per cent. This Government is always the last authority to admit the worsening of the inflationary conditions since it has been in office, but it has been forced to admit that inflation justifies an increase of the unemployment benefit, by 1.00 per cent. How, then, could the Government oppose an application to thu court by the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia for an increase of the original rate of attendance money by a similar percentage?
Yesterday, 1,100 waterside workers in Port Adelaide were unable to obtain employment. That position will certainly grow worse as time passes. Is there any wonder, then, that the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia has considered it prudent to resist efforts to compel it to open its books to new members? Recent events have completely vindicated the policy of the federation in resisting attempts that this Government was making, and, indeed, is still making behind the scenes, to compel the organization to agree to the admission of an unlimited number of members. There are far too many members in the federation already, and I hope that the Government will cease, its efforts to bring pressure to bear on it to admit additional members, in view of the fact that work cannot be found for all the members of the organization at the present time. The Government does not mind paying attendance money at the rate of SOs. a week to waterside workers when it knows that if those persons were not members of the union, they would be entitled to claim the unemployment benefit of 100s. a week. The Government apparently hopes that, with men 0’it of work, it will be able to break down the union’s will to fight for the rights of its members. If the federation has any brains, it will note the tendency of the Government to bring economic pressure to bear in order to break down the discipline of the organi- zation and, ultimately, completely smash it as an instrument to protect the right9 of its members.
The honorable member for Petrie (Mr. Hulme), as usual, blamed the Communists for all the troubles on the waterfront. He said that if it were not for the Communists, troubles would not occur on the waterfront.
– Does the honorable member defend the Communists?
– I am defending the Waterside Workers Federation.
– The honorable member took a different attitude during the referendum on the Communist Party Dissolution Act.
– In that referendum, I defended the right of every Australian to live as a free citizen. The honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Berry) was not prepared to do so. I am now defending the waterside workers, and I remind the honorable member for Griffith, the honorable member for Petrie and the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison)-
– Why not remind all of us?
– The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Treloar) would not understand this’ matter, so I shall ignore his interjection. The members at Port Adelaide of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, are not Communists. They are a fine group of hard-working mon who have always given of their best. Many of them have been life-long members of the Australian Labour party, and the number of Communists at Port Adelaide, if, indeed, there are any, is so small as to be completely negligible. The secretary at Port Adelaide of the local branch of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia has been a life-long member of the Australian Labour party, as has every member of his executive except one. Those men have spent their lives fighting communism. Their method of fighting is not to make charges under the privilege of this Parliament, and not to write articles in the capitalist press ; they have fought in the only effective way possible, and that is to show that an Australian Labor party union official can do his job better than a Communist official can. If honorable members on the Government side had their way, they would destroy the efforts of all non-Communist union officials to protect their members, and then the rank and file would believe that there was only one system that could help them and that was communism.
– That is what the honorable member has always wanted.
– That is what always happens when capitalism, applying its principles to the maximum, forces conditions to become so bad as to make living standards intolerably low.
– Rubbish !
– I remind the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Roberton) that the members of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia are receiving far less out of society and the Government than are the wheatgrowers, but they do not make the same complaints. Therefore, I believe that the Government should ask itself how much longer it expects Australians to tolerate its incompetence and ineffective handling of the economic position. I believe that at the next general election the people will indicate in no uncertain manner that this Government will have to go because a Labour government is the only hope of the country if we are to salvage something from the economic wreck.
– A gallup poll in the Bradfield electorate has already shown that the Labour party will win that seat.
– The honorable member for Banks (Mr. Costa ) believes that the Labour party will win the Bradfield seat. If so, it will be a complete indication that at the next general election there will be 123 members of the Labour party in the Parliament and no members of the present Government parties. This Government should do its duty to the waterside workers, and make an application to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to have the attendance money increased to 24s. a day ‘so that its purchasing power will be the same as it was when waterside workers were getting 12s. a day attendance money.
.- I would not have risen to take part in this debate merely to answer the diatribes of the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron). A person as jaundiced as the honorable member for Hindmarsh, surely could not have any beliefs at all. If his credo is as hopeless a’s he would have ns believe, the best service that he could do for this community would be to re-examine his thoughts and philosophy and ascertain whether his credo is worth maintaining. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports is in a different position in that he alleged that there was something sinister about the increased charges. Honorable members opposite are prepared to accept this bill if the total amount raised by way of increased charge is paid as attendance money to waterfront workers for whom there is no work on certain days. That is, they want the increased charge to be paid as attendance money. The Auditor-General’s report points out not only what amounts . have been expended on waterside workers’ attendance money, but also the amounts that have been expended in other directions. There has been an insinuation in most of what has been said by honorable members opposite that there is something wrong with this proposal, and that thi: money raised by the legislation will be used for ulterior purposes. Therefore, it is worth while to draw attention to the conditions with which the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board has had to deal. This board was established by the previous Government, and continues under this Government to carry out special activities. Honorable members opposite have, in effect, challenged the integrity of the board, and have suggested that there is something sinister in what the board has been doing. The board is designed to regulate and control a variety of stevedoring operations, such as to develop port facilities, to provide at each port sufficient waterside workers for stevedoring operations and ensure that that labour is used to the best advantage, to pay attendance money to waterside workers and arrange proper amenities for them, to arrange for the training of persons in the waterside industry and to publish information relating to that industry. The Australian Stevedoring Industry Board has, in fact, provided cafeteria facilities in the ports. The money raised for the board is being used in all the activities that I have detailed, and there is no doubt that had there been anything wrong with, the board’s operations the Auditor-General would have drawn attention ‘to it.
The honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) complained that whereas the volume of port labour had been permanently swollen the growth in post-war shipping had been only temporary. Surely he would not have disagreed with the policy of throwing open the markets of Australia to the industries of the world in order that there would be a supply of goods sufficient to arrest the inflation that was developing in this country. Surely he would not disagree that, the corollary is also true, because it cannot be too often emphasized that, if people like honorable members of the Labour party - honest as they are - had not failed to inform the workers that they could get out of industry only what they put into it, and if they had been as willing to exhort the worker to put his back into his job as they were to defend him against the attacks of others, there would not have been half the inflationary troubles that we are faced with to-day. Goods would have been approximately equal to the money available and we would not have had to face our present problems. This bill is bound up with the de-casualization of labour, and such decasualization is desirable. We require that men should be available for work, and therefore if there is no work available for them they must get a recompense for making themselves available. Much has been said about the failure to consult the parties affected. I hope that we can develop to a stage where we can have that type of joint consultation between the workers, the shipowners and the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board which has been so effective in other parts of the world. I hope that such joint consultation will ultimately become part of our ordinary industrial relationships. If we could have that joint consultation, and not merely eq-operation, we would have an entirely different picture to paint about our industrial problems. This bill will meet the difficulties that have arisen in the waterfront industry, and I am sure that those difficulties are ephemeral, and that as a result of this Government’s actions we shall be able not merely to halt inflation but also to attract to our ports ships loaded with imports and send a way ships loaded with our vast harvests. When that state of affairs occurs we shall have reached the turning point in our fight against inflation. I believe that the coming year will be one of such prosperity that there will not be enough waterside workers to cope with the work that we shall have on our wharfs.
Sitting suspended from 5.57 to S p.m.
.- It is evident from the fact that the. Government proposes to make such a tremendous increase of the stevedoring charge that it anticipates substantial and prolonged unemployment in the industry. Since the sitting was suspended, I have taken the opportunity to peruse the speeches that were made by some honorable members opposite when they were in Opposition on the measure under which the Chifley Government established the system of payment of attendance money to watersiders who reported for work but for whom no employment could be found. Strangely enough, I found that honorable members opposite who now appear to see merit in this scheme vigorously opposed its introduction at that time. The Australian Labour party and the Waterside Workers Federation have long been in favour of de-casualizing the industry, but this Government does not propose to meet the wishes of the waterside workers who are anxious not to receive attendance money but to obtain regular employment. This proposal to increase the stevedoring charge from 4d. to lid. an hour indicates that the Government anticipates that the amount of money that will be required to finance attendance money payments will be. tremendously increased. As the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) has pointed out, many waterside workers do not obtain more than one day’s work in a week. Such men are actually worse off financially than they would -be if they and the members of their families received social services benefits in the normal way. Thus, the Government is not giving any great concession to these men.
The Opposition believes that a proper examination should be made in order to ascertain whether the proposed increase is absolutely necessary. I have heard it said, and so far no Government supporter has refuted this contention, that much of the overhead expenditure incurred in the administration of this scheme could be obviated. The Waterside Workers Federation i3 of that opinion. The Australian Labour party has no objection to a tax on the basis of hours worked on the waterfront for the purpose of financing the payment of attendance money to workers who report for work but for whom no employment is available. I repeat that a Labour government introduced this scheme. But, as the Government now proposes to increase the stevedoring charge to Hd. an bour, it should extend the scheme under which this payment is made available. Government supporters have admitted that it is necessary to pay attendance money to waterside workers in order to maintain a labour force that will be adequate to meet any sudden increase of shipping activities. I emphasize that waterside workers, are not the only category of employees who are essential to the carrying on of the industry. Tally clerks, for instance, are essential to the efficient working of the waterfront and provision should be made for the payment of attendance money to tally clerks if, when they report for duty, no employment is available for them. Another section of workers on the waterfront to whom attendance money is not paid are those whose names are registered on what is called the veterans’ list. They are the older members of the Waterside Workers Federation. Many of them have worked in the industry for over 30 years and some of them are suffering from disabilities due, in many instances, to war causes. Persons whose names appear on the veterans’ list are not obliged to report for work as regularly as are other members of the federation, but a number of them, nevertheless, report for work regularly, and when no work is available for them they are not paid attendance money. These men, who pioneered the industry, are not treated in the same way as are other members of the federation. The differentiation is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction on the waterfront. In recent years, when imports were flooding into this country, the Government forced the federation to throw open its books for the admission of new members. Many who were admitted to membership of the federation in those circumstances are new Australians; some of them, I understand, are former enemy subjects. ‘ I do not object to the payment of attendance money to such persons so long as they are employed on the waterfront, but one reason why the dissatisfaction to which I have referred is increasing, is that Australian ex-servicemen whose names appear on the veterans list, and who are not paid attendance money when no work is available for them strongly object to attendance money being paid to former enemy subjects whom the Government has brought to. this country. There is some justification for that complaint. I have no objection to any waterside worker being paid attendance money; but I certainly believe that these veteran Australian ex-servicemen should not he denied that benefit. As a result of this increase of the stevedoring charge the revenue that will be derived under this heading will be substantially increased. Therefore, benefit from this fund should be made available to every section of the industry, including tally clerks who are essential to its smooth working.
On previous occasions, Government supporters claimed that trouble on the waterfront, including the slow turn-round of ships, had been due to the activities of & few Communists. Now, the Government has been forced to admit that the slow turn-round of ships was not due to the failure of the waterside workers to work as hard as Government supporters would like to see them working, but to the fact that wharf accommodation was inadequate to receive the tremendous volume of goods that flooded this country before the present restriction was placed on imports’. At that time, warehouses and’ wharfs were- cluttered’ up with good’s, and in many centres goods were stacked on roadways where they were a hindrance to traffic. The Government now recognizes that the slow turn-round of ships has been due to this confusion on the wharfs rather than to go-slow practices on the part of the waterside workers. The Opposition does not object to the proposal to increase the stevedoring charge so long as it is shown to be justified. However, every increase of these charges aggravates the inflationary spiral, because, whilst it may he argued that this tax is paid by the industry, the Australian consumer ultimately is obliged to pay it in the form of increased prices. The argument of Government supporters that it has arrested inflation cannot be reconciled with the introduction of this measure under which the stevedoring charge is to be increased from 4d. to Hd. an hour. This proposal gives the lie to such arguments. The honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne) was particularly concerned, as he usually is in any debate in this House, to make an unjustified attack upon the New South Wales Government. On this occasion he selected for attack that Government’s appointment of Mr. McGirr, the ex-Premier of New South Wales, to the chairmanship of the Maritime Services Board. However, the honorable member produced no evidence whatever to support his claim that Mr. McGirr had not been able to perform, the duties of that position efficiently but merely made a general statement which suggested that because Mr. McGirr had been associated with the Australian Labour party in New South Wales he could not possibly fill the position successfully. I am able to say that as a result of inquiries that I have made in authoritative quarters, I have learned that Mr. McGirr has been doing an excellent job in that position. Of course, Government supporters are of the opinion that no person who has been associated with the Australian Labour party could possibly be a success in such a position. So great, is their abhorrence of Labour that they believe that any Labour man who was appointed to such a position would be a hindrance to the industry concerned.
The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Bland) adopted a peculiar attitude towards this measure, as he does towards most measures that are introduced in this chamber. He implied that the waterside workers had been principally responsible for difficulties that had occurred in the industry. He said that those workers could not expect to take out of a job more than they put into it. That is the old to ry argument. The honorable professor, whether he believes that the workers arn going slow, or fast, cannot get past the fact that all wealth is produced by the workers. I hope that the honorable professor, when he has an opportunity to do so, will develop his argument on this point and indicate how wealth is produced except by the workers. Whether it be in peace or war, the whole security of the country depends upon the workers. As a matter of fact, speeches like that which the honorable professor-
-Order! The honorable member must refer to another honorable member in the “correct form.
– I did not know that it was unparliamentary for an honorable member to refer to another honorable member as a professor. Probably, if 1 were called upon to do so I should have difficulty in proving that he is a professor. The honorable member for Warringah has no practical knowledge whatsoever of this industry. He makes a practice of speaking on practically every subject that is raised in this House as though he were an authority on it. He should confine his attention to subjects in respect of which he has had some experience. As I have said, profits arc produced basically by the efforts of the workers.
– Order ! The honorable member is getting wide of the bill.
– If I am getting wide of the bill, I am the first honorable member who has offended in this debate whom the Chair has corrected for wandering from the bill. The Government might be able to indicate the volume of labour that it considers it will be necessary to retain in the stevedoring industry. I am not suggesting that any person now employed in the industry should be retired; but the honorable member for Evans, supported by the honorable member for Warringah, talked about the possibility of the Waterside Workers Federation closing its books.
The Government, apparently, intends to maintain a large number of waterside workers permanently unemployed. That is the implication in the proposal that is embodied in this bill. In spite of the payment of attendance money the majority of waterside workers are not earning on the average more than the basic wage., The earnings of many of them, in fact, are less than the basic wage. If this is to be a permanent condition in the industry, many of these men will be obliged to drift into other industries.
If the Government wants to retain sufficient labour in the waterfront industries to deal with any increase of the volume nf imports, it should increase the attendance fee. A payment of 16s. a day is not enough to give to a worker who is obliged to report for work daily. Iam sure that honorable members ontheGovernment side of the chamber would not be very favorably disposed in the payment of members of Parliament on the same basis because, in that event, many of them would not receive their full salaries. An examination of the attendance records in this House would show that many honorable members who argue that a worker must be available for work at all times when he is required are not diligently attentive to their duties in this place, for which they are very well paidi
The Opposition considers that the higher charge will eventually lead to an increase of the cost of living. Therefore, it contends that the House should not lightly agree to an increase of over 200 per cent, without making a proper examination of all the relevant circumstances. Upon what basis did the Government establish the proposed new charge? Was a proper examination made of the conditions of the industry, or did the Government merely accept the recommendation of somebody associated with the industry who has not been named during this debate? Such an increase should not be made without a proper examination of the facts. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has asked for an inquiry to bc conducted. We do not propose to vote against the bill, because we do not want to deny to the waterside workers and others, who, I believe, ought to receive attendance money, the benefit of the proposed increase. At the same time, we consider that the Government should examine very carefully the allegations that have been made, not only by the workers in the industry, but also by representatives of some of the shipping companies, that the overhead charges of the Stevedoring Industry Board are excessive. I sup port the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition. Even if it has been ruled out of order by Mr. . Speaker, the Government should heed the suggestion that is implicit in it. The Government should make a full statement of the facts to the Parliament if it hopes to justify the proposed increase.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 4307
In committee: Consideration resumed from the 24th October (vide page 3747).
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 (Definitions).
– This is one of the clauses to which attention was directed by the Opposition during the second-reading debate. Wesaid then, and I repeat now, that we are not prepared to accept the proposed definition of “desertion” which is as follows : -
Paragraph (a) omits the words “ without lawful excuse “, which qualify the existing definition. Who will decide whether a seaman intends not to return to hh? ship? The Opposition cannot accept a provision under which a man may be classed as a deserter on the decision of some undisclosed authority concerning his intentions. The existing definition has worked satisfactorily as far as I have been able to ascertain, and, therefore, I fail to see any justification for the proposal in this bill. Paragraph (b) of the definition which I have quoted will introduce a new principle by laying down that, if a seaman is absent without leave, lawful cause or reasonable excuse for a period of 48 hours, he may he regarded as a deserter. According to the provisions of the bill, there will be many grounds on. which a seaman may be classed as a deserter and on which his discharge may bc branded. The Opposition hoped that, after it had pointed out the injustice of the provision during the second-reading debate, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) would decide to withdraw it. Any such provision,, which authorizes an individual to judge the intentions of another individual, must lead inevitably to discontent. The Minister said during his secondreading speech that, despite the efforts of the Maritime Industry Commission and the arbitral tribunal, the shipping industry had suffered many hold-ups caused by petty industrial disputes and the refusal of the Seamen’s Union of Australia, in defiance of the commission or the findings of conciliation commissioners, to man vessels. That may be so, but it does not provide a reason why this harsh provision in relation to desertion should be inserted in the act. The Opposition will not accept it in its present form. The act now provides adequately for the treatment of deserters, and the Government has given no valid reason in support of the proposed new definition.
– I hope honorable members opposite will not try to work themselves into a passion over this provision. “We have many details to discuss, and, no doubt, there are other matters on which they feel more strongly. Therefore, I urge them not to spend time unnecessarily on the consideration of a provision that is capable of a simple explanation.
– Then give the explanation.
– I shall try to do so if the Opposition will refrain from interrupting me. If the definition of “ desertion “ is of such an onerous character as the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) has implied, it is remarkable that a similar provision should have served for so long under various governments of different political colours in the sister dominion of New Zealand. The Government has found, in practice, that the present definition of “ desertion “ is not entirely satisfactory, because . it throws upon the shipping authorities the onus of proving that desertion occurred with intent on the part of the seaman concerned. It is a very difficult matter to prove intention. A ship may be held up, but proper disciplinary action may be prevented because of the lack of such proof. In New Zealand, this difficulty is overcome by the inclusion in the relevant statute of the following definition in relation to desertion: -
The absence of a seaman or apprentice from his ship for a continuous period exceeding forty-eight hours without leave, lawful cause or reasonable excuse.
Surely exception cannot be taken to such a provision. We all know how important to the economy of a country is the efficient operation of our shipping services. Does the Opposition consider that it is a matter of no consequence that a” man should be able to stay away from his ship without leave, lawful cause or reasonable excuse without suffering any penalty?
– Who’ will decide whether an excuse is reasonable?
– The master of the ship, or those against whom the man would have to take action for unlawful discharge if he considered that he had been wronged. Seamen who consider themselves to be aggrieved, will be able to seek a remedy. They will be able to make representations through their union to the proper industrial tribunal or to the Marine Council constituted under this legislation. There should be no fear that injustice will be done. Ear from being oppressive, this provision’ will meet the situation without causing hardship. The Government, as a result of its experience, has taken the opportunity to adopt the provision that has worked satisfactorily in New Zealand for many years.
– Does the New Zealand legislation include both paragraphs of the definition that is contained in this bill ?
– Yes.
– The Minister did not explain that.
– The official note that has been supplied to me for the information of the committee on this clause states that the present definition of “ desertion “ leads to difficulties. For example, a man :may be absent from his ship and give no indication of desertion. The master is then inconvenienced and the departure of his ship may be delayed because he cannot engage a substitute until close to the time fixed for sailing, when it becomes clear that the man does not propose to return. This might occur at a week-end or at night, and, in such cases, the master would be forced to await the next regular pick-up of seamen. If a man can be written off articles when he remains absent for 48 hours and it is clear that he is avoiding work, the position of the master will be greatly strengthened. In many cases he will be able to engage a substitute before his sailing time is due. If in any case it transpired that an injustice had been done to a seaman by classing him as a deserter when later information showed that, iii fact, he was not a deserter, it would be an easy matter to amend the record. The New Zealand act contains a good definition which says that a man shall be guilty of desertion if he remains absent from his ship without lawful cause or excuse for 48 hours. Therefore, it is proposed to make a similar addition to the definition in our act.
Let me explain to the committee what has happened since the second-reading stage of the bill was concluded. The explanation will not relate only to this clause, but I think it will be very helpful to the committee, as a background to the discussion of this clause and of the remaining clauses, to know the action that has been taken by the Government to inform itself of the view of the parties directly interested in the legislation.
– Under the old system, the disciplinary power was strong enough. I understand that, during the last few years, over 800 men have been excluded from the industry. That appears to be drastic action. Why does the power need to be strengthened? Is not it strong enough now?
– I do not think the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beasley) will suggest seriously that the general record of conduct and performance of duty on the waterfront and round the shores of this country shows that a high level of discipline obtains in the maritime industry.
– Over SOO men have been excluded from the industry. Therefore, it appears that the disciplinary power is pretty strong now.
– Those cases related to a variety of matters, and were spread over many years. Those men were excluded from the industry very largely as the result of action .by the Maritime Industry Commission, on which all sections of the industry were represented.
The Government gave careful consideration to the views that were expressed on the proposed definition of desertion, but, having regard to the satisfactory manner in which the New Zealand definition has operated, we thought it would be a useful addition to this measure.
– Has the Minister any figures that would enable a comparison to foi made of shipping days lost in New Zealand and in Australia?
– I shall not go into details of that kind. Doubtless there are some aspects of our legislation that New Zealand could copy usefully. This provision will tend to strengthen an aspect of our legislation that is regarded as unsatisfactory. During the secondreading debate, the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) urged strongly that there should be consultation with representatives of the unions affected by the measure. A request was made to the Government to receive a deputation from those unions. Subsequently, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Mcleay) and I received such a deputation, and heard the views that the members put forward. Then we decided to hold a meeting in Sydney, not only with representatives of the unions but also with representatives of the shipowners, of the Department of Shipping and Transport, and of the Department of Labour and National Service. As a result of that meeting, the Government has altered its policy in relation to several of the clauses in the measure, and will move a number of amendments to the bill. I do not claim that those amendments will meet completely the requests that were made to us by the unions. For that matter, the bill as it stands does not include, by any means, all that the shipowners desire should he contained in it.
Wo set out originally to deal with two principal phases of the problem. First, the Maritime Industry Commission could not bo supported indefinitely by the National Security Regulation under which it was constituted. Therefore, some legislation was required to continue either the commission itself or the practices that the commission had established during its existence. The Government felt that, as the act made provision for a. marine council that was representative of all interests in the industry, there was n<> need to continue the Maritime Indus.try Commission, and that the legislation could be suitably amended to incorporate the practices which the commission had established as a result of its experience. We considered that the industrial problems of the industry had not been dealt with entirely satisfactorily under the conciliation commission system, and decided that, owing to the special industrial questions that arise in the industry, it should be placed under the general supervision of a judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court so far as such questions were concerned. The amendments that will be moved in the committee will not affect those two aspects of the matter. The Government has not altered its policy of abolishing the Maritime Industry Commission, and it intends to proceed with its proposal that industrial questions shall be dealt with by a judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. But, as a result of the discussions that we have had with representatives of the trade unions and of the shipowners, we propose to move some amendments of the bill.
– Were all unions represented at the discussions?
– I understand that all of the maritime unions were represented at the Sydney conference. We have notgone all the way that the unions wanted ns to go. They did not want the com mission to be abolished, nor did they want industrial questions to be dealt with by a judge. But several of the clauses to which they took some exception have been re-examined, and I think that, when the clauses have been amended, they will be much more acceptable to the unions than they are now.
) with the intention of not returning to the ship: or
If a seaman were absent from his ship for only two hours, and if somebody - the definition does not say who it should be, and the Minister is not. sure - arrivedat the conclusion that he did not propose to return to his ship, he would be branded as a deserter. So far, no light lias been thrown upon two points. The first point is : how long must elapse before somebody can determine that a seaman does not intend to return to his ship? The second point is : who is the authority who will make that decision ? The statement by the Minister of the position in New Zealand strengthens the case of the Opposition, because the New Zealand legislation provides that a man cannot be regarded as a deserter until he has been absent from his ship for 48 hours.
If the intention of the Government was only to enable some authority to deal with a man whom the authority believed had no intention to return to his ship, I cannot see why it was necessary to alter the definition of desertion, which is described as the absence of a seaman or apprentice from his ship without lawful cause or excuse. The words “without lawful cause or excuse “ have been excluded from the new provision.
– They are included in the definition.
– They are not included in paragraph (a).
– They are included in paragraph. (6), which covers an absence of more than 4S hours.
– The word “or” couples the two paragraphs. Paragraph (a) reads as follows : - thu absence nf :i Se; nisi ii or appreonntice from his ship with the? intention of not returning to thu ship; or
The last word is “ or “, not “ and “. After an absence of two hours, somebody could say that a. man had no intention to return to his ship, but we do not know the authority who would be required to make n decision in the matter.
– That has been explained.
– The honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne) cannot tell us who it will be.
– I propose to do so later.
– The honorable member for Evans is more clever than the Minister, who has said that he is unable to say who it will be.
– I have said that it will be the master.
– The Minister says that the master of a ship will determine that question. Under this bill, the master of a ship will be empowered to declare a seaman to be a deserter if he arrives at. the conclusion, two hours after the seaman has failed to report for duty, that the seaman has jio intention to return to the ship.
– The master will have to make a report to the superintendent and it will be open to the seaman to challenge that report.
– I shall deal with that provision later. I ask the committee to consider the position in which a seaman might be placed as a result of the operation of this definition. Jack Jones might tell the master of a ship that while he was having a drink with another member of the crew, Bill Jones, during the afternoon, Bill Jones said that he did not intend to join the ship. On that information, the master could determine that Bill Jones did not intend to return to the ship.
– Only after the seaman had been absent for 4S hours.
– That is not so. If the word “ and “ were used instead of “ or “, what the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Roberton) has said would be correct. Under this definition, two shots could be taken at a seaman. I do not object to paragraph (Z>), which is similar to the provision in the New Zealand legislation. I object to the dragnet provision in paragraph (a), from which the words “without lawful cause of excuse “ have been omitted. No selfrespecting Opposition could agree to a provision that would bind a man to the degree to which this provision would bind him.
The Minister has said that some amendments will be moved by the Government as a result of representations that have been made to it. During the secondreading debate, the Opposition moved an amendment that gave the Government an opportunity to withdraw the bill and to re-draft it, but that amendment was noi accepted. At 2.30 p.m. to-day members of the Opposition were handed a six-page document containing proposed amendments of the measure, but even then some of the amendments were marked “ Not finally settled “. Now, at 8.30 p.m., we are expected to discuss the measure in committee. The Opposition is not prepared to agree to the proposed definition of “ desertion “.
.- But for the arrant rubbish that I have heard from, the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison), I should not have intervened in this debate. The objections that have been raised by members of the Opposition to the bill and to this clause are spurious objections. I hope that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) will net weaken.
– It is provocative.
– It is intended to be provocative. Absences of this description have visited ruin on the coastal shipping trade of our country which should be, if it be nothing else, a maritime nation. It is because previous legislation has not included provision to. cover these offences that our shipping has been reduced to a hollow sham. Everything that the honorable member for Blaxland said in connexion with this clause is calculated to excite sympathy for deserters without any consideration being given to the industry, the other crew members and the passengers who are waiting to sail, and the consignors and consignees of cargo. Members of the Opposition object to a provision under which a deserter shall have to suffer a penalty for a dereliction of duty. They have no consideration for all the persons and authorities who are put to great trouble because of the failure of a seaman to report for duty by sailing time.
– Order ! The honorable member should confine himself to the clause, which deals with definitions.
– I am confining myself, to it so far as I am able. I say that it is vital to the efficient operation of a shipping service that a penalty should be provided for the offence of desertion, and that it should be described in its proper terms. If the situation were to be met by a paltry fine, or by some similar penalty, the provision would not have any merit as a punitive measure. A member of a crew, whether he be a seaman, an apprentice or anybody else, who shows intent not to be on board his vessel at sailing time, and absents himself for 48 hours’, invites and deserves the opprobrium of being classed as a “ deserter “.
.- If ever a speech could be regarded as an incitement to workers to take direct action it was the speech of the honorable member for Riverina (Mi-. Roberton). I take it that it is the Government’s purpose, or at least its declared purpose, to preserve peace in the maritime industry. It is a serious matter for a member of this Parliament to refer to the absence of a man who has failed to report to his ship as being always a case of desertion. He makes no allowance, for occasions when seamen may have legitimate reasons- for failing to report to their ships. The honorable member made no distinction between various kinds* of absences-, but merely- referred to seamen as deliberately absenting themselves from their ships. He said such a situation ought not to be met by a paltry fine. If the honorable member were to speak his mind he would probably suggest that such men should be sent to the firing squad. The Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) said that the person who would determine whether or not a man should be classified as a deserter would be the master of the vessel concerned. Honorable members should be fully appreciative of the serious position that arises when a man has been classified as a deserter. That is a very serious allegation to bemade against any man, and a seriousstigma to be placed on him. The right of making this decision is to be placed in the hands of the master of the vessel, but the Minister says that so long as the seaman who absented himself has a lawful cause or a reasonable excuse for his absence, he may satisfy the master of thevessel to that effect. When will hesatisfy the master? I take it that the ship concerned would not be delayed until such time as the seaman had an opportunity to argue his case with the master.. I take it that the vessel would sail immediately it was able to sail, leaving theabsent seaman behind, and that themaster would report to the marine superintendent that the seaman was a deserterbecause he had not reported for duty. The seaman concerned might have a reasonable excuse for having failed toreport on time.
I ask the Minister to say at what stagethe seaman would have the opportunity to argue with the master whether or not he had a lawful cause or a reasonableexcuse for his absence. This provision will not produce peace in the maritimeindustry. As a matter of fact, I venture the opinion that it is not the intention of the Government to preserve peace in theindustry. I think that the Government is spoiling- for a fight with certain of thetrade unions, and has deliberately introduced provocative legislation with that, end in view, because, after all is said and’ done, the shipping industry has not had any major disputes in recent times. Asa matter of fact, if honorable members will examine the records- they will find that although it. is perfectly true that there have always: been spasmodic holdups in the maritime industry; they have been caused in many instances by the fact that the seamen have had to fight to maintain the working conditions that they have won for themselves. The inclusion in the measure of such a provocative provision as this shows the complete and absolute ignorance of the Government about the industry. A man who is absent from his vessel for a few hours may, as the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) has said, be classified as a deserter if the master of the vessel is of the opinion that he has no intention to return to work. He may have been kept away from work as a result of illness or another legitimate cause. Even if he has reported to the master to that effect, and the master is not satisfied that he is telling the truth, he may still be branded as :a deserter. In my opinion that provision is deliberately provocative, and I hope that the Government will have the good sense to alter it, as it will do if it really wishes to establish in the public mind that it desires to preserve peace in the industry.
.- The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has been drawing lavishly on his imagination
Mr. Luchetti interjecting,
– Order! The honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti) will be named directly if he persistently interjects. The committee must remain orderly.
– You should no.t name him for an interjection, Mr. Chairman.
– I warn him for disorderly conduct, and I shall name the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) if he does not observe order.
Mr. Haylen interjecting,
– The honorable member will apologize to the Chair for that remark.
– I apologize, but I appeal to you to have a little bit of reason.
– I appeal to honorable members to have reason, and to cease audible conversation on the front Opposition bench.
– The honorable member for East Sydney has been drawing lavishly on his imagination, in his patent ignorance of the bill. I regret to say that the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) has also done so. Clause 4 contains an amended definition of “ desertion “. The existing act defines desertion as - . . the absence of a seaman or apprentice from his ship without lawful cause or excuse, with the intention of not returning thereto: -
The amended definition defines two different classes of desertion, as follows : -
the absence of a seaman or apprentice from his ship with the intention of not returning to the ship; or
If a man employed on a ship under articles leaves the ship with the intention of not returning, it does . not matter what the cause or excuse may be, he has committed desertion. That has been the case for centuries, and is the case under the existing law, because there can be no lawful cause or reasonable excuse for forming the intention to desert. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) is now in the chamber, because perhaps he will be kind enough to listen to my remarks and inform his two colleagues of the correctness of my contentions. If a man leaves a ship on shore leave, discovers that his wife is ill and goes to visit her with the intention of returning to the ship but fails to return on board in time, he has not committed desertion. Under this measure, or the existing measure, if he was the victim of an accident and could not return to the ship, he would not have committed desertion, because he would not have formed the intention of not returning. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will concur with that view.. The essence of desertion is the formation of an intention to desert, and there could be no lawful cause or reasonable excuse for an intention not to return. Therefore the omission of the words “without lawful cause or excuse “ means nothing.
Che necessity for the definition of the second class of desertion lies in the fact that it is extremely difficult, in a court of law, to prove intention. The defendant only has to say that he did not have such an intention, but had some other intention, and it is impossible to disprove his statement. His intentions can be proved only by his conduct. It has been found by experience that seamen can desert and the offence cannot be proved against them in court. This amendment is therefore reasonable. If a seaman is absent from his ship for 48 hours he will be deemed to be a deserter unless he has leave, or has a lawful cause or reasonable excuse for his absence. In other words, a man who iV absent for 48 hours will bear the onus of showing that he had a lawful cause or reasonable excuse for his absence. If the Opposition were in office it might well introduce such an amendment, because it is so obviously necessary. No responsible law-abiding seaman or trade union official would object to it.
The bill provides ample safeguards. A great deal of nonsense has been talked about who is to decide whether a man has a lawful cause or reasonable excuse for his absence. As I promised the honorable member for Blaxland, I shall try to explain to him who is to decide the issue. Desertion is an offence under the Navigation Act, and may be followed by prosecution in a court of law. If a man deserts, and the master of the vessel concerned decides to prosecute him; the person who will decide whether the man has a lawful cause or reasonable excuse for his absence will be the magistrate who presides over the court. It is a perfectly ordinary and normal obligation of the magistrate to decide whether or not a person had lawful cause or excuse for doing what he did.
Another consequence of desertion is that a man is given a bad discharge. It is the duty and obligation of the master to give a seaman a discharge when he leaves his ship. If the seaman has deserted the ship, he will be marked as having a bad discharge. The master of the ship has, under the amending legislation, as under the act, and as he has had in British ships for generations, an obligation to decide whether a seaman has deserted. That decision must be exercised judiciously. If it is not so exercised, the seaman may appeal. A method is provided, if a seaman is debarred by a superintendent from being employed in a ship, to appeal to the court, and so he has, indirectly, the right of appeal to the judge against an unfair decision as to whether or not he had a lawful excuse. I hope that I have been able to establish that there is no foundation for the complaints made by the Opposition.
.- The speech of the honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne) gives us some indication of the attitude of the sailor, who loves the sea but hates the seamen. The honorable member has distinguished himself in the last war in the Royal Australian Navy-
– He had a very distinguished service.
– Yes, I say, in all sincerity, that he had a very distinguished service. Yet wo see evidence of his hatred of the ordinary rank-and-file seamen.
– Rubbish !
– Rudyard Kipling aptly expressed the position in the following lines: -
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out. thi: brute! “
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot:
We should apply to this matter a humanitarian test, and not a “ pukka “ test, as, I suggest, the honorable member for Evans has attempted to apply. One of the most amusing incidents in the chamber has been the spectacle of the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Roberton), that land-bound monstrosity, who has not seen a ship in the rivers for 50 years, posing as an authority on the sea.
– Order! I ask the honorable member to refrain from describing other honorable members as he is doing, and to direct his remarks to the bill.
– The honorable member for Riverina, beyond having, quite curiously, a. red rose in his jacket, made no contribution to the question of why sailors temporarily desert, or do not rejoin their ships on time. The honorable member for Evans, who has had a much closer experience of these matters, should have made a more human approach to the problem, but he spoke of what we should do, and the sanctions that we should apply against seamen. Why? In his service at sea during the war, he was most patriotic. In his attitude to-night, he is merely voicing the claims of the commercial man who speaks of the profits to be made out of the industry of the sailor. A case has not been made out by the honorable gentleman. He has spoken in terms of discipline without understanding what really happens in the commercial set-up, and what are the reasons why sailors desert their ships. There is no reason why this “ pukka “ attitude should be followed by other honorable members.
But I must return to the honorable member for Riverina, who fascinates me. I cannot understand how that land-bound sailor eventually made his way to the coast, and eventually launched himself, in any shape or form, as a ship of the line - either a commercial line or a. line of battle. But he speaks with great authority from 300 miles from the coastline, and pontificates upon’ these matters with ail the dignity of a wheat-grower who has never seen a sailor, except on a talkie “ short “ exhibited in the Senate clubroom in this building.
But let us get back to common cases. The sailor is a human being, with all the anxieties, inhibitions and difficulties of a worker who sometimes has a bad ship, and sometimes a. good ship ; who is sometimes bored with life, and is sometimes pleased with life. If he does not get back to the ship at five bells or eight bells, the honorable member for Evans considers that he should be punished. The honorable gentleman knows when the bells are rung. He was probably late on one occasion, but being an officer, he was doubtless piped aboard and nothing was said about the incident. Let him have some feeling for the ordinary seaman.
Everybody has been too pious about the matter under consideration. We should always bear in mind that the coal-mining industry and the seafaring industry are the difficult industries in which men of turbulent natures are employed. The Government will not achieve its objective by pious aspirations. We must get down to the common basis, which has been proposed by the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison).
– Is the honorable member for Blaxland a sailor?
– We should remember that during the last war the merchant service had casualties off the Australian coast comparable with those suffered by British seamen generally. Australians in the merchant service were heroes. They were not covered by the Repatriation Act and were not provided with houses under that legislation. They were at a loose end. If the frustration of the sailor is apparent in the provisions of this bill, we should correct, it by doing something for the man. instead of assailing him. We referred to the men of the merchant navy during the last war as heroes. The honorable member for St. George (Mr. Graham) - that noble name - always seems to ring a peal of bells in my mind, indicating a love of justice and fair play, and the slaying of the dragon. I think he will agree with me when I say that we have two thoughts about the seaman. During the war, the men, who kept the ships sailing, and took the transports through in a seamanlike, manner were heroes, or “ 4– - ‘”’ as Kipling called them. Since the war, they are the objects of hatred to men who are twenty years behind the times in their thinking. If honorable members opposite will consider the statements made by the Opposition on this matter, they will recognize the validity of our submissions.
AH the talk about “ going aboard “ and “ getting the ship away “ is out of place in this debate. Such things simply did not happen. They never happened when Britannia ruled the waves in every sense of the word. Men had to be impressed into the Royal Navy. Much nonsensical twaddle has been talked about these matters. The sailor does not work by the bell. There are many frustrations in his mind which may cause him to miss his ship. We should be logical in this matter, and apply human factors rather than silly rule of thumb ideas by legislation. I impress one point upon honorable members. The men whom we are defaming or deriding, are human beings. Yet they have been referred to in the debate as a “ component of industrial unrest “. They are the same persons who saw us through the crisis during the last war. No one knows that better than the honorable member for Evans. This matter should be debated with that thought in mind. It should not be discussed on the basis of the master of the ship on the one hand, and the men on the other hand. Who keeps the ships moving? I think that if the captain went A.W.L., the ship could still put to sea, and pick him up at the next port if he travelled there by air. A greater authority than I wrote -
Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “ Tommy, ‘ow’s yer soul ? ‘
But it’s “ Thin red line of ‘eroes “ when the drums begin to roll -
In war-time the seaman is everything. In peace-time he is a pariah. We have to change that idea. Let us have no more talk of desertion, regimentation, and the like. Let us have some consideration for an industry with a great seafaring code that has built the Empire and will build this country. Let us show a little toleration for the men who go to the sea in ships and keep them moving, and bring the cargoes in. This matter must be considered, not from the legal standpoint, but from the human standpoint. When that is done we shall achieve more than will be achieved by all the poppycock that has been talked by some honorable gentlemen opposite.
.- I do not know whether the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) intended us to regard his speech as comedy or pathos. I am at a complete loss to understand it, because he mingled his ideas so completely as to leave us allin the dark. The honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) would have made out an excellent case in connexion with the definition of “ desertion “, if this was an innovation in our laws. The Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt), who is an eminent legal authority, can assure him that our laws fairly bristle with charges that can be laid against a person who is suspected of having an intention to break the law. This provision is not an inno vation. I do not claim that I admire it, but I realize that it is necessary in our laws. Some one will be required to prove that there was an intention on the part of a seaman to desert his ship.
– Who will prove it?
– The circumstances of the case will decide the issue. It is futile for Opposition members to imply that the master of a ship will approach this matterin an entirely irresponsible way. He will allow the circumstances to dictate his judgment. I do not see any difference between this proposal, and the provisions to which I have referred in the criminal and civil codes. The only man who fears and objects to the law is the person who intends to break it. It does not matter whether the law relates to the matter under consideration, or to speeding, theft or murder. The law-abiding person, who has a sense of responsibility, has nothing to fear from the law. In thesame way, the honest seaman will not fear this law. The man who will fear it is theseaman who is irresponsible, and is constantly absent from his ship. The seaman who is a couple of hours late will have nothing to fear from this legislation, because he will take some action to notify his captain of the reason for his absence. We are not considering an absence that delays the sailing of a shipfor a few hours. We should’ bear in mind the terrific disruption which occursas the result of shipping holdups. The men who are responsible for those conditions are the seamen who do not attempt to inform the captains of their vessels that their absence is due to unavoidablecircumstances. It is as simple as that. The men have nothing to fear if they have no intention to desert. If a man finds that he is unable to notify the ship of his absence and is classed as a deserter he will have the right to get his job on the ship back again. It is unfortunate that because there are a few who offend against the laws, the laws have to imposea penalty that is wide enough to take insome of those who do not offend. Every law has the same effect because it is designed to protect the community against the operations of wrongdoers. That is all that this bill is designed to do. However, I do not think that it goes far enough. I am satisfied that no seaman fears that he may be classed as a deserter without cause. Therefore, in. spite of the fact that I am not enamoured of laws that are not fully defined with all the “ i’s “ dotted and all the “ t’s “ crossed, I believe that this bill is not a new departure, but that its provisions are similar to the provisions of many other acts of this Parliament. [ have heard, so far, no real argument against the right of an authority to charge a person with an intention to commit an offence. A law such as this is necessary, and I support the clause.
Question put -
That the clause be agreed to.
The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)
AYES: 56
NOES: 33
Majority . . . . 23
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Clauses 5 and6 agreed to.
Clause 7 -
Section fourteen of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “14. - (1.) Subject to sub-section (10.) of this section - “ (8.) Where the prescribed complement of officers for a ship has not been obtained and -
in the case of a voyage which ordinarily does not take more than ninety-six hours to complete - the master or owner of the ship satisfies the superintendent at theport of departure of the ship that the master or owner has made all reasonable efforts to obtain the prescribed complement of officers for the ship; or
in any other case - the owner of master obtains the approval of the Deputy Director, the superintendent at the port of departure of the ship may, by writing under hie hand, authorize the master to take the ship to sea with not less than the complement of officers specified in the authority. “ (9.) Where the number of duly certificated officers included in the prescribed” complement of officers for a ship has not been obtained, the Deputy Director shall not approve, and the superintendent shall not authorize, the taking to sea of a ship unlesshe is satisfied that the officers to be carried on the ship are able to perform all the duties to be performed by the duly certificated officers included in the prescribed complement of officers for that ship.
Amendments (by Mr. Holt) - by leave - proposed -
That sub-section (8.) be left out with a viewa to insert in lieu thereof the following subsection: - “ ‘ (8. ) Where the number of officers included in a class of officers specified in the prescribed complement of officers for a ship has not been obtained and the master or owner of the ship satisfies a Deputy Director that the master or owner has made all reasonable efforts to obtain that number of officers (including the seeking of the assistance of the organization of which officers included in that class are members), the Deputy Director may, by writing under his hand, authorize the master to take the ship to sea with not less than the complement of officers specified in the authority.”.
That in sub-section (9.), the words “the Deputy Director shall not approve, and the Superintendent shall not authorize “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “a Deputy Director shall not authorize “.
That in sub-section (9.), the word “prescribed “ be left out.
– Order ! If the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryson) does not remain silent, I shall name him.
– I always obey the Chair.
– Order! The honorable member should remain silent.
– This is an example of the futility of disallowing the amendment previously moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr: Evatt) to the effect that this bill should be withdrawn and redrafted. The amendment of the Minister provides for the insertion of a new sub-section 8 in proposed new section 14 of the bill. The amendment provides -
Where the number of officers included in a class of officers specified in the proscribed complement of officers for a ship has not been obtained and the master or owner of the ship satisfies a Deputy Director that the master or owner has made all reasonable efforts to obtain that number of officers (including the seeking of assistance of the organization of which officers included in that class are members), the Deputy Director may, by writing under his hand, authorize the master to take the ship to sea with not less than the complement of officers specified in the authority.
The bill as it stands has the word “Superintendent” where the words “ Deputy Director “ appear in this amendment. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) stated that discussion had taken place about this between the Government and the unions concerned, but I cannot imagine either the Seamen’s Union of Australasia, or the other organization representing seamen, ever agreeing to a proposition like this. There is very little difference between the amendment and the original clause, to which the Opposition has taken great exception. The amendment means that the organization covering the class of persons who are required to make up a ship’s complement will be asked whether it can render any assistance. I join issue with the honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne), who said, during the second-reading debate, that a similar provision was to be found in sections 43 and 44 of the principal act. However, the implications of sections 43 and 44 are that the final determination as to whether or not a ship should go to sea- rests with the Australian Stevedoring Industry Commission, upon which the unions are represented. If the honorable member for Evans doubts that, he should consider these remarks of the Minister for Labour and National Service -
The muster of a merchant vessel is empowered to take a vessel to sea if it is short not more than one-fifth of its deck or engineroom complement. These and other measures have been exercised by the commission for some years, and have come to be accepted us necessary.
The Seamen’s Union of Australasia had confidence in the commission because it had representatives on it, but it will have no representatives to influence the authority that will decide under this amendment whether a ship is to go to sen. Of course the unions may be consulted, but the Deputy Director has the final say. The union has no say in the recommendation of the Deputy Director. It is not sufficient for the Minister merely to say that he discussed these matters with the representatives of the unions concerned. As the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, the Minister should have, referred the proposed amendments in draft, form to those representatives and thereby given them an opportunity to deal with the Government’s proposal in concrete form. Under this clause, the Government proposes to remove the existing safeguard, which was satisfactory to the Seaman’s Union of Australasia in that seamen were assured at all times that no ship would be permitted to put to sea without its full complement. The proposed amendment will not contribute in any way to the maintenance of peace in the industry. I repeat that unless th, authority which is to be empowered to permit a ship to put to sea without its full complement includes a representative of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia considerable dissatisfaction will be caused. For that reason the Opposition proposed to support its protest with its vote.
Mr. HOLT (Higgins - Minister for Labour and National Service and Minis claim that the proposed amendments to this clause are entirely acceptable to the Seamen’s Union of Australasia. Earlier, I made it clear that the Government had given consideration to the views of the interested parties and then proceeded to do what it considered to be fair and reasonable. However, these proposed amendments will improve the original proposal from the point of view of the maritime unions. Whereas the original proposal sought to empower a superintendent to give permission to a master, or owner, for a ship to put to sea without its full complement, under the proposed amendment now before the Chair that power will be vested in a higher authority, a. deputy director of navigation, who, before granting such permission, will be obliged to satisfy himself that the master, or owner, has made all reasonable efforts to obtain an adequate number of officers in the categories concerned. The amendment will ensure that reasonable efforts shall be made by the master, or owner, to see that a ship is fully manned and permission to put to sea without a full complement will be granted by a deputy director of navigation only in an emergency.
.- The honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. . James Harrison) claimed that these proposed new machinery provisions were objectionable to the Seamen’s Union of Australasia because they would deprive members of that union of a say in determining whether a ship shall be permitted to put to sea without a full complement. The honorable member is begging the issue. Under sections 43 and 44 of the principal act, the master of a ship is authorized to take it to sea with less than its full complement provided that he has made reasonable efforts to obtain a full complement; and he shall not be guilty of an offence provided that his ship has four-fifths of its complement. However, the fact remains that the principal act contains no provision to enable the master, or owner, in such circumstances, to enforce his decision that the ship shall out to sea. In many instances, ships have been prevented from sailing because the crew has been one man short.
– Order ! I point out to the honorable member that this clause refers to the complement, not of crew, but of officers. The honorable member is now dealing with the provisions of clause 10.
– Mr. Chairman. I draw your attention to the state of the committee.
The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Grayden) having left the chamber while the bells were rung,
– I call upon the Serjeant-at-Arms to bring the honorable member for Swan back to the chamber.
The honorable member for Swan having returned to the chamber,
– Order! An honorable member must not leave the chamber while a quorum is being formed. [Quorum formed.]
– In accordance with your intimation, Mr. Chairman, I shall postpone my remarks until clause 10 is under consideration.
Amendments agreed to.
Question put -
That the clause, as amended, he agreed to.
The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. E. Adermann.)
AYES: 56
NOES: 30
Majority . . . . 26
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 8 (Engagement or supply of seamen).
– I invite the committee to negative this clause. I do so at the request of representatives of the Seaman’s Union of Australasia, who have placed certain views before the Government which the Government has taken into consideration.
– The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) is to be commended for the action that he has just taken.
Clause negatived.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10-
Section forthy-three and forty-four of the Principal Act are repealed and the following section is inserted in their stead: -
“43.- (1.) . . .
Amendments (by Mr. Holt) - by have - proposed -
That the words “ section is “ be left out with a view to insert in lien thereof the word “ sections “.
That sub-section (8.) of proposed section forty-three be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-seetion: - “ ‘ (8. ) Where the prescribed crew for a ship has not been obtained and the master or owner of the ship satisfies a Deputy Director that the master or owner has made all reasonable efforts to obtain the prescribed crew for the ship (including the seeking of the assistance of the organization ofwhich seamen of the description of seamen who have not been obtained are members), the Deputy Director may, by writing under his hand, authorize the master to take the ship to sea with such crew us is specified in the authority, being a crew of not less than Four-fifths of the engine-room staff, and four-fifths of the deck complement, of the ship.”.
That, at the end of the clause, the following section be added: - “ ‘ 44. Where
a ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade ordinarily carries a number of seamen of any description greater than the number of seamen of that description specified in the prescribed crew for that ship; and
the master or owner has not obtained the number of seamen of that description ordinarily carried on that ship, but has obtained not less than four-fifths of that number of seamen, the master shall not command the officers and crew to take the ship to sea unless -
the master or owner satisfies a Deputy Director that the master or owner has made all reasonable efforts to obtain that number of seamen ( including the seeking of the assistance of the organization of which seamen of that description are members) ; and (d.) the Deputy Director authorizes the master to take the ship to sea.’.”.
– Notwithstanding anything that the honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne) may have said, clause 10 will authorize a master to take his ship to sea with four-fifths of the normal complement. As the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) said during his second-reading speech, the Maritime Industry Commission has exercised sole authority in such matters up to date, and this has engendered confidence in seamen and others who go to sea in ships. The men knew that, if the commission gave authority for a ship to proceed with less than the prescribed complement, the representatives of their unions on the commission had first considered the proposal and were aware of the conditions under which the vessel was to leave port. The representatives of the men had some influence on the decisions of the commission. The Opposition fears that the Government, by abolishing the commission, will destroy the confidence of the men. The Minister has said that the representatives of the appropriate unions will be consulted before a ship is allowed to go to sea with less than the prescribed complement. But the fact remains that the unions will not have any direct influence on the decision to allow the ship to sail. That is the featureof the Government’s plan to which I take strong exception and to which the men themselves object. Under the administration of the Maritime Industry Commission, regardless of any views to the contrary that the honorable for Evans has expressed, there has been more peace in the shipping industry than there was previously.
– Oh!
– I invite the honorable member for McMillan (Mr. Brown) to analyse the statistics and ascertain the facts for himself. Since the commission has been in existence, we have not witnessed such incidents as occurred in the days of Walsh and Johnson. This has been due to the fact that the seamen have been represented on the commission and have had confidence in it. The men who go down to the sea know all about the trials and tribulations of their calling, and they realize that their conditions will be threatened by the enactment of this measure. Time will prove whether or not the objections of the Opposition to the Government’s proposals are justified. Should events demonstrate that the Government has taken a step in the right direction towards fostering peace in the maritime industry, I shall be happy to give it full credit. However, I am firmly convinced that this provision will remove a bulwark that has given confidence to the seamen on many occasions when ships have gone to sea manned by less than the normal complement. The basis on which we should judge the effectiveness of the commission’s administration of the existing act is not the number of occasions on which under-manned ships have gone to sea, but the number of occasions on which ships have carried on without full complements. The facts prove conclusively that the men have had confidence in the decisions of the commission. The Opposition has already expressed its opinion of the first provision in relation to the authorizing of the departure of ships with less than the prescribed complements. It does not propose to delay the committee by calling for divisions on the remaining provisions, but it registers an emphatic protest against them. I am sure that time will prove that our view is correct.
– Before the committee makes a decision on the amendments that I have submitted, ‘t should understand clearly the lengths to’ which the Government has gone in order to meet the views expressed by the unions. There are three important provisions in relation to the operation of ships with less than the prescribed complements, and each of them contains a safeguard against the risks that the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) apparently has in mind. The unions pointed out to the Government that some ships customarily carried crews in excess of their prescribed complements. They argued that, if such a vessel were allowed to go to sea with four-fifths of the prescribed complement, that strength would represent considerably less than four-fifths of the complement customarily carried. The Government agreed to meet the wishes of the union on that point, and it has drafted an amendment which prescribes that a ship may not be taken to sea unless it carries at least four-fifths of the complement customarily carried. The unions also submitted to the Government that the right to authorize the departure of a vessel with less than its full crew should not be left in the hands of a relatively junior functionary, such as the superintendent at a port of departure. Therefore, the Government agreed to go a stage further and to provide that only a deputy director of navigation should have power to authorize the movement of a ship with less than a full, crew. Finally, in order that the union concerned- should be fully aware of the situation in each instance, and should be able to satisfy itself that a genuine effort had” been made to obtain the required number of men, the Government agreed to insert a provision that the assistance of the union should be sought to find additional men. It may be true, as the honorable member for Blaxland has said, that the amendments will not satisfy all the demands of the unions. However, I think the committee will agree that the Government has made a fair and . reasonable effort to satisfy their legitimate requirements. The clause, as proposed to be amended, should be accepted by the committee because it will overcome substantially the objections that were previously raised.
– I think that the Government has been extremely sympathetic in drafting the amendments to clause 10 that are now under consideration. Much has been said during the discussions on the various clauses about the conditions that should be laid down for seamen. I consider that’ the committee should place on record the fact that probably not much more than 50 per cent, of the so-called seamen, who operate on our coastal ships and are governed by the Navigation Act are really qualified to describe themselves as seamen. They do not know much about seamanship in many ways, hut, both in war and in peace, they have gained great advantages from the fact that they have worked on ships. For example, every seaman who served on a ship trading between two interstate ports during “World War II. was eligible for all the repatriation benefits to which a .man who served overseas with the armed forces in a more active capacity was entitled. I can talk with some authority on this subject because I lived on a ship for nearly twelve and a half years, and I have been a member of the British seamen’s union. I am probably the only member of the committee who has been a member of that union. I have heard many land-lubbers talking about the provisions of the bill to-night. There is a term, more agricultural than maritime in character, that would appropriately describe their remarks. The amendments now before the committee include a provision that only a deputy director of navigation may authorize the departure of a ship with less than its full complement. Two safeguards are provided. A decision to take the vessel to sea’ may be made by its master, but the fina] decision can be made only by the deputy director. All I ask is that every deputy director should be a man who has gone to sea as a master mariner. I believe that there is a tendency in some government departments to appoint men without practical experience to such responsible positions. That criticism applies, I think, in the fields of civil aviation and marine navigation. The Government should be com pletely adamant that a person who has authority to permit a vessel to go to sea without its full complement must be an ex-master mariner.
.- The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) may have given rise to a false impression that the Seamen’s Union of Australasia is perfectly satisfied with the amendments that are now before the committee.
– I said specifically that it was not completely satisfied.
– The Minister said that the amendments went a long way towards meeting its objections. I know that the union does not approve of the amendments in any way. It did its best to persuade the Government to improve clause 10, but it is dissatisfied with the decision that the Government has now made. I have no objection to the term “ land-lubber being applied to me, because I have never been a seafaring man. However, it occurs to me that, when some responsible authority prescribes the proper complement for a ship, it does so with a full knowledge of the requirements of that type of vessel. The decision would be based on the requirements for the safe and efficient working of the vessel. Therefore, the honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm), if he has done anything, has supplied a strong reason why the committee should not accept the proposal that a ship should be allowed to go to sea with only four-fifths of its prescribed complement. He has said that, in his opinion - which I do not regard as being authoritative, but which may be used as a basis for argument - over 50 per cent, of the men who go to sea on coastal ships are not qualified seamen. That provides a strong reason why a vessel should not be allowed to leave port with less than its full complement. That appears to h; sound reasoning. -
– It is not.
– I do not regard the Minister as an authority on such subjects, because I understand that he has never worked in any industry in his life. He would not be an authority on anything associated with work of any kind.
If a vessel put. to sea with, only four- fifths of its complement, the cost to the shipowners of running the vessel would be less than would otherwise be the case. But the Government has not made any proposals about what should be done with money saved in that way. I assume that, if a vessel put to sea with only four-fifths of its complement, the remaining members of the crew, in operating it in an efficient manner, would be required to perform duties for which they were not being paid. It seems to be reasonable to suppose that, if the Government desired to help seamen who gp to sea regularly, it would make provision for money saved by shipowners when a ship sails with less than its full complement to be distributed in the form of additional pay to the members of the crew who operate the vessel.
The Government has said that its intention is to deal with the tactics of the seamen’s, union of persuading one or two members of the crew of a vessel to absent themselves when the vessel is due to sail, if the union wants to delay the vessel. To carry out that intention, the Government has proposed a provocative amendment of the law, under which a vessel would be able to put to sea with four-fifths of its complement. If it bo true, as the Minister has asserted, that the seamen’s union often deliberately delays a vessel by persuading one or two members of the crew to absent themselves at sailing time, what would the union do to hold up a vessel after this measure, had been passed ? It would not permit a vessel to obtain four-fifths of its complement. If necessary, it would pull the whole of the crew out. Therefore, this amendment of the law will not achieve the desired objective.
Passengers and crews of coastal vessels are entitled to demand that such vessels shall be operated safely, and that they shall not put to sea without a proper complement. Seamen ought not to be called upon to endanger their lives by going to sea in a vessel that has less than its required complement. I believe that the people who determine the complements of vessels know more about the sea and about the requirements of ships than does either the Minister for
Air (Mr. McMahon) or myself. I accept that they are in a position to determine such matters. When they have determined the complement of a vessel upon the basis of what is required for its safe and efficient working, that determination should not be departed from in any circumstances. If the seamen’s union were to declare, as I believe it will do, that its members would not sail in a vessel that had not a full complement, what would the Government do? This matter must be worked out in agreement with the unions to which the men who work the ships belong. I venture to say that this provision will be opposed, not only by members of the seamen’s union but also by the general public, which is fully aware that great danger is involved in sailing in a vessel that has less than its prescribed complement. The public is not concerned only with the earning of profits by shipowners. In transport of any kind, the first requirement of members of the public is safety. That is why the general public has always favoured government-operated transport services rather than services operated by private enterprise. The public knows that the first concern of private enterprise is to earn the maximum profits possible, and that the aim of governmentoperated transport services is to provide the best and safest travel facilities.
No matter what the Minister may say, I am certain that the seamen’s union and the other unions concerned with the operations of ships will not regard this proposal as satisfactory and that, in the interests of the safety of their* members and of the travelling public, they will take action to ensure that no vessel shall put to-sea unless it has a full complement.
Mr. OSBORNE (Evans) 10.7].- The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) began his speech by saying that he had never been a seafaring man, and by disclaiming any definite knowledge of seafaring matters. He need not have expended his breath upon saying that, because his subsequent remarks made it perfectly obvious, not only that he knew nothing about seafaring matters but also that he had given no attention to the subject-matter of the bill. The honorable member said that the authority which fixes the minimum crew requirements of a “ship does so upon the basis of the safe and efficient working of the ship. That is not the case. The minimum crew is determined upon the basis of the comfort and convenience of the men required to handle a ship at sea day in and day out for long periods. Anybody who has given any thought to the matter knows that the number of men required to handle a ship with efficiency in an emergency is far less than the number of men required to keep the vessel at sea for long periods’, without unduly taxing their strength and endurance. The easy and convenient working of a ship in three watches for long periods is the principle factor which determines the number of men that shall be required to sail in it, as well as the number required to do additional work in connexion with passengers, the management of the ship in harbours and matters of that kind. They are the factors which determine the minimum number of hands required in a ship. There is not necessarily any departure from standards of efficiency and safety when a ship sails with less than the number of men ordinarily required to keep it at sea for long periods. “Under the existing legislation, masters are authorized to sail with less than a full complement, provided they have made reasonable attempts to obtain a full complement and have obtained not less than four-fifths. But as we know - and it was conceded even by the honorable member for East Sydney - the crew of a vessel cannot be forced to take it to sea with even only one man short of a full complement, if they do not want to do so. If a ship were one man short of its full complement, and if one member of the crew decided that he did not want to sail with less than the full complement, he could hold the ship up. That flaw in the legislation has been used frequently by the Communist-controlled Seamen’s Union to delay ships on the Australian coast.
The honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) made the astounding statement that there had been less industrial trouble in bur ships since the war than before the war.
– I said since the establishment of the commission.
– The commission was established during the war. Therefore, I have not misunderstood the honorable gentleman. He said that there had been less industrial trouble in our ships since the establishment of the Maritime Industry Commission than there was previously. That is entirely wrong. The commission was established in war-time “to deal with a situation that could not be dealt with by the government of the day. The Government could not get ships to sea to carry cargoes round the coast. In such an* emergency, unusual methods were required. The Maritime Industry Commission was established to deal with that situation. Many people believe that it managed to get the ships to sea by making monetary concessions and other concessions which the industry could not afford in normal times. Many people hoped for a return to normal industrial processes as soon as the war was over. The commission, which was established to solve war-time difficulties at any price and by any means, has, in my opinion, been retained for far too long in the post-war period. I welcome wholeheartedly the proposal to abolish it.
The honorable member for Blaxland has often told honorable members of his activities as an opponent of Communists in trade unions. He should welcome any sensible measure designed to curtail the activities of Communists. This is such a measure. It is necessary to overcome the difficulty caused by the fact that a single member of a ship’s company can prevent his ship from sailing if the complement of the vessel is one man short at the time of sailing. The Communists in the Seamen’s Union of Australasia frequently_use that method of holding ships up. The honorable member for Blaxland appears to believe that some satisfaction can be derived from the absence of industrial trouble in Australian ships. Let me direct his attention to the reply that the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport gave to a question asked by the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon) about shipping delays. The reply was given on the 21st October. It set out in detail the number of days on which Australian ships, both privately owned and government owned, had been held up around our coasts. The honorable member will see from that information that there has been an alarming wastage of coastal shipping.
I do not propose to weary the House by going over the ground that I traversed, in my speech on the second reading of the bill. I remind the honorable member for Blaxland that nothing is more important in the industrial and commercial life oi’ this country than that our coastal shipping should move satisfactorily, but there is no sphere of our industrial life in which the Communists have been tackled with less success than in the Seamen’s Union of Australasia. I know that the honorable member for Blaxland takes pride in the success of the Australian Labour party groups in trade unions. Will he tell me what success has been achieved by such groups in the Seamen’s Union of Australasia? The executive work of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia is done through the office of national secretary and secretary in each port. The national secretary is Mr. E. V. Elliott, a member of the central committee of the Communist party of Australia. The secretary of the Sydney branch of the union is also a member of the Communist party of Australia, as is the secretary of the Melbourne branch. The secretary of the Fremantle branch of the union is a member of the Western Australian State Committee of the Communist party of Australia. The secretary of the Hobart branch is a member of the Tasmanian State, committee of that party. The secretary of the Adelaide branch is a member of the Communist party of Australia, and a close associate of Mr. E. V. Elliott. It is believed, that he was placed in that position by Mr. Elliott. Curiously enough, the secretary of the Brisbane branch of the union is. not a member, of the Communist party of Australia - he is the- only branch secretary who is not - but he has been very closely associated with his fellow secretaries and. can reasonably be- classed as a- “ fellow traveller “’. With that state of affairs, what chance is there of combating communism successfully in the Seamen’s Union of Australasia? If the honorable member- for Blaxland were to- turn his mind to the necessity to deal with-. Com.munistinspired delays of Australian ships and look at the situation that, exists in the Seamen’s Union of Australasia, perhaps he would be less condemnatory of this measure,, which, to my mind, is a very sensible one. It is designed to combat communism in the Seamen’s Union of Australasia.
The only fault that I can find in the Government’s approach to the problem is that the measure will not provide a means to deal with another method adopted by the Communists to delay ships - that is, to deny whole complements to ships. The Parliament and the nation will need to watch very closely the practice of the Communists in the union in denying whole complements to ships.
– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.
– I did not intend to intervene in the debate again, but the idle remarks of the honorable member for Evans (Mi1. Osborne) about the branch secretaries of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia being members of the Communist party have prompted me to rise to say that what the honorable member does not know about fighting communism, would’ fill, not one book, but ten books. There has never been any disagreement between members of the Labour party and members- of the Government parties about dealing with Communists who are traitors to this country. That is about the only thing that we have in common with honorable members opposite. The action of the honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne) in rising in his place here and nominating every Communist leader of the seamen’s union leads me to ask him to explain what this bill will” do to improve that situation? If there is one thing that the Government is doing to establish the Communists firmly in control of the seamen’s union, it is this very provision. The Government could do nothing that would give a greater fillip to communism in the trade union movement than to place in the hands of the master of every vessel an authority the existence of which can be used by the Communists to make seamen believe that they are. under the lash. That is what this provision will do. The maritime industry unions formerly had their representatives on the Maritime Industries Commission. Seamen could in those days tell the Communists that they would follow the decisions of the commission on whether or not a ship would sail, and not be misled by the Communists. The fact that the decision on whether or not a ship should sail with four-fifths of its crew is to be the responsibility of the master will enable the Communists to cause unrest among the crews of ships whose masters decide to sail under those circumstances. I do not know of any provision that has ever come before this chamber that has given Communist leaders in any trade union greater help than this provision will give Communist agitators and the Communist leaders of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia. As far as I can see it is not the intention of the bill to take the control of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia away from the Communists.Such action will be left to honorable members on this side of the chamber and to the people who fight communism in the trade unions themselves. The bill will be a lever that the Communists will be able to use against the elements in the trade unions that are opposed to them. If the honorable member for Evans were to work in the trade union movement for a few years he would know more about it and would not make such stupid statements as he has made.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 -
After Divison 7 of Part II. of the Principal Act the following Division is inserted: - “ Division 7a. - Approval of Engagements of Seamen. “45a. - (1.) Except as provided by section forty-eight of this Act. “ (2.) Where the approval of a superintendent of the engagement of a seaman is sought and
Amendments (by Mr. Holt) - by leave - proposed -
That, in sub-section (2.) of proposed new section 45a, the word “ shall “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ may “.
That sub-section (4.) of proposed new section 45a, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following new sub-sections: - “’ (4.) Where a seaman deserts a ship, or, while he is bound by an agreement to serve in a ship, refuses or fails, without reasonable cause, to join that ship, to go to sea in that ship or to take that ship to sea, the master shall report the fact to a superintendent. (4a.) Such a report shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a report under section sixty-seven of this Act showing the conduct or character of the seaman as “bad”. (4B.) Where a seaman refuses or fails as specified in sub-section (4.) of this section, and, before the ship is taken to sea after that refusal or failure, again so refuses or fails (whether once or more than once), that subsection operates as if the last report delivered by the master under that sub-section in respect of any of those refusals or failures -were the only report so delivered by him in respect of those refusals or failures.”.
That in sub-section (5.) of proposed new suction 4.5a the word “ shall “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ may “.
That sub-section (fl. ) of proposed new section 45a be left out.
That sub-section (8.) of proposed new section 45a be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-sections: - “‘(8.) Where the Marine Council or a Committee appointed under section four hundred and twenty-four of this Act (or a majority of the members of that Council or of such a Committee) lias advised the Minister that the character of a person is such, or the conduct of a person has been such, that that person is, during a period specified in the advice, unsuitable for engagement as a seaman, a superintendent shall, during that period, refuse to approve the engagement of that person as a seaman. (8a.) Where the character of a seaman is such, or the conduct of a seaman has been such, that the seaman is, in the opinion of a master, unsuitable for engagement as a seaman, the master shall report the circumstances to a superintendent.”.
That, in sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 45b, after the word “ section “, the following words be inserted: - “ (otherwise than under sub-section (8.)) “.
That paragraph (c) of sub-section (5.) of proposed new section 45n, be left out. [Quorum formed.]
– I note that the draft amendment providing for the omission of sub-section (8.) of the proposed new section 45a provides that a superintendent “ shall “ refuse to employ a person as a seaman under certain circumstances. I am pleased to note that the word “shall” has been altered to “ may “. One of the points to which the Opposition took strong exception during the second-reading stage was the fact that that provision was to be mandatory. We are pleased that it is now to be a discretionary power. One of the reasons why the Opposition has been so much concerned about the provision in relation to bad discharges received by seamen was that until the amendment was altered, a marine superintendent had no power to give employment to a man who had had three bad discharges within a period of five years. Under the altered amendment a superintendent is to have discretionary power. We appreciate even that small alteration. However, the position remains bad enough because a seaman may be branded as a result of having received three bad discharges. He might have received his first bad discharge at, say, the end of 1947, the second had discharge early in the following year, and the third during the last six months. Until the amendment was introduced, it was mandatory on a superintendent to refuse to give such a man employment in the industry. An honorable member said earlier in the debate that a man who had received a bad discharge had a right to appeal, against it. Such a man will have, in fact, no right to appeal against “a single discharge, as far as I can ascertain, until he has received a total of three bad discharges. He will have no right to appeal against the first or second bad discharge at the time he receives it. Only when he has received the third bad discharge, and has been refused employment, will he have a right to appeal to a single judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, and then he must try to prove that a bad discharge that he received, perhaps almost . five years before, was not merited. Do honorable members really grasp the situation? An employee will be obliged to wait until the final charge has been made against him, and he has no longer the right to work at his job, before he may appeal against the original charge. Such a provision is unique. The Minister may reply, with complete justification, that this condition was laid down by the Stevedoring Industry Commission. That is true. I am not making my submissions on behalf of the Communists. I am speaking for the genuine man who may “ slip “. He will not have the right to appeal against his first bad discharge until he has received his third bad discharge, and has been suspended from employment in theindustry. The adoption of the word may “ in lieu of “ shall “ will render the position a little easier for him.
I strongly oppose the bill because it provides, first of all, the dictum to be followed by the judge who will hear the appeal. In no other industry is an appellate authority directed by legislation. Honorable members opposite refer from time to time to the employment of
Communists in the Public Service. I wonder what the reaction of public servants “would be if they were deprived of their appeals tribunal? A seaman who has three bad discharges will appear before a single judge and will not be supplied with a copy of the reasons why he was given his first bad discharge five years earlier. His discharge is simply marked, and goes into the records. Later, I shall refer to what happens in the records.
– Order! The honorable member has exhausted his time.
.- I shall make two points briefly. I discussed one of them earlier. I do not believe that this clause goes far enough. The honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) considers that the clause could bring about an injustice. Once again, some one who knows nothing in particular about the work of seamen in general is trying to tell us that a man might get three bad discharges simply because he has been unfortunate. I am prepared to admit that a man might, get one bad discharge as the result of being unfortunate, but he certainly would not get three bad discharges for that reason. I also consider that a man who refuses to join three ships in .succession should be suspended from his employment in the industry for at least one year. This persistent refusal by directed individuals, to a large degree, to take ships to sea is one of the greatest threats to our economy by the Seamen’s Union of Australasia, I can understand why a man is prepared not to accept a particular ship, or, perhaps, a second ship, but his refusal to accept three ships in succession is .nothing but deliberate sabotage to our coastal trade. Any man who aims to sabotage our trade should be .suspended from, the industry for at least a year.
The second matter to which I shall refer relates to discharges. I do not believe that the single sheet system of discharge now in use is satisfactory, because it leaves the way open for a certain amount of abuse. “We have heard it said that, under this amendment, a man who has three bad discharges in five years is liable to certain penalties. When his discharges are given to him on single sheets of paper, there is no reason why he would have to produce three bad discharges. Australia should adopt the system in operation in most other countries, and provide for a seaman’s discharges to be recorded in a book. He may do away with one discharge, should he so desire, but he could not dispose of his discharge book containing a continuous record of his service in the industry. I do not believe that a genuine trade unionist would object to my proposal. The single-sheet system of discharge now in use is not in the best interest of the seamen themselves. The book system shows clearly a seaman’s continuous record of service, and does not lay itself open to abuse as does the single-sheet system..
.- The Opposition does not put up any case for an employee who would not be acting in a reasonable manner. Whilst I do not claim to be completely au fait with what the honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm) has put forward, his proposal seems to have some merit in regard to determining the exact record of a seaman in the industry. The real danger which I see, from the viewpoint of Labour and the trade unions, is in regard to the offences a seaman commits which oblige the master of a ship or the superintendent to give him a bad discharge. It occurs to me that this provision could be used to coerce members of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia who were carrying out a direction of their trade union. If, as the result of an industrial dispute, they were’ asked by their trade union not to report to their ship, this provision could mean that the seamen would receive bad discharges.
As a trade unionist who always upholds the.right of the unions to take direct action to hold up a ship or a job if they have tried every other means to get something which they regard as a grievance rectified, I am not favorably disposed towards this provision. If it is not the intention of the Government to interfere with what we regard as the legitimate right of the trade union to direct its members on certain occasions, the provision should be amended in order to state specifically that it shall not apply in such circumstances. The trade union movement generally would resist an attempt by any government to impose such a form of coercion or control upon industrial organizations. If. the Seamen’s Union of Australasia had some matter which it regarded as a real grievance, and tried to get it rectified by every means, and finally decided to direct its members not to report for work, those men should not be penalized by being given bad discharges. That is my view. Members of the Opposition do not consider that any employee, regardless of the industry in which he is engaged, should be the sole judge of his conduct in the industry. He has to act in a reasonable manner. We do not believe that a man should go in an intoxicated condition aboard ship or on to a job when he is obliged to report to work. But I repeat that men who are rightly and properly carrying out the direction of their union should not be penalized by being given bad discharges.
Amendments agreed to.
Question put -
That the clause, as amended, be agreed to.
The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)
AYES: 55
NOES: 32
Majority . . . . 23
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 (Running agreements).
– We propose to ask the committee to negative this clause. It is a concession to the viewpoint of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia.
Clause negatived.
Clauses 15 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 (Right to wages in case of termination of services by loss or wreck).
Mr.E. JAMES HARRISON (Blaxland) [10.49] . - One matter in this clause needs clarification. Paragraph (b) of subsection (1.) of proposed new section 85 reads -
. the seaman is . . . entitled to
The principal act provides that a seaman, if he has no other employment, may be paid wages for up to two months. The Oppositiondesires the Government to explain, this matter, because it appears as though one month of the concessional period of two months will now disappear.
– I am able to assure the Opposition that so far from taking anything; away from the seamen, this provision is designed to continue a concession formerly given by the Maritime Industry Commission. The present section of the principal act gives effect to a recommendation of the International Labour Office that wages shall he paid for every day a seaman is unemployed, up to two months. A shipowner is relieved from his liability if he ?an offer the seamen employment. During the war, the Maritime Industry Commission made an order guaranteeing seamen in addition to the benefits of this section, wages until they were brought home, and then one month’s wages. That was an encouragement to seamen to offer for work immediately, and this amendment will continue the concession.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 22 (Wages not to accrue in certain circumstances).
– This clause reads -
Section eighty-six of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in paragraph (c), after the word. “ illness “, the words “ hurt or injury “.
At the present time section 86 (c) of the Navigation Act reads -
No seaman or apprentice shall be entitled to wages . . .
for any period during which he is, by reason of illness caused by his own wilful act or default, incapable of performing his duty._
I suggest that this clause should be rejected by the committee because the addition of the words “ hurt or injury “ is not justified. We should consider this matter not from the viewpoint of the landlubber, but from that of the seaman. During the working of a ship at sea occasions arise when seamen have to risk their lives and limbs in sudden emergencies. They cannot wait to read or consider the regulations about what they shall do and what they shall not do. They must act immediately in the interests of the safety of the ship. I agree that if illness is wrongfully caused, the master should not be required to pay wages, but I do not agree that if hurt or injury is caused by the “default” of the seaman he i3 not entitled to his wages. The word “ default “ may be interpreted in many different ways, and a man who acted in the interests of the ship but nevertheless “ defaulted “ might he deprived of his proper payment. The committee should respect this clause.
– I have been assured by those who have some expert knowledge of this matter that the provision is regarded as necessary. Just as in the armed services occasionally people are found who inflict wounds upon themselves to avoid the execution of lawful ‘ commands or the carrying out of lawful duties, so the same thing may be found occurring at sea. It appears to be unreasonable that a shipowner or employer should be expected to pay wages to a man who has wilfully or by his own default inflicted some hurt or injury upon himself. The Opposition apparently recognizes the validity of the clause in respect of “ illness “ and it is difficult to foresee why the same logic that has been applied to “ illness “ should not be applied to “ hurt or injury “. The provision has been inserted because of difficulties that have occurred in the past, and it springs from the experience of expert officers of the Government. I do not feel disposed to accept the invitation of the Opposition to omit this provision.
– I support my colleague, the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison). The Minister should consider this matter from the viewpoint of a humane member of the Government, and not from the viewpoint of the experience of officers. Section 86 of the principal act reads -
No seaman or apprentice shall be entitled to wages -
for any period during which he is, by reason of illness caused by his own wilful act or default, incapable of performing his duty.
Now it has been suggested by the Minister that some seamen might wilfully cause hurt or injury to themselves. That is a completely wanton sort of suggestion. Is there one case where such a thing has been reported?
– There are many cases.
– Where has such a case occurred, and why is this amendment necessary to deal with cases about which no evidence has been produced?
– No more convincing argument could have been advanced against this clause than the reference by the Minister to his expert advisers. There is a great difference between men in the armed services who have to risk their lives in action, and seamen who have to work a ship at sea in the face of natural dangers. There can be no proper comparison between men injured in battle and men injured by tempest.
– This clause has nothing to do with tempest.
– The Minister knows industry well enough to know that the word “ default “ can be applied very widely. Tinder the clause any master who wanted to take advantage of an emergency situation could do so. Seamen have to break regulations in times of emergency because the safety of the ship is at stake. In those circumstances surely they are entitled to payment. If a provision of this nature were to be applied to railway workers I would certainly oppose it, and so I must oppose it even more strongly when it is applied to seamen. Masters should not be given the opportunity to take advantage of the actions of seamen during emergencies. I suggest that the committee should not accept the provision.
– Does the honorable member believe that a master would act unless he had good grounds for doing so, having in mind the reaction of the men if he behaved unfairly?
– I believe that the line of demarcation is so vague that it is not capable of being clearly seen by a layman. In matters of this kind, legislators should lean to the side of those who are called upon to make decisions in the interests of the safety of their workmates and, indeed, of a ship itself. I protest strongly against this provision. I have had so much to do with matters that have involved compensation for injury in this industry, that I cannot overstress the importance of keeping these provisions clear even in minor details.
Question put -
That the clause be agreed to.
The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)
AYES: 46
NOES: 33
Majority . . . . 13
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 23 (Offences against discipline).
– Under this clause, it is proposed to double the penalty of a fine of £20 to £40 in respect of offences against discipline. A fine of £20 should be regarded as the maximum penalty that should be imposed upon a worker for an industrial offence. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) has not offered any reason for the proposal to double this penalty. Apparently, the Government decided upon a fine of £40 as a shot in the dark. The proposal would not be so bad if the penalty were to be a fine to be imposed in the ordinary way. This clause also provides that in certain circumstances a worker who offends against discipline may be penalized by having a proportion of his wages stopped. The Australian Labour Party will never countenance the provision of a penalty in the form of a deduction of wages, and such a provision should never be tolerated in any civilized community. I invite the Minister to inform the committee of the reasons that actuated the Government in proposing this provision.
– There is nothing novel about this provision. Indeed, it has been allowed to remain in the principal act since 1912 and has been supported by all Governments in thisParliament, regardless of party, during that period. It is now proposed to double a fine that has stood unaltered since 1912. The fine has not even been increased in proportion to the depreciation that has occurred in the value of money during that period. I also point out that this penalty is applied in respect of the very serious offence of desertion from a ship. In 1912, the penalty by way of a deduction from wages that could be exacted for such an offencewas £20 which in those days would be the equivalent of a seaman’s wages for a period of one and a half months, whereas to-day, the equivalent of wages in respect of such a period would be about £75. Therefore, although it is proposed to double the finefrom £20 to £40, the amount, as a degree of exaction, will still be only half of that for which provision was made in 1912. No reasonable person could take objection to this proposal.
– I am astonished that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) should try to bolster upthis proposal. Let us suppose that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court decides to reduce the basic wage at the conclusion of proceedings that are now before it. In that event would the Government be prepared to reduce this penalty proportionately? The crime of desertion from a ship is not any more serious to-day than it was in 1912, or at any time during the intervening period. But, in addition to doubling the fine for such an offence, the
Government, under this measure, is making it easier to condemn a man on a charge of desertion. I again protest against the principle of imposing a penalty on a worker in the form of a deduction from wages. It is also provided that in respect of a third offence a seaman shall be deprived entirely of his right ‘to work in the industry. The Minister’s argument that the doubling of the existing fine is justified on the basis of the depreciation of the value of money since 1912 is unconvincing.
Question put -
That the clause be agreed to.
The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)
AYES: 55
NOES: 32
Majority . . . . 23
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Clauses 24. to26 agreed to.
Clause 27 (Provisions relating to deductions for breaches of discipline).
– This clause proposes the repeal of the existing section 115, which provides - (1.) Every fine imposed on a seaman, for any act of misconduct for which his agreement imposes a fine, shall be deducted and paid as follows: -
If the offender is discharged in Australia, and the offence, and the entry in the log-book required by this Act in respect thereof, are proved to the satisfaction of the superintendent before whom the offender is discharged, the master or owner shall deduct the fine from the wages of the offender, and pay it to the superintendent. (2.) The master or owner shall not without reasonable cause, fail to pay the fine promptly to the superintendent.
Penalty: Five pounds.
Proposed new section 115 provides -
There is a substantial difference between the existing section and the proposed new section. Under the present law, an offence must be proved to the satisfaction of the superintendent before a fine can be imposed. The Government now proposes that a master shall have authority to impose a fine arbitrarily. A fine cannot be collected under the terms of the act as it stands until the superintendent has had time to consider the matter. The principle upon which the present provision is based should not be varied.A fine should not be collected until the matter has been considered by the superintendent. Should the superintendent decide that a fine has not been rightly imposed, under the terms of the proposed new section, the superintendent will be required to recover it from the master of the ship and repay it to the seaman. That is wrong in principle, and, therefore, the Opposition opposes the clause.
– I am assured that the clause generally involves no substantial departure from the present provisions of the act. The procedure is merely set out a little more clearly in the proposed new section. The Maritime Industry Commission, on which the unions are represented, has adopted the practice for which the clause provides. Under clause 12, power is given to make regulations in relation to the time at which a penalty may be deducted from wages. The committee can safely accept my assurance that past practices will be substantially followed in relation to this matter.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 (Seaman left on shore sick or injured).
.- Mr. Chairman-
-What, again?
Mr.E. JAMES HARRISON.- I object strongly to Government supporters taking exception to the fact that the Opposition proposes to fight the Government on every important clause. It ill becomes honorable members opposite to attempt to escape their responsibilities in such an important matter. They are well paid for their services.
– This clause is designed to eliminate any possibility of injustice.
– It seeks to amend section 132 of the principal act, which contains the following words in sub-section (1.) : -
Where a seaman or apprentice belonging to a ship registered in Australia is left on shore at any place in Australia, in any manner authorized by law, by reason of illness or accident in the service of the ship incapacitating him from following his duty . . .
The clause will removethe words “ in any manner authorized by law “, and will make other changes. What is the reason for this? The proposal should be clearly explained before the committee makes its decision.
– This provision is designed solely for the benefit of seamen. At present, the only seamen entitled to the benefit of section 132 are those left ashore in any manner authorized by law. Therefore, if a shipmaster breaks the law by failing to carry out all his obligations under the act-for example, by failing to discharge a sick seaman before a superintendent - the seaman concerned is technically not entitled to the benefit of the section. Such a case occurred some years ago, but the shipowner did 1101; disclaim his liability. The omission of the words, “ in any manner authorized by law “, will remove any possibility of injustice being done to seamen under the provisions of the section. The remainder of the clause also will extend the scope of the protection afforded to seamen.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 30-
Division 15 of Part 11 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Division inserted in its stead: - “ 138. - (1.) The Minister may, fop-the purposes of this Division, appoint a committee to lie known as the Crew Accommodation Committee.
Amendment (by Mr. ‘Holt) proposed -
That, after sub-section (1.) of proposed new section one hundred and thirty-eight, the following sub-sections be inserted: - “’ (1a.) The Committee shall consist of a chairman and such other members as the Minister determines. 1 (1b.) The Chairman and the members hall be appointed by the Minister. (lc.) The Minister shall, in appointing the members of the Committee other than the Chairman, appoint not less than two members to represent the owners of ships and the same number of members to represent masters, officers and seamen.”.
– This clause refers to the appointment of the crew accommodation committee. .
– It should meet the wishes of the Opposition.
– It does not do so. If anything, the clause will make the existing situation even worse. The Minister said in his second-reading speech that, in the appointment of the committee, due consideration would be given to the employees. However, the amendment provides that the committee shall consist, in addition to the chairman, of not less than two members to represent the owners of ships and the same number of members to represent masters, officers and seamen. I do not think that the present Minister would take advantage of the provision, but I know of other Ministers who would do so in order to appoint two representatives of the shipowners and two masters, and thus exclude the seamen.
– Oh !
– The position would have been more satisfactory if the amendment proposed had provided for the appointment of at least one seaman.
– “Would that satisfy the Opposition ?
– Yes. The proposed sub-section should provide for the appointment of two representatives of the masters, officers, and seamen, one of whom shall be a seaman.
– I am prepared to accept that suggestion. I shall alter the amendment to provide that at least one representative of masters, officers and seamen shall be a seaman.
Mr.- E. JAMES HARRISON.- That will be acceptable to the Opposition.
– I ask for leave to amend my amendment by the addition of the following words to proposed sub-section (lc.) : - “, of whom not less than one shall represent seamen.”.
Leave granted.
– Will the Minister accept a person nominated by the Seamen’s Union of Australasia?
– I am not the Minister for Shipping and Transport. There-“ fore, I am not in a position to give such an assurance. I understand that, in the past, it has been the practice to accept nominees of the union, and I should not think there would be any departure from that practice, but I cannot give a specific undertaking to that effect.
– That is the Minister’s view ?
– That is my view.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 (Official log to be kept).
– The proposed provision is very wide in its scope. I understand that it has never been the practice for the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to accept as evidence mere statements, without verification. Is it the intention of the Government that copies of an entry in a log-book shouldbe accepted as evidence? I ask that question in view of proposals that are made in other clauses of the bill.
– Only a slight amendment is proposed to section 171 of the principal act. The amendment is designed to make it clear that an entry in a log-book is admissible as evidence in all courts. The use of the words “ in all courts” removes any doubt about whether an entry in alog-book was previously admissible as evidence in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court.
– That is what I was afraid of.
– I do not know why the honorable member should be afraid of it. Why should not entries in a log-book be accepted as evidence? Surely there could not be much more reliable evidence than the written comment of the master of a vessel as it appeared in the log-book of the vessel. I should think that such an entry would be much more reliable evidence of an incident than the recollection of the persons concerned in it. Logbook entries have been accepted in the past as evidence in other courts. Why, in the name of reason, should not they be accepted in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court?
– The answer that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr, Holt) has given will alter the attitude of the Opposition to another clause, which deals with the presentation of documents to a single judge. I do not object to this clause, but I shall object to a later clause which touches on the same matter.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 -
Section three hundred and eighty-seven of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections are inserted in its stead: -
Amendment (by Mr. Holt) proposed -
That clause 35 ‘be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following clause: - “ 35. Section three hundred and eightyseven of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections are inserted in its stead: - 387. A person who -
by violence, threat or intimidation, hinders or interferes with the master or an officer of a ship in the performance of his duty in relation to the maintenance of discipline on board the ship; or
resists or wilfully obstructs, assaults, molests or endeavours to intimidate a person performing a duty or function imposed on him, or exercising a right or power conferred on him, by this Act, is guilty of an indictable offence. 387a. A person shall not persuade or incite a master, seaman or apprentice to commit a breach of his agreement.
Penalty: One hundred pounds. 387b. A person shall not wilfully harbour or secrete a seaman or apprentice -
who has deserted his ship;
who has failed to join his ship; or
who has absented himself from his ship in wilful disobedience of a lawful command of the master or of an officer of the ship.
Penalty: Twenty pounds.’.”.
.- I can see many grounds for objecting to the amendment.The definition of a deserter has been amended, and is much wider than it was. It now covers persons who previously would not have been regarded as having committed such a serious crime as desertion. As I understand the amendment, it would be an offence for the family of a seaman who had been declared to be a deserter to permit him to remain in their home. It would be a most serious action to penalize the parents of a young man who had been declared to be a deserter from a ship if they gave him shelter in their home.
The amendment is loosely drafted, but, as I understand the’ matter, that is the implication of it. The Opposition could not agree in any circumstances to a provision that would penalize parents who gave shelter to a son, or a wife who gave shelter to her husband. Proposed new section 387b states that a person shall not wilfully harbour or secrete a seaman or apprentice who has deserted his ship, failed to join his ship, or absented himself from his ship in wilful disobedience of a lawful command of the master or of an officer of the ship.
– The people concerned might not know that the man was a deserter.
– They might not know that he had been classified as a deserter. Under this measure, it would be a very simple matter for a seaman to be classified as a deserter, although there was some legitimate reason for his failure to join his ship. It could take a considerable time for him to prove that he was not guilty of desertion. In the meantime, his parents would be liable to a fine if they gave him shelter. In my opinion, this amendment represents an invasion of the privacy of the home. I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn and redrafted in such a way as to remove this objectionable provision.
– Proposed new section 387b relate? to a matter that was dealt with originally in section. 103 of the act. That section stated that no person should, by any means whatever, persuade a seaman or apprentice to commit any breach of his agreement, or wilfully harbour or secrete a seaman or apprentice who had deserted from or wilfully failed to join his ship. The penalty for a breach of the provisions of the section was a fine of £20. This amendment proposes that any person who harbours a man who has failed - not wilfully failed - to join his ship, shall be liable to a fine of £20. The word “wilfully” has been omitted. The definition of desertion has been widened to such a degree that many difficulties could arise. I know that the amendment states that a person shall not “wilfully” harbour or secrete a seaman or apprentice and it may be that the
Minister believes that that covei-3 the position we are discussing. But, having regard to the present definition of a deserter, the effect of this provision could be that some persons could commit a breach of the provision unintentionally. The proposal should not be left in this form.
– Much of what has been said in criticism of proposed new section 387b is not justified by the facts. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has said that the Opposition would object strongly to any provision that would enable action to be taken against parents who harboured a son who had deserted from his ship. A provision of this kind has been in the act for a long time, including periods of office of Labour governments. I have not heard of any injustice being caused by it,- or of any serious trouble arising from it. The amendment relates to a person who wilfully harbours orsecretes a seaman or apprentice. It is quite clear, having regard to the use of the word “ wilfully “, that the provision will apply only to persons who harbour or secrete a seaman or apprentice, knowing that they should not do so. In that event, it would be proper that a penalty should be imposed upon them.. It is not a considerable penalty by modern standards. I do not believe that the objections that have been raised are sufficiently strong to warrant an alteration of the wording of the proposed new. section at this stage.
.- The Minister has not met the objections raised by the Opposition. He has said that if the parents of a seamen committed an offence under the proposed new section, a penalty should be imposed upon them. I should have little regard for parents who did not give shelter to their son. no matter what offence he had committed.
– A similar provision has been in operation throughout the history of this legislation.
– I contest that. Had there been no change in the definition of “ desertion “ the Minister might have been correct, but the definition .has already been altered in order to bring into that classification of offence a greater number of offences. Therefore, the principle that has applied previously has been altered.. Although I may have had objections to it in its original form, my objections to itare much stronger having’ regard to the amendment of the definition of. “ desertion “. The proposed new section 3S7a relates to -
A person who -
persuades or incites a seaman or apprentice to commit a breach of his agreement;
I ask the Minister whether that provision would not mean that a trade union official who was merely carrying out his function by conveying a majority decision of the union to some of its members would not be taking action that might, in the view of legal authorities,- involve him in a charge of inciting a breach of the agreement, although, in the view of the union, he would be merely giving a legitimate direction to its members. It would appear to me that the proposed new provision would mean that the union officer might be penalized in such cases. I think, as a trade unionist and a member of the Labour party, that this is a principle to which we cannot accede, because we refuse to accept the argument that members of a trade union should sacrifice their right to strike. We have always said, and we believe, as members of the Labour party, that no trade union ought to strike while there is any other avenue available to it for the rectification of grievances, but unionists who have unsuccessfully explored all the existing facilities for rectification of grievances, should not be deprived of the right to strike. We refuse to surrender the right of the trade unionist to withhold his labour in order to have grievances corrected. Honorable members on the Government side have supported the actions of other sections of the community in withholding their products from the market because they were dissatisfied with the prices offered. Workers who sell their labour, which is their only product, are entitled to withhold it if they are dissatisfied with their wages or conditions. Therefore, we strongly object to this additional provision to penalize trade union officials being inserted in the legislation.
– If it would strengthen the position so far as the Opposition is concerned, although, frankly, I do not think that it makes a great deal of difference, I am willing toamend proposed new section 3S7b so that the word “wilfully” shall be inserted before the word “ failed “. As to the point raised by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr.. Ward), proposed new section 387a represents a substantial watering down of the similar provision in the original amending bill.
– It does not water it down enough.
– That is a matter of opinion. As it stood originally in the bill, the offence concerned was to be indictable and punishable by a term of imprisonment. We heeded objections to that provision, and decided to bring it into line with similar provisions in other industrial awards made by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. In other words, we are prepared to agree that conditions that now apply to other industries, and that have been adopted under legislation passed by this Parliament, shall apply to the same degree and with the same maximum penalty to classes of offences committed in relation to seamen. The honorable member for East Sydney contends that provision will represent an intrusion on the right to strike. He is entitled to his opinion on that matter, and - I shall not argue the proposition in detail at this late hour. For the information of the committee, however, I say that this amendment will bring seamen, into line with persons employed in other sections of industry.
Paragraph (b) of proposed new section 387b reads as follows : - (&) Who has failed to join his ship; or
I ask for leave to amend the amendment by inserting the word “ wilfully “ between the words “ has “ and “ failed “.
Amendment - by leave - amended, and as amended, agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 (Admissibility of documents in evidence).
– My experience in arbitration courts enables me to say that every document that comes before such courts has to be proved in its own right. This clause seeks to alter the onus of proof in respect of documents that come before a single judge of the court. I know that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) is a legal man who has a wide knowledge of industrial arbitration and I cannot understand how, having made the admissions that he made earlier, he can accept this amendment. Section 403 of the principal act provides as follows : -
Where u document is by this Act declared to bc admissible in evidence, it shall, on production from the proper custody, be admissible in evidence in any court, or before any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and, subject to all just exceptions, shall be evidence of the matters stated therein in pursuance of this Act or in pursuance of any duty under this Act.
The additional provision to which we are now asked to agree reads - ( 3. ) Where a document is by this Act declared to be admissible in evidence, a copy of, or an extract from, the document certified by a proper authority, by writing under his hand, to be a copy of, or an extract from, that document is, in all Courts, admissible in evidence without further proof or production of the original.
We have already provided by legislation for the admissibility of documents in evidence. . Proposed sub-section (4.) reads -
Unless the contrary is proved, a certificate purporting to have been signed by a proper authority shall be deemed to have been signed by the person by whom it purports to be signed and that person shall be deemed to be a proper authority.
Those two additional provisions in conjunction mean that an extract may be taken from a ship’s log, or a copy of the log be produced, and, on the production of a signed certificate, but without any other proof, the judge would have to accept it as a replica of the log or a true extract from it.
– The honorable member has it all wrong.
– I have not got it all wrong. I have it exactly right. This provision will completely shift the onus of proof in respect of documents, and will cut completely across principles that have been in force in industrial arbitration matters ever since 1904. This is one principle that the Opposition will not accept. If honorable members on the other side of the chamber appreciated just what this provision means, having regard to the previous decision about the admissibility of documents which has been passed, and to the admission of the Minister, they would not readily accept it cither. The committee has already adopted the provision that a certain document shall be admitted by the court, and the onus of proof is now to be passed on to people other than those who produce the copy of the document to prove that the copy is not a genuine copy. I think that the Minister will agree that this is something that has never been attempted before in industrial arbitration legislation, and it should not be attempted now. The party, whether employer or trade union, which submits a document to the court, should have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it is a true copy of the original, and the person who signed the certificate should be called as a witness so that he may be cross-examined before the court on whether or not he signed it. I put it to the Minister that this provision should not be persisted in, and that the proof in relation to documents that come before a judge should rest squarely on the shoulders of the parties that produce them.
– The honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) is now becoming completely captious in the sort of criticism that he is offering. This clause has been inserted because ships’ documents cannot always be readily produced to a court, as honorable members will realize. Quite clearly, a ship away from port cannot always make its log-books available to a court, and so provision is made for the production of a certified copy or extract of such documents, and their -admissibility as evidence. Before the document can be accepted it lias to be certified by a proper authority.
– “Who will be the proper authority?
– The proper authority is defined in the act as follows: - “ Proper authority “ means -
at a port in Australia, a superintendent;
at a port elsewhere, the British Consular Officer, or if there is no such officer at the port, any two British merchants resident at or near the place, or if there is only one British merchant so resident, that British merchant.
The purpose of the provision is to facilitate the proceedings in cases, and I put it to the committee that no reasonable objection can be taken to it.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 37.
After Part X. of the Principal Act the following Part is inserted: - “ Part Xa. - Industrial Matters. “405a. In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears - industrial matters ‘ means all matters in relation to the salaries, wages, rates of pay or other, terms and conditions of service or employment of seamen ;
MOSt’. The Court has power to give an interpretation of -
Amendments (by Mr. Holt) - by leave - proposed -
That, in proposed new section 405a, in the definition “ industrial matters “, after the word “ of “, last occurring, the following words he inserted: - “masters, pilots, or”.
That in sub-paragraph (6) of proposed new section 405p, after the word “ to “, the following words’ be inserted : - “ masters, pilots, or”.
That proposed new section 405m be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof thu following new section: - “ ‘ 405m. The Court has, in relation to industrial disputes and other proceedings before it under this Part, the same powers, duties and functions’ as the Court or a Conciliation Commissioner has under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1952 in relation to industrial disputes and other proceedings before it or him under that Act.”.
– This clause deals with industrial matters and the functions of the court. Proposed new section 405a in the main repeats the principles on which the Commonwealth Arbitration Court operates. The Minister might be able to tell me what the position will be when a dispute arises in respect of an industry that operates in only one State. I have in mind as an illustration a dispute that occurred in the sugar industry not long ago at Cairns, but did not extend even as far as Townsville or Mackay in the same State. It occurred as a consequence of the disinclination of shipowners and others to adopt principles that have already been accepted in the two other ports that I have mentioned. It occurs to me that having regard to the interstate flavour of all industrial disputes handled by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, an attempt by a single judge to intervene in a case of that description may be contrary to the principles laid down by that tribunal. Frankly, I do not know the answer to the problem. I have had great difficulty on many occasions, when I have appeared before a conciliation commissioner or the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, in stretching a dispute that existed in one State in order to satisfy the court that it had an interstate flavour. I have in mind the Queensland railway dispute, which occurred about two years ago. A settlement, could not be obtained from the State industrial tribunal. New South “Wales railway employees were taking trains from that State into Queensland, and were actually coming into contact with the Queensland railway employees, who were on strike. Yet my request that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court should intervene in .the dispute was rejected, because I was unable to prove that an interstate dispute existed. Every member of the Australian Railways Union and the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen was on strike, and we desired to bring the lastnamed organization into the dispute. We endeavoured to convince the court that the dispute was likely to spread to New South Wales overnight, but the tribunal refused, under its charter, to intervene in the matter. I invite the Minister to explain the position that will arise if a dispute occurs at only one port in Queensland from which sugar is shipped-. Having regard to the numerous decisions that have been given on matters of this kind, I doubt whether a single judge of the court will have power to deal with the situation.
The second matter that I raise related to appeals. I hope that the Minister will explain this provision, because it has not yet been explained satisfactorily to date. An appeal may come before the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court from an employer or a union to have a matter dealt with by the Full Court. Why does the Government propose to restrict the scope of action of the Chief Judge to one of public interest? Obviously, many matters will arise, if an appeal has any merit at all, that cannot be related to public interest. If the Government believes that the Chief Judge has the understanding of the industrial movement that I believe he possesses, why does it insist upon restricting his scope to one of public interest? Surely we can trust the Chief Judge to determine these matters. He has the capacity to understand whether an appeal is in the public interest, and to say “Yea” or “Nay”. Why should he not be permitted to determine whether the subject that comes before him should be accepted or rejected in the public interest, or whether it should be dealt with purely as an industrial matter? I should like the Minister to give the reasons for this restriction of the scope of the Chief Judge’s authority.
Thursday 6 November, 1952.
– The honorable member for Blaxland (Mr.
The scope of the jurisdiction of the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration will be no wider and, for that matter, no narrower than is the scope of the arbitration power and industrial power of the Commonwealth. The clause now under consideration will introduce a new part into the act which will -provide that a single judge of the court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine industrial disputes and matters relating to the terms and conditions of employment of seamen so far as the authority of the Commonwealth extends. The jurisdiction includes the settlement of industrial disputes which extend beyond the limits of one State, and the determination of industrial matters relating to interstate and overseas trade and commerce. Whatever limitation may exist in the hypothetical case put forward by the honorable member is neither narrowed nor widened as the result of this provision. The hill excludes the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration under the act, but provides for an appeal to the Full Arbitration Court upon the same conditions as an appeal lies from conciliation commissioners to the Full Court. That is where the Chief Judge is of the opinion that the matter is of such importance as to justify the granting of leave to appeal. Provision is also made, as in the act, whereby the judge may refer to the Full Court matters arising before him which, in the public interest, should be dealt with by the Full Court. This vesting of industrial jurisdiction in a judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration is in line with the corresponding provisions of the Stevedoring Industry Act.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
New clauses 7a, 8a and 39.
Motions (by Mr. Holt) agreed to-
That, after clause 7, the following new clause be inserted: - “ 7a. After section fourteen of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - 14a. Where (a)a ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade ordinarily carries a number of officers of any class greater than the number of officers specified in that class of officers included in the prescribed complement of officers for that ship: and
the master or owner has not obtained the number of officers included in that class ordinarily carried on that ship, the master shall not command the officers and crew to take the ship to sea unless -
the master or owner satisfies a Deputy Director that the master or owner has made all reasonable efforts to obtain that number of officers (including the seeking of the assistance of the organization of which officers included in that class are members) ; and
the Deputy Director authorizes the master to take the ship to sea.’.”.
That, after clause 8. the following new clause be inserted: - “ 8a. Section thirty-nine of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the proviso to sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section : - (1a.) Notwithstanding anything contained in the last preceding sub-section, a seaman who has been rated as A.B. before the commencement of this sub-section shall continue to be entitled to be so rated.’.”.
That, after clause 38, the following new clause be added : - “39. - (1.) Where, immediately before the commencement of this section, an industrial dispute was pending, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1952, before a Conciliation Commissioner, that industrial dispute shall, subject to this section, be heard and determined in accordance with Part Xa. of the Principal Act as amended by this Act, and the Judge exercising the powers of the Court under that Part in relation to that industrial dispute shall have regard to the evidence given and arguments adduced before the Conciliation Commissioner. “ (2.) The Chief Judge may, if he is of opinion that it is desirable to do so, direct that an industrial dispute the hearing of which has been commenced before a Conciliation Commissioner before the date of commencement of this section shall be continued as if this Act had not been passed and, where such a direction has been given, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1952 applies in relation to that industrial dispute as if the Principal Act had not been amended by this Act. “ (3.)Where, before the date of commence- ment of this section, an order or award has been made by a Conciliation Commissioner and the time within which an application for leave to appeal against the order or award under section thirty-one a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1952 has not expired, that section continues to apply to that order or award as if the Principal Act had not been amended by this Act. “ (4.) Expressions used in this section have the same respective meanings as they have in Part Xa. of the Principal Act as amended by this Act.”.
Title agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments ; report - by leave - adopted.
Third Beading.
Motion (by Mr. Holt) - by leave - proposed -
That the bill be now read a third time.
– This bill is very complicated, and the difficulties associated with the consideration of it have been enhanced by the fact that consultation with the trade unions have been delayed, with the result that amendments have been left to a very late stage. Some of the amendments that have been made to the bill represent definite concessions to the views put forward by the Opposition. I am deeply indebted to the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) and the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) for having put forward the Opposition’s case, and to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) for his courtesy. However, the bill remains very objectionable to us in many respects, and, therefore, we shall oppose the motion for the third reading.
Question put -
That the bill be now read a third time.
The House divided. (Mr. Speaker. - Hon. Archie Cameron.)
AYES: 56
NOES: 27
Majority . . . . 29
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
page 4342
The following hills were returned from the Senate without amendment : -
Defence Bill 1952.
Superannuation Bill 1952.
page 4342
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
In committee: Consideration of Senate’s amendments.
Clause 5 (Regulations).
Senate’s AmendmentNo. 1. - Leave out subclause (2.), insert the following sub-clauses: - “ (2.) Without limiting the generality of the power to make regulations conferred by the last preceding sub-section, the regulations which may be made under that sub-section, include regulations for or in relation to -
Clause 6 (Orders).
Senate’s Amendment No. 2. - Leave out subclause (1.), insert the following sub-clause: - “ (1.) The regulations may empower a person -
– I move -
That the amendments be agreed to.
The amendments are those which I promised yesterday to have introduced in another place in order to give effect to representations that were made by honorable members opposite. The amendments have the full concurrence of the permanent committee of the Australian Port Authorities Association. If there is any point that honorable members consider should he explained, it may be brought forward for discussion.
– Who are the Australian port authorities to whom the measure has referred ?
– The Australian Port Authorities Association is an association of port authorities from each State of the Commonwealth. They are State instrumentalities.
– The Opposition’s only interest in this bill is to ensure that there should be expedition with complete safety in the handling of explosives. We suggested that the Government should seek cooperation with the State authorities that deal with similar matters. As the Ministed pointed out during the committee stages of the bill, he has been in consultation with port authorities and that they, with some exceptions, were agreeable to our proposals. The Minister indicated yesterday that his colleague in another place proposed to introduce the amendments. The amendments seem to be reasonable, and to give effect to the principles that the Opposition enunciated yesterday. The Minister’s consultation might more properly have been made with State governments or the State ministers who control explosives. However, perhaps the conclusion reached would have been the same because the Minister has consulted with State port authorities who have apparently put forward the same views as State ministers would have put forward. The Opposition accepts the amendments.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Resolution reported; report adopted.
page 4343
Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) agreed to -
That leave of absence be given to every member of the House nf Representatives from the determination of this sitting of thu House to thedate of its next sitting.
page 4343
Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) proposed -
That the House, at its rising, adjourn to a date and hourto be fixed by Mr. Speaker, which time of meeting shall be notified by Mr. Speaker to each member by telegram or letter.
– The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J, Harrison) has not been sufficiently explicit. What date and hour are to be fixed by Mr. Speaker? I should appreciate it if the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) would answer that question. Will it be in March, February or January ? I have no doubt that the Ides of March will come to this Government, but I am thinking of March, February, or January of 1953.
– Is the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) casting himself in the role of Brutus ?
– No, because unlike Caesar, I am not ambitious; and Caesar was killed for being ambitious. Like Marc Antony, I have not come to praise anybody. Would the Prime Minister inform honorable members when the House is to assemble again, because the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) and myself have many engagements to fulfil?
– The answer is, early in February. Is that not disappointing to the honorable member?
– In one way it is, but in another it is not because if honorable members are to meet in February the Opposition will have quite a long period in which to expose the inefficiency of the Government to the people of Australia.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 4343
– I move -
That the House do now adjourn.
As the House will now adjourn until after Christmas it is fitting that I should make some acknowledgments. We are adjourning at the end of a year of very long sittings. The amount of work that has been done by honorable . members of both sides of the House, during this year’s sittings, has been quite remarkable. One pays no undue attention to figures, but in the course of this year’s sittings the House has dealt with no less than 109 bills. As the yearly average since the inception of federation is 53 bills, it will be seen that this has been a very heavy legislative programme. This year’s sittings have also been quite remarkable for the fact that in the course of them we have lost no less than four colleagues from this Parliament - Mr. Hughes, Mr. Lazzarini, Mr. Eggins, and Mr. Ryan - all of whom were very well known and all of whom have been spoken about with feeling by honorable members.
I offer the thanks of the House to you, Mr. Speaker, to the Chairman of Committees, the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, the Clerks of the House, the Hansard staff, the officials of the House generally and the press for their usual services to this Parliament. I desire to add a particular word to those who have managed the refreshment-rooms and who have served honorable members in that way.
– What about the barber?
– De mortuis nil nisi bonum! I should like to say that this year in the Parliament we have had what was, I think on the whole, a novel departure. One of my colleagues, the VicePresident of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) has been Leader of the House, and the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has been his opposite number, for the purpose of organizing the business of the House. All of us who have experience of this place know that if the work is to be got through with the minimum, or maximum - I am never too sure which it is - number of closures, with a trifle of “ guillotine “ thrown in occasionally - but all with mutual goodwill and understanding - it is important to have a sensible arrangement between both sides of the House. I thank the VicePresident of the Executive Council and the honorable member for Melbourne for the useful and friendly co-operation that they have shown in this matter. It is quite true that when the axe- has fallen, there have been threats uttered from the other side; but those of us on this side of the chamber, who are a little long in the tooth, seem to remember that we ourselves protested more violently in our day in Opposition.
– t’was ever thus.
– And it will ever thus be.
Although it is a little early to offer Christmas and New Year greetings, I express such greetings to honorable members now because we shall not be meeting again until after Christmas. I express the hest wishes of the Government and of myself to all honorable members for a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. We have had very strenuous debates in the course of this sessional period, but on balance we go away from this place with a great deal of political hostility but also, I am happy to say, with a great deal of real personal friendship.
– I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in his expression of good wishes and thanks. In this respect, I mention the Clerk of the House and his officers, whose service has always been so efficient, the members of the staff of the House generally, and of the staffs of Hansard, the refreshment rooms, and the Library, and members of the press and broadcasting staffs. I also join with the Prime Minister in thanking not only the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) and my colleague, the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), but also the Whips of the three parties for their cooperation. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has done a remarkable job. He holds, perhaps, the Australian, Olympic and world record for the most frequent application of the gag in the shortest period of time.
– The right honorable gentleman might as well describe them as whips and scorpions.
– I regret having to delay the House at this hour, but if it had not been for the action of the VicePresident of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) in gagging the debate on the motion for the adjournment so often in recent weeks, I should not have been impelled to rise at this juncture. I direct the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to the case of an exserviceman, a Mr. Young,, who, it is alleged, failed to disclose to the Repatriation Department the full value, of the assets that had been held by his wife and himself, and who was proceeded against by the department recently and compelled to pay to that department the sum of £608 15s. lOd. This exserviceman is nearly 70 years of age. He has no worldly possessions in his own right. All the assets that I have mentioned belong to the wife. His wife had been bequeathed by her father 334 shares in the firm of Tooth and Company Limited. ‘ She was a very dominant woman, and insisted that the shares belonged .to her solely. Indeed, she adopted so obstinate an attitude in the matter, that in a will which she made in 1946 she bequeathed the shares not to her husband but to her niece and nephew. In October of last year, Mrs. Young applied for an age pension at the age of 63 years. She had not applied for an age pension when she reached the age of 60 years because she had been informed that she could not qualify for a pension because she possessed the shares that I have mentioned. However, on making .inquiries through the Department of Social Services she was informed that it was not the market value, which was considerably higher, but the face value of the shares that was taken into account in computing her means. She then applied for an age pension. The Repatriation Department then discovered that in 1945 Mr. Young had failed to disclose that his wife held these shares at that time and it contended that he must repay an amount of £608 15s. lOd. that he had received in pension. The department failed to give details of its calculation of that sum. This man has been deprived of a repatriation pension since he returned from World War I., although he has been an invalid for the greater part of the intervening period. Prom 1920 to 1948 he was under medical treatment for a neurotic complaint.
This couple has been obliged to live on an income of only £.150 a year. In April of this year I wrote to the Repatriation Department and requested that it give consideration to the restoration of Mr. Young’s pension at the rate of £2 ls. 3d. a week which had been suspended in October. The Deputy Commissioner .replied acknowledging my representations. When .1 was obliged to write again to the department in June of this year seeking further information, the department promised that it would furnish such information. However, I heard nothing further about the matter until Mr. Young himself came to me and showed me three summonses that the department had issued against him for the recovery of the sum -that I have mentioned. Since 1945 this exserviceman had received a pension at the rate of only £2 ls. 3d. a fortnight, or approximately £53 a year, and his wife since 1951 had received a pension at the rate of £1 19s. 3d. a fortnight, making their combined income from pension £104 a year, plus a sum of £50 which the wife received as dividend in respect of the brewery shares. Their combined income is approximately £212 less than the combined pension which they should be receiving to-day. In view of that fact will the Prime Minister give consideration to restoring Mr. Young’s pension to him. This couple has paid the sum of £608 that the Repatriation Department demanded. I urge the Prime Minister to see that the pensions to which this couple are entitled are restored to them and also that an examination be made to ascertain how the Repatriation Department arrived at the sum which it claimed from Mr. Young. I ask the right honorable gentleman to give consideration also to the possibility that the pensions were not paid to this couple at correct rates. The only people who, it can be said, have been defrauded in this instance have been Mr. and Mrs. Young, because they received only £1,142 for the sale of their Tooth and Company Limited shares and, at the same time, they have paid to the Repatriation Department the sum of £608 15s. lOd. Had they been allowed to spend the value of the shares at the rate of £3 a week each during the years from 1945 to the present time, they would have been better off financially. I appeal to the Prime Minister to have an inquiry made with a view to the restoration of the pensions to Mr. and Mrs. Young and also the restoration of a percentage of the sum of £608 in order to enable them to enjoy some degree of comfort instead of being obliged to live on the breadline.
– I shall ask the Minister for Repatriation to investigate personally the matter that the honorable member has raised.
– Some months ago the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is composed entirely of Government members, recommended in a report that it furnished to the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) that the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) be asked to examine the joint declaration of the preparatory peace conference at Peking with a view to ascertaining whether certain Australians in signing that declaration had been guilty of sedition, or treason. On the 8th October, I asked the Minister for External Affairs whether he would recognize that the continued lack of action on that report or of an announcement in respect of the matter perpetuated a smear on several Australians, one of whom was a constituent of mine. The Minister replied that the Attorney-General had not yet reported to him on the matter and that he, himself, would discuss it with his colleague in order to see whether he could supply further information at an early date. It is absolutely wrong that the Parliament should go into recess and allow this threat to hang over the heads of these Australian citizens. The Minister for External Affairs should take action immediately to clarify this matter.
– (Hon. Archie Cameron). - I thank the Clerks, the Serjeant-at-Arms, the chamber attendants, and the members of the Hansard staff for the services that they have given me during this year. I am also deeply indebted to the party Whips for their kindly, though unobtrusive co-operation. Only on seldom occasions was I furnished with a list of projected speakers which was not altered within a period of a few minutes. However, such incidents added to the variety of the situation in which I am placed. I am also indebted to all other officers of the House, including the members of the staffs of the Library and of the refreshment rooms for the services that they have given to the Parliament during the year. I take this opportunity, although it may be somewhat premature to do so, to wish all honorable members a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. This sessional period has been happier for me for the reason that I have been relieved of the responsibility of naming any honorable member and ejecting him from the House.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 4346
The following papers were presented : -
Parliamentary Accounts_ Special Report by the Auditor-General, dated 30th October, 1952.
Ordered to lie on the table.
Conciliation and Arbitration Act -
Annual Report by the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, for year ended the 30th September, 1952.
Annual Report by Chief Conciliation Commissioner, for year ended the 7th September, 1 952.
Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Industrial Property) Regulations - Order - Inventions and designs.
Public Service Act - Appointments - Department of National Development - E. M. Bennett, J. B. Firman, R. A. Searl.
Public Service Arbitration Act - Determinations - 1952 -
No. 69 - Transport Workers’ Union of Australia.
No. 70 - Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia.
Science and Industry Research Act - Fourth Annual Report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, for year 1951-52.
Tariff Board Act - Tariff Board - Annual Report for year 1951-52, together with Summary of Recommendations.
House adjourned at 12.45 a.m. (Thursday). .
page 4346
The following answers to questions were circulated: -
r asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
d asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -
Government Loans and Finance.
– On the 30th October, in reply to a question without notice on the net increase in the treasury- bills issue since 1st July, 1952, I advised the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition that I would obtain accurate information on the matter.- I now inform the right honorable gentleman that the net monthly variations in treasury-bills on issue for Commonwealth purposes since 1st July, 1952, have been as follows : -
The total increase in treasury-bills on issue from the 1st July to the 31st October, 1952, was therefore £60,000,000.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The Minister for Trade and Customs has furnished the following answers to the honorable member’s questions: -
National Service.
d asked the Minister for
Labour and National Service, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1. (a) Navy - nil. Air Force - two (both motor cycle accidents when proceeding between home and place of duty). Army - no national service trainees have lost their lives as a result of accidents whilst undergoing training. However, four have died as a result of accidents whilst on leave. (6) Navy - 35 (including one whose “prior to entry” disability recurred). Air Force - ninecases involving payment of compensation have been reported. There may have been others not regarded as serious enough to report and not involving compensation, e.g., no loss of civilian earnings. Army - 162 national service trainees have suffered accidents which have resulted in compensation being approved, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. There have been other injuries such as fractures, cuts, abrasions and sprains which have necessitated hospitalization or treatment at unit regimental aid posts, but which have not involved compensation. (c) Navy - nil. Air Force - nil. Army - two. (d) Navy - one trainee has been discharged as medically unfit as a result of illness contracted during his training and two others were discharged owing to illnesses present prior to entry. Air Force - 24 trainees have been discharged medically unfit for service. All of these were discharged on account of disabilities which existed prior to their entry. Army - 97 national service trainees have been discharged as medically unfit as a result of being medically boarded for a variety of reasons. (Not all of these would have been discharged as the result of illness occurring during training.)
d asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
;CONNOR asked the Minister acting for the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
Telephone SERVICES
r asked the Minister acting for the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
Rail Transport.
k. - On the 21st October, the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) asked a question concerning refrigeration for perishable foodstuffs on the Central Australia Railway. The Minister for Shipping and Transport has supplied the following answer: -
Ice-cooled insulated vans are at present in use on the Central Australia Railway for the conveyance of perishable goods. Three vans run from Terowie on the South Australian system loaded with fruit, vegetables, small goods, &c, and one van is used to convey mainly kegged beer from Port Augusta. Meat, butter and smallgoods, te., for stations Quorn to Oodnadatta are carried in portable iceboxes. Perishables for consignees at the Leigh Creek . coal-field are conveyed by a South Australian railways ice-cooled van twice weekly from Fort Pirie to Telford via Peterborough and Quorn. These services are adequate for the amount of traffic offering and the vans and ice-boxes arrive at their destinations with enough ice to ensure satisfactory preservation of their contents. It is realized, of course, that mechanically refrigerated cars would provide a better standard of service and the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner is examining this proposal to determine whether the traffic offering could justify the expense of providing vans of this type. His inquiries are not yet complete but the honorable member may be assured that if the provision of such vans is found to be warranted they will be provided in due course.
– On the 23rd October, the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. Johnson) asked a question concerning the standardization of the gauge between Kalgoorlie and Perth. The Minister for Shipping and Transport has supplied the following answer: -
The question of the future standardization of various railway systems and the order of priority is a matter that is under active consideration from time to time. A decision for any extension of standardization depends on the availability of finance, men and materials and loan market prospects. The only decisions made so far are Stirling North to Leigh Creek coal-field and 158 miles from Wolseley to Mount Gambier under railway standardization scheme.
d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -
– The Minister for Repatriation has supplied the following information: - ,
s asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
e asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice - 1, What is the approximate number of eucalyptus distillers in each State? 2, What has been the production of eucalyptus oil in each State during each of the last five years f 3, How much of this oil is [a) used in Australia and (f>) exported? 4, What has been the price received by the distillers for oil (a) used in Australia and (6) exported? 5, How much eucalyptus oil has been imported into Australia during each of the last five years? fi. What has been the cost per lb. of imported oil ?
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 It is not practicable to determine the exact number of distillers in each State, as the number varies greatly from time to time, but it is estimated that there would be between 200 to 300 field distillers actively engaged in the whole of Australia at the present time. During a peak period, such as was experienced about twelve months ago, this number would probably rise to about 3,000.
The figures for the last three years are not yet available but annual total production can be estimated in vicinity of 200,000 gallons. 3. (a) Australian consumption for the three years 1948-1950 averaged 94,884 gallons. (6) Exports for the five years ending 1951, averaged 129,500 gallons. 4. (a-) The price received by the distillers for oil varies according to the typo of oil distilled and, up till late in 1949, when price fixing was lifted, the prices were as follows: - ls. 9d.-3s. Gd. per lb. for medicinal iil; 2s. ld.- 2s. 2d. per lb. for industrial oil; 6s. 6d.-25s. per lb. for perfumery oil. Since that period the price has been subject to great fluctuations and for medicinal oils the price, at times, has reached 6s. 9d’. per lb., and for industrial oils has reached 7e. per lb. (6) the average export price for oil in 1947-48 was 4s. 4.4d. per lb. and for 1948-49 was 3s. 7.4d. per lb., but, as there is no means of determining how much of this export oil was medicinal and how much was industrial, no average price for industrial or medicinal oil can be estimated.
n asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -
– The Minister for National Development has furnished the following answers to the honorable member’s questions: -
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 November 1952, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1952/19521105_reps_20_220/>.