House of Representatives
14 May 1958

22nd Parliament · 3rd Session



Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1755

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH INSCRIBED STOCK

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– By way of preface to a question which I address to the Treasurer, may I explain that for some time it has been a practice of the Commonwealth Bank, and possibly of other banks, to advise people who hold maturing bonds to convert them into Commonwealth inscribed stock, without explaining to the people concerned that in the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act it is provided that, consequent upon the death of the owner of inscribed stock, probate of the will must be taken out before the transfer of the stock can be effected if the amount is more than £100, whereas, in the case of bonds, the limit would be £400. Will the Treasurer look at this matter and, if the facts are as related by me to the Parliament, will he take action to have the act amended so as to give to the holders of Commonwealth inscribed stock the right to transfer by will amounts under £400 without taking out probate?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The information conveyed by the honorable member for Hindmarsh has not been brought under my notice before. I know of no such difficulties as those to which he has referred. However, I shall have the whole matter inquired into and see the extent to which his request can be met.

page 1755

QUESTION

LEBANON

Mr OPPERMAN:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for External Affairs any information about the rioting in the Lebanon, and its origin? Is there anything that we can do to help, apart, of course, from the inevitable offer of mediation by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP

– If one were to speak, as one has to speak, quite frankly, one would say that there is little or nothing that Australia, or, for that matter, any other country can do to help in the grave civil disturbance in the Lebanon. I do not believe that even the mediation of the Leader of the Opposition could affect this situation. I am asked what are the probable origins of this disturbance. It is fairly obvious where the impetus of this civil disturbance has come from. It is a movement against the Chamoun-Sami El-Solh Government of the Lebanon, which attempts to hold a reasonable balance between its Arab neighbours and the West. This is clearly an anti-West movement, started, I have no doubt, by agents provocateurs and troublemakers generally, probably with some money at their disposal from sources that one can only guess. Civil disturbance is something that is quite easily started, particularly, I would think, in places such as the Middle East. I personally had experience of civil disturbance on a considerable scale in the Lebanon, although the origins and motives of it were entirely different from those in the present trouble. At that time I had a great deal of contact with the present President of the Lebanon, Camille Chamoun, and the present Prime Minister, Sami El-Solh, who were holding high public office in the Lebanon fifteen years ago. I extend my sincere sympathy to Camille Chamoun and Sami El-Solh in the grievous situation they are now facing.

page 1755

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question, addressed to the Prime Minister, is supplementary to a question that he answered yesterday about airlines. Is there any truth in the report that is current that Trans-Australia Airlines will not be allowed to buy the French Caravelle jet aircraft unless and until such time as Ansett-A.N.A. decides to use the same aircraft? If that is the Government’s decision, how does the Prime Minister expect open competition between these two airlines if T.A.A. is to be denied its progressive right to buy the planes that it wants and that are best suited to meet Australian requirements?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I have nothing to add to what I said in my previous answer. I have had a conference with the chairman of Trans-Australia Airlines and Mr. Ansett, the managing director of Ansett-A.N.A. The discussion covered the whole field of equipment for the airlines. The discussion was designed to bring about not unfair competition, but a degree of competition that was regarded by both airlines as fair. The two airlines are now discussing the matter. I do not propose to cut across their discussions or to stand in the way of some proper arrangement or agreement between them by saying anything further at this stage.

page 1756

QUESTION

SORGHUM

Mr ADERMANN:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Primary Industry. I understand that application has been made to the Department of Trade by importing interests for permission to import considerable quantities of grain sorghum into Australia, and that it is the normal practice for that department to seek advice on such matters from the Department of Primary Industry. As the harvesting of the Australian sorghum crop is just commencing, will the Minister give an assurance that no recommendation for a permit will be made to the Department of Trade, and will he further assure the Australian growers that their market will not be taken from them merely to please the merchant importer who has made the application?

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Primary Industry · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– It is quite true that the Minister for Trade refers to my department for consideration these applications for import licences for primary products. At the present time it is not clear just what the Australian production of grain sorghum will be. It may be 2,000,000 bushels, which will be substantially down on last year’s crop. As the honorable member has said, applications have been made for import licences but the requests have been stood over pending clarification of what the Australian crop will be. I assure the honorable member that in the making of recommendations the interests of Australian primary producers are always foremost in our minds.

page 1756

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to you, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as chairman of the Joint House Committee. Is it a fact that Parliament House is closed to the general public in the mornings of Sundays and certain public holidays? Is it also a fact that the closing of Parliament House on these mornings causes grave disappointment and inconvenience to many tourists who desire to inspect the House? If this is so, will you, Sir, undertake to have this matter discussed at the next meeting of the Joint House Committee so that the increasing number of tourists visiting Canberra may be able to inspect the House at a time most suitable to their itinerary?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Parliament House is under the joint control of the Presiding Officers, who co-operate with the Joint House Committee in their administration. I will have inquiries made into the question raised by the honorable member, and will acquaint him of the result-

page 1756

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

Award of Scholarships

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for External Affairs in his capacity as Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Has that organization considered providing scholarships in science for undergraduates studying at Australian universities to match and complement those which it already provides for graduate students of high ability? In view of the fact that Commonwealth scholarships are largely whittled away, by either the means test or the loss of tax deductions for education expenses in the case of many, if not most, families, does the Minister not think that scholarships of the kind that I have suggested would provide a very useful stimulus to the teaching of science in the schools? If the C.S.I.R.O. has not considered the matter, will the Minister look into it?

Mr CASEY:
LP

– The Commonwealth Government, through the Universities Commission, already gives a very large number - I think it is some thousands - of scholarships from school to university. I understand that, as a consequence of the Murray report, the commission is considering a recommendation to the Government to increase the number of those scholarships, and also to liberalize the means test. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, at the present time, provides a number of scholarships for science graduates who wish to undertake research work, and also a certain number of scholarships to enable graduates with good science passes to undertake a year or so of academic research work before going on to serious and practical research work. In addition, the organization gives scholarships to overseas universities to a limited number - I think about twenty a year - of particularly brilliant science students on the understanding that they will come back and work in the organization for a stated period subsequently. I cannot say that the precise matter that the honorable gentleman asks about is under consideration at this moment, except to the extent that I have already indicated.

page 1757

QUESTION

DEFENCE LAND AT RANDWICK

Mr CURTIN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– ls the Minister for Defence aware that the Randwick Municipal Council, in New South Wales, has expressed strong disapproval of the Defence Department’s retention of 1,000 acres of valuable building land in the Randwick municipality worth at least £30,000,000? If he is aware of this matter, can he indicate when the department intends to vacate this property and hand it back to the State Government? Does the Minister realize that there are thousands of ex-servicemen and civilians awaiting the opportunity to obtain blocks of land on which to build homes? Further, has the Minister been advised that the property has now become a defence hazard in view of its proximity to oil refineries and other industrial establishments?

Sir PHILIP McBRIDE:
Minister for Defence · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I think that the honorable member indicated that he had been somewhat misled when he said that the Defence Department has land at Randwick.

Mr Curtin:

– Defence departments.

Sir PHILIP McBRIDE:

– The honorable member said “ Defence Department “. I assume that the properties concerned are under the control of my colleague, the Minister for the Army, to whom I will refer the question.

page 1757

QUESTION

RADIO-ACTIVITY

Mr STOKES:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Health whether he is aware of the recently expressed concern of the Health Commission of Victoria in respect of the increase in radio-activity hazards. While it is true that Western Australia and New South Wales have taken action to control this hazard, such control does not affect doctors or dentists. In view of the dangers, particu larly of gonadal radiation, will the Minister consider taking action in conjunction with the States to introduce overall legislation to control the use of all radio-active substances and, in particular, the operation of X.-ray units in both the medical and commercial fields? In the former field, many medical and dental practitioners operate units although they are without proper training or qualifications, and in the latter field, especially with regard to shoe-fitting fluoroscopes, apparently operators have no qualifications or training whatsoever.

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I do not think the impression should be given that, because doctors and dentists use X-rays for diagnosis, they are, therefore, unskilled and unaware of the dangers attending excessive radiation. It would be a great pity if we were to form the idea that the use of X-rays in diagnosis should be abandoned. The honorable gentleman, I am sure, will appreciate that it is the prerogative of State governments to lay down conditions under which the operation of X-ray machines and other machines using radio-activity can be carried on in the States. Some time ago, the National Health and Medical Research Council drew up a model radio-active substances act and circulated it to all State governments. Four of the States have now passed acts in accordance with the model act circulated by the council. The two States that have not yet done so are Victoria and Queensland, but I have no reason to believe that they will not do so.

Mr Stokes:

– That is only for commercial use.

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– No, it is not only for commercial use. In the Australian Capital Territory, the Commonwealth Government has already taken action which it considers appropriate for the control of the use of radio-active substances.

page 1757

QUESTION

INCOME TAX LAWS

Mr GALVIN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Treasurer aware that the honorable member for Parramatta, who is at present in London, has expressed an opinion that a section of the Australian Income Tax Act is meaningless? Will the Treasurer request the learned member on his return to place before this House his reasons for such opinion, so that the Parliament which pays him his allowance can benefit from his knowledge of this act? Further, does the Minister not agree that a member of this House, if he is aware of a faulty section of the Income Tax Act, or any other act of Parliament, should bring the matter under the notice of the Parliament, and not use such knowledge in the interests of wealthy companies which are attempting to avoid their obligations to pay income tax?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– People who think that our laws are incorrectly interpreted have the right to have their opinions defended and to have their views put forward. The legal profession exists for that purpose, amongst others, and the judiciary is established to arbitrate on such matters. What the honorable member for Parramatta said during the course of the Privy Council case in London will, of course, be considered, as will all the representations made during the hearing and the decision arising from them.

page 1758

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask a question of the Leader of the Opposition relating to his statements on television last Sunday, in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, in which he replied to charges that his leadership was too complacent towards Communism. This constituted quite a new approach, as he has been in the Federal Parliament since 1940-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member’s question is out of order.

Mr Wentworth:

– I rise to order. The right honorable gentleman spoke of his leadership in this House. His statement was made in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition in this House and was expressed as being in relation to his leadership. Would not that put the question in order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. The question is out of order.

page 1758

QUESTION

TRADE WITH CHINA

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Trade. Has the Chinese trade delegation which is now in Australia come to this country at the invitation of the Commonwealth Government? Does the Minister intend to have trade discussions with the delegation, or is the Government intent on leaving trade relations with continental China on a pro ducer-purchaser basis? Will the Minister consider sending a trade mission to continental China to investigate trade requirements and to ascertain what commodities are available in that country for export to Australia? Further, will the Minister consider appointing as members of such a trade mission two reliable and unbiased members of this House, the honorable member for Mackellar and the honorable member for Moreton?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– The so-called mission from continental China which is reported to be in Australia at present is not here at the invitation of the Australian Government. The mission - I use the term only because it has been freely used elsewhere - consists, I understand, of a number of representatives of the Government of China, which is a State-controlled trading country. The mission is here, I believe, for the purpose of ascertaining what Australian products are available for export which the Chinese Government would be interested in purchasing. At the same time, I gather, it will take advantage of the opportunity to try to interest Australian purchasers in Chinese export products. The attitude of the Australian Government is that it is not concerned with this mission as a mission. The Government looks upon it as a group of persons who have been validly authorized to come to Australia in connexion with trade. I will just say that if these persons approach the Department of Trade on matters of fact relating to trade, they will be given appropriate answers, in the same way as any one else would. No Australian mission will be sent to China for the purpose of investigating trade. There is a wide range of our products that can be and is being freely sold to China, including greasy wool, wool tops and grain - when available. There are other products that may be sold upon the procurement of special permits.

Mr Calwell:

– Did we not send a trade commission to China recently?

Mr McEWEN:

– I will answer that in a moment. Australian citizens and traders can, of their own volition, go to China, and some of them have gone to China. From those visits increased trade has resulted, particularly in wool and wool tops. As was publicly stated by me about eighteen months ago, there is an Australian trade commissioner in Hong Kong, and he was invited by the Chinese Government to go to Peking and speak to representatives of that Government.

Dr Evatt:

– Is there still a trade commissioner in Hong Kong? Is there one in China?

Mr McEWEN:

– Let me finish my answer to the Deputy Leader. This trade commissioner did go to Peking, and an exchange of information took place - no more and no less. There is an Australian trade commissioner in Hong Kong, and trade can be transacted between Australia and Communist China in some items, as I have said, without restriction. With regard to other items no business can be done. As to the third category of items, it is possible to do business if permission is obtained. Permission is given or withheld by the Department of External Affairs in accordance with the policy of the Government after that department has consulted the Department of Trade.

Dr EVATT:

– I ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Trade. The Minister has told us that there is an Australian trade commissioner in Hong Kong. If that trade commissioner’s function is to encourage trade, within the limits stated by the Minister, between China and Australia, would it not be preferable, and much more convenient to both sides, to have an Australian trade commissioner appointed to China direct?

Mr McEWEN:

– There is no occasion for the appointment of an Australian trade commissioner to China. I think it is well known that there is to-day, for the reasons I have just stated, quite ample opportunity for the exploitation of trade opportunities in those items in which we are prepared to trade.

page 1759

QUESTION

MURRAY VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Primary Industry co-operate in every way possible with the Murray Valley Development League in its aim for increased settlement and full production in the fertile Murray valley?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– One day this week, representatives of the development authority to which the honorable member has referred interviewed me, and I suggested that they meet officers of the Department of Primary Industry so that their representations could be considered. This afternoon I have a report on my table on the discussions between them, with certain recommendations. As soon as I have read them and made a decision, 1 will convey those decisions to the honorable gentleman.

page 1759

QUESTION

SALK VACCINE

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– 1 direct a question to the Minister for Health in relation to an announcement that the United Kingdom has now become a large purchaser of Salk vaccine. Evidence of this was contained in the recent purchase by the United Kingdom of nine tons of untested vaccine from the United States of America. Will the Minister inform the House whether the United Kingdom consulted the Commonwealth Department of Health as to whether it was in a position to supply quantities of the vaccine either immediately or over a period of time? Is it not possible for our Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to enter this trade as the only producers of vaccine in Australia? If the laboratories are not prepared to engage in this export trade with other Commonwealth countries, will they assist private enterprise to engage in this important overseas trade?

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The United Kingdom Government has made no approaches to the department under my administration for the supply of Salk vaccine and, in fact, until very recently, we would not have been in a position to supply sufficient vaccine for export. The other part of the honorable gentleman’s question concerned the granting of assistance to private enterprise in the matter to which he has referred. So far as I am aware, no private enterprise firm has had any desire to manufacture Salk vaccine in Australia. I presume that any assistance such firms required from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories would be scientific assistance in the manufacture of the vaccine. I have no doubt that if this were asked for, it would be forthcoming.

page 1759

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to you, Mr. Speaker. Is it a fact that the Treasurer and the Minister for Defence propose to retire from the Parliament in the near future? Is it also a fact that two other Ministers, the Attorney-General and-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question does not refer to a matter that is under my Control. Therefore, it is out of order.

page 1760

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Mr LINDSAY:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for External Affairs any further information to give to the House about the transfer of the American Wilkes Land base to Australia?

Mr CASEY:
LP

– Nc facts are available other than the statements that I have already made in this House on this subject except that Mr. P. G. Law, Director of the Antarctic Division of the Department of External Affairs, and an accompanying officer will be going to Washington, and the United States of America more generally, in the course of the next few days in order to go into the many details connected with the take-over by the Australian Government of the American Wilkes Land base. The matter is too complicated to be dealt with by correspondence, but it can be handled expeditiously, I think, in a fortnight’s trip by Mr. Law.

page 1760

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr DALY:

– I raise a point of order. I now find, Mr. Speaker, that the question which you stated could not be asked comes within the scope of the Prime Minister’s administration.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will resume his seat.

page 1760

QUESTION

BRITISH IMMIGRANTS

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Immigration. Is it a fact that in an address to the eleventh annual meeting of the United Kingdom Services and Ex-Services Welfare Association, .the president of that organization, LieutenantCommander Goss, said -

Many recently arrived British migrants were being gaoled for vagrancy because they had run out of money and could not find jobs. . . .

The Commonwealth Government might be better advised to provide work and homes for migrants already here than encourage another 115,000 to come out every year.

In view of the serious state of affairs to which Lieutenant-Commander Goss directed attention, will the Minister state what action is proposed to correct this position?

Mr DOWNER:
Minister for Immigration · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am not aware of the address to which the honorable member for East Sydney alludes. My own information is that the rate of employment of migrants from the United Kingdom- is. on the whole extremely satisfactory, and I do not think that the honorable member or anybody else need have much worry on that account. I shall inquire into the honorable member’s allegations and see whether they have any substance, but somehow or other, Sir, I doubt whether’ they have.

page 1760

QUESTION

POINT COOK FLYING TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr GRAHAM:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Air. I understand that to-day, for the last time, the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Scherger, is presenting pilots’ brevets, or “ wings “, to graduates of the flying training school at Point Cook. Does this mean that Point Cook will cease to be the home of the Royal Australian Air Force, in the sense that it has been the place where permanent service pilots have been trained since the days of the Australian Flying Corps? You will recall, Sir, that a distinguished former member of this Parliament was in command of the first half-flight of the Australian Flying Corps that left Australian shores in World War I. I refer to the late Group-Captain White.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honorable member’s premises are in part correct, but, I am glad to say, in part, not correct. It is true that the Chief of the Air Staff is to-day carrying out at Point Cook the ceremony of presenting pilots’ brevets to graduates of the Advanced Flying Training School, and that this is the last time that that ceremony will be held at Point Cook, but it is not true to say that Point Cook will cease to be a principal training establishment for future pilots of the Royal Australian Air Force. There are two distinct flying schools in the Air Force. One is the R.A.A.F. College, where cadets are trained over a period of four years. The other is the Advanced Flying Training School, where direct entrants for advanced flying training are trained over a period of about one year. As I announced some time ago, the Advanced Flying Training School will move later this year from Point Cook to Pearce, in Western Australia, where there are adequate facilities for carrying out final training in jet aircraft. The R.A.A.F. College will remain at Point Cook. There is no plan that it shall move from that area, which I know is of very great sentimental - perhaps I should more properly say “ traditional “ - importance to members and past members of the Air Force.

page 1761

QUESTION

PRIVATE MAIL BAGS

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I direct to the PostmasterGeneral a question in relation to the security measures applied to the private mail bag system throughout the Commonwealth. Does the department, in fact, adopt a common policy in all States in regard to this matter? If not, will the Minister issue instructions that all private mail bags for delivery shall be properly secured before distribution?

Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I understand that there is a common policy throughout the department for the handling of private mail bags, and that it is the policy, of course, that they shall be properly secured. However, if the honorable gentleman states that he has instances which show that that is not being done, I should like him to let me have details and I shall look into them.

page 1761

QUESTION

MEAT

Mr BRIMBLECOMBE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry, is in relation to the recent upward trend in beef prices on the United Kingdom market. I ask the Minister: What is the cause of the price increase? Are these price moves likely to have any effect on this year’s negotiations to fix forward minimum prices under the fifteenyear meat agreement, in connexion with which he has approved a recommendation from the Australian Meat Board that it should send a delegation to London in the near future? Is the advent of the new government in the Argentine likely to affect in any way the future of the meat industry in that country?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I am glad to be able to say that there has been a marked upward movement in the price of frozen beef in the United Kingdom over the last eight weeks. I think that the price has increased by 6id. per lb. to 22d. sterling per lb. As to the second question, under the fifteenyear meat agreement Australia is guaranteed a satisfactory market, and open market prices must be taken into account when the prices for the three years of the scheme - 1961-1964 - are being negotiated. For this reason, 1 think that the honorable gentleman will agree with me that the increase in price of 6id. per lb. can only be of benefit to us.

On the third question, I cannot be precise, but I can say to the honorable gentleman that the recent reports we have had point to the possibility - perhaps even the probability - of substantial reductions in deliveries of Argentine beef. The authorities in the Argentine are becoming increasingly concerned about the large-scale slaughtering of animals, including a high percentage of breeding cattle. This must have an effect in the future. I think, therefore, that as a generalization I can say to the honorable gentleman that the Australian Meat Board looks at prospects to-day in a much more favorable light than it has for some months past.

page 1761

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA FORCES

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In the absence of the Minister for Territories and the Minister for the Army, I direct my question to the Minister for External Affairs. I ask the right honorable gentleman whether he will take up with the Minister for the Army the apparent need to correct the differential rates of pay between native and European army personnel serving in Papua and New Guinea. This position is revealed in yesterday’s “ Hansard “, in reply to a question on notice asked by my colleague, the honorable member for Wills. Is it correct that a native serving as a private is paid between £1 10s. and £9 15s. a month, while a European of the same rank is paid between £46 15s. and £60 2s. 6d. a month? Does this position-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is giving information. In addition, he is directing his question to the Minister for External Affairs, although the subjectmatter is not under the control of the Minister. It is therefore out of order.

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On a point of order, Sir, I put it to you that a question concerning a breach of the United Nations Charter might legitimately be directed to the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman must not canvass the ruling. He indicated himself that the question was directed to two Ministers who are not in attendance.

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– May I complete the question?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will resume his seat.

page 1762

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Immigration whether or not the United States of America represents a big field for immigrants of high quality for this country. I also ask the Minister whether there is any agreement, or substantial understanding, between the Australian Government and the Government of the United States relating to migration from the United States to Australia. What is the size of the Australian staff in the United States that is able to deal with applications for emigration? Is there a separate staff, or is it a part of the Consul-General’s staff or that of the Australian Ambassador? Is there any impediment to a substantial increase in the amount of subsidy for assisted passages for migrants from the United States to Australia?

Mr DOWNER:
LP

– Arrangements at present between ourselves and the United States are conducted through the Australian Embassy and the Australian ConsulGeneral in New York. We have not, as such, a separate immigration office in America. Since the honorable member himself was at one time in the Department of Immigration, he will realize that the United States is hardly what could be described as an emigration country. In other words, it is a nation which is more or less opening its arms to peoples from the more thickly populated parts of the world. So far, it has shown no particular desire to lose its own nationals to other countries - nationals who, as I say, it is so busily engaged, within degrees, in acquiring.

We have a system, probably known to the honorable member, called the general assisted passage scheme for nations such as America, Switzerland and certain

Scandinavian countries, under which the Australian Government contributes a sum of something short of £50 Australian which is equal to £37 10s. sterling, towards the cost of the passage of a person in America or those other countries who wishes to migrate to Australia. Beyond that, we have no agreement with the United States Government as such.

Whether it would be possible to proceed further usefully along these lines is a question which I, myself, will investigate and give some thought to. Naturally, Australia would welcome the arrival of technicians and skilled tradesmen from the United States. If they were the right type they could make an immeasurable contribution to our own know-how and production. However, I remind my honorable friend that these things cannot be easily arranged. Nonetheless I shall see whether we can stimulate, within reasonable proportions, American migration to this country.

page 1762

QUESTION

FREMANTLE WATERFRONT

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question to the Minister for Labour and National Service by saying that I have received a long list of names of ships together with details of their delays in Fremantle due to the condemnation of their cargo-handling gear by the Commonwealth department in Fremantle which is responsible for the safety of the handling gear in ships. My correspondent points out the large number of working hours which have been lost for this reason and asks why it is that in Fremantle, where there is very little industrial trouble but where many delays have been caused by this factor, the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority does not dwell on these causes of delay but dwells only on those which may be attributed to labour troubles on the waterfront.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I am aware that there have been delays of the kind mentioned by the honorable member. Such delays are not brought to my notice through the department because these matters come within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I think that is the explanation for the query which the honorable member has raised. As honorable members are aware, under legislation passed by this Parliament, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority is required to report each month on matters arising in the industry where, because of some fault on the part of the employers or some fault or alleged fault on the part of the employees, stoppages occur. The authority does so report each month. If it does not report on the particular type of matter to which the honorable member has referred, that is possibly because this subject is deemed to come within the other jurisdiction. However, I agree with him that if it is a factor making for unnecessary delay on the waterfront and to that extent does interfere with the hours of available work, then it should be brought into account.

I will take up the matter with the authority and see whether I can give the honorable member a more detailed answer.

page 1763

QUESTION

SUGAR CANE

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Will the Minister for Primary Industry say what action, if any, the Government is taking to assist in solving the long-standing problem of harvesting sugar cane mechanically? In particular, what has been the outcome of the trials last year of a harvester imported from Louisiana, the cost of which was, I believe, contributed to by the Commonwealth?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– Normally, the Australian sugar industry looks after its own research and extension activities; but some time ago an agreement was reached with the industry that the Commonwealth Government should contribute on a £l-for-£l basis towards the cost of the importation and development of mechanical equipment for harvesting purposes. One Louisiana harvester has been imported, and I understand that it has been successfully tested, though some parts of the design require adapting for Australian conditions. It is hoped, by this means, to get a machine which will be more suitable to Australian conditions. My own department also is developing an alternative type of mechanical harvester. I think the honorable gentleman would like to know that, by the end of this industry year, about £4,500 will have been contributed by the Commonwealth for this purpose.

page 1763

TAXATION REPORT

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– I lay on the table the following papers: -

Taxation - Thirty-sixth Report of the Commissioner of Taxation, dated 1st June, 1957, together with statistical appendices.

As a result of proceedings in the High Court in the McGrath case, it is not desirable that copies of the report shall be made available to honorable members or published until the Parliament has given the necessary authorization.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1763

NORTHERN TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Mr BLAND:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– As Chairman, I present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee: -

Thirty-seventh Report - Northern Territory Administration - Part II.

This report completes the investigation that the committee has been making into the administrative activities of the Northern Territory. A week or so ago, I had the privilege of bringing down Part I. of the report, which dealt with efforts to create legislative and administrative arrangements for the development of the Northern Territory. Honorable members will remember that it revealed the impermanence and instability of the governmental institutions of the Northern Territory prior to the creation by this Government of the Territories portfolio and the Department of Territories.

Part II. of the report deals with the methods and machinery that have been devised to facilitate the administration of the Territory. There are eleven branches under the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory Administration operating in the Territory. The committee, as it investigated the strictures of the Auditor-General upon the activities of the Territory, found a common thread running through all the branches of the organization. We found, for example, that there was inadequate and insufficient housing for public servants and their families. We found that there was sub-standard office accommodation, which seriously impaired the efficient and economical performance of the duties of officers. Partly because of this, and for other reasons, there was a persistent and irritating failure to get enough suitable employees to discharge the functions of the government of the Northern Territory.

Yesterday, the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) adumbrated his plans for the political development of the Territory. I need hardly inform the House that those plans will be thwarted unless a competent Public Service cadre is progressively developed. Whether we like it or not, while we retain the parliamentary system of government we are committed also to government by bureaucracy; and since bureaucracy influences everything that we do from the cradle to the grave, it is imperative that we should strive for an efficient bureaucracy. That the Territory lacks. Therefore, if the Territory is to progress towards the development that the Minister mentioned, it will be necessary to have a competent bureaucracy.

I refer honorable members to the appendices of our report. These appendices represent, probably, the most important part of the report. They will put members in possession of the facts which enabled us to come to the decisions that we reached. In Appendix No. 11 is a categorical statement of the difficulties that confronted the administration when it wanted to get an adequate staff to look after the internal auditing of the activities of the Territory. The internal audit is the key to the integrity of the financial and administrative structure. Yet it took more than a year to persuade the Public Service Board that it was necessary to have a man to carry out those activities. I would like particularly, therefore, that members should look at Appendix No. 11 to see something of the disabilities under which the Territory is labouring.

The present system, of course, is a heritage of the past, and the committee feels that nothing would be gained by condemning the deficiencies and inefficiencies that it found in the Territory. It is far more gratifying to turn to the sort of things that are being done to remedy those deficiencies. I think that the committee also felt that there was a growing realization on the part of the central departments that the conventional practices and procedures of administration are inappropriate when dealing with the Northern Territory. We have not attempted to map out a path that people might follow, but we have mentioned the obstructions that are in the path in the hope that they will soon be removed.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1764

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Index to Reports

Mr BLAND:

– As Chairman, I present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee: -

Thirty-eighth Report - Index to the First to Thirty-fourth Reports presented by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

This is a much more prosaic document than the one I have just presented. At the same time, it is an instrument that is indispensable in connexion with our work. Because of the ever-increasing flow of inquiries from throughout the Commonwealth and overseas as to what the committee was doing, we found it necessary to have a ready and effective reference to the work that the committee has been doing. We found that the answer to that was an index showing the activities of the committee over the last five years.

There is, first, an index of the reports that have been prepared, which are listed chronologically from the first to the thirtyfourth report. Then there is a reference in terms of the subject-matter. Let me take as an illustration an administrative arrangements order which was presented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) the other night. That is a subject which we have been discussing for the last five years, reminding the Government of the desirability of presenting such an order. One finds in the index the number of the report dealing with that subject. There are references to it also in the index of subjects discussed and in the index of departments.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1764

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1958

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8th May (vide page 1605), on motion by Mr. Harold Holt -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- At the outset I desire to direct attention to the rather significant attitude of the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) and the Government in not permitting adequate time for the proper discussion and consideration of important industrial legislation. The Minister repeatedly declares his great consideration for the requirements of industrial workers in this country, but here, in the last two days of a sessional period of this Parliament, one day is allotted to the debate on important amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and another day, to-morrow, will be allotted to the discussion of important matters dealing with the Navigation Act. One would imagine that this Parliament had been busily engaged since these sittings commenced and that honorable members have had no time to devote to these important measures. But the fact is that this Parliament staggered along in the last two or three weeks because the Government had no business whatever to transact. It had no business to place before Parliament. Honorable members will recollect that they were detained recently until the early hours of the morning discussing a measure dealing with Australian universities, which arose out of the Murray report. Not one honorable member opposed what was contained or recommended in that report. Yet we were all kept here until the early hours of the morning debating the legislation, and those honorable members who wanted to place their views on record were given opportunity to do so. There was no other purpose in prolonging that debate. Why was not the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, or the Navigation Bill, presented at that time so that honorable members could have a reasonable opportunity to debate and discuss them? However, the Minister did not see fit to do that.

Why does the Government want to rush this legislation through the House? The Minister would have us believe that it is unimportant and contains only a few inconsequential amendments. But when one examines the bill one finds a great deal more in it than that. No doubt the Minister was hoping that as the sessional period drew to a close honorable members would be eager to return to their electorates to attend to electoral matters, and that the legislation would slip through with little or no examination or comment. If honorable members care to examine the two measures I have mentioned they will find that they provide substantiation for the charge made by members of the Labour party that this Government is contriving for a head-on collision with the trade union movement. That is its aim. The Minister felt very proud of himself when he talked about the reign of industrial peace that has existed in this country. He said that last year was the best year since 1942, but he did not say that in 1942, a year that saw a record of industrial peace unsurpassed in the history of this country, a Labour government was in office.

Mr Whitlam:

– Who was the Minister at that time?

Mr WARD:

– As it so happens, I was. It is easy for Ministers to claim that they are responsible for some situation that exists in the country when they think that they can turn it to their own advantage. 1 have never made such a claim, because sometimes circumstances determine whether or not there will be a reign of industrial peace. If the Minister is claiming for himself and his Government the full credit for the period of comparative industrial peace that Australia has experienced, how will he explain the fact that Queensland and Western Australia have had a better record of industrial peace than any other part of Australia, when it is recognized that in industrial affairs in those two States the federal authority carries little weight, control over them being almost exclusively exercised by State industrial authorities?

The Minister, in his usual way, has directed his spleen against two unions in this country - the Waterside Workers Federation and the Miners Federation. He said in his speech that if these two organizations were disregarded, 98 per cent, of the other sections of the trade union movement have lost through industrial trouble less than one hour per member during the last year. Anybody would imagine that these two organizations are so unreasonable in their approach that they deliberately provoked industrial unrest and that they wanted industrial stoppages. As a matter of fact, the Government has spent more money in endeavouring to secure industrial peace on the waterfront than in any other section of industry. It has not met with success, and there is a very good reason for that. The Government, which is a bag businessman’s government, merely represents the viewpoint of the shipowner and the stevedoring companies. The Government should examine the reasons for the trouble on the waterfront. The trouble on the waterfront does not arise, as the Minister attempts to convey, from the action of some particular official. The

Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority has repeatedly requested the Government - :this can be read in its annual reports - to amend the act to clothe the authority with power to impose penalties on employers as well as employees. To-day, all that the authority can do is to report the employer for breaches of the law; he must then be dealt with by the court. But in the case of the employee, the authority has power to impose most drastic penalties. In my opinion the Government, as with everything else it has touched, has brought the arbitration system of this country into complete chaos. That is the position to-day.

Reference has been made to what is termed the Boilermakers dispute. I say, as a Labour man, that we will never have a completely satisfactory conciliation and arbitration system in this country while at the same time we clothe the arbitral authority with power to impose most drastic and savage penalties against the trade unions. It is all very well for the Government and the Minister to argue that the authority also has power to impose penalties against the employers. The fact is that this never happens. Any action taken is always against the employee. The Government always thinks that the employee or his organization is at fault.

A few years ago the Boilermakers Society of Australia offended because some of its members had taken up a collection to assist the dependants of members of another organization who were on strike. No levy was struck by the union. The collection was not actually taken up by the officials of the union or at their direction. The collection was a spontaneous action taken by members of the union to assist the dependants of these other striking unionists. We all know what happened. The Boilermakers Society was cited, and it was convicted. A savage penalty was imposed upon the union, because the court deemed that it had not exercised sufficient control over its members, and that it had not taken action to penalize those members who had offended the government of the day. The case eventually went to the High Court, and thence to the Privy Council. The Privy Council decided that the Arbitration Court had no power to impose such a penalty. Whether the fine that was imposed has ever been returned to the organization, or to the other unions that were savagely penalized under the same provisions that were eventually declared illegal, I cannot say. However, I did ask the Minister whether these penalties that had been illegally imposed on these unions had been returned to them. The Minister said that my question related to a matter of policy, and he refused to answer it.

Let me look at the situation in Australia to-day. The settlement of industrial disputes largely depends on the wisdom of the persons who are engaged in the negotiations. As a result we find that some men are more successful than others in arriving at a peaceful settlement of disputes. I have said that this Government has brought the arbitration system into complete chaos. What is the situation at the moment? The Government has divided the arbitration machine, and so we have a court that imposes penalties and a commission that deals with the other side of the matter, the arbitration and conciliation side. As a result, we have the most ridiculous situation which occurred in what is known as the “ Patti.wilya “ case. Honorable members who are familiar with the case will recall what happened. The “ Pattiwilya “ was a vessel purchased overseas and brought to Australia by a non-union crew- When it arrived in this country, the Australian seamen refused to supply a crew for it. They made certain objections to conditions on board, and said that they wanted the ship made safe to go to sea.

Honorable members will recall that Government supporters asked question after question of the Minister for Labour and National Service about the dispute over this vessel. The implication conveyed by the Minister’s replies was that the union had refused to supply a crew because the vessel had been brought to Australia by a nonunion crew. We were never told about the abominable conditions on the ship, which were revealed only after the union had been taken to court and cited to answer a charge that it had imposed a ban upon the vessel. The Commonwealth Industrial Court was not concerned about the merits of the argument that had led to the ban upon the vessel being imposed. All it was concerned about was that the union had applied a ban. Therefore, it said, the union had offended, and the court made an order directing the union to provide a crew for the ship. What happened then? The matter evenually went before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Mr. Justice Foster, who is probably the most experienced of all the judges of the various courts in industrial affairs, heard the matter. After he had inspected the vessel and seen the abominable conditions on board, he immediately made an order in favour of the men. But what could have happened if the matter had not gone before such a sympathetic judge? The union was ordered by the Industrial Court to supply a crew. A crew having once manned the vessel, the men would have been subject to the master’s orders, and if they had not obeyed them they would have been subject to savage penalties. In these circumstances, they could have been obliged to take an unseaworthy vessel to sea at the direction of the court. But Mr. Justice Foster saved the situation. He inspected the vessel, whereas Mr. Justice Spicer of the Industrial Court refused to make an inspection when asked to do so by the union.

There is rather an interesting point about this measure. It is proposed that, in future, the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission shall comprise three justices who shall be selected by the president of the commission, Mr. Justice Kirby. There may be something significant in this alteration of the existing practice. Honorable members are fully aware that, if a full Bench of three or more members is constituted, it is left to any member, according to his own judgment of the importance of the matter to be submitted, to decide whether he shall sit on it or whether he shall refrain from taking any part. Is it not rather significant that the Government proposes to take this step? We have often heard the Australian Labour party accused of what Government supporters call “ stacking the court “. But that is just what the Government now proposes to do, as I will demonstrate. We have just had a decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in regard to the basic wage. The three judges who sat on the case determined, by a majority pf two to one, in favour of an increase of 5s. a week. The dissenting judge thought that there ought to have been a much more substantial increase. What happened to. Mr. Justice Foster and Mr. Justice Ashburner that they did not sit on that case? If the three judges who sat favoured an increase of 5s. a week by a majority of two to one, it is possible that, had Mr. Justice Foster and Mr. Justice Ashburner been permitted to sit on the case, there would have been a majority decision in favour of a much more substantial increase.

I will tell the House what I think is behind the Government’s proposal. I think that the Government - no doubt some of the interested people outside are influencing it - wants to exclude Mr. Justice Foster from the hearing of certain matters that may be submitted to the commission. If Mr. Justice Kirby is to select the three members who shall constitute the full Bench, we could easily have a ridiculous situation in which Mr. Justice Foster, who has had vast experience - almost a lifetime of experience - in matters such as the determination of the basic wage and standard hours, may be excluded from taking part in the determination of such matters in the future. There is no doubt in the world that the Government is aiming at stacking the full Bench in the sense that the president of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, acting in accordance with the wishes of the Government, will be able to select the particular judges that the Government wants to hear specific subject-matters submitted to the commission from time to time. If all the judges had been amenable to the Government’s wishes, and had been making decisions that met with the Government’s approval, this proposal would not now have been submitted to the Parliament. It is significant from the Government’s standpoint - and rather dangerous - that this vital change has been proposed.

Let me now pass to another matter. It is interesting to note that, as a result of the peculiar system of arbitration that now functions in this country, a member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission who has made an award is not allowed to give an interpretation of the award if some question as to interpretation arises. Any interpretation is made by the Industrial Court. Who would be better fitted to interpret an award than the man who actually made it? He would know what the award meant better than would any other authority. So. we can see that the existing system is. not satisfactory.

Mr. Justice Foster has been referred to repeatedly as the maritime judge, but, as the maritime judge, he has no power to deal with a matter that is causing a great deal of disturbance on the Australian waterfront to-day. Numbers of ships are held up by manning disputes. I have a list of them. I do not suggest that it is complete, but it indicates how serious the situation is. At present, the following vessels are held up by disputes over manning: - “ Durringa “, “ Burwah “, “ Macedon “, “ Kumalla “, “Rona”, “Pattiwilya”, and “Abel Tasman “. There are other disputes pending over manning troubles, and the judge who usually deals with maritime questions has no power to determine these disputes. If the Government is concerned about maintaining industrial peace, why did it not do something about amending particular provisions in the principal act in order to permit Mr. Justice Foster to deal with these matters so that a series of disputes of this kind would not continue? I believe that, in some cases, ships have been idle for as long as 100 days. That could be very serious for Australia generally, and particularly for this most important industry.

I turn now to another provision of the bill. The Minister said, in his secondreading speech -

  1. . with one exception, no new principle . . . is introduced. The exception is that, where the court directs a new election in a disputed election case, the election will, in future, be officially conducted.

The Minister said that that was the only new principle introduced in this measure. I think I have indicated that quite a number of other new principles have been introduced. Let us consider this question of union ballots. It has always been my opinion that there is too much interference with trade unions in the conduct of their own affairs, and particularly in union ballots. The interference of this Governmen has not been intended to help the unions to run their affairs more smoothly or to protect the individual rights of trade unionists. The Government’s whole purpose has been to create opportunities for a very few disgruntled elements in the trade unions to avail themselves of various provisions of the law in order to embarrass unions and weaken the effectiveness of their opposition to the employers and anti-Labour governments, and to frustrate the desire of the unions to improve industrial and living conditions. Listening to Government sup porters, one would imagine that it is only in trade unions that questionable practices have ever been adopted in relation to ballots, but in fact they have occurred in all sorts of activities and organizations at different times.

Mr Crean:

– What about the dispute between Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited and Butler Air Transport Limited?

Mr WARD:

– Yes. In that case, the manipulation of ballots was attempted and approaches were made to the courts. In any field of activity, there may be found some member of an organization who probably had what he regarded as reasonable grounds for complaint or protest. So, why particularly select the trade unions?

The Labour government of which I was a member introduced legislation in this Parliament, because we have never believed that there ought to be what are referred to as crooked ballots, in trade unions or elsewhere. We provided an avenue by which any trade unionist, who felt that he had evidence of malpractice in a ballot, could first approach the Industrial Registrar. If he could satisfy the Industrial Registrar that he had evidence, he could then have the matter submitted to the court and, if the court were satisfied, it could order a fresh ballot. What was wrong with that? Nothing at all! But this Government, in its mischievous activities against the trade unions, decided that it had to provide a means by which some disgruntled minority - a very small number in an organization - could do the work of an anti-Labour government by disrupting the unions. The Government provided that malpractice had not to be proved; all a unionist had to say was that he believed there would be malpractice in a ballot to be held in the future. People could intervene and force a union to have what is known as a court-controlled ballot.

Now the Government is going a step further in its plan against the trade unions. I might say that under this Government’s former scheme, the trade union played at least some part in any ballot ordered by the court. Such a ballot was conducted cooperatively by the electoral officers in the various States and the trade union officers, where a ballot was required. That appeared to some people, at least, to be quite a satisfactory arrangement. I held an entirely opposite view, but the arrangement pleased a great number of people. What does the Government now propose in this amendment? It proposes that, where a new ballot is ordered, the trade union officers and the trade union organization are to be completely excluded and that ballots ordered by the court are to be conducted solely by the electoral authorities. Some people might ask, “ What is wrong with the electoral authorities conducting a ballot? “ There is some evidence to show that electoral officers have, not always exercised the care that they should have exercised in the conduct of trade union ballots. I do not say that that lack of care was deliberate, but it shows how imperative it is that the trade union authorities should have some surveillance over the conduct of their own ballots and their own affairs.

I shall give one illustration. In Sydney, only a year or two ago, a court-controlled ballot was held for the Boilermakers Society of Australia. When the ballot was declared, no mention was made of any missing ballot-papers; every one believed that the ballot-papers had been accounted for and that the ballot had been conducted in a fair and proper manner. However, some time afterwards, a mail bag was discovered in the Haymarket post office. It contained some 600 ballot-papers which had been returned to the post office box, as was required, but which had never been included in the count. When the union protested, it did not get very far with this Government. Does not that indicate the need for the unions to take the greatest care in the surveillance of their ballots?

What is the purpose of this amendment? Has any union asked for it? Can the Minister say that he has had any advice or recommendation from any responsible trade union? Not at all! It is perfectly true that there have been cases where trade unions or sections in trade unions, which are viewed favorably by this Government - we have had them; they are termed the “ grouper “ section - have been favoured by officials conducting ballots, no doubt at the instance of the Government. There have been instances where ballot-papers have been received in the same mail as the propaganda of the opponents of the official section of the Australian Labour party in the trade unions. Does not that show that the unions have every reason to be concerned about this interference in their affairs? When the Australian Labour party gets the opportunity - I hope it will not be very long before it does - it will do something to correct this situation. We believe that the legislation of the Chifley Labour Government was adequate to meet the situation.

Now, let me turn to another important aspect of industrial affairs to-day. I do not like to attack public servants when I am speaking in the Parliament, but it appears to me that there are occasions when we are obliged to do so. We have a duty to the people whom we represent. I say that the present secretary of the Department of Labour and National Service is interfering unduly in the affairs of trade unions and the trade union movement generally. I have been told that he has been known on occasions to try to influence tribunals in making their decisions, while a matter has been under consideration and while the tribunal has been taking evidence. That is a most serious position.

Recently I stated - I repeat the statement - that information furnished to me by trade union sections in New South Wales indicated that the secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Labour and National Service had been trying to induce various trade unions and sections in trade unions to help the Government out of its dilemma caused by the decision of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to withdraw its representation from the Ministry of Labour Advisory Council, because the Minister wanted to keep this organization alive. When the A.C.T.U., which participated in the deliberations of the council for a very long time, became aware that the council was being used by the Government to create the impression that complete harmony existed between all sections of industry to-day and that legislation introduced in the Parliament had the approval of the trade unions as well as of the employers, the A.C.T.U. realized its mistake and decided to withdraw from the council. The Minister did not accept the decision; he sent the secretary of the department into the States to interview particular elements in the trade unions and to offer as an inducement that the members of the council would in the future be afforded the opportunity of travelling abroad to gain experience.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– Would the honorable member like a royal commission into this allegation?

Mr WARD:

– That is the type of inducement that is held out to sections of the trade union movement by this Government.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– Are you prepared to stand up to that statement?

Mr WARD:

– I am telling the Minister what was conveyed to me and what I believe to be the truth. When the Minister merely gives a flat denial, that does not completely dispose of the allegation, to my mind. I should like the matter properly investigated. If the Minister is able to prove beyond doubt that the allegations which have been conveyed to me have no basis, I will be the first to apologize and withdraw any statement I have made about his departmental secretary. But it is well known that the Secretary of the Department of Labour and National Service has been interfering in trade union affairs.

I suggest to the Minister that he should not press on with this legislation at this moment. He should withdraw it and consider the criticism offered by members of the Australian Labour party. This bill could well be delayed. If the Government has been able to hold it in reserve until the very dying hours of this sessional period, surely it would not hurt if it were held back a little longer and introduced during the next sessional period. That would give the Parliament an opportunity to consider it properly. The reasons I have given - which are, the further interference in the conduct of trade union ballots, the attempt to stack the High Court, as the Government undoubtedly is doing, its failure to clothe the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority with powers to impose penalties on employers as well as on employees, and its general attitude and unsympathetic approach to industrial problems and the requirements of the industrial movement - in my opinion justify the Labour Opposition in voting against this measure, and that is what we intend to do.

Mr ASTON:
Phillip

.- I felt a little sad this afternoon as I listened to the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr.

Ward). We saw him on the floor of this House endeavouring to regain that drive, that vigor, that tantalizing flow of language, which have been characteristic of him. Apparently the honorable member for East Sydney - and it is sad to see this happen to any honorable member - has lost his drive, and although I hate to suggest it, he may have lost his punch altogether with his mishandling of the truth. The tactics adopted by the honorable member have become more and more evident, and to-day we found that he did not deal with the bill before the House but meandered all over the industrial and arbitration field, in an endeavour to make some cheap political capital out of this amending legislation which will greatly benefit the trade unionists of Australia.

In view of the criticism offered by the honorable member this afternoon, one may well ask whether he and those who sit behind him are becoming really perturbed about this Government’s great record of industrial peace, and whether peace in industry really suits them. Of course it does not suit them. They are noi content to have peace in industry because they can get back to the government benches in this House only if we have a state of widespread unemployment. For this reason they are doing their best to disrupt industry. This afternoon we heard a most inflammatory speech from the honorable member for East Sydney, delivered not in the interests of the trade unions or of Australia, but only for the honorable member’s personal gain.

Before I address myself to the bill itself, perhaps I should make a comment on the opposition expressed by the honorable member for East Sydney, and some of those who sit behind him, to court-controlled ballots. It is difficult to understand this opposition, because the introduction of court-controlled ballots has eliminated an element that has contributed most of all to industrial unrest in Australia. I refer to the Communist element, which has been defeated by those whom the honorable member lightly dismisses as “ the groupers “. I believe that Australia owes a debt to these people, who have come out and fought the Communists within the unions themselves. It is remarkable that the honorable member for East Sydney and the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron), who appear to be on most amicable terms, are in complete disagreement on the question of secret ballots. The honorable member for East Sydney has ridiculed them, but the honorable member for Hindmarsh has accepted the secret ballot legislation of this Government, and has, in fact, made suggestions for the implementation of the secret ballot system.

Before dealing with the bill, which the honorable member for East Sydney appeared to forget entirely, I wish to point out to the House that these cowardly and unjust attacks on public servants, made under the protection of parliamentary privilege, are becoming characteristic of the honorable member. He has referred to a man who has given valuable service to this country, a man skilled in industrial matters. The honorable member for East Sydney gets up blithely in this House and makes certain allegations. He offers no proof, no substantiation, but, speaking in generalities only, he takes away a man’s character. Such a course of conduct is not becoming of any member of this Parliament, no matter in what section of the House he sits. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) has himself given a denial of the charges, yet the honorable member for East Sydney goes on to say that the Minister sends his secretary to the various States to endeavour to induce the parties - in other words, to offer a bribe - to reach settlement. I believe that statement to be a gross reflection on the Minister, who has done a great service to this country during his term as Minister for Labour and National Service. He has a record - as has his secretary - of which we in this Parliament, and particularly those who sit behind him, are justly proud.

I now wish to refer to the bill before the House and to deal with some of its implications. The bill breaks hardly any new ground. It is mainly concerned with two groups of problems. These are: First, judicial doubts about certain sections of the act; secondly, administrative and procedural difficulties and doubts. These problems have become evident from the first annual report of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which was submitted after practical experience of the legislation. The report suggested that some improvements to the 1956 act might be made, both by the president of the commission and by the Department of Labour and National Service itself. This is a natural development, because it is only by trial and error that the effectiveness of legislation passed by this Parliament can be ascertained. The Minister stated quite clearly in his second-reading speech -

The principal purpose of this amending bill is to put beyond doubt the structure of the system, that is the division of powers between the court and the commission which we established by the 1956 act.

Basically, what the 1956 act did was to provide for a commission to exercise the functions of conciliation and arbitration, and a court to exercise the judicial and other functions inseparable from our arbitration system. Some of these other functions could not be said to be unquestionably judicial in their nature. There was some doubt at the time whether they could validly be committed to a court of law. In the absence of authoritative decisions, it was decided to act on the view that the vesting of these functions in a court would be constitutional.

This, I think, is a brief and fair synopsis of the reasons for the introduction of the present bill, but no person would have gathered from listening to the honorable member for East Sydney, that the bill was introduced for these reasons.

The intention of the 1956 legislation was to clear the way for the commission to get on, as effectively and speedily as possible, with its real work, the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes - which it has achieved with a remarkable degree of success. The wisdom of introducing that legislation is shown by the very fact that during 1957, the first full year during which the 1956 legislation operated, there were about as many industrial disputes as in other post-war years, but fewer working days were lost than in any other year since 1942. If we exclude the coal-mining and stevedoring work forces, the average time lost due to industrial disputes by 98 per cent, of all employees was less than one hour. This compares more than favorably with comparable figures for all other countries, and it is a vindication of the claim that industrial peace has been largely due to this Government’s understanding of the need for the kind of legislation that allows of speedy and impartial settlement of industrial disputes, one way or another, after evidence has been heard from the disputants.

The 1956 legislation and the 1951 secret ballot legislation are two examples of this Government’s desire to assist rank-and-file trade unionists to exercise greater influence and to obtain fair and just hearings of their problems. No longer can the Opposition claim to be the champion of the worker. The worker has a growing faith that this Government will continue to look after his interests and give him, in Australian parlance, a fair go. This has been shown - and 1 am sure it will be shown again in the future - by the results of recent elections, in which candidates belonging to the Government parties have received greater proportions of the workers’ votes.

The validity of certain sections of the 1956 act has been questioned by judges of both the High Court and the Industrial Court. The position is, naturally, untenable. Doubts concerning the validity of some sections of the 1956 act have necessitated reframing those sections in order to ensure that the powers granted to the court are judicial powers. The clauses of the bill that embody the required amendments include clause 38, which deals with rules, and about which I shall have something further to say later; clause 25, which deals with the cancellation of registration of organizations; and clause 28 and following clauses, which deal with inquiries into allegations of irregularities at elections. In the few cases where reframing did not seem likely to overcome the problem, the powers have been given to the Registrar but their exercise will be subject to review by the commission itself.

The legal history of Australian conciliation and arbitration is still in the making. The Minister has made this quite plain. He said in this House -

It is quite possible that further judicial decisions may make necessary other examinations of the distribution of functions between the court and the commission. I hope this does not prove to be the case.

I am sure the House will share the Minister’s hope and will agree that he has taken well-considered steps to prepare against such a contingency. One step concerns section 143 which deals with departmental registration of organizations. Should the section be declared invalid - and this could occur when, for example, Parliament is not sitting - in order to prevent any unavoidable delay or loss of wages or hours, the commission is empowered under proposed sub-section 3 (e.) upon the issue of a proclamation by the Governor-General, to deal with applications for de-registration in precisely the same way as was formerly open to the Arbitration Court. I did not hear the honorable member for East Sydney offer any objection to that provision. The intention is to prevent the development of a situation in which there would be no authority capable of exercising the power that obviously is of great importance in securing the smooth working of our industrial relations and in ensuring continuity of operation.

The Minister has also pointed out that a new principle is to be embodied in the measure. It is that where the court directs a new election in the case of a disputed election, such an election will be conducted officially in future. I realize that unions prefer to keep complete control of their domestic affairs free of official interference, and quite properly so. However, when a disputed election occurs, and that dispute is taken outside the ambit of the union, the very fact of a dispute reveals serious domestic difficulties which surely can be settled to the satisfaction of all concerned by a completely independent agency. I do not think there can be any disputing the fact that where two persons are at loggerheads, there is a chance of obtaining a fairer, quicker and more just settlement of their dispute if it is referred to an independent agency for mediation.

The other matter which deserves commendation relates to the recommendations which were made by the president of the commission. They appear in the secondreading speech of the Minister. I think that those changes were made in the light of the experience gathered by the president in the past twelve months while operating this legislation. They appear to me to be all to the good.

Two other points deserve attention. One is that providing that copies of rules be made available to members when so requested, and the other is that an audit of organizations’ accounts shall be done by qualified persons. It seems only simple common sense and justice that an organization should ensure that its members know the rules of their own organization. By so doing, they protect their own rights and union officers are more likely to act within the constitution. However, I have come across cases, and I am sure that other honorable members have done so as well, where there seems to be a curious reluctance to extend such information beyond the executive of certain bodies.

Members of the unions resent, and quite rightly, belonging to an organization which keeps them in ignorance of the rules governing it. In many cases there may be no malicious intent, but I think we all realize that to leave the main body of an organization’s members in ignorance about their rights and duties can lead to abuses, especially if there is a struggle for power between various factions in an organization. That is not altogether uncommon these days. If everything is above board, there can be nothing to hide. The more interest the individual member takes in his organization the better it will be.

To say that is, perhaps, to labour the obvious, but it is just that degree of apathy and ignorance on the part of too many members which has so often given the Communists their chance to exploit members and unions for their own political advantage. We cannot legislate ignorance and apathy out of existence, but we can at least remove the obstacles to overcoming them. Communist control has been lifted from such unions as the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia, the New South Wales branch of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union and the Central Council of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. This has been achieved by the members of those unions electing to use the court-controlled secret ballot, and taking an active part in the affairs of their union to ensure that its affairs are conducted in accordance with the union rules. Under this legislation, a copy of those rules can now be supplied to any member of a union, who may be required to pay a fee of not more than 2s. for it. Surely we, as Australians, believe that if a person belongs to an organization, he should know under what charter it operates, its rules, and his rights as a member. This amending legislation makes it mandatory for the officials of a union to supply that information.

The omission in the past to make provision that qualified auditors must examine the accounts of organizations is, I suppose, a relic of the days when such accounts were on a much smaller scale than they are today. In these days, and I speak purely from the accountancy viewpoint, many of our trade unions are the equivalents of very big business. They own large and highlyvalued properties and conduct a multitude of financial operations. Of course, many organizations do employ qualified auditors, but it is desirable that all organizations which have large amounts of money passing through their hands should appoint qualified persons as auditors for the protection of their members just as companies have to conduct their affairs according to their rules or articles of association in accordance with company law. It is essential to ensure that there are no malpractices, and that the accounts of a union are correctly audited. In saying this, I am not trying to find more jobs for accountants; I simply believe that the Australian trade union organization, which is among the most powerful of its kind in the world, must be provided with all the safeguards necessary to healthy development. We have recently seen what can happen in certain other countries where unscrupulous union bosses have not hesitated to make free use of the unions’ funds for their personal advantage, or where rules have been twisted to suit personal ends. Members and executives of Australian trade unions and other organizations would not stand for that kind of thing. Their sense of justice is too strong, and I think most would-be malefactors know it.

The Australian unionist demands honesty and fair play, and this legislation will enable him to see that he gets them. The legislation provides the means; the individual has his responsibility of seeing that the wishes of the majority of members of the union are put into effect. We do not want a return to the Tammany Hall system of union control, whereby a small minority can bludgeon and bully its way into executive office. This legislation aims- to give the unionist an opportunity to control his own union and thereby have a voice in the actions of its executive.

All the same, we should be extremely wise, I believe, to make legal provision for the enforcement of what is just. Too many loopholes can be dangerous in this modern world. If such safeguards as are now proposed are denied to the rank and file of the trade union movement, which has played an outstanding part in improving the living standards of a great number of our people, that could well prove, not merely detrimental, but disastrous to the trade union movement itself.

Trade unionists generally are anxious to have their unions on a sound administrative footing. This they have already shown by their acceptance of the secret ballot legislation introduced in 1951, which has enabled them to rid themselves of persons who were continually white-anting their unions. I am certain that the thinking trade unionist, who has at heart his own future and that of his country, appreciates the legislation of 1956 - which has, as I have shown, caused a substantial diminution in the time lost as a result of disputes - and will support these further amendments, which are designed to safeguard his interests.

The intention of the Government has been to streamline proceedings before the commission. We have had complaints about the judges and their approach. We have been told about the cold, icy air in arbitration courts, and so forth. In order to meet this criticism, the Government has allowed commission members to sit in ordinary lounge suits, and the approach has grown less formal. This step has been in line with policies espoused by members of the Opposition from time to time, but have we had any commendation from the honorable member for East Sydney? Have we had from him a good word about our safeguarding of the right of unionists to elect executives of their own choosing? We have not. All we have had is a tirade of most untimely abuse against the Minister for Labour and National Service and the secretary of the department he administers. I feel that many members who sit behind the honorable member will not endorse this mean, low attack upon a public servant.

The Australian Labour party has lost the respect of the worker as a result of inflammatory statements made by the honorable member for East Sydney in an endeavour to incite unrest. He has criticized the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its secretary, Mr. Monk, who has co-operated with this Government, and he has criticized also the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey). These are spokesmen of the trade union movement whom this Government respects. I say quite categorically that the honorable member for East Sydney has lost respect as a result of his blatant and unsavoury attack to-day. This will not mend the cleavage already made in his party by his endeavour to establish an anti-eviction committee, which was such a dismal failure.

I believe that this legislation will serve the unionists of this country right and well, and that it is in their interests to give the legislation a fair go. The Government is to be commended on so rapidly bringing in an amendment of the 1956 act. I support the bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr. E. James Harrison) adjourned.

page 1774

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1958

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 2); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 4); Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 2) Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 2); Customs Tariff (Papua and New Guinea Preference) Amendment (No. 1)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP

– I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment No. 2).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1957, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the fifteenth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1957 as so amended.
  2. That, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1 of these Proposals, the Governor-General may, from time to time, by Proclamation declare that, from a time and date specified in the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of any British or foreign country specified in the Proclamation.
  3. That on and after the time and date specified in a Proclamation issued in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British or foreign country specified in that Proclamation.
  4. That any Proclamation issued in accordance with paragraph 2 of these Proposals may, from time to time, be revoked or varied by a further Proclamation, and upon the revocation or variation of the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall cease to apply to the goods specified in the Proclamation so revoked, or, as the case may be, the application of the Intermediate Tariff to the goods specified in the Proclamation so varied, shall be varied accordingly.
  5. That in these Proposals, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following date, namely: - 20th March, 1958; “ Proclamation “ mean a Proclamation by the Governor-General, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Coucil, and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette; “ the Intermediate Tariff “ mean the rates of duty set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, in the column headed “ Intermediate Tariff “, in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1957, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the fifteenth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1957 as so amended.
  2. That, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1 of these Proposals, the Governor-General may, from time to time, by Proclamation declare that, from a time and date specified in the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of any British or foreign country specified in the Proclamation.
  3. That on and after the time and date specified in a Proclamation issued in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British or foreign country specified in that Proclamation.
  4. That any Proclamation issued in accordance with paragraph 2 of these Proposals may, from time totime, be revoked or varied by a further Proclamation, and upon the revocation or variation of the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall cease to apply to the goods specified in the Proclamation so revoked, or, as the case may be, the application of the Intermediate Tariff to the goods specified in the Proclamation so varied, shall be varied accordingly.
  5. That in these Proposals, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following date, namely: - 20th March, 1958; “ Proclamation “ mean a Proclamation by the Governor-General, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette; “ the Intermediate Tariff” mean the rates of duty set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, in the column headed “ Intermediate Tariff”, in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 4).]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1957, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twentieth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the fifteenth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1957 as so amended. [Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 2).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1956, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twentieth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the fifteenth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1956 as so amended. [Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 2).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1957, as proposed to bo amended by Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twentieth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the fifteenth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1957 as so amended. [Customs Tariff (Papua and New Guinea Preference) Amendment (No. 1).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Papua and New Guinea Preference) 1936-1957 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the fifteenth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff (Papua and New Guinea Preference) 1936-1957 as so amended. [Quorum formed.] The first three of the six customs tariff proposals which I have just introduced propose to vary certain of the existing duties in the schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933- 1957. The remaining proposals are complementary to the first three. They have in view variations of the schedules to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1957, the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1956, and the Customs Tariff (Papua and New Guinea Preference) 1936-1957. In accordance with long-standing practice the new duties will be effective as from 9 a.m. to-morrow morning. The " Summaries of Alterations " which are now in course of distribution to honorable members set out in concise and convenient form the proposed tariff variations. All of the proposed variations stem from recommendations made by the Tariff Board in comparatively recent reports. The Government has, in each instance, adopted the board's findings regarding the extent to which assistance should be accorded the Australian industries concerned. In one case, however, where the board recommended assistance wholly by duty it is proposed to assist the industry partly by duty and partly by bounty. I shall, at a later stage, table the relevant reports of the Tariff Board. I shall also, at that time, take the opportunity to table two other reports of the Tariff Board. The three customs tariff proposals, namely, Nos. 2, 3 and 4, relate to - >Artificial silk piece goods; > >Various metal-working drilling machines; > >Refrigerating appliances and parts thereof; > >Forged carving steels and forged carving knives and forks; {:#subdebate-28-2} #### Veneers; Plywood door panels; Undressed timber for the manufacture of doors; Spars in the rough; and Copper blocks, ingots and pigs. At this stage, I do not propose to take up the time of the committee by entering into a general discourse on the considerations which influenced the board in making its recommendations. Honorable members will be able to appreciate more readily the significance of these changes, and the reasons therefor, when they have had an opportunity to study the board's reports. At present, woven piece goods wholly or mainly of artificial silk are subject to protective duties under tariff item 105 (d) (1) (a). The duties are1s. 6d. per square yard under the British preferential tariff,1s. 81/2d. per square yard under the operative intermediate tariff, and 2s.1 l/2d. per square yard under the general tariff. The piece goods are mainly used for apparel. Other fabrics containing artificial silk are provided for elsewhere in the tariff and pay only nominal duties. It is now proposed to vary the protective duties on artificial silk fabrics covered by item 105 (d) (1) (a). The duty proposed under the British preferential tariff is 2s. 6d. per square yard, less 15 per cent, ad valorem, with a minimum of ls. 6d. per square yard. The duty proposed under the intermediate tariff is 2s. 8*d. per square yard, Jess 15 per cent, ad valorem, with a minimum of ls. 81/2d. per square yard. Under the general tariff, the proposed duty is 3s. Hd. per square yard, less 15 per cent, ad valorem, with a minimum of 2s. lid. per square yard. The long and short of these proposed changes regarding artificial silk piece goods is that increased duties on a sliding scale will operate when the value for duty is less than 80d. per square yard. For example, the present duty on artificial silk piece goods admissible under the British preferential tariff is ls. 6d. per square yard, irrespective of whether they are valued for duty at 40d., l00d. or 140d. per square yard. Under the proposed British preferential tariff, the duty on a square yard of this fabric, when valued for duty at 40d., would be 2s., an increase of 6d. per square yard. With a value for duty of 60d. per square yard the duty would be ls. 9d. per square yard, an increase of 3d., and so on until, at a value for duty of 80d. or more per square yard, no increase in duty takes place. The additional protection will apply to the cheaper " bread and butter " lines - a description used by the Tariff Board itself - -which represent the bulk of the output of local industry. I might add that linings constitute an appreciable proportion of these " bread and butter " lines. At present, metal-working drilling machines are provided for under numerous items in the customs tariff. Some of these machine tools are dutiable under protective item 176 (c) (2) at 271/2 per cent, under the British preferential tariff, 45 per cent, under the operative intermediate tariff and 571/2 per cent, under the general tariff. The majority, however, are admitted under other tariff items free of duty under the British preferential tariff and at 121/2 per cent, under the intermediate and general tariffs. Vertical drilling machines with, or designed for use with, automatic power feeds and having a drilling capacity exceeding nine-sixteenths of an inch but not exceeding 21/4 inches in mild steel, are at present admitted free of duty under the British preferential tariff and at 121/2 per cent, otherwise. It is now proposed that they be made dutiable at 271/2 per cent. British preferential tariff and at 35 per centotherwise. On1/4-in. capacity high speed and1/2-in. capacity bench-type drilling machines and multi-spindle drilling heads, all of which are at present admissible under protective item 176 (c)(2), the existing British preferential tariff rate of 271/2 per cent, is not varied, but the intermediate and general tariff rates are reduced to 371/2 per cent. The remaining metal-working drilling machines at present covered by items 174(m)(88) to 174(m)(92), inclusive and 174 (m)(94), 174 (m)(95) and 176 (c)(2) will be admitted free of duty under the British preferential tariff and at 71/2 per cent. otherwise Refrigerating appliances ranging from household refrigerators to cooling equipment for air-conditioning plants, are at present provided for under nine sets of duties in the tariff. In all cases the British preferential tariff duty is 30 per cent, and the operative intermediate tariff rate is, except in respect of cabinets, 471/2 per cent. The operative intermediate tariff rate on cabinets is 60 per cent. There are various composite and alternative rates under the general tariff, but these rates are of no practical significance. It is now proposed to reduce the duties on refrigerators of the food storage type, when in capacities up to and including 16 gross cubic feet, to 20 per cent. British preferential tariff and 371/2 per cent, otherwise. Other refrigerating appliances and parts thereof will continue to be dutiable at 30 per cent, under the British preferential tariff. Under the intermediate and general tariffs the proposed rates are 471/2 per cent. The existing operative duties on forged carving steels and forged carving knives and forks are 5 per cent. British preferential tariff and 271/2 per cent, otherwise. These duties were imposed for revenue purposes. In accordance with a recommendation made some four years ago by the Tariff Board, the tariff also provides for deferred duties of 25 per cent. British preferential tariff and 421/2 per cent, otherwise on these goods. The board, in a report of 24th April, 1958, has recommended the deletion from the tariff of these deferred duty provisions- This recommendation has been adopted by the Government and forged carving steels, knives and forks will, in common with other forms of cutlery not elsewhere included, be provided for in proposed item 197 (b) (2) at rates of duty of 5 per cent. British preferential tariff and 271/2 per cent, otherwise. The tariff changes recommended by the board in its very recent report on timber are included in these proposals. With regard to veneers having a value for duty not exceeding 44s. per 100 square feet, duties of 12* per cent. British preferential tariff, 30 per cent- operative intermediate tariff and 371/2 per cent, general tariff will apply. Previously, these rates applied only to veneers with a value for duty up to 28s. 6d. per 100 square feet. An increase in the fixed rate duties applying to veneers with a value for duty exceeding 44s. per 100 square feet also is proposed- Plywood door panels covered by tariff item 293 (c), undressed timber for use in the manufacture of doors covered by item 293 (a), and spars in the rough covered by item 291 (d), are at present provided for separately in the tariff. The separate items are being deleted and these timber products will now fall under other appropriate items in the tariff. The present duties on the door panels and undressed timber for the manufacture of doors have, in the past, allowed the entry, at concessional rates, of timber products which are readily available from Australian sources of supply. Specific provision in the tariff for spars in the rough is a relic of the days of sailing ships and is no longer necessary. The only other proposed amendment of any consequence relates to blocks, ingots and pigs of copper. It is proposed that these products be admitted free of duty under all columns of the tariff when the determined price of copper, based on the weekly average of the London Metal Exchange quotations, is the equivalent of £275 Australian or more per ton. When, however, the determined price of copper is less than £275 per ton the duty will increase by £1 per ton for each £1 by which the determined price falls below £275 per ton. This, with the addition of freight and other landing charges, should result in the landed duty paid cost of copper being not less than £285 per ton. It is the intention of the Government to supplement this tariff protection by a bounty of £45 per ton on copper sold on the local market. The bounty legislation will contain a profit limitation clause and other provisions usual in such legislation. Other amendments which are proposed arise from the need to redraft associated tariff items. In each instance where this has occurred the duties have not been varied. The Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals (No. 2), the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals (No. 2), and the Customs Tariff (Papua and New Guinea Preference) Proposals (No. 1) stem, in each instance, from the proposed amendments made in the principal Customs Tariff to the timber items. When Government business permits, an opportunity will be accorded to honorable members to discuss these proposals fully. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1781 {:#debate-29} ### TARIFF BOARD {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Reports {: #subdebate-29-0-s0 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP -- I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: - >Timber. > >Copper. > >Artificial silk piece goods. > >Printing of textiles. > >Refrigerating appliances and parts thereof. > >Metal working drilling machines. > >Cutlery - Deferred duties (forged carving steels; forged carving knives and forks). > >Iron and steel hoop N.E.I. > >Tariff Item 136 (f) (3) - Deferred duties. and move - > >That the reports be printed. These reports cover a wide range of Australian industries, both primary and secondary. Between them the industries give employment to over 50,000 persons and have an annual output valued at more than £170,000,000. I propose to give a brief outline of the Tariff Board's findings in respect of each of these industries and then deal with the Government's decisions on the recommendations made by the board. The board finds that the present slackness in the Australian timber industry is due to several factors and that these factors would not be overcome by a general increase in the present levels of tariff protection. In this connexion, the board mentions - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. difficulties associated with the fact that the industry is in the process of adjusting itself to more normal trading conditions after enjoying a seller's market for many years; 1. effects of the reduced level of activity in the building industry during 1955-56 and 1956-57. The board regards this as a short-term problem; and 2. high costs of coastal shipping and wide fluctuations in overseas freights which create a major problem for the Tasmanian and Western Australian sections of the timber industry. The board's report also mentions that the demand for local timber is affected to some extent by a preference for Oregon in some States. It has concluded, however, that, as this preference persists despite considerably lower prices for Australian hardwoods, increased duties would only increase the price of Oregon without any corresponding benefit to local millers. On the subject of imports, the report point9 out that timber imports have declined in recent years and that increased imports of Pacific maple timbers from British Borneo and Malaya have been offset by reduced imports of timber from North and South America and the Baltic countries. Whilst the board has found that a general increase in duties is not the answer to the problems of the timber industry, it considers that certain of the industry's requests in relation to particular forms of timber should be met. It has accordingly recommended that weatherboards should not be admitted at concessional rates of duty under by-law after 30th September next and that two other items which provide for the admission, at concessional rates of duty, of plywood door panels and undressed timbers for use in the manufacture of doors should be deleted from the tariff. Another recommendation concerning by-laws is that other tariff items which make specific provision for the by-law admission of timber should be available to importers only after inquiry and report by the Tariff Board. On plywood and veneers, the board's conclusions are basically the same as those reached on other forms of timber with the exception that it recommends increased duties on some veneers. The board's previous report on copper was in 1954. Since that time, there have been significant changes in the Australian industry. The more important of these are the proving of extensive deposits of copper ore and the expansion of production in the Mount Isa area, the decision to erect a refinery at Townsville and the development of the Peko mine at Tennant Creek. The intervening period has also been marked by extreme fluctuations in world copper prices. From around £300 a ton towards the end of 1954, the world price rose to approximately £500 per ton in 1956, but commenced to fall shortly thereafter. By the end of March, 1957, when the question of assistance for the local industry was referred to the Tariff Board, the world price was around £330 a ton. Australian producers have held the Australian price at about this level for some time. The world price continued to fall and was about £240 a ton at the time of the board's inquiry and just over £200 a ton at the end of February last. It has recovered slightly since then and is now in the region of £220 a ton. All these prices I quote in terms of Australian currency. This level of world prices, of course, poses serious problems at the present time for those Australian copper-using industries which must face competition from imported copper products. The problems of the copper industry presented the Tariff Board with most difficult and complex issues. The Australian industry is characterized by wide variations between the costs of production of the various mines. These are in large measure the result of differences in the grades of ore in the deposits worked by the different mining companies. Several of the smaller producers did not present evidence to the board and the largest producer, Mount Isa Mines Limited, did not seek assistance. That company did, however, supply the board with confidential information on its operations. In the light of the information available to it, the board concluded that the industry should be assisted and that the most appropriate method of providing assistance would be a tariff which would enable the Australian price to be stabilized at its present level of £320 per ton. Two of the reports which I have tabled relate to sections of the textile industry. These are the weaving of artificial silk piece goods and the printing crf textiles. The artificial silk weaving industry has received tariff protection since 1950 when protective duties were introduced following an earlier report by the Tariff Board. In that time the industry has extended its output from 10,00,000 to 27,000,000 square yards annually. Its current output is equivalent to some 50 per cent, of Australian requirements. Despite this expansion, the industry has experienced difficulties which the board reports are due primarily to a fashion trend in favour of cotton materials and to competition from low priced imports in what it calls the " bread and butter " lines. A substantial proportion of the raw materials used in the manufacture of rayon piece goods aTe of local origin and the Australian cellulose acetate flake and rayon yarn industries are dependent to a considerable degree on the rayon weaving industry for a market. The board considers that the rayon weaving industry is worthy of assistance and has recommended increased duties on the lower priced imports. However, partly because it believes that higher duties on the dearer fashion lines could accentuate the swing to cottons, it has not recommended any increase in the duties on woven artificial silk piece goods with a value for duty exceeding 80 pence per square yard. In respect of the textile printing industry, on the other hand, the board has concluded that tariff protection would not be justified on economic grounds. The textile printing industry differs in a very important respect from the artificial silk weaving industry in that its main material, cotton cloth, is almost entirely imported. No important chain of industries is dependent on the textile printing industry. Despite the fact that the printing industry's main material may be imported from the cheapest sources of supply and pays very little duty, the industry's costs are such that an extremely high duty on printed textiles would be necessary if the industry were to be protected. The board's report suggests that duties of the order necessary to protect the local industry would seriously affect the prosperity of the much larger garment-making industry and- employment in the textile printing industry would, in all probability, be mope than offset by the resultant unemployment in garment manufacturing and in the wholesale and retail trades. Another factor which influenced the board's conclusion was the serious impact which protective duties on printed cotton cloth, which is the chief material handled by the local industry, would have on the cost of living. A further point was the board's assessment that Australia's requirements of printed cottons could be imported at very little more than the cost of importing the raw materials needed by the local industry. The printing of textiles is an industry which operated on a comparatively small scale until balance of payments difficulties necessitated the introduction of import controls. The Tariff Board points out that the industry has expanded considerably in the shelter of those controls despite the Government's repeated warnings to industry that the controls were not intended for the protection of Australian industry. Australian production of refrigerating appliances has been protected by relatively high duties since before the war. The industry has expanded considerably in that time and now supplies the bulk of Australian requirements. In its present report, the Tariff Board has recommended reductions in the British preferential and most* favoured-nation duties on domestic refrigerators and the smaller sizes of commercial refrigerators, and in the most* favoured-nation duty on cabinets imported separately. It has also recommended reductions in the general tariff rates on refrigerators generally. These latter rates are of no practical significance. The board considers, however, that there should be no change in the British preferential and most-favoured-nation duties on industrial refrigerators and air-conditioning refrigeration units. I might mention that adoption of the board's recommendations on this industry would result in a considerably simplified tariff structure for refrigerating appliances. Although several of the local manufacturers of metal-working drilling machines did not present evidence, and the board was therefore unable to give an overall picture, this is a relatively small industry. The five manufacturers who did present evidence have approximately £95,000 invested in the production of these machines and employ some 35 persons in this branch of their activities. The board's report states that, within the limited range of drilling machines produced, the local products have achieved general acceptance in the engineering trade but, in respect of certain types of machines, are unable to compete on a price basis with machines manufactured in the United Kingdom. It has recommended the introduction of protective duties on certain machines which are not protected in the present tariff. The production of metal-working drilling machines is, of course, only one of the activities of the Australian machine tool industry. This industry is of considerable importance, both strategically and in relation to Australian industrial development. In its current report, the Tariff Board has pointed out that the question of tariff protection for the machine tool industry is a very complicated one and has suggested that it be given the opportunity to review the industry as a whole in about two years' time. The remaining reports relate to the deferred duties on forged carving steels, forged carving knives and forks and certain sizes of iron and steel hoop. As honorable members are aware, deferred duties are duties provided for in the customs tariff which do not operate until the date set down in that tariff. The Minister for Customs and Excise has power to postpone the operation of deferred duties from time to time. The company at whose request the deferred duties were provided for in relation to the forged cutlery which I have just mentioned is no longer interested in their retention, and the board accordingly recommends their deletion from the tariff. In the case of iron and steel hoop, the board has recommended that the present deferred duties be retained in the tariff but that their operation be deferred until 1st July, 1960. This is to give the principal Australian manufacturer, Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, time to assess its productive capacity in the light of recent and projected installations of additional equipment. I turn, now, to the Government's decision on these reports. Except in regard to copper, the Government has decided to adopt the recommendations made by the Tariff Board in the reports. In the case of copper, it proposes to assist the industry to the extent found necessary by the board but to provide the assistance partly by duty and partly by bounty, instead of by duty alone as recommended by the board. In taking its decision on copper, the Government was influenced in large measure by the cost implications for using industries of a wide variation between the Australian and overseas prices for copper. It was also mindful of the fact that the overall situation of the Australian industry will be considerably altered when the Townsville refinery comes into operation in the comparatively near future. It therefore intends to reconsider the question of assistance for the production of copper, after the Mount Isa refinery has been in operation long enough for the Tariff Board to present a further report on the industry in the light of the changed situation. The tariff proposals already introduced give effect to those of the Government's decisions which require alterations in the customs tariff, including the decision to alter the duties on copper. I outlined these alterations earlier to-day. It will not be possible, however, to introduce the copper bounty legislation until next session. Honorable members will recall that on 27th February last I announced that the importation of printed cotton textiles would be severely restricted to preserve the local textile printing industry pending consideration of its claims for tariff protection. Having decided to adopt the Tariff Board's recommendation against tariff protection for that industry, it would be inconsistent if the Government were to continue to afford protection through import controls. The Government has therefore decided that, from to-morrow, the issue of import licences for printed cottons will revert to the same basis as that applying to other textiles. I do not expect that the recommendations made by the Tariff Board and the Government's decisions in respect of the important sections of Australian industry covered by the reports which I have just outlined will find complete acceptance in all quarters. Determination of protective tariffs is of immense importance to those who enjoy the benefits of tariff protection, but is no less important to the rest of the community and the economy upon which any consequent costs may fall. In this difficult and inevitably controversial field the accepted policy of Australian governments for over a generation has been to act in the light of the advice and impartial studies of the Tariff Board. That is what the Government has done in all of the present instances. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1785 {:#debate-30} ### CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1958 {:#subdebate-30-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 1774). {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The Opposition is flatly opposed to the bill, not only because of what we know it to contain, but because of the things we suspect it contains and which, on account of the short time available, the Opposition has been unable to examine properly. It has been said by the Government that the bill merely tidies up existing legislation or, shall we say, legalizes the intent of existing legislation and therefore there is nothing really contentious in it. The bill has two or three main objectives. In addition to giving legal effect to existing laws the bill does, in fact, alter existing laws, as the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** explained in his second-reading speech. However, the Minister did not explain all of the proposed alterations. 1 propose to direct attention to another proposed alteration and ask the Minister to explain its real significance. One of the changes that this measure will effect is that where there is a demand for a court-controlled ballot, in future that ballot will be conducted by the Registrar and not by trade union officials or by the trade union machinery. The Opposition is, of course, flatly opposed to any form of court-controlled ballot. It utterly opposes court-controlled ballots for the good and sufficient reason that they do not remove the kind of corruption that they set out to remove. The trouble with court-controlled ballots is that they are postal ballots entirely. Where you have postal ballots, it is inescapable that corruption and all kinds of malpractice will be the order of the day. All that you achieve by introducing a court-controlled ballot where it has been proved that the union has conducted a corrupt ballot, is that you exchange one form of corruption for another form of corruption. That is because in courtcontrolled ballots the ballot-papers are usually posted to the various members of the union. Then, after a reasonable lapse of time - there must be a reasonable lapse of time in order to give those members in the farscattered centres of the State time to receive their ballot-paper and to record their vote - the ballot-papers are returned. In the intervening period - the period between the receipt of the ballot-paper and the last day on which it can be returned to the Registrar under the court-controlled proceedings - it is possible, and in fact it is the practice, for commandos representing one or other extreme view to carry out a door-to-door canvass. They go to the door of a union member and ask, " Have you voted yet? " If the union member says, " No, I have not voted ", the commandos say, " This is a very important election. It will decide whether so-and-so or so-and-so is elected." Then they ascribe all kinds of virtuous motives to the man they are supporting, and all kinds of evil motives to the man whom they are opposing. They then ask the union member to record his vote and to return the ballot-paper to the returning officer. Almost invariably the unionist says, " I do not know anything about, the elections or the candidates. I am only an ordinary rank-and-file member. Thank you very much for the information you have given me. I did not know that the election was as serious as you say it is. Would you mind filling in the ballot-paper for me? " The commandos, of course, oblige. The ballot-paper or papers are filled in according to the wishes not of the member to whom the ballot-paper was sent, but of the commandos who called at the member's home to make the inquiries. My view is that court-controlled ballots will never remedy the trouble. No one can deny that there has been some corruption in trade .union elections and no one .will attempt ito justify 'corruption in trade union election*-- {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Or anywhere else. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- -Or .anywhere else, for that matter, because the trade .union .movement is now playing a role in .the national life .of the community that lis far too important for .control of unions .to he dominated by persons .elected by corrupt or improper methods. The Opposition simply repeats to the Government that .the .system it has .adopted to remove the complaint is at least as bad as the complaint at which it is directed, and in many instances is even worse. In my own .personal opinion the only correct way to get at the .root pf this .trouble is to introduce a union election -day throughout .the Commonwealth, on which day unionists whose officers 'come up f pr .election in that year will personally record their votes in the same way as the community .personally records its votes .at a parliamentary election. If that is -done it will stop all the .present forms qf door knocking that seem to characterize court-cor trolled ballots, and all the corruption that flows from .them. It would prevent the isolated instances - I repeat that they are only isolated, though I admit that they are there - in which trade union elections conducted by trade union officials have been proved to be corrupt. This would remove all of those causes, because it would force every member of the rank and file to. take an interest in his union, go to the polling centre, just as every elector is forced to go at parliamentary elections, and record - personally, .and not per medium of some .other person - a vote for the candidate that he prefers. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975 -- -Would the honorable member make voting compulsory? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Yes. There is just as strong an argument for compulsory voting at a irade union election conducted in the manner that I am suggesting as there is for compulsory voting for parliamentary elections. But one other very important thing is necessary if that proposal is to be successful. An important alteration must be made, that once the rank and file elect their officials, the law must guarantee that the officials so elected will remain in office for the duration of the term for which they have &een elected, subject only to, first, (the right .of their executive to dismiss 'them in cases .of (conviction of -criminal (offences such as the .embezzlement of union 'funds, and secondly, the Tight ;of '.suspension, as distinct from dismissal, by :the executive in cases 'where (members ase found .guilty >of serious (breach-*?! (emphasize that tit (must be serious breach-of union rules for <of policy laid -down by the proper authorities within the union. J contend that, even then the suspension :should he "subject :to ratification by the members who, in the first place, elected the person who 'is to be suspended. TI fail to see where 'this bill has done anything to protect the rights of officials who .are , elected by the rank and file lm the way that I have suggested. There are some union rules, to-day, which, though registered with the court, are nothing short of a form of tyranny the like of which we have never seen in any country outside the iron curtain. I know of one union, for example, which has a rule that provides that no member of the union is entitled to stand for union office unless he has been a member of the union for five years. Imagine it! He is not entitled to stand for any office - and that means that he is not entitled to oppose any of the existing officials - unless he has been a member of the union for five years, and unless he has been continuously financial for the last three years of the five-year period. " Continuously financial " means that he must have renewed his membership before the last day of the financial year. If he renews his membership one day after the financial year has ended, he is regarded as unfinancial, is disqualified from standing for office, and must wait another three years before he is permitted to oppose any of the existing officials. **Mr- Aston.** - This bill gives the rank and file members an opportunity to overcome that. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- No, it does -not. This measure gives the rank and file members the right to have a court-controlled ballot by which all the forms of corruption that they seek to remove are carried on, in another form and, in some cases, made even worse. It is of no use having control of union elections unless there is vested in the persons so elected a right to remain in office untrammelled by the dictation of some czar at the top of the pyramid, because trade union officials who are elected by the rank and file should toe in a position in which they shall always be free to respond to rank and fife viewpoint even if it is in conflict with that of, say, the federal 'secretary of -the union. They should forever remain completely responsive to the rank and file at the bottom, and to no one else. Any union rule that allows a czar at the top to dismiss a branch official because he has taken direction from below instead of from the top is, in my opinion, tyrannical, and should not be permitted in a civilized country. This same union of which- 1 am talking has a further rule which provides that the secretary of the union shall have the right to suspend any organizer of the union irrespective of whether the executive at that moment agrees with the suspension. But, worse than that, the executive of this union can take unto itself the right to refrain from calling nominations for all of the permanent positions. So, where, say, five organizers are required, the executive, instead of calling for nominations for five organizers, and allowing the rank and file to elect the full number required, calls for nominations for about two positions - sometimes for three - and hand-picks .the other two or three organizers. The men hand-picked are chosen not because they have been responsive to the rank and file in the past, but because very often they are not. That is the sort of thing that a small number of unions in this country has been allowed to drift into, and, in my view, it is high time something was done to alter the situation. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Could it be the Australian Workers Union that the honorable member is talking about? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The Minister always claims to be well informed on this matter, and should know the rules of the Australian Workers Union and of the various other unions. But I have .not finished yet, by a long way. The rules of this union not only allow the secretary to suspend a man elected by the rank and file, but also allow the federal executive of the union to dismiss - dismissal is far worse than suspension - not only an individual official, but also the entire executive of a State branch, including all its officers, and to appoint a complete set of new officers to fill the places of those who have been dismissed - men "who will do what the czar at the top wants them to do whenever he cracks the whip over them. It is true that the federal executive is, nominally, the .body that does this, but, in practice, it is the tyrant at the top who actually makes the dismissals. The tyrant at the top of the pyramid or whose wishes are carried out by the federal executive, adopts the usual Khrushchev method of giving effect to his .dictates by the simple expedient of lopping off one official at a time. He sacks one man to-day because he has shown some slight semblance of fight against him and the man who takes the place of the dismissed official is then used to sack somebody else, who, in the meantime, appears to have stepped over the line. When we have this form of tyranny under which union officials elected by the rank and file are literally terrorized every minute of the day that they are employed by the union - a tyranny under which officials of the union elected by the rank and file are no longer free to represent the people who elected them, but are forced to degenerate into yes-men for the man ait the top - surely it is time this Government took far more stringent measures than it is taking in this bill to protect the rights of union officials! Government supporters may have no love for union officials, but surely they must agree that they cannot properly claim to protect the elective rights of rank-and-file unionists so long as the Government is content to allow a union executive the right to sack officials elected by the rank and file. I once knew a union official who said, "The rank and file, if they like, can have the privilege, and enjoy the fun, of electing the officials, but I shall sack them ". That is literally true, and it is what happens in fact. The process of sacking elected officials is a very simple one. What happens is that when a particular State secretary steps across the line, the federal secretary reports to the federal executive that the balancesheet of the State branch is not satisfactory. There are no standards according to which a balance-sheet shall be judged satisfactory or unsatisfactory, but this is the formula by means of which the federal secretary through his federal executive of the union attacks a State executive and a particular branch secretary. Nobody on the federal executive can say when a bad balancesheet becomes good, or when a good balance-sheet becomes bad, except the man at the top. Knowing that their turn will come next if they do not support him, the members of the federal executive feel that they have no alternative but to vote for the recommendation that the balance-sheet be considered. By what standards does one determine whether a balance-sheet is good or bad? A branch of a union may lose money in one year, but that does not mean that the management of the branch has been bad. Frequently, branches of a union lose money in the course of a year's transactions. A branch may be involved in a strike. More frequently, a union finds that in the year in which it lost money it had to replace one, two or three motor cars. It may have had to repair some of its buildings. Because of a sudden fall in the number of members employed in a particular industry, the membership of a branch of a union may fall suddenly, but it still has the same overhead expenses. However, those factors are not taken into account by the tyrant at the top when he decides that a man is for the axe. He points to the fact that the branch has lost money during a year and that the income is not as large as the expenditure. Then he becomes very self-righteous and says that it is high time the federal executive exerted its authority and dismissed the whole of the officers of the branch. While he is dismissing the secretary of one branch for allegedly not protecting the rights of the members properly, he is turning a blind eye to the secretary of another branch whose balance-sheet is ten times worse. The only real reason for dismissal is that the secretary was not prepared to bend the knee to him, whereas the other secretary is a completely reliable " yes-man " for everything that he puts forward. Another simple procedure used is this: An official elected by the rank and file - he may be an ex-navvy or an exboilermaker, but he is a person who has never had more than ordinary primary or secondary education - is given a book containing the union constitution and rules. Usually, the interpretation of the rule book for the past 50 or 60 years has lined the pockets of lawyers who have been paid to interpret it. The rules have been interpreted in various ways - sometimes this way and sometimes that way - but nobody has been able to make up his mind how they should be interpreted. Then the rules provide that any official who commits a breach of any of the rules - not necessarily a serious breach - shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable under the rules to be dismissed. This poor wretch who has had no legal training is asked to place the same legal interpretation on the rule concerned as the last Q.C. employed to interpret it placed upon it, or as the Q.C. who will be employed after the dismissal will place upon it. If the rank and file elected official fails to interpret the rule in the same way as a Q.C, he is then marked down for extinction. It is true that to-day a few unions - fortunately, a very few - literally control their officials with a rule of terror. It is a form of tyranny, the like of which no civilized country would tolerate for very much longer. I believe that the right of the rank and file of the unions to elect their officials is worthless unless a guarantee is given that the officials so elected cannot be dismissed by the tyrant above. I have been told time and time again by union officials that this form of control has been used. It means that, where a union official has to decide between the wishes of the rank and file and the demands of the tyrant at the top, he must always bend the knee to the tyrant and ignore the wishes of the rank and file. These union officials are told, " Do not worry; you are free to ignore the views of the rank and file, because under our rules we need not call nominations for all positions. We will call nominations for only some positions and will leave enough vacancies for temporary appointments, so that you will be given one of the temporary appointments for life if you are defeated at the ballot ". I have known of officials in the union to which I have referred who have been appointed as temporary organizers and have held the position continuously, without having to face a ballot, for at least ten years. I recall an occasion when an election was held and because the wrong candidates won the election, a phony inquiry was held into charges of corruption. Those who laid the charges were more guilty of corruption in the ballot than were the people against whom they had the cheek to lay charges of corruption. In a very self-righteous way, they decided that the officials had been elected by a corrupt ballot, and the ballot was declared null and void. Another ballot was held in the following year, but the same thing happened - the wrong candidates were elected again. After that, no chances were taken. In the third year, no ballot was held. Instead, the officials elected at what they were pleased to call a corrupt ballot were dismissed and completely different officials, v/ho did not have to face a ballot for another three years, were elected. I conclude my remarks by saying to the Minister that it is useless for any government to pretend that it is giving protection to the rank and file in the election of union officials unless at the same time a guarantee is given that the officials elected are free from the domination of the tyrant at the top. {: #subdebate-30-0-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce .- Why do not those somnolent people on the Opposition side of the House proclaim whether they are the " Yes " men or the czars? Is the honorable member for Adelaide **(Mr. Chambers)** the victim of one of the czars of the unions or of the Australian Labour party? Has the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** translated himself from the position of a czar in a union to the position of a czar in this Parliament? Has he found that the honorable member for Adelaide and the honorable member for Kalgoorlie **(Mr. H. V. Johnson)** are no longer the " Yes " men? The honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** asserted that the Government should legislate so that the unions could control themselves. That is an extraordinary proposition. The history of trade unions in this country extends over at least 80 years. They have had political experience for at least that time. Have the unions, which, as the honorable member for Hindmarsh pointed out, are important entities in the economic structure of Australia, constantly during those 80 years asked the electors for support and constantly returned members to this House and to other chambers without gaining sufficient experience to control themselves and to rid themselves of the czars? It is quite pointless for the honorable member for Hindmarsh to give us these fables, if they be fables, or these truths, if they be truths, without naming the unions, the czars and the " Yes " men. Let the honorable member tell us which union he referred to, or is there more than one such union? Which unions are run by czars? Which unions appoint temporary organizers for life? Are they to be found throughout all of Australia, or are they confined to one or more States? Let the honorable member for Hindmarsh give us the names of these unions, and let him also put his finger on the czars, so that the people of Australia may know who are the persons with czar-like characteristics who can control the unions. Who is the czar who wields the dominating influence in Labour party politics? Is it the czar who crushed the Labour party and forced one group to break off and then to look around for another czar to lead it? Let the honorable member for Hindmarsh say which are the unions and who are the czars running them. Then let him look around among his colleagues and say which of them he knows to be yes-men, and which of them are in this House simply because they constantly say yes to the czar to whom the honorable member for Hindmarsh has referred. There is not a sound from honorable members opposite. None of them is prepared to give us names. Apparently, because there were no hear, hears, or denials while the honorable member for Hindmarsh was speaking, honorable members opposite are not prepared to say whether the recital of what were alleged to be facts by the honorable member for Hindmarsh contained truth or falsity. They just sit there, without committing themselves, probably because the control of the czar over them does not cease When they come into this House. Perhaps they are afraid that they will not get an endorsement for the next elections. So they sit, uncommitted, unable to be the Opposition that they are supposed to be. The honorable member for Hindmarsh made a suggestion. He said that on one day in the year every unionist in Australia should go along and vote at a union election. With great respect to the honorable member, I do not suppose that any more foolish proposition has ever been seriously put forward in this House. The honorable member says that it is necessary to introduce this system because there is so much corruption involved in court-controlled ballots. He talks of commando groups that go from house to house. Is there any difference between this system of commando groups and the normal canvassing procedure? Even if there is a difference, surely there are opposing groups of commandos, as he chooses to call them. The honorable member says that with a postal ballot there must be corruption. Well, of course, a great number of Australian citizens vote at Commonwealth elections by post. I hope the honorable member does not intend to join his colleague, the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward),** in attacking even more public servants. The honorable member for East Sydney said that the public servant who is the Secretary of the Department of Labour and National Service is an unworthy man. He gave us not one single reason, or certainly not one which contained any truth, to justify his accusation. The honorable member for Hindmarsh now says that in any postal ballot there must be corruption. I hope he is not making, that statement in the form of an accusation against the electoral officers. The honorable member suggested that trade unionists should go along on a specific day once a year and vote at a union election. I do not know whether the honorable member has given any thought to the number of trade unions in Australia. Does he consider only the big ones, like the Seamen's Union, the Waterside Workers Federation, the Australian Workers Union and the Federated Ironworkers Association? Are the big, unions the only ones that he is interested in? Does he give no thought at all to the multitude of workers who belong to smaller unions, and who are just as entitled to a voice in union affairs, and just as entitled to seek the assistance of political intervention as are the big unions? How many electoral booths would be necessary to accommodate all unionists? How far would the voters have to travel? If you happened to be a member of the pastrycooks' union and lived in Hawthorn, would you have to travel to Footscray because that was where the polling booth for that union's election was situated? Or could you go to any booth and say to the electoral officer, " I am a member of the pastrycooks' union ", and then vote at that booth? What possible opportunity would the officer have to test your statement that you were in fact a member of that union? I have little doubt that the honorable member for Hindmarsh has put this suggestion forward sincerely, but without the slightest semblance of thought about its implications and ramifications- I can think of no better way to encourage Communist influence in trade union circles than to adopt the procedure outlined by the honorable member. The honorable member told us that trade unions are completely incapable of controlling themselves and completely incapable of deciding who will be their office-bearers - completely incapable, in other words, of doing anything rational and reasonable. The honorable member said, by way of giving an example, that he knew of a union in which, if a person wished to qualify for election, he must have been a member for five years and a financial member for the three years immediately preceding the election. I do not. think that such a rule would be upheld by the Industrial Court If the honorable member will look at clause 24 of this bill, he will find that the court is given power to disallow rules. Proposed new section 140 (1-). (c) provides - >A rule of an organization shall not impose upon applicants, for membership, or members, of the organization, conditions, obligations or restrictions which, having regard to the objects of this Act and the purposes of the registration of organizations under this Act, are oppressive, unreasonable or unjust. If the honorable member then looks at the principal act, section 2, paragraph (e), he will find that the objects of the act are, among other things - to encourage the organization of representative bodies of employers and employees and their registration under this Act. I believe that the Commonwealth Industrial Court would disallow the rule that the honorable member has referred to if it were tested. The honorable member for Hindmarsh further said, "Who can look at a balancesheet, and, merely from looking at it, say whether it is good or bad? " After a certain gentleman, on a charge of disorderly conduct or something of that nature, was found with a large amount of money m his pocket, inquiries were put in train, and it was perfectly easy to look at the balance-sheet of the union concerned and say whether it was good or bad, because apparently these amounts of money received by officials of the maritime union had never been included on the balance-sheet. If anything ever pointed to the need for a properly certified auditor to look at the books of unions, then that series of events did. The honorable member for East Sydney, in his little tilt at this bill this afternoon, said that it is merely a measure by which the Government seeks to stack the Arbitration Court. An allegation like that is quite remote from the truth. If there were any power to stack the court it would reside, under the terms of this bill, in one man only, the president of the commission. The present president, of course, is beyond any doubt, a very fine jurist. 1 cannot imagine that the president of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would agree to be a party to stacking the court. To accuse the Government of doing so is not only to accuse the Government of malpractice but to attack directly the character of the president of the commission, and to say that he is a tool of the Government, which every one well knows he is not. Recently the Commonwealth Government intervened in the basic wage inquiry and I understand that counsel for the Commonwealth submitted that the basic wage should not be increased. The president of the commission and **Mr. Justice** Gallagher gave a majority decision that the basic wage should be increased. Is that evidence of the president being a tool of the Government? Far from it! I think it most improper for 'the honorable member for East Sydney to attack, in the same speech, the permanent head of the Department of Labour and National Service and the Character and probity of the president of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If there is to be any stacking, it must be done by the president, and there is no possibility of it happening while the present president remains on the bench. However, it does occur to a number of persons that perhaps it is unwise to cast this responsibility on to the president of the 'commission, because it may be too onerous. At the present time, I think, there are five presidential members of the com mission. There are the three who sat on the basic wage inquiry - the **president, Mr. Justice** Gallagher and **Mr. Justice** Wright. The other two are **Mr. Justice** Foster and **Mr. Justice** Ashburner, each of whom has assigned to him a particular industry. **Mr. Justice** Ashburner deals with the waterfront industry, while **Mr. Justice** Foster looks after the maritime industry. There were, therefore, three who were available to conduct the basic wage inquiry. The president of the commission, in his last annual report, specifically referred to the fact that **Mr. Justice** Ashburner wished to be left free for a period of at least six months to attend to the problems of the industry assigned to him, the waterfront industry. **Mr. Justice** Foster had sat on the previous two or perhaps three hearings. Indeed, I believe that he had sat on every basic wage inquiry, but everybody who is conversant with these matters knows very well that **Mr. Justice** Foster was very ill in the latter part of last year. The honorable member for East Sydney suggested that **Mr. Justice** Foster had been deliberately left off the inquiry because his views favoured an increase of the bask wage. It is outrageous to suggest that the President of the court, **Mr. Justice** Kirby, had specifically left **Mr. Justice** Foster off the Bench. The person who replaced him was **Mr. Justice** Gallagher, and if you examine his history, you will fmd the present Leader of .the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** was the Attorney-Genera! -of , the day who initially caused the appointment of **Mr. Justice** Gallagher to the Arbitration Gaunt jurisdiction. He was .appointed by a Labour administration. Subsequently he was the Coal Industry Tribunal, and then he was appointed to the Arbitration Court by this Government. The curious fact is that the President and **Mr. Justice** Gallagher formed the majority in favour of the lesser amount of 5s. that was awarded by .the commission recently. Anybody considering **Mr. Justice** Gallagher's history might have thought the reverse would be the case. **Mr. Justice** Wright's history shows that in the vast majority of such hearings in which he appeared, he was formerly counsel for the employer organizations, principally before the federal Arbitration Court and the South Australian Industrial Commission. Yet it was **Mr. Justice** Wright, formerly the employers' representative, who favoured an increase in the basic wage higher than 5s. Therefore, to suggest that **Mr. Justice** Foster - who had been ill and was left off the commission, I believe, at his own request - had been left off it deliberately because he might have favoured a higher amount, is outrageous. Anybody who looks at this matter dispassionately must cast out of his mind completely any suggestion such as that made by the honorable member for East Sydney concerning the alleged stacking of the court. Not only is it quite untrue; it is an unwarranted attack on the probity and juristic attitude of the President of the Arbitration Commission. The honorable member for East Sydney went on to make an accusation against the permanent head of the department. I think (bat it was most improper to attack, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, a man who has not an opportunity to answer. The honorable member did not merely attack an ordinary man; he attacked a man who has a characteristic which the honorable member for East Sydney does not possess; that is, an overwhelming desire to see that the processes of arbitration in Australia work successfully. The honorable member for East Sydney and, indeed, the vast majority of honorable members on the Opposition side do not have that desire. They wish the arbitration procedures and machinery to be only a forum for political propaganda. They want arbitration to be merely a machine by which they will get all they possibly can when they want it. They do not want to see the arbitration machinery work to bring about industrial peace. It is interesting to examine the position in Great Britain to-day in that connexion. Without arbitral procedure, it is facing a tremendous economic crisis because of industrial unrest which is spreading all over the country. We know that the United Kingdom has seriously considered the adoption of some arbitration process of the nature of our Australian machinery. I do not know it to be a fact, but I believe that the United Kingdom authorities have made a serious investigation of the way our arbitral machinery works in order to transplant it into England in the hope that the people there can adopt it. They want it to be put into operation there as it is here, where a government department and a Common wealth Minister are keen to see our arbitral machinery work to bring about industrial peace in Australia while providing an appropriate reward for productivity and industry. I regard this bill as a very good measure. It sets out to correct some of the features which could not be foreseen when the principal act was passed in 1956. At that time, it was not known to what extent the Boilermakers' case would affect subsequent legislation. It was hoped, as the Minister of the day said in 1956, that it would be possible to submit to the commission matters in settlement of industrial disputes but unfortunately, in the two years that have expired since then, the Industrial Court and the High Court of Australia also, have decided, after considering some of these matters, that they are not specifically judicial in character. This bill is designed to carry on the procedure in the hope that these matters can be brought before the Industrial Court by reframing the conditions and altering them to bring out their judicial nature. The bill is also designed to relieve the clauses of any suggestion of an executive character. The most interesting thing about this measure is the provision in section 143 that, if the Industrial Court or the High Court should declare that it still is without judicial character, even under the redrafted form of the legislation, the Governor-General may declare by proclamation that from then on, because a matter is of an executive nature, it will be carried out by the commission. I think that is an excellent idea. The Minister described it as a novel approach and it certainly is novel. The only thing that mystifies me somewhat is this: Why was it confined to section 143 and not extended to provide that when, under the provisions of this act, powers given to the Industrial Court are attacked or declared to be unconstitutional or something of that nature, the Registrar or the full commission can take over those functions by proclamation. In other words, I suggest that we should extend to the entire bill the provision which is now contained in clause 24 relating to section 143 of the principal act. Another very wise feature of this bill is the provision in respect of any disputed election. I think that I have dealt with that principle in replying to the honorable member for Hindmarsh. In his annual report - which was, of course, his first - the President of the commission suggested that the provisions of the act requiring him to have a conference of all members of the commission every four months was too onerous in view of the need to travel. Let us consider the normal activities of a commissioner. One of them might be resident in Adelaide. His home is there and he conducts the registry in Adelaide, but because of the duties assigned to him which may relate to insurance clerks, cane cutters or a variety of avenues of employment, it is necessary for him to hold hearings in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Darwin or elsewhere. All commissioners are involved in a lot of travel, but very often those who appear before the commission also have to travel extensively. The President has pointed out that if there is a break in a hearing to enable compliance with the statutory provisions for a conference, it is a great convenience to himself and all involved. The bill gives effect to the recommendations he made that the conference be held only once a year but that the President shall have power to call conferences more frequently. I believe that I adverted earlier to a provision in the bill which does not fill me with delight. That is the provision that the President alone shall have the complete right to constitute a presidential Bench. The reason why I am not delighted with this provision is different from that with which the honorable member for East Sydney is imbued. He said that this was a method of stacking the court and giving an unfair power to the President. My approach is different. I believe that this provision places an onerous responsibility on the President and one which it is unfair to give him. Let us take the situation arising out of the last basic wage case, where **Mr. Justice** Wright, in a minority judgment, quite clearly said that he favoured a higher basic wage. Other judges in previous basic wage hearings have expressed dissenting opinions. If, for example, **Mr. Justice** Gallagher, for some reason, were unable to sit at the next basic wage hearing, the President would be in the awkward situation of having to decide who should come in to fill the vacancy. It would impose a tremendous responsibility on him, because one of the justices might already have indicated his views very clearly. Of course, a factor which reduces the burden of the responsibility is that the presidential members of the commission, pursuant to the provisions of the bill, will be given the full immunities and privileges of justices. Although they are exercising an executive function on the commission, they are nevertheless to be likened in every respect to judges exercising a judicial function, and there is little doubt that **Mr. Justice** Wright, **Mr. Justice** Gallagher and the President will approach the matter completely de novo at the next hearing and act on the evidence and arguments placed before them. However, I put before the House the question of the unwarranted, onerous responsibility which may devolve on the President - the responsibility of deciding which three of the five members will sit on a basic wage case. I remind the House that every ls. increase of the basic wage increases the wages bill of this country by £3,500,000 a year, so the recent 5s. increase will result in an increase of about £17,000,000 in the wages bill. If it is followed by State arbitral proceedings in respect of persons covered by State awards, that sum will be doubled, because the distribution of the work force between State and Federal awards is roughly half and half. I think it is important that the presidential members should be given protection and immunities, because, after all, they do receive arguments, give written judgments and, more importantly, have witnesses before them. They will be removed from the liability of being impeached, involved in a suit for slander or anything of that nature, as a result of their conduct of the examination of witnesses before them. Clause 9 is a most important provision of the bill, designed to clear up the question of intervention. I think it has always been accepted that the grant of leave to intervene is a matter in the discretion of the commission. There was, in relation to section 34 (2.) of the act, some doubt as to whether that discretion existed unless the Attorney-General had sought leave to intervene. If he had not, was there power to grant leave to intervene? Because of the canons of interpretation of statutes, in the case of a definition within a section, narrower limits must be taken, and a wider interpretation from the objects of the statute is not permissible. There was doubt on occasions as to whether the Attorney-General himself had power to intervene. I think that a very wise provision in that respect has been made in the bill. There are two matters to which I wish to refer and which are not covered by the bill. I should have liked to see them covered. Section 34 of the principal act provides for the procedure whereby one of the parties before the commission applies to a single commissioner for a matter to be referred, on the grounds that it is " of such importance " and " in the public interest ", to a full Bench constituted of at least one presidential member and two ordinary members of the commission. When that application is made, it is mandatory on the commissioner to go to the President and consult with him. Then the- President alone makes the decision as to whether the matter is of such importance as to justify that course. He has to decide whether the public interest is involved. That is an onerous task for the President; because he has to go through the entire transcript and decide whether the public, interest is involved. He has to go even beyond the arguments advanced. He has to draw on his own knowledge in deciding whether public interest is involved. It is. quite understandable that delays will occur in the President's reaching a decision as. to whether a matter should be referred. I should, not. be surprised if that subject were referred to by the. President in his next annual report. The other matter is related to the reference provision of section 34 and the appeal provision of section 35. In each of these sections there is a requirement that the matters shall be " of such importance " andi " in the public interest ", yet nowhere ia the bill is " public interest " defined. I feel, therefore, that the legislation should be, amended! in order to define more clearly what is public interest. Alternatively - tin's is the course that I prefer - the words " public interest " should be eliminated, leaving the first part of the clause to read " is of such importance ". The question then to be determined would be whether the matter " is of such Importance ". Many matters have' already gone before the commission, andi many matters will in future go before the commission, wherein there is some doubt as. to* whether the public interest is involved. Although there is no doubt of the tremendous public importance of certain matters, often there is some doubt about the public interest. I should, therefore, like to see such an amendment of the principal act. I support the bill wholeheartedly. {: #subdebate-30-0-s2 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- In the short time before the suspension of the sitting,, it might be appro priate to deal with what was said by the honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden).** It is a pity that he did not devote his commencing remarks to the bill, because towards the finish he did contribute something which might be of value to this House in determining the proper outcome of this legislation. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- What do you. say about the honorable member for Hindmarsh? {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Whenever the day arrives that every member of this House is not entitled to express his opinion here, freedom will have gone. If not quite so much attention was paid to what one member or another said in the House, and we got down to the things we are thinking, perhaps less time would be wasted by members on the Government side. The honorable member for Bruce devoted, considerable attention to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration itself.. I think it proper to take one stage further the second last phase of his contribution. He referred to the need to protect the. commission, or the president. He asked what the situation will- be at the next basic wage hearing if **Mr. Justice** Gallagher has to be replaced. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- **Mr. Deputy President** Gallagher. He is not a justice. {: #subdebate-30-0-s3 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- He asked what, the position wilL be if **Mr. Deputy President** Gallagher has to be replaced. What will be the reaction of the workers if **Mr. Justice** Wright is displaced? There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the trade union- movement with the present method of assessing the basic wage. If ever there were a time, of growing dissatisfaction among workers and trade unionists, with this Government's method of approach to the assessing of the basic wage, and the commission's acquiescence in the policy followed, it is now. The decision of the commission is an important one. It affects: the lives of all who work under federal awards. Now, we have, a member of the commission saying in quite simple terms the very thing that honorable members on this side of the House, and also trade unionists, have been saying for the last two years. Surely, the Government must be beginning to realize that there is a weakness in the present method of assessing the federal basic wage. **Mr. Justice** Wright believes that a survey of the national economy at the present time would justify a basic wage substantially higher than that proposed by the other two judges. **Mr. Justice** Wrights view was influenced, to some extent, but by no means entirely, by the fact that he was convinced that the 1956 and 1957 increases could! have been higher without unduly straining the capacity of industry to pay. When members of the Opposition attempted to say exactly the same thing in this chamber in 1956, and again in 1957, we were told by honorable members on the Government side that we had no right to canvass the decision of the court. Yet, here is a member of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission canvassing the decision of two of his fellows. Once that stage is reached m relation to the assessment of the base rate for the workers of the community, immediately there is. distrust of the method that is followed. It may be that the time is not far distant, if this situation continues, when this Government will appreciate the truth of what we have been saying all the time. Billy Hughes said in 1919 that there had to be some way of ensuring that every worker in the community received a pound's worth of goods for every sovereign earned. As a result of the adoption of such a policy in 1919, we had a wage system that operated until 1953. Now, one of the judges sitting as a member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has said that the increases granted in the last two years were noi sufficient. I put it to the House that the first essential to peace in industry is confidence on the part of the workers that they are receiving the wages and conditions to which they are entitled. That is the cardinal principle of peace in industry. I do not know whether the Conciliation and Arbitration Commis sion,, or; the Government, considers, the. C secies index *to.* be: a proper basis on which to assess the basic wage,, but I make sp bold as to say that, the judgment qf the commission on- this occasion underlines the necessity, if the C series, index is not a proper basis, to adopt some other permanent method with a view to removing the distrust that is, bound, to increase, as a result of this recent, decision. Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8° p.m. {: #subdebate-30-0-s4 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Before the- suspension of the sitting I attempted; to deal with the. minority judgment in the recent basic wage case and pointed out that that judgment would create discontent among workers under federal awards. I said; that one section of the. court w,as: of the opinion that, for three years the workers ha<± been denied the wage increases for which they had. asked and to which they were entitled and that the time had arrived for some change in the. way the. Government considered their needs if basic wage, justice was to prevail.. I said' also that members on this side of the House have consistently contended that the C series index should be reflected in the basic wage and- 1 put it strongly to the Government that if the C series index is not so reflected some other barometer should be found. The barometer of production would be one means of assessing a proper basic wage in Australia. Members on this side of the House cannot tolerate a situation in which a minority judgment clearly shows that for three years the basic wage paid in Australia has been lower than the amount to which the workers were and are justly entitled. I leave the matter there because I want to turn to the case which the Opposition presents against this bill. The Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt),** in his second-reading speech, said - >In a nutshell, we have set out to clothe the Industrial Court with as. many of the powers which the 19S6 act sought to confer upon it as we believe to be constitutionally possible Nobody knows better than the Minister that the Australian Labour party and great sections of the trade union movement fought the 1956 measure as strenuously as we could and we have not shifted our ground, The Minister went on to say that there were four other matters that he felt deserved mention. The first was about protection and immunity for the judges in the performance of their duties. Nobody on this side of the House will disagree with that- The second was the question of the intervention of the Attorney-General in major cases relating to the basic wage and so on. I do not think that anybody, in his wisdom, would raise any opposition to that proposal. The next matter was the availability of rule books- I do not know where the Minister got the idea that the trade unions do not provide their members with rule books. This is a cardinal feature of the union which I have the great honour to lead. Every member who joins the union is handed a rule book and signs for it when he signs the nomination form. That practice is observed as a principle throughout all the trade unions. The bill proposes a charge to each member of 2s. for his rule book. Previously it was given free of charge. 1 do not know where the Government got the urge to do this. From my long experience of the trade union movement and as an official of a union which has never yet had one of its ballots challenged by the court or the Registrar or been approached in respect of the conduct of its affairs, 1 know that the practice of handing a book of rules to each member is observed by every worth-while union. The fourth matter mentioned by the honorable member was the appointment of a public accountant to audit the accounts of industrial organizations. I wonder where the Minister got the idea of introducing this proposal. 1 suggest to him that if he really thought this was necessary he should have made much more definite provision for it in the bill. I would have much preferred a definite provision that in the future all trade unions and their branches must have their accounts audited from time to time. I am not sure that this proposal is not a reflection upon the Registrar. Knowing him as 1 do and as I think the Minister does, I cannot understand the need for the proposal. The Registrar has not brought such a need to the Minister's notice in the past because he has felt dissatisfied with the way in which unions' presented their balance-sheets to the Registrar from year to year, lt seems to many members in this House that he is not aware of the responsibility of trade unions. Unless an extension of time is obtained, every trade union registered with the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is required, at the close of each calendar yea to present to the Registrar copies of its balance-sheets. To my knowledge that has been done consistently year after year. If there had been any failure on the part of a union or an organization to provide properly audited balance-sheets, the Registrar would have had something to say about it long ago. The principle under consideration has been followed in my union. It is a substantial organization and has the capacity to pay for the expense of meeting this new requirement, but in future some of the smaller unions may find this a heavy charge. The honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden)** said that this provision may prove to be an irksome burden on the smaller unions. I suggest to the Minister that he should not leave this matter to be carried out by way of regulation. A definite amendment to the act should be made for the purpose. However. I am not so much concerned with these proposals to amend the act. I say quite frankly to the Minister that I think he has not fully analysed the wording of some of these amendments. The honorable member for Bruce rightly said that they will cause greater recognition of the legal ramifications of the bill. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act is fast providing a feast for lawyers. The time is quickly coming when one will have to be a lawyer to understand some of its provisions whereas it should be a piece of legislation that the average trade unionist can understand. Its aim should be to lay down the conditions under which the rank and file trade unionist throughout Australia shall work, and because he can understand it, make him feel some responsibility. But it seems that the Government is trying to create a maze of legal technicalities which only lawyers will understand. The more that legal problems in trade union affairs are developed, the more difficult it becomes to lead the trade unions successfully. There should be a tapering off instead of a building up of the legal ramifications of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, as is exemplified in this bill. I wish to direct the Minister's attention to clause 22 which contains an amendment to section 138 of the act. It provides for the inclusion of the words " relates to " in that section. At the committee stage we will discuss this more fully. This provision which deals with the incitement to boycott now has so wide an impact that the leader of any craft union is strictly cautious about observing the line of demarcation, otherwise he may easily find himself caught out. If these words " relates to " are inserted, a situation may be created in which ten lawyers instead of one may be required to interpret the meaning of the section. When an award is made and it is said that there are conditions relating to it, any one trying to interpret it has to find how it applies to the union concerned. But in a craft union situations arise in which so many provisions relate to award conditions that it is possible for members of the union to be called upon by an employer to do some things and unless they are restrained by the union representative from doing them a situation is created in which a dispute over demarcation immediately arises. I hope to deal more fully with that subject when we come to it in the committee stages. Clause 24, dealing with the requirements as to rules, proposes a new section 140. That proposed section is framed in language so wide as to make it oppressive upon trade unions which have played their part in the affairs of this country for over halt a century. The wording of proposed section 140 is quite unacceptable. If the Minister looks at it carefully, I think he will agree that he has not considered sufficiently the import of the verbiage. I want to turn to clause 25, which proposes to amend section 143 of the principal act. I had hoped that the honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden)** would have been in the chamber while this question was being discussed. I was staggered by his views on this proposed amendment. It is proposed to amend section 143 in such a way as to make it a feast for the lawyers and to enable the breaking of the unions concerned. That will be the effect of the use of the words " a substantial number of the members". We have the situation in the trade movement to-day that groups develop, either of the left or the right, which are not in agreement with the leadership of their organizations. Therefore, the inclusion of the words " a substantial number of the members " could lead to the wrecking of trade unions. I have in mind the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association, which encountered serious difficulties as a result of having a group of malcontents in its ranks. The bill as now worded would give such people a right to smash the leadership of the union and, in the process, to smash the union. There are dissident groups in almost every union. The verbiage of the proposed section 143 must be re-examined, if we are to protect the federal unions, many of which have outstanding records for peace in industry. They could be completely ruined by the actions of what the commission would regard as a " substantial number of the members ". I was staggered to hear a man with a legal training such as the honorable member for Bruce has received say that he applauded the Government for introducing the provision relating to the proclamation. What does it mean? It is the negation of democracy. It means that if the powers given by the Parliament in this section are declared to be invalid as the result of an appeal to the court, the Parliament is not to be called together again. It means, in point of fact, that if there is a situation that can be handled by proclamation, it is not proposed to call the Parliament together. There is only one country in the world in which I would expect to find such a provision, and that is Russia. I would not expect to find it in a democracy. If an act of the Parliament is found to be invalid and if the Parliament is not then to be convened to deal with that urgent matter, that is a complete negation of democracy, look at it how we will. While I have power to stand, I shall do my best to maintain parliamentary government in this country. If we allow a situation to be dealt with by proclamation when a law is found to be bad, we shall commence the very process that brought Hitler and Stalin to power. We shall commence the construction of a fascist state. If honorable members opposite think that this is a good provision, they are welcome to the thought. As one who believes in freedom, I will never tolerate 'a situation in which, a law of this Parliament having been found to be invalid, the situation is dealt with by 'proclamation, instead of by calling the Parliament together. Proposed section 143 enunciates the new principle that the award of a union that has been deregistered shall be allowed to run for 21 days. I do not know what was in the mind of whoever drafted this provision, or in the mind of the Minister. Those of us who have been in the trade union movement for a long period 'know what this provision could mean. Let us leave sUb-section (5) of section 143 as it stands. It provides that if a union is deregistered, :the award dies with that union. What is intended under this clause? >It is intended >to let the award live for 21 days. Then it will die, provided that some person or organization has not made an approach to the court and got the court .to make a contrary decision. I did not believe that I would ever see the Minister introducing legislation to provide protection for people who wish to build up scab and -employer -organizations. That is the effect of this provision. If an award dies -with the deregistration of a union, the members of that union have to do something about the matter. They say to their leaders or to the malcontents, " We are not going to tolerate a situation in which we >are >not 'working under , award conditions ". lt is easy for people who 'have never had 'the responsibility of -trade union leadership to criticize What 1 am saying. In the union that I have the honour to lead we have one group of 400 members which could 'be recognized by the court as a " substantial number of the members " under this provision. These members of the union are being urged by a scab organization to take strike action, or action against the direction of the union, in the hope that they will wreck the union and build up a bogus organization. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- That was what happened in 1917. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Of course it is! This provision opens the door wide for the entry of the set of circumstances that were created after 1917. I put it -to -the Minister that under the old sub-section (5.), when the members find that -a drastic step has been taken and that their award protection has gone, they have the urge to force the malcontents to realize their responsibilities to 'the rest df the membership. This 'provision states 'that any person -or any organization can make an approach to the court within -21 days and that the court may make a decision that would 'prevent the award from dying at 'the end of 21 days. 1 urge the Minister not to open the door to scab organizations in Australia. 1 urge him to 'do the right thing by the 'trade unions which are trying to do the right thing. Let us take the .-Federated 'Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association as an example. The Minister knows the type of leadership that we have in that union. It -is .held in admiration by everybody who understands trade -union leadership. But we saw -that union -deregistered as the result of the actions of a small group of malcontents who would not obey anybody. But when the award was cancelled -and the union was deregistered, the -force that was imposed on them gradually whittled them down until they themselves recognized that they had responsibility to the rest of the membership of the union. Thinking in terms of my own union- {: .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: -- Are you one of these czars or one of the " Yes "-men in your union? {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- You would not understand if T told you. This union that -I :ha>ve 'the honour to represent has never had a ballot challenged, because it always holds secret ballots. Never once has an officer 0/ the union in any State - it stretches from Cairns to Perth - been challenged in the work that he does. But if this legislation became effective, 400 malcontents in any State, within 21 days of the deregistration of the union, could make an approach -to the court and wreck a union that has given 50 years of service to the Commonwealth. This bill will give an opportunity for scab organizations to be formed when trouble occurs within the trade union movement. There are three or -four provisions of this bill that should be amended. I have made recommendations to the Minister in connexion with other legislation and he has listened to reason; but I never have made a stronger appeal than I make on what I call the scab clause of this legislation. Honorable members should realize that a trade union that is continually attempting to play its part and to obey the law to the letter will always have within its ranks a group of malcontents, who will say that it is not doing enough - that its leaders are not obtaining sufficient improvements for the members of the union. Such a. group of malcontents is prone to adopt a fighting attitude and will generally suggest a stoppage or two in order to draw more attention to its activities. That sort of thing has been going on for years, and if the Government enacts legislation of this type it will play into the hands of the malcontents. It will do the very thing that nearly smashed the trade union movement in 1917 and eventually will bring about a similar state of industrial chaos to that which then existed. This may not happen in 1958, but if the Government pursues its policy it will happen inside a decade. With only two days remaining of this sessional period of the Parliament I do not think 'honorable members should be asked to deal with two contentious measures, such as the one being debated now and the Navigation Bill. Too often is legislation of this kind thrust upon us at the close of a sessional period. I do not want to criticize the Minister unduly for the tardy submission of the bill. I know that his legislative proposals have to take their turn with the rest of the matters that have to be dealt with, but the Goverment should not overlook the fact that 'legislation dealing with industrial matters affects the lives of the people in our midst who matter - -the workers of this country {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I will be back here next week if you want to come back. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- That is a very brave attitude for the Minister to adopt. He knows that his plans and commitments have already been made. He -knows what he will be doing next Tuesday or Wednesday. The decision of the 'High Court was given in November. Honorable -members should not have been forced .to wait until this late hour >for the opportunity to discuss the amendments that are necessary to the act, if in fact some of them are necessary. In the time that is left to me I want to refer briefly to an injustice that I believe is being done to a section of those engaged in giving effect to the industrial arbitration system. I direct the Minister's attention to what the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had to say in his first report, particularly at pages 9, 10, and 11, in respect of the work of conciliators. I ask the Minister to look at the conditions that apply to the officers of that group, not from the personal angle, but from the angle of justice, and to introduce legislation as soon as possible to bring their salaries and expense rate into line with those of the commissioners with whom they are wark-" ing. When the bill reaches the committee stage I hope that the Minister will listen to reason and give honorable members an assurance that he will recognize his responsibilities to the Australian trade union movement. {: #subdebate-30-0-s5 .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN:
Bonython .- No legislation has been responsible for greater turbulence in the Australian political life than arbitration legislation. In the early years of the Commonwealth, governments were defeated on arbitration issues. Liberalism always endeavoured to circumscribe the provisions of arbitration. That was evident in the first decade of this Parliament's history, when two governments were defeated on arbitration issues. One was the Deakin Government, which would not grant the benefit of arbitration to public servants. The other was the first Watson Government, which was defeated because of its platform .of preference to unionists. The progress made ;in those early years .by the Labour movement was due to the .drive and initiative displayed by the leaders of the parliamentary Labour party, **Mr. Watson** and **Mr. Fisher,** strongly supported by the trade union movement. The BrucePage Government was defeated in 1929 because it threatened seriously ito impair the arbitration system. **Mr. W.** M. -Hughes, **Mr. George** Maxwell, **Mr. Littleton** Groom and **Mr. Walter** Marks, all former supporters of the Government, voted with the Labour party in .those days and -.criticized the Bruce-Page Government during .the subsequent election campaign because .of its desire to .destroy .the effectiveness -of .the arbitration system. They .had .had readier connexion with the Labour movement and were a little more radical than was the average member of the Government parties. The Bruce-Page Government was swept from office in a landslide and a Labour government was returned to power. Those who had sought to destroy the effectiveness of the arbitration system were soundly defeated. Honorable members opposite should realize that any government that tampers with the fairness and justness of arbitration in its application to the working com.munly will be condemned by the people, and can expect to be defeated at the first opportunity the people have to register their disapproval of it. Australia's industrial arbitration system has set a pattern for the world to follow, but if the Government has its way the effectiveness and fairness of a system that gives a measure of protection to workers in industry will be destroyed. I cannot understand why the provisions of the arbitration law do not apply to employers' organizations in the same way as they apply to employees' organizations. Why should not employers' organizations be subject to the same legislation as that which governs the conditions of workers in industry? I have no doubt that there are many practices in the employers' organizations which might well be investigated and brought under some form of legislative control. Some of the nefarious practices of employers could well be examined by those who are responsible for maintaining industrial peace and dispensing industrial justice to the people of this country. The trade union movement has established for itself an unrivalled place in the life of this nation, and has made a far greater contribution to the national welfare than has any other organization. Over the years, it has built up a wonderful record of achievement, which Government supporters cannot deny. Among the benefits that are directly attributable to the agitation of highly reputable trade unionists who sought to improve the conditions of workers in industry, we may list workers' compensation; furlough and long service leave; sick leave; paid annual holidays; safety regulations in mines and workshops and on buildings, including regulations governing the use of scaffolding, shorter hours of work; health regulations in industry, particularly in mining, the painting trade, and in flour-milling; safety regulations on wharfs and ships; and improved working conditions for seamen and others who work in ships. All of these things are the direct accomplishments of trade unionism, which has to its credit a wonderful record in this field. Those Government supporters who seek to challenge the good name and good faith of Australian trade unionists fail to give due recognition to the contribution that the trade unions have made to the welfare and the good name of Australia. {: .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: -- We did not challenge the good name of the trade unions. The honorable member for Hindmarsh did that. {: #subdebate-30-0-s6 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA Order! I ask the honorable member for Bruce to remain silent. {: .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: -- I rise to order. It has been suggested by the honorable member for Bonython that Government supporters in this House have challenged the good intentions of the unions. {: #subdebate-30-0-s7 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The point of order has no substance. {: .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: -- It was the honorable member for Hindmarsh who challenged the good intentions of the unions. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I have already ruled that there was no substance in the point of order, and I ask the honorable member to resume his seat. {: .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN: -- The unions have contributed greatly to the general welfare of this nation by helping to expand industry and improve working conditions, as well as by their influence on so many facets of our national life, and they are worthy of the utmost consideration that this Parliament can give them. They should not be brought under suspicion and have their good faith challenged by legislation of this kind. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The trade unions approve of this bill. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- They do not. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Tell me of one trade union that does not approve of it? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I direct the attention of honorable members to the fact that interjections are out of order. If they are persisted in, I shall find it necessary to take action against those responsible. {: .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN: -- I did not know that my words were likely to create such a diversion, or even that they would be challenged. Surely it is apparent to every thinking person in the Australian community that the trade unions have made a substantial contribution to the well-being of this nation, and that, in making that contribuion. they have won for themselves a very high reputation. Let me now indicate more specifically my views of this measure. I feel that it seriously transgresses the spirit of the kind of industrial law that would cement good relations in industry, promote industrial peace - which we all desire - and thereby improve the lot of our working people. This measure does not show us the way towards the achievement of those objectives. In this bill, the Government proposes to give to the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission power to constitute the full bench of the commission for the consideration of certain matters in such a way as to exclude from the full bench some members of the commission who would be likely to make a fair and equitable decision, out of the wealth of their experience, in accordance with the requirements of the law. In this respect, this measure will seriously impair the fairness and impartiality of the commission. It has been said that it is not unusual for the chief judge of a court to have such power, but I should like to point out that even the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia has no power to exclude any member of the High Court bench from a full court constituted to deal with an appeal. In the light of the facts, the Government's proposal to give to the president of the commission the power that I have mentioned will not maintain the fairness and impartiality of the commission, and will not inspire confidence in the capacity of the court to deal fairly with the workers of this country. Therefore, I suggest that the Government would do well to reconsider this proposal. I may say, in addition, that I am highly doubtful of its constitutional validity, for the proposal may well amount to a contravention of the Commonwealth's arbitration powers under the Australian Constitution. Another matter to which I feel that I should direct the attention of the House is the provision for compulsory ballots for the election of trade union officials. This intrusion into the domestic affairs of a trade union organization is an affront to a responsible body such as a union which is registered with a tribunal as an organization worthy to be recognized under the provisions of the arbitration laws. I feel that there is an unfortunate lack of good faith on the part of those who are responsible for the inclusion in this bill of these provisions, which are an affront to good Australians who have properly exercised their influence and power in the conduct of the affairs of their unions, and, through their unions, in industry, in order to achieve a better way of life for industrial workers. Members of the trade union movement have just as much honour and good character as have the members of any other section of the community. I make no apology for their actions. Their militancy, which has at times caused disturbances to our community life and which has been subject to serious criticism, has been the forerunner of improvements in the conditions of, and recognition of the rights of the Australian working man, who has from time to time suffered serious wrongs. I have been a member of the trade union movement all my life and I say that this legislation will upset the principles of arbitration. It is likely to provoke those in a democracy who will resent the restriction of their right and their freedom to control their own organization and to conduct their affairs in a way that is honorable to this country and to the monarchy, to which we express our loyalty. We believe that those engaged in industry should be permitted to work for a better life for every man, woman and child in this great country. {: #subdebate-30-0-s8 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- in reply - I do not intend to speak at any length, but I feel that I cannot ignore one or two matters. As to the other matters, which I shall not attempt to deal with, I assure honorable members who made speeches, which I know to be thoughtful and sincere, that I have not overlooked the matters that they raised. I refer in particular to the honorable member for Blaxland **(Mr. E. James Harrison),** the honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden),** and the honorable member for Phillip **(Mr. Aston),** and I have no doubt that, although the honorable member for Bonython **(Mr. Makin)** did not touch very much on the bill, he spoke from a long experience of Labour politics. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- I must be the only one out. {: #subdebate-30-0-s9 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- No, I will come to you. Perhaps the speech to which most attention should be given by all of us, if we have some moments for reflection - I will not say leisure - in the forthcoming recess is the extraordinarily interesting speech of the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron).** I would recommend to some honorable members who have spoken on this measure - in particular the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** and the honorable member for Bonython - that they would do well to study the comments of the honorable member for Hindmarsh. If they take exception to the modest intrusion into the affairs of trade unions that our legislation has produced, then they should see how far the honorable member for Hindmarsh would take them with his compulsory voting at annual elections for every trade union official.. However, that is something, amongst the other divisions and perplexities that beset honorable gentlemen opposite, that they can seek to resolve in the period ahead. I turn to some of the remarks of the honorable member for East Sydney, who, I gather, on this occasion was the official spokesman of the Australian Labour party and the official Opposition in this House. First, I want to refer to his return to an attack on the permanent head of the Department of Labour and National Service, **Mr. Harry** Bland. I do not need to repeat too emphatically, I hope, what I said earlier with regard to an attack made by the same honorable gentleman on the permanent head of my department. Let me say where I stand in regard to the secretary of the department. I regard him as one of the ablest and most devoted public servants in this country. He has served governments of all political complexions with the same loyalty and ability. It is rather interesting to reflect that the man who has been attacked to-day by the honorable member for East Sydney was an officer of the department when the honorable member was Minister for Labour and National Service. When he, in turn, was succeeded by **Mr. Holloway, Mr. Holloway** persuaded **Mr. Bland,** at some inconvenience to **Mr. Bland,** to move from Sydney to Melbourne so that he could become assistant secretary to the department over which **Mr. Holloway** presided at that time. Since then, he has, I repeat, served governments from both sides of politics with conspicuous ability and devotion. Because of the resentment which honorable gentlemen opposite feel about our success in building good relations with the trade unions, it is quite fashionable to attack any person who is closely associated with me. Let me mention **Mr. Monk,** who is, I think any fair-minded trade unionists will concede, one of the most able and most consistent representatives the trade union movement has ever had. Any man who has had close dealings with him, as I have, and who would say that he has wavered at any stage in his allegiance to the trade union movement and its interests would be telling a deliberate lie. **Mr. Monk** has served the trade union movement well, but in doing so, to his credit, he has never forgotten that he is an Australian. He has placed the interests of his country at least on parity with the interests of the trade union movement, over which he presides. However, because he has had to deal with the Government and do his best to secure what could be secured for his own interests, he has necessarily conferred with me and with officers of my department, and has therefore been attacked by honorable gentlemen opposite. This attack is not confined to **Mr. Monk;** it has turned to **Mr. Bland,** the secretary of the department. We are told that **Mr. Bland** confers frequently with members of the trade union movement and that he tries to persuade them to do things that they otherwise would not wish to do. No substantial allegation has followed that charge. Of course he confers with members of the trade union movement and of course I confer with members of the trade union movement almost daily. That is a necessary part of the work of the Department of Labour and National Service, if it is trying to do the job properly. Did the honorable gentleman, when he was Minister, not confer with members of the trade union movement? Of course he did! Did he confer as fairly with employer representatives? I hope he did, because that is the responsibility of the Minister for Labour and National Service and the senior officers of the department. It is a most unhappy event when these attacks are made in this place on senior members of the Commonwealth Public Service, who are unable to speak for themselves and who are necessarily compelled to speak through those whom they serve. What security can any man, who accepts a senior post in the Commonwealth Public Service, feel if he is attacked because the policies of the Minister above him are not palatable to those on the other side of the House? **Mr. Bland** has served under my instructions as loyally as he would serve under any Minister. I pay him full credit, and I expect him to give the same service to any Minister under whom he may be asked to serve, from whatever side of politics that Minister may come. I do not know whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is still in the chamber. Perhaps I should include his name in the list of those whose necessary association with me makes them subject to this snide charge. We have to confer about the business of this House, and the honorable member is a very effective representative of his party in obtaining the agreement of the Government on certain matters about which, in a less co-operative atmosphere, agreement might not be forthcoming, especially from a government with sufficient numbers to do what it chooses in this place. I have sat in Opposition. I have sat in Opposition against a Labour government which used its numbers ruthlessly to suppress the Opposition of the day. I say that there is a very great contrast between the situation of to-day and the situation that confronted us, as an Opposition, at earlier points of time. But because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition tries to do a thorough job, he is attacked. He is in my pocket! **Mr. Monk** is in my pocket! **Mr. Bland** is in my pocket! All this makes me feel very important, I can assure honorable members, but I doubt that the flattery is justified. In addition to having, apparently, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and one ot our most experienced public servants all answering to my beck and call, it appears that we members of the Government now have the industrial judiciary in our pockets. We have included in this bill a provision recommended to us by the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, a gentleman appointed to this jurisdiction - and it is certainly not to his discredit - by honorable members opposite during their term of office. The President said, after a survey of the working of this system in its first twelve months, " Here are certain recommendations that I make to the Government ". They seemed reasonable to us, but before we decided to bring them in by way of legislation we went to the senior representatives of management and of the trade union movement, who, at that point of time, happened to be assembled in the Ministry of Labour Advisory Council. We said to them, "These are some recommendations made by the President of the commission. They seem all right to us. How do they seem to you?" Strangely enough, the recommendations seemed all right to them. I, frankly, had envisaged this as a machinery bill, introduced merely to tidy up legislation which had been affected by High Court decisions and to give effect to certain recommendations of the President of our Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. When we hear these fears expressed of sinister purpose underlying the legislation, I say by way of answer that not one trade union official has approached me and said, " We do not like the bill as a whole " or even, " We do not like this clause of the bill ". The contents of the bill have been public property for some time. It may be that in this particular form the bill has not been known, but the proposals have been bruited abroad. The consequences of the High Court decisions have been well known. The trade union movement has known that we intended to bring in legislation to tidy up the position. For my part, I can say that had representatives of the trade union movement come forward and said, " We do not like this and we do not like that; hear us on these points ", we would have given their views the same thoughtful consideration that we have given to other representations they have made to us in the past. Some honorable members have made other comments, not directly related to the provisions of this bill but concerned with other aspects of industrial matters. The honorable member for Hindmarsh has made, I believe, a serious contribution. It may not accord with the views of some of his colleagues opposite. It may not accord with some views held on this side of the House. At least, however, it deserves careful study. The honorable member for Blaxland has, I know, made a very thorough and conscientious examination of legislation of this kind. What he says, either at the second-reading stage or in committee, will be carefully considered. We offer the House a bill which will remedy some defects and enable the system to work more efficiently. As to its general operation I say only this in conclusion: In all the years in which I have been handling industrial matters and industrial legislation I have never known a time when there has been less complaint from representatives of either management or the trade unions about the operation of the conciliation and arbitration machinery of this country. If this has been so, it is because we have, as the years have gone by, learned some lessons from legislation that has been in operation before. Attempts have been made by the present Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** to produce a better system. After our experience we have, in our turn, made further attempts. Perhaps perfection has not been reached, but we have made an honest attempt. I believe that it is because the trade unions of this country, almost in their entirety, realize that we do make an honest and fair attempt to deal with their problem that we have, fortunately for Australia, enjoyed a substantial measure of their support. Question put - >That the bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.) AYES: 55 NOES: 31 Majority . . 24 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: Clauses 1 to 3 - by leave - taken together and agreed to. Clause 4 (Interpretation). {: #debate-30-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- This proposal introduces a new principle, not merely into this type of legislation, but into judicial practices generally. The Australian Labour party wants an explanation from the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** as to why this change is to be effected. The Minister has told honorable members that the President of the commission made a recommendation to this effect, but we would like to know more about it. What were the reasons advanced by the President for the change? Although the honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden)** and the Minister have denied that the provisions of this proposed new definition give a means by which a court could be stacked, I still repeat that that could be the purpose *tot* the proposed amendment. What is the reason for the change? The practice in Australia has been, whether it applied to the High Court or the Arbitration Court, that if a matter had to be determined by the Full Court, not fewer than ' three judges were obliged to sit and the remaining judges decided themselves whether they wanted to sit or not. They used their own judgment and discretion having regard to the importance of the subjectmatter to be determined. Now, the President of the commission has made a recommendation to vary the present practice and it has been accepted by the Government. The provisions of this proposed new definition mean that if, at any time, any matter requires a decision of " the Commission in Presidential Session ", the President can select three judges out of those eligible to function, and they alone will sit in judgment on any matter that is referred to them. I put it again to the honorable member for Bruce and to the committee that had the full complement of judges sitting in Commission in Presidential Session dealt with the question of the basic wage, we could have had an entirely different decision from that given by a majority of those who sat on this occasion. Three judges sat to consider the basic wage and the decision was a majority decision. The decision was made by two judges to one. The dissenting judge thought there should have been a much more substantial increase in the basic wage. Even the judges themselves were not in complete agreement. Is it not important to know the opinions of the other two judges, **Mr. Justice** Foster and **Mr. Justice** Ashburner? They might have agreed with **Mr. Justice** Wright. Then the voting would have been three judges to two in favour of a substantial increase in the basic wage. For what earthly reason were those two judges debarred from sitting? It may be, as the honorable member for Bruce said, that they did not want to sit on this occasion, and that it was their own wish that the matter be handled by the other three judges. That may be true. I do not know. But under this provision they could be excluded, and the President of the court would determine which judges should sit on particular matters. It is the opinion, not only of myself but also of a large section of the Labour movement, both industrial and political, that in the case of a regulation of standard hours or a determination on the basic wage, the judge most fitted to sit is **Mr. Justice** Foster because he has made a life-time study of those matters. Under the proposed new definition, **Mr. Justice** Foster could be excluded from sitting on these matters upon which he is most competent to give judgment. What is the purpose of this provision that the president of the commission alone will be able to decide this important question? He will be able to select the judges who are to sit on particular questions and, in my opinion, obviously he will select the judges who are most amenable to the viewpoint of this Government. The word will be passed along the grapevine and they will be able to get the right type of investigation into a particular matter that is to be determined. That is not the sort of arbitration we want. It is not the sort of arbitration that will lead to the establishment and maintenance of industrial peace. If you want the system to work, it must be free from any suspicion that the bench that is to deal with particular matters is rigged so that the views of those adjudicating might coincide with those of the Government. So far, the Minister has not given honorable members any reason for the proposed change beyond the statement that the president of the commission wanted it. We have had nothing else. The president made the suggestion. Why? Why did he want to change? What is wrong with the old system? In the absence of any proper explanation from the Minister, it is my opinion, and the opinion of my colleagues, that this clause should be rejected completely. {: #debate-30-s1 .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN:
Smith · Kingsford .- I also am surprised by clause 4, which states - The Commission in Presidential Session ', in relation to a matter, means the Commission constituted by such presidential members of the Commission to the number of at least three as are nominated by the President for the purposes of that matter. What is the reason for this , provision? Is the President to he .given power to nominate any judge he pleases to select to act on a particular tribunal? The judgment on the basic wage which was declared last Monday is -suspect insofar as we learn that **Mr. Justice** Gallagher agreed that 5s. was sufficient and **Mr. Justice** Wright dissented. He thought the economy was strong enough to stand a larger increase in the basic wage. The senior presiding judge, **Mr. Justice** Kirby, made a very remarkable observation for an intelligent gentleman. I do not want to discredit his intelligence in any way, but it is remarkable when a man of his knowledge and experience states that a rise of more than 5s. in the basic wage would be dangerous. Dangerous to what? We must bear in mind that last week the Government was favorably disposed towards this gentleman. A bill was introduced "into this chamber to increase the pensions of judges, who are appointed for life. For example, if a judge gets £6,000 a year, when he retires he will receive under the new legislation a pension equal to half his salary. That is £60 a week. {: #debate-30-s2 .speaker-JLR} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Adermann:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND Order! That has nothing to do with the clause that is before the committee. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- That is equal to £60 a week. The -CHAIRMAN. - Order! If the honorable member continues to defy the Chair he will not be permitted to continue. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- The gentleman who decided that an increase of more than 5s. would be dangerous to other members of the community is prepared, without a blush, to take his £60 a week on retirement. But an increase of 5s. a week, by way of a basic wage determination is good enough for the ordinary person. {: #debate-30-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! That is not the question before the committee at the moment. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- We have to keep talking about why three should be appointed instead of five. **Mr. Justice** Foster who, a week previously, made a caustic attack upon other members of the judiciary engaged upon the tribunal, in regard to a decision relating to a ship which was brought to Sydney by non-union labour and on which a dispute occurred- The -CHAIRMAN.- Order! When are you going to stick to the clause? {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- Do you want me to keep on repeating "that we should have three instead of five, or that five would be better than three and that we should have five? We could make long speeches about why the President of the commission wants three judges instead of five, or, should 1 say, three deputy presidential members instead of five, to sit on the tribunal. Could I be rude enough to suggest that the President might believe that he could control two other members but not four? That may be the reason for having only two other members on the tribunal, in the persons of **Mr. Justice** Gallagher and **Mr. Justice** Wright. He might think he could control the thoughts and actions of those two judges, whereas **Mr. Justice** Foster and **Mr. Justice** Ashburner would be difficult. I agree with the statement of the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** that what the Government wants goes along the grapevine. Perhaps the President and two members could decide, in conjunction with the Minister, that such and such would be so and so. With the other two judges, it might be difficult. That is the only reason that I can see why the President should be so anxious to have on the court not two men that the Minister or Parliament selects, but two men that the President himself selects. The arrangement is suspect to the ordinary individual, who thinks that there is something wrong with our judicial system. People have every reason to suspect a judicial system when clauses are included in a bill to give the President power to decide which members will sit on the tribunal. I oppose the clause. The Minister should withdraw it and show the people of Australia .generally, and the trade unionists in particular, that he realizes the mistake he has .made and that he, in common with the rest of the population, acknowledges that this provision really is suspect. {: #debate-30-s4 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I hope that my intervention will -save the honorable member for Herbert **(Mr. Edmonds)** the embarrassment of making himself look slightly ridiculous, as the other two .gentlemen who have spoken on this clause already have made themselves look ridiculous. The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward),** in a manner which is quite characteristic, has thrown the gravest reflections upon members of the judiciary of this country. That is all the more contemptible when such reflections relate to a member of the judiciary who was appointed by the government of which he was a member. For our part, we have nothing but respect for the person and capacity of the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, **Mr. Justice** Kirby. 1 said earlier, in my second-reading speech, that the President had made a number of recommendations to us, as a result of the experience which he had had of the working of the machinery. Included in them was this particular matter, which appears on page 11 of his report as printed. I think it proper to read the passage in extenso, as it appears there - >The allocation and division of the work of the Commission amongst its members requires constant attention so that the competing priorities between single member and full bench work be resolved in accordance with the over-all picture and without the embarrassment which an individual member would have if it were necessary for him to resolve not only the- competing priorities between his own particular industry and a full bench sitting but competing priorities between his own industry and the industry of one of his fellow members. Further the stipulation as to a quorum of three out of four available Presidential Members requires that there be some definitive method of selection if full benches are to be available when required and this is often on the shortest notice. This is a point to which I invite the attention of honorable gentlemen opposite, particularly those from New South Wales - >It is suggested that in the interests of clarity the example of the N.S.W. legislation be followed in this respect although, it should be stressed, no difficulties of any sort have arisen in regard to the constitution by the President of benches of all the types contemplated by the legislation. In other words, what the President says, in short, is: Here we have presidential members of the commission assigned to particular industries. A case comes along which calls for a full bench. The members have to decide, perhaps, whether they want to go on with matters relating to their particular industries, or whether they regard the other case as being of prior importance, and an industry with which one of their colleagues deals becomes a matter entering into their judgment of what is of prior importance. It would save embarrassment and make for the more effective functioning of the system- if that responsibility resided in one person, and who would be more appropriate than the President of the commission? The honorable member for Bonython **(Mr. Makin)** said earlier that this procedure is not followed in the High Court. He either knows or should know that it is a firmly established practice of the High Court, although not perhaps as a result of legislation. As the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** would know quite well, it is the firmly established practice of the High Court that the Chief Justice decides the composition of the bench. This is a very grave reflection upon the probity and sense of fairness of the present President of the commission. The Labour Government of New South Wales sees nothing inconsistent with the proper functioning of its industrial tribunals in having this provision firmly inserted. Apparently when it is proposed to be inserted by a government of the political colour of this Government, on the recommendation of a president originally appointed by honorable gentlemen opposite, it becomes a sinister matter and one to be condemned by them. {: #debate-30-s5 .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton -- I think the right honorable gentleman should look at this matter more closely. When he refers to other courts, one must also look more closely at what he says. For the first time in the history of the Commonwealth court, so far as I know, it is proposed that statutory power be given to the President to nominate who actually- {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Which Commonwealth court? {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- This one. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- It is not a court. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- Well - the commission. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Why by-pass the High Court? {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- Do you think I am going to by-pass it? Do not be so eager. I will deal with it in a second. I can say only one thing at a time. I am saying that this is a completely wrong procedure, and I take as an illustration what the honorable member for Bruce (Mt. Snedden) said by way of criticizing the Government in a speech which was generally critical of the Opposition. He referred to his anxiety about this provision. He should be anxious about it. Take the case decided the other day by the commission in presidential session, on a matter relating not merely to one industry but to every industry in Australia. It would not matter at all for that purpose whether one of the commissioners was allocated to one industry. For instance, **Mr. Justice** Foster deals with a branch of the maritime industry. **Mr. Justice** Ashburner deals with another branch of the waterfront industries. Everybody is affected by this decision, whatever industry he is in, so that, to that extent, every judge would be concerned with the matter. Even taking it on that narrow ground, the position is that there were three judges sitting; two judges said that there should be an increase of Ss. a week and the third judge said that the increase should be bigger. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Are you going to reflect on them now, too? {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- What do you mean, reflect on them? I am going to state my opinion about it. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- You are working up to it. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- What are you talking about? I have never heard of such impudence. If one has constructive suggestions to make about a problem, and something to say about the working of a system, which does not go straight along the line of the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** he regards it as a reflection. I have not made any reflection yet. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Well, do not do so. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- I will not be deterred by you from doing that or anything else. I am making the point that two judges have said that there should be an increase of 5s. a week; one dissented and said that there should be a greater increase. There is a difference of opinion. There were two other judges not sitting on that matter at all. I say that that is the type of case in which it should be the duty of the Bench, or the group, to sit as a full membership of five. There are cases in which there should be more than three judges sitting. I do not think that it should be within the discretion of the President to determine that matter. 1 think that it should be the duty of the Parliament in such a case broadly to indicate that that is a matter for the full Bench. The right honorable gentleman is completely wrong about the High Court. In respect of full Bench matters, or full court matters, of the High Court, it has been laid down and is the inalienable practice of the High Court, that every single judge has the right to sit on the full court. He cannot be excluded from it. Not that any one would dream of suggesting that the High Court Act should provide that the Chief Justice shall determine what people are to sit; but it seems to me that this matter is in a jurisdiction in which it is far more anomalous and dangerous to do that. The commissioners are experienced in different directions. Nobody is more experienced in the field of the basic wage and standard hours than is **Mr. Justice** Foster, but he was not sitting. I do not say that he was kept out by this law. Of course, it has not yet been passed. Nevertheless, he was not sitting. I do not know whether the other cases with which he was then engaged prevented him from sitting, but there is nothing more important than a case involving the basic wage or the standard hours. Has anything that I have said reflected on any one? What I am reflecting on is the hesitation and disinclination of the Minister to adopt a good suggestion, one which was practically adopted by one of his supporters in the House this afternoon. It is utter nonsense to speak of reflecting on the judges. It is necessary to get a system which will make it possible to balance the court according to the ability that is there. I say that in the type of case involving the basic wage, the usual rule should be for all the judges to sit. It is perfectly true that that might hold up other particular matters for the time being, but after all, a basic wage decision is of vital importance, not only to all employees but to the whole economy of Australia. Such a case requires the services of all the best men. This decision indicates difference of opinion, which is bound to occur. Therefore, under no conditions should we say that anybody shall be given the power to constitute a commission, of such presidential members of the commission, to the number of at least three, as are nominated by the President for the purposes of the matter. That power would not be given lo the Minister, and nobody would give it to the executive government. I say that there should be no power for the President to limit the number in such a case. In other words, I would insist, in relation to this tribunal, on the right of individual judges to sit on these full court cases, as they feel it is their duty to sit. That is the whole point. If that were so, it would mean that there would be a better tribunal, a better constituted tribunal, and in particular cases one might very well feel that its decision - the decision of the full bench - would be more acceptable and probably more just. There is nothing new in that suggestion. In the High Court, judges sit to the number of seven. Sometimes five judges sit. When the seven judges sit, it means that the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court is postponed, because there would be no judge sitting in that jurisdiction while the full bench was sitting on an important case. Why should not this matter be determined in that sense? If this provision of the bill is omitted, that is all that need be done. Then, it would be left to the members of the tribunal, amongst themselves, to see who should sit and how many should sit. I would not give the President this particular power. That has never been done before and is unnecessary. I think that it would be safer and better to leave the situation as it exists under the law at present. {: #debate-30-s6 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce .- The Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** has put forward the proposition that this tribunal would have been better constituted if the five members who are presidential members of the commission had sat. The curious thing about it is that section 37 of the principal act, which is proposed to be amended by this bill, provides that any presidential member of the commission, while sitting, can withdraw if the exigencies of the set of industries for which he is responsible require it. If he does withdraw, the proceedings before the commission, in its presidential session, will continue; so this is purely an academic argument. What would have been the position if five presidential members, including the three who in fact sat, and **Mr. Justice** Foster and **Mr. Justice** Ashburner had sat? When the exigencies of their particular industries demanded it - in the case of **Mr. Justice** Ashburner, the waterfront; and everybody knows the exigencies that have existed on the waterfront - **Mr. Justice** Ashburner might have been taken away from that presidential session. If he had gone, as indeed he would have had to go, the commission would have continued in his absence to reach a decision. If, in the case of the waterfront affairs with which **Mr. Justice** Foster was concerned, he had to go, it would have left those same three, who in fact sat, to continue, and they would have been authorized so to do by section 37 of the principal act. At the time of the passage of the principal act there was not one single piece of criticism of section 37. Therefore, this kind of criticism that we have heard to-night is negative and of no avail. It has been suggested, of course, that in the case of the High Court, it is the inalienable right of every judge of the court to sit when he wishes to do so. But we are dealing with a different institution entirely. Fields of litigation are not assigned to the various judges of the High Court. One of the judges does not sit only in criminal matters; one judge is not assigned to running-down matters, and so on. But there is in this arbitral system an assignment of judges to specific industrial segments. Therefore, to compare the two in that sense is quite erroneous. {: #debate-30-s7 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- Clause 4 repeals the 1956 definition of " The Commission in Presidential Session ", which reads - the Commission constituted by presidential members of the Commission to the number of at least three. It substitutes a definition which reads - the Commission constituted by such presidential members of the Commission to the number of at least three as are nominated by the President. The significance of the definition lies in the fact that it is the commission in presidential session which, under section 33 of the act, determines the basic wage for males and females, long-service leave, and standard hours, and also certifies agreements and decides questions of jurisdiction; and which, under section 62, cancels awards and, under section 66, restrains State authorities. I shall turn first, because it is most easily disposed of, to the contribution of the honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden).** He referred to the fact that the Labour party had not objected to the enactment of section 37, under which the commission can hear and determine industrial disputes after a member of the commission, through death or any other cause, is unable to continue the hearing. In this case the commission is constituted, as appears from section 34, not by three presidential members of the commission chosen by themselves but by - not less than three members of the Commission nominated by the President, at least one of whom is a presidential member of the Commission and one is, where practicable, the Commissioner concerned. The commission which the President nominates under section 37 is a commission which performs functions of considerably less moment than are performed by the commission in presidential session. The Minister said quite frankly, in his second-reading speech, that this amendment was made at the suggestion of the President of the commission. That is true. It is not the suggestion of the commission. If one looks at the report of the President for the first year of operation of the 1956 act, which the Minister quoted, in part, one sees that there are two further suggestions for amendment which " I put forward " - the " I " being the President. Of the second of these he says - >It is suggested that in the interests of clarity the example of the N.S.W. legislation be followed in this respect although it should be stressed no difficulties of any sort have arisen in regard to the constitution by the President of benches of all the types contemplated by the legislation. The right honorable gentleman casts up against us that we are criticizing legislation of the New South Wales Labour Government which, he says, has made somewhat similar provision for the constitution of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales. In actual fact, the provision in the New South Wales act was made by an anti-Labour government in 1940 and reproduced a similar section inserted by the same anti-Labour government in 1936. It is as follows: - >At sittings of the commission three members shall be present as arranged by the president. There was an amendment by the Labour Government in New South Wales in 1948 which provided - >At sittings of the commission (two of which may be held at the same time) . . . and the section remained otherwise unaltered. There is this very real difference between the practice of the Industrial Commission in New South Wales and the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The honorable member admits that the New South Wales Labour Government had the chance to amend the act in 1948, had it wished to do so. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I admit that for whatever significance and comfort it may give the right honorable gentleman. The comparison between the New South Wales Industrial Commission and the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is that the Commonwealth commission deals with matters of prime industrial significance in all Commonwealth awards, namely, basic wage, long service leave, and standard hours. For very many years in New South Wales it has been the practice of both Labour and anti-Labour governments for the legislature itself to determine those prime matters in New South Wales awards. This was the practice not only of the McGirr and Cahill Governments; it was also the practice of the Stevens and the Bavin Governments. I do not want to go too far back, but it is a fact that the prescription of 44 hours instead of 48, then back to 48 under Bavin, then back to 44 under Lang was done by statute. Since the war, there have been other matters which in the Commonwealth can be dealt with by the commission in presidential session alone, but have been determined by the legislature in New South Wales. I refer to the 40-hour week, annual holidays, sick leave and long service leave. This year there will be equal pay for the sexes, as there would be in the Commonwealth territories if the Minister were conscientious enough to abide by the international agreements which he concludes on behalf of this country. In 1950 and in 1955 there were statutory amendments providing the basis of the calculation of the basic wage under New South Wales awards. All these matters which the commission in presidential session determines in regard to Commonwealth awards, it has been the practice for 35 years, in New South Wales, for the legislature to determine. The Full Bench of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales is arranged by the President and that commission determines much less significant matters than are determined by the Presidential Commission of the Commonwealth jurisdiction. The significance of this amendment is that it can undermine public confidence in the decisions of the commission. I shall discuss briefly the High Court position. Anybody who is appointed to the High Court is entitled to sit at any sittings of the court. It is a judge's right to sit and, consistent with his other commitments, it is his duty to sit. That is also the practice in the New South Wales Supreme Court. The Chief Justice does not pick, or appear to pick the people to sit with him on the Full Court. It is quite wrong that the President of the commission should appear to pick his colleagues. They are not judges, but the function they perform is fully as important as that performed by any court in the English-speaking world. It is essential that they command the confidence of the public in their deliberations. The Parliament picks the presidential and other members of the commission and it should be the right and, if he sees fit, the duty of every presidential member of the commission to sit on any of these hearings. It is an invidious position in which to place the President of the commission, for whom I, personally, have the greatest respect, but I believe that he has without sufficient thought brought that position on himself by unilaterally recommending this amendment. He should not have asked to be put in that position and we should not put him in it. I suggest that if we really value the prestige of this commission and want it to command the confidence of the public, we should let the members sort out amongst themselves who shall hear these vital matters and determine them. It is essential not only that justice should be done but also that it should be se.en to be done. M*. ANDERSON (Hume) [9.38].- The Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** took up the cudgels after the first two speakers on the Opposition side, sustained some severe body blows. He said that five judges were .more likely to give a just decision than three. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- I did mot say that. {: #debate-30-s8 .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES -- You did. If that argument is carried to its logical conclusion, tea judges would be more just than five and 50 more just than three. Conversely, one might argue that one judge, sitting alone, would be completely unjust, yet a great deal of the judicial work in our country is done by single judges. The Opposition is wasting our time with such arguments. The last speaker put forward a contentious argument but if he had been briefed to appear for the party on this side of the Parliament he would have been just as loquacious in support of a different point of view. I see nothing at all wrong with the provision that the President of the commission can select two judges. Labour has expressed this very policy in its legislation in New South Wales. {: #debate-30-s9 .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr EDMONDS:
Herbert .- After hearing the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt),** I appreciate the great danger of mentioning the name of a member of the judiciary because one can then be accused of reflecting upon that member. I want to say that to the degree that the Minister is prepared to reflect on court advocates who make submissions to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, I reserve the right to reflect on the members of that commission who make decisions. It is not my intention to reflect on the commission but, as one who has always been a champion of conciliation and arbitration and who has on many occasions appeared before the industrial court in Queensland, I want to refer to what takes place in Queensland, because the Minister has talked about what takes place in New South Wales. In Queensland, ever since the creation of the industrial court, every member of the court has heard any case concerning the basic wage, the fixation of hours or an appeal. Even in ordinary applications for variations of awards, the members of the court themselves have decided whether they will all hear an application or whether one or two of them will hear it. In no circumstances, throughout the history of that court, has the president of the court been in a position to pick one member of the court to hear a particular case. {: .speaker-KDY} ##### Mr Joske: -- -Is that determined by statute or by the rules of the court? {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr EDMONDS: -- I do not know whether a statute places any responsibility on them, but the fact of the matter is that never at any time - even now, with the enlarged court - has the president had the right to select a particular member of the court to hear a particular case. As I have said, I have always been a champion of arbitration. Nothing has yet happened to alter my opinion concerning it, and I am sure that it never will happen. Over the past few years, there has been a loss of confidence in arbitration. This Parliament should do something to restore confidence in arbitration, but the provisions of this clause could easily have the effect of causing a further loss of confidence in arbitration by people in industry. I am not so much concerned about the court as I am concerned about the people who are affected by the decisions of the court. I am not going to say - nor has any other member on this side of the chamber said - that **Mr. Justice** Kirby will select a judge to hear a particular case because that judge is known to have certain opinions, but the way is left open for people to think that that opportunity is there for him to take, if he wants to take it. If this Government is as sincere about arbitration as it claims to be, it would not tolerate this situation for a moment, whether the recommendations come from **Mr. Justice** Kirby or anybody else. It would realize the danger of lessening our confidence in arbitration - the very thing that we are trying to avoid. The Minister for Labour and National Service was absolutely definite when he referred to the position in the High Court, perhaps because he thought that no other member would speak on the subject, but two subsequent speakers have made it perfectly clear that the Minister was completely incorrect. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- They have not. {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr EDMONDS: -- The Minister will have his opportunity to reply. I suppose that the Minister would not concede for a moment that the Leader of the Opposition knows what he is talking about so far as High Court matters are concerned; nor -would he concede that the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam)** knows what he is talking about. Almost before the Leader of the Opposition had uttered a word in expression of his point of view, he was accused of having reflected on a particular judge. If the Minister thinks that he has a right to reflect, as he has reflected year in and year out, on the advocates of the unions who appear before the commission, I reserve my right to reflect on the people who hear the advocates. {: #debate-30-s10 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- The Minister seems to be wilting under the strain of his temporary position of leadership of the Government in this matter. He used some very strong language in referring to remarks that my colleagues and I made during this debate. I think that he used the word " contemptible ". Referring to one honorable member, he said that he was glad that he had not got up, like the honorable member for East Sydney and the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron),** and made himself look ridiculous. If anybody looks ridiculous in this debate, it is the Minister and the honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden).** These two legal midgets have been attempting to oppose their viewpoints to that of an ex-judge of the High Court of Australia. The only eminence that the Minister attained in the profession, I believe, was that he was the legal representative of the theatrical employees. I am not sure as to the accomplishments of the honorable member for Bruce in the legal field. I can only repeat, concerning him, a comment made by the late honorable member for Dalley when one of the Government's legal giants was addressing the House. The late honorable member for Dalley said, " No wonder the gaols are full! " In presenting their arguments, honorable members opposite have actually destroyed their own case. The honorable member for Bruce said that this provision was intended to avoid the possibility of the judges being embarrassed. He said that they might be dealing with one industrial matter and that they might not want to act in another matter. But they would not be embarrassed in any way because they have already the right to continue in the industrial fields in which they are active. If this provision is designed to prevent their being embarrassed, surely the Government does not want to clothe the President with the power to prevent their being embarrassed by directing that they shall not sit. It is an utterly ridiculous argument to use. I would ask the Minister, if he is game enough to venture into the field of debate again on this clause, to tell us what objection there has been to the practice which operated in this country in regard to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and in regard to the High Court of Australia. What is wrong with the present system? Who has directed any criticism to it? I think the judges themselves ought to have a meeting and decide what they want. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, one member of the commission has asked for power to exclude any of his colleagues on particular matters. It is not a question of their embarrassment, because if they do not want to sit there is no compulsion. We want to avoid any compulsion to prevent them from sitting if they want to sit. That is the principle involved. I hope that the majority of honorable members will have the good sense to see it in that way and reject the clause. Several honorable members rising in their places - Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) proposed - >That the question be now put. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The question is, " That the question be now put ". Those in favour will say " Aye ", to the contrary " No ". The ayes have it. The question is - >That clause 4 be agreed to. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- I called, " No ". {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- There was only one objection. Other honorable members were making a noise, not listening to the Chair. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- I am in charge of the debate for the Opposition and I called " No ". {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I am prepared to put the motion again. If honorable members refuse to keep their voices down and, through their disorder, deny themselves an opportunity to record a vote on the question, the fault is entirely theirs and certainly not that of the Chair. Question put - >That the question be now put. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.) AYES: 52 NOES: 29 Majority 23 In division: AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put - >That the clause be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.) AYES: 52 NOES: 29 Majority . . 23 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 5 to 21 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 22 (Incitement to boycott award forbidden). {: #debate-30-s11 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- With respect to this clause I think the Minister should accede to my request to omit three words. When the 1956 measure was being considered, the Opposition sought the omission from section 138 (1.) of the principal act of the words " of a committee ", which are now to be omitted by sub-clause (a). I am sure the Minister will recall that, in 1956, I begged him to take those words out, because they made the provision so wide in its application that the union would be held responsible for the activities of shop committees. I said that this was unjust, but my arguments were not successful on that occasion. I am pleased that those words are now to be removed. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The honorable member will appreciate that this amendment widens the defence available to the person concerned. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- That is correct. I turn now to sub-clause (b). I want to direct the Minister's attention to the effect of including the words " relates to or" in the words proposed to be inserted in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section 138 of the principal act. The inclusion of those words will make the paragraph so wide that a union official attempting to follow fairly the proper lines of demarcation would be caught up by this proposition on a number of occasions. There is no need for these words. I believe the proposal contained in subclause (b) is bad anyhow. The words " (in the case of an agreement, employment or work that relates to or is work to which the award applies) " are to be insertedin paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section 138. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- This narrows the provision. It does not widen it. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- It does not narrow it in its practical application. The inclusion of the words " relates to or " will result in the crossing of the line of demarcation, because they touch upon conditions. This difficulty has been found in the railways, with which I have a close association, in respect to the new dieselelectric locomotives. The inclusion of these words will bring in conditions relating to work covered by the award, and will put unions in a position in which they are held responsible for men doing work that is not covered by the award, although it is related to work covered by the award. This proposal will create considerable difficulty for management and unions in drawing the lines of demarcation. I should like to know, also, why proposed sub-section (3.) of section 138 does not contain the words "reasonable grounds" appearing in the existing subsection, which provides - >In a prosecution for a contravention of this section it is a defence to prove that there were reasonable grounds for the conduct charged, being grounds- And the grounds are then described. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The purpose of this was to help the person charged. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I should like to know why the words "reasonable grounds " are to be omitted. . Admittedly, as I said in an earlier debate, we are putting arbitration on a legal basis fraught with so many technicalities that trade union officials will have to be lawyers if they are to understand what the act intends. The proposed sub-section provides - >In a prosecution for a contravention of this section it is a defence to prove that the reason for the conduct charged- And two requirements are then set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). The existing provision required the defence to prove only that there were reasonable grounds for the conduct charged. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- It is not necessary to prove even that under this provision. I will explain it if the honorable member will give me an opportunity. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I should like to hear the Minister's explanation. **Mr. HAROLD** HOLT (Higgins- Minister for Labour and National Service) [10.7J. - 1 will explain the matter in the precise terms in which I have been advised. This clause deals with amendments being made to the principal act as a consequence of judicial comment. I ask the honorable member for Blaxland **(Mr. E. James Harrison)** to follow me in this if he can. With regard to sub-clause (a), section 138 of the act deals with the inciting of a member of an organization bound by an award not to work in accordance with the award. The validity of the section was challenged by the Australian Boot Trades Employees Federation in the High Court of Australia in 1953. Some members of the court considered that the question of validity should not be decided in general terms in the form in which it was raised. The Chief Justice and **Mr. Justice** Fullagar expressed the opinion that the section was in general valid but that there were aspects of it which might be held invalid in its application to certain situations. The purpose of the amendment is to remove those features of the section which were said in the above case to be of doubtful validity. In the first place, the word " servant " is omitted, and it is made clear that " officer " is not limited to the holder of an office as defined for certain purposes in section 4 of the act. Wilh respect to sub-clause (b), this amendment makes it clear that incitement of a person not to work with an employer who is bound by an award is prohibited only in relation to work with the employer to which the award applies. So, if anything, that has a narrowing effect. I come now to sub-clause (c). As section 138 (3.) now stands, a person relying on the defence must show that there were reasonable grounds for the conduct charged. The amendment widens the defence so that, provided the reason for the conduct charged was of a kind described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed sub-section (3.), it is unnecessary to show that the grounds of the conduct were reasonable. The bona fide character of the reasons, however, will still have to be established. {: #debate-30-s12 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- I still believe, with my colleague the honorable member for Blaxland **(Mr. E. James Harrison),** that this provision is not as the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** represents it. I do not claim to be a lawyer or to know very much about legal phraseology, but I realize the danger and the significance of this provision. I would prefer the Minister to have another look at it, to see whether he could meet the point of view of the Australian Labour party, which I hope I will now express. This provision appears to penalize officers of a union. The officers are not only those who may be regarded as paid officers; they may be officers acting in a minor capacity and conducting a campaign, in the sense of advising their members on the rejection of an unpalatable award. From the trade union point of view, I consider that this is an unnecessary and unwarranted restriction of the rights of trade unionists. I well recollect that some years ago there was a dispute in the timber industry against an award of **Mr. Justice** Lukin. That award contained some most outrageous provisions, altering practices that had been established in the industry for many years. It was greatly resented by the men. The officers of the union, who regarded the award as a completely unjust award, advised their members against accepting it and working under it. Surely there should be no coercion on trade unionists to accept an unpalatable award, because that is the contract under which they work, and there are two parties to a contract. The men, in the instance I have mentioned, almost unanimously - there may have been one or two individuals who did not agree with the decision - rejected the award as providing unsatisfactory conditions of employment. The paid officials of trade unions are paid to protect the interests of their members. If they believe that an award is unjust, then they are quite justified in expressing that opinion to the members and permitting them to decide their course of action. If they did not do that, they would not be earning the salary that they receive from the members. This provision imposes a heavy penalty. If I were satisfied with the Minister's comment that this lessens the possibility of a successful prosecution and helps the defence, I would regard it as an improvement of a very bad provision in the act, but I am not satisfied on that point. I have always held the opinion that this type of legislation is, in a sense, coercive in its dealings with members of trade unions, because it continually aims to force conditions upon them. Those conditions are not reached by conciliation or by agreement, which is the proper way to determine industrial conditions, and on occasions they can act harshly on members of organizations. If primary producers are permitted without penalty to withhold their wheat from the market if the price is not <good enough, and if wool-buyers can boycott a selling depot, as they intend to do, without penalty, then generally speaking trade unionists should be permitted to withhold their labour. We do not have forced labour in this country. We have heard Government supporters objecting continuously to forced labour in other countries. If workers are to be coerced into offering their labour under conditions that they regard as completely unsatisfactory, is that not a form of forced labour? Is- that not the aim of this provision? The arbitration machinery has too many coercive provisions; there is not enough conciliation. Employers should not depend on this type of provision; they should depend on meeting trade union representatives and arriving at agreement on a satisfactory award. Therefore, I join with the honorable member for Blaxland in objecting to this new provision. Its meaning is evidently not clear even to the Minister. He had to obtain advice from some officers sitting in the corner of the House. He then read a reply which was obviously prepared for him. So, even the Minister is not satisfied on the point. He merely says, " I am assured ". He is assured by the Commonwealth Crown Law authorities . {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- They are not always right. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- I would like the Minister to go into a little more detail on this matter because, as the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith said, the Crown Law authorities are not always right; they can be wrong. I join with the honorable member for Blaxland in asking the Minister to withdraw this provision, to reconsider it and to consult whatever legal authorities he wishes to consult. If it makes the existing provision in the act less harsh, then obviously we would have to regard it as some improvement, but at present we have to regard it with the greatest suspicion. {: #debate-30-s13 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce .- I agree completely with the Minister that this provision lessens the responsibility of the executive officers of the union. The provision in the principal act says that in a prosecution it is a defence to prove that there were reasonable grounds. There is a change of onus of proof. When certain points are proved, the onus of proof shifts to the person charged and he must show that he acted as he did because he had reasonable grounds. The reasonable grounds will be interpreted by the magistrate, the court or whoever hears the charge, and the court must look at the circumstances. Under the old provision, the court could not decide whether the person charged acted reasonably because he might have acted sincerely; it had to decide whether the person charged had reasonable grounds on which to form the belief that he held. That responsibility has been lessened by the amendment, which says - >In a prosecution for a contravention of this section it is a defence to prove that the reason for the conduct charged . . . Two grounds are then set out. If, for example, a union passes a resolution, then the union executive can act in accordance with the resolution. If an officer of the union is prosecuted, he produces the resolution of the union and says, " This is my defence I did it because of the resolution ". There is then no examination, as was required under the old provision, to decide whether the grounds were reasonable. I hope the point is clear. It seems to me to be perfectly clear that the amendment lessens the responsibility of a person likely to be charged. If I could put it another way, under the old provision the person charged had at the time of the hearing of the charge to prove that, at the time he acted, he acted reasonably. That is a separate point to be considered. Under those circumstances, there is a shifting of the onus of proof. Under the amendment, there is no shifting of the onus of proof. The person charged has merely to produce the resolution of the union and to say, " I acted as I did because the resolution of the union required that I act in that way ". It is certainly a lessening of his responsibility. As the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** said that if he could agree that it was a lessening he would support it, I feel that he should have no hesitation whatever in supporting this provision. I think the same remarks apply to the comments of the honorable member for Blaxland **(Mr. E. James Harrison).** {: #debate-30-s14 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I also am not sure about this provision and I would appreciate the views of the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt).** Is it an improvement? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I think the trade unions must have thought it was. They accepted this measure without protest. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Did they understand it? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I hope they understood it. They should have understood it. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Were they under the impression that this provision did make it harder for an employer to prosecute them? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I do not know what their view was on that point. I know that we have had no protests on any clause of this bill, {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- 1 would like to know from the Minister whether it is true - I do not think it is - that the alteration makes it easier for a union to defend a case. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- That is my understanding. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The present law says, in sub-section (3.) of section138 - >In a prosecution for a contravention of this section it is a defence to prove that there were reasonable grounds for the conduct charged, being grounds . . . The sub-section then goes on to set out grounds under paragraphs (a) and (b). The proposed new sub-section reads - >In a prosecution for a contravention of this section it is a defence to prove that the reason for the conduct charged - > >was unrelated to the terms and condi tions of employment prescribed by the award; or > >was related to a failure or proposed failure by an employer to observe the award. In the first case it is necessary to prove only that there were reasonable grounds. In the second place it appears that the proof must go further. It would not be sufficient to say that there were reasonable grounds for the conduct. The proposed new provision leaves out the phrase " reasonable grounds " and implies that there must be a virtually complete proof. However, the Minister has given his assurance, and I must accept it. Did I understand the right honorable gentleman to say that the unions have approved of this provision? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I said that I have had no protest from the unions in respect of any one of these clauses. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- With regard to none of the clauses? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Of course, they are very timid about coming to me with any suggestions. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Have they disapproved of any of these proposed provisions? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- No. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- That applies to the whole bill? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- They are aware of the recommendations of the President of the commission, because those recommendations were before them in the Ministry of Labour Advisory Council. I have had no protest in regard to any other provision from any trade union in the country. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Have they seen the bill? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Why not? Does the honorable member mean to say that they are so remiss in their duties that they do not bother to look at the legislation when it comes before the Parliament? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Have they seen it only since it came before this chamber? If so, they probably have not had time to examine it. I must say that we have not had a proper chance to examine it either. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I doubt that they have yet examined the honorable member's suggested provision about compulsory voting. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I think the Minister will find that they have. If the right honorable gentleman reads some of the newspaper reports he will find that they have examined it - whether carefully or not is beside the point. In any case, I have nothing more to say, since the Minister has given his assurance. {: #debate-30-s15 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about the words in paragraph (b) of clause 22 of the bill, " relates to or is work to which the award applies ". The term appears to be so wide in practical application that I would like to hear from the Minister how he comes to the conclusion that the inclusion of these words narrows down the responsibility. I cannot see how it does, and I should like him to say as clearly as possible how he arrives at that conclusion. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I will undertake to study what the honorable member has put, but I do not think I can usefully add anything to what I have already said to the committee. {: #debate-30-s16 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- I should like the Minister to take his assurance a little further. Besides merely having a look at it, will he consult the trade unions about it? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I am always available to be consulted by the trade unions. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- It is not a question of the Minister always being available. The trade unions have found certain difficulty on occasions, probably because they did not fit in with the convenience of the Minister. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The Australian Council of Trade Unions has never had any difficulty in seeing me when it has wanted to see me. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- As the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** has asked, have the unions had time to consider this legislation? It is rushed in during the last hours of a sitting, when even honorable members of this Parliament have not had time to consider it, and we are forced to seek and search for explanations of some of this vague legal phraseology. We want to know not merely whether the Minister will have a look at the matter, but also whether he will consider the viewpoint of the trade unions. I would ask also for this assurance: If, after consultation, the trade unions decide that this amendment will not do what the Minister suggests it will do in widening the field of defence, will the Minister undertake to reverse the position? If he is going to place any weight upon the trade union point of view as to the effect of these clauses, it is obviously not much use taking that point of view into consideration if his intention is to reject it. If the trade unions are not satisfied that this amendment improves the situation or that it merely leaves it as it was before or worsens it, will the Minister undertake to amend the legislation in accordance with the wishes of the trade union movement? It is essentially a trade union measure. The unions are the organizations most vitally concerned. If the Minister suggests that this is of advantage to the trade unions, surely the unions should be allowed to decide whether it is of advantage or not. If they do not want it left in the form that the Minister says he wishes to leave it, it should be a matter for their decision. If the Minister gives this undertaking and assurance we will be happy about the provision. Clause agreed to. Clause 23 agreed to. Clause 24 (Requirements as to rules). {: #debate-30-s17 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I am rather curious to know the reason for the addition of the word " unjust " in proposed new section 140. - (1.) (c). I would like to be assured that it is not aimed at allowing a court to decide, for example, an issue such as arose in the Hursey case. I do not refer to the 10s. levy that was imposed; I refer to the situation that arose when the union decided to forgo its claim for the 10s. levy and to allow **Mr. Hursey** to come back into the union providing he paid his arrears of union subscriptions. The union having said, " We do not want your 10s. levy for the Australian Labour party; you can come back into the union after merely paying your arrears of straight-out union contributions ", one would have thought that **Mr. Hursey** would have said, " I have won my point. I am not forced to pay the 10s. levy, and since 1 have only to pay my union contribution arrears T will do so, go back into the industry and work as before." {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- There is a short answer to it. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- As I can speak twice on this matter, I shall allow the *Minister to give his explanation.* {: #debate-30-s18 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP .- The word "unjust" was substituted for the word " unreasonable " following a comment of the judges of the High Court. The word " unreasonable " is more imprecise from the point of view of a judicial determination. Our objective has been to strengthen these clauses so that there can be no challenge to them on the ground that they do not allow of a judicial decision so far as the court is concerned. " Unjust " has been substituted for " unreasonable " for that reason. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Why did the Minister omit the word " tyrannical " ? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- For the same reason. The word " tyrannical " does not lend itself to a clear judicial determination. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- But it is used further on in the bill. {: #debate-30-s19 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I shall now continue with my remarks. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Where is the word used further on? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It is used in a subsequent clause. I will not dwell on that point now, but I shall watch for it. It is not the main point of issue at the moment. I want an assurance from the Minister for Labour and National Service that this clause has not been designed to enable the court to say - as would have been the case had it determined the Hursey case - that a rule is unjust because a 10s. levy is included in the union contribution. Hursey said, in effect, " I will not even pay my union contributions now because, included in the £7 of union arrears is 2s. 6d. representing two years' affiliation fees for the affiliation of the Waterside Workers Federation with the Australian Labour party ". I want to be certain- {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Does the honorable member want to start a debate on the Hursey case? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Yes, because many lies have been told about the Hursey case. As a matter of fact, it would be a good time to have a debate on the Hursey case. I think we should have it now. The Hursey case has been misrepresented completely by honorable members on the Government side and by their friends, the groupers, in an attempt to whip up a little bit of electoral hysteria against the Labour party as though the Labour party were responsible for the actions taken by the Waterside Workers Federation. The actual fact of the case is this: At a meeting of members of the Waterside Workers Federation, which was attended by the Hurseys, a union decision was taken, and was supported by the Hurseys, that a levy of 10s. should be imposed on each member of the federation to support the Australian Labour party's campaign funds. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member should proceed with the debate on the clause and relate his remarks to it. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- With great respect, **Sir, I** was replying to the Minister who referred to a debate on the Hursey case. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Even if the Minister challenged you, I want you to keep to the clause. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- There has been no challenge from me. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I ask the honorable member to keep to the clause. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The Minister has not satisfied me that this provision cannot be used to justify and support the actions that the Hurseys took subsequently, not only in claiming that they should not be charged the 10s. levy, but also that the union had no right to include in their contribution the 2s. 6d. as a contribution to the amount the union had paid in affiliation fees with the Australian Labour party. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! There is no reference to that matter in the clause. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Unless the Minister tells the committee what he proposes to do under the provisions of this clause. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Will the Minister tell the committee whether the words " unjust " and " unreasonable " are wide enough in this context to be so interpreted by the court that it may rule that it is unreasonable or unjust for a union to compel one of its members to pay a contribution which includes an amount that goes to the Australian Labour party in affiliation fees? In that case, union members would have to contract into a contribution for affiliation and perhaps would not even have the benefit of the English rule of contracting out. I would like the Minister to give an assurance that this is not a snide attempt by the Government to do something which, so far, it is not prepared to do openly. By saying, "We will not do it" the Government believes that it will not have to carry the political odium of preventing the unions from affiliating with a political party which they believe has served them best. The Government is saying, " We will make the act wide enough to enable the courts to do it for us". With that note, I shall sit down and wait for the Minister's assurance. {: #debate-30-s20 .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN:
Smith · Kingsford -- I wish to oppose this clause. Over the years, there has been an established practice among Australian trade unions regarding contributions. This practice has been laid down in the rules. They provide that before the contributions of a member are considered to be fully paid, levies for such purposes as mortality fund, insurance and so on are deducted from the money that is paid by the member. If the amount that is left after those deductions is less than the contributions that are charged, the member is declared unfinancial until he has paid up the remainder of the dues owing. That practice has been established over the years. I know that that has been the established practice over the 43 years that I have been a member of the Boilermakers Union. Now the Minister for Labour and National Service has introduced a provision that will cause serious trouble throughout the trade union movement. The proposed section states - >A rule of an organization - > >shall not impose upon applicants for membership, That means that payments shall not be imposed when a" person joins a union - or members, of the organization, conditions, obligations or restrictions- Every man who joins a union has obligations and agrees to observe those obligations or restrictions before he becomes a member Otherwise, he is not permitted to join the union. I believe that the purpose of this clause is to break up the unions. The provision continues - which, having regard to the objects of this Act and the purposes of the registration of organizations under this Act, are oppressive, unreasonable or unjust. That is a threat that the union will be deregistered if it does anything contrary to this provision. Will the Minister assure me that it will not tend to disrupt the whole working of an organization with the ultimate objective of destroying the trade unions? There is no doubt about it. It is an attempt to kill the trade union movement generally. The provision is subtly worded. I do not know whether the officers who drafted it are in the chamber. Did they word it without prompting or reason, or was there some direction to them? I should like to know where such direction came from if there was any. Who prompted this proposed section? Half a dozen lawyers would be needed to decipher it. I think this is a long-range plan to destroy the trade union movement. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson: -- Oh! {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- There is no doubt about it. The honorable member need not scoff at my statement. Ever since this Government has been in office its aim has been to destroy industrial organizations. I can remember three measures that have been introduced into this Parliament in the past seven years with the sole aim of reducing the power of the trade union movement. This is the ultimate act of the Government in that direction. This proposed section has been introduced to create industrial trouble. The Government is looking for a way out. Its election slogan will be " Law and order ". That is the slogan on which the Government intends to fight the next general election. This clause is included for that purpose. The Boilermakers Union has fought the Government before and won. It will fight the Government again on this unjust and oppressive clause, which we resent bitterly. Perhaps the Minister made a mistake in his direction to the law officers. I appeal to him to withdraw clause 24, if he is sincere, to have another look at it, and to obtain legal advice. If he is not satisfied with the advice he gets from the Crown Law Office, he should get advice elsewhere. We must remember that in the last eight years the Crown Law Office has not won a case that it has contested. We are certainly entitled to suspect the value of the advice the Government receives from that source. I appeal to the Minister to have another look at this provision and to give it some mature consideration. {: #debate-30-s21 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- Any doubt or suspicion in the minds of members of the Opposition has been created by the attitude of the Minister himself on the question of whether this clause will permit of some action by the Government to deal with what it regards as political levies. Ever since the inception of the Hursey affair - which I do not want to discuss in detail - prepared questions have been asked in this House, and the replies by the Minister have contained all sorts of threats about what the Government intends to do in regard to political levies. If the Minister is able to give the Opposition an assurance that he has abandoned whatever ideas he had on this subject, our attitude to this provision will be entirely different. Having regard to the fact that, according to the Minister, action was in the course of preparation and that an early announcement would be made, and having regard further to the fact that the Parliament will adjourn to-morrow, we can only believe that this clause is what the Minister was referring to, unless he tells us that the Government has abandoned the idea of trying to prevent trade union organizations from collecting from their own members what are termed political levies. Has the Government abandoned this idea? I should not be surprised to obtain the Minister's assurance that it had done so, because one of the aspects about which the Government would have to be very careful is that if there were provision to deal with political levies it would be difficult to keep it within restricted boundaries. Somebody might want to know how the Government parties are financed. At least, the Australian Labour party is open about political levies. We receive our financial support from the trade union movement. Some people may be asking where the Government forces get their finance for election campaigns. Perhaps the Government has decided to abandon its proposal in respect of political levies. The Minister says that this is only a question of legal opinion, and that the word " unjust " is much more easily interpreted, from the legal viewpoint, than the word " unreasonable ". I am not so sure that that is the only explanation. According to my reading, this provision, even in its existing form without amendment, appears to provide some means whereby the trade unions or their members may be prevented from subscribing to the Australian Labour party by way of a political levy. 1 hope that the Minister is able to give the assurance for which I ask. Without that assurance, the Opposition will be obliged to vote against the clause. {: #debate-30-s22 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I do not want the honorable gentleman, and others who may be similarly curious, to be in any lingering doubt on the point he has raised. The Government has not abandoned its consideration of the important question to which he has referred. I have prepared for Cabinet a submission which is currently with the Cabinet secretariat. I imagine that in the period of the recess it will receive the consideration of Cabinet. I shall not attempt to forecast the decision that Cabinet will take on the matter. No attempt has been made in this clause to deal with that matter. Should the Government decide that legislation is necessary to meet the problem raised by political levies, that matter would be the subject of separate legislation, which would be explained in detail to this House. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- This is not it? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- No, this is not it. {: #debate-30-s23 .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot .- I for one refuse to accept one word of what the Minister has just told the committee. I am quite convinced that the existing provision has been altered, as the Opposition suggests, as a result of what has happened in Hobart. It is all very well for the Minister to say that separate legislation will be introduced to deal with political levies. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I did not say there would be separate legislation. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- I want to know from the Minister why the repeal of section 140 is proposed, with a new section inserted in its stead. We want to know specifically why the section is to be reworded. The word " tyrannical " is to be taken out and the word " oppressive " inserted, plus the words " unreasonable or unjust ". {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The word " oppressive" was included all the time. Wake up to yourself. The word " oppressive " has been in the act for years. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- I still maintain my view that this Government is determined to split the trade union movement in Australia wide open. Whatever has happened in Hobart, it has given the Government a great opportunity to introduce into the Parliament one of the worst pieces of legislation that will ever be introduced, to prevent union members from making donations to political parties. I wonder if the Minister will bring down this legislation- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! That matter is not under discussion. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- The Minister himself mentioned it a moment ago. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- In reply to a question, he explained that that matter had no relation to this clause. The honorable member must keep to the clause. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- This clause is a preliminary to other provisions which will be introduced. I am wondering whether the Minister will introduce a provision to prevent donations by big business to political parties, as well as to prevent donations by trade union members. We want to see whether he is going to be quite fair on that issue, not one-sided. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I have told the honorable member that that is not the issue for discussion now. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- I still believe that this section need not be altered at all. The wording of section 140 is perfectly clear. The section has been operating for many years. There must be some other motive for the altered wording in the section proposed to be substituted. Along with my colleagues, I shall definitely oppose clause 24, because there is more to it than meets the eye. {: #debate-30-s24 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce .- The honorable member for Kingsford-Smith **(Mr. Curtin)** and the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** have completely missed the point of this clause. They surely have not read it in its context. As for the honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie),** he has obviously neither read the clause nor listened to the Minister's explanation. The substitution of the proposed new section 140 for the old section is quite obviously a redrafting in the terms of the Minister's second-reading speech, just to make sure that the court is clothed with judicial powers, exclusive of its executive powers- That is the whole purpose of the proposed change. To look to a single word and ask, " Is there some underhand reason for changing this word to that word? " is to lose the whole point of the matter. Both the Industrial Court and the High Court have commented on this section and have said that as it now reads it is a mixture of judicial and executive functions. Because that is so, it is bad within the precepts laid down by the court in the case of the Crown ex parte Kirby, commonly known as the Boilermakers' case. Obviously, this section has been redrafted to remove from it any suggestion that it involves an executive act, and to make it completely judicial in character. The honorable member for KingsfordSmith said, in relation to this matter, that before a man joined a union he had obligations. Of course, that is so. Every man, whether he is about to join a union or any other organization, has obligations, but this act, of course, is related to employeremployee relationships within the conciliation and arbitration jurisdiction. Paragraph (c) of proposed section 140 (1.) provides that a rule of an organization - shall noi impose upon applicants for membership . . . obligations or restrictions which, having regard to the objects of this Act and the purposes of the registration of organizations under this Act, are oppressive, unreasonable or unjust. Because of the words used there, we must look to the objects of the act. Section 2 provides - >The chief objects of this Act are - > >to promote good will in industry; > >to encourage conciliation with a view to amicable agreement, thereby preventing and settling industrial disputes; > >to provide means for preventing and settling industrial disputes . . . > >to provide for the observance and enforce ment of agreements and awards made in settlement of industrial disputes; and > >to encourage the organization of repre sentative bodies of employers and employees and their registration under this Act. Other obligations are not contemplated by that section. The only obligations that should be looked at are those referred to in the principal act. The honorable member for East Sydney referred to political levies. In answer to that, 1 say that this act is of long standing. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act, in its amended form, has been in existence for a good many years. If there had been anything in the act to prevent that kind of thing from being done, surely the matter would have been taken to the High Court long before this. The purpose of clause 24 is solely to remove from the relevant section of the act the executive character that it has, and to concentrate on its judicial character. To look, in this clause, for something to do with political levies is merely to waste the time of the committee. {: #debate-30-s25 .speaker-JWR} ##### Mr CHAMBERS:
Adelaide .- I do not wish to delay the business of the Parliament longer than is necessary, but I do not feel that the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** has not clarified the position regarding paragraph (c) of proposed section 140 (1.) to the satisfaction of this side of the committee. The honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden)** said that this provision must be considered in conjunction with the principal act, in which reference is made to agreements. I think it is fair to suggest that if an industrial organization, as the result of an agreement and the vote of its members, struck a levy for the benefit of a political party, or for any other purpose, it could be liable under the proposed section of the act. When the Hursey case came up for discussion in the House, I heard the Minister say that he was seriously considering the matter of political levies. The Minister smiles now, but I do not think he will deny that that is what he said. He has indicated again to-night that, at a later date, he intends to consider the matter. I believe that if the Government decided to prevent an industrial organization from striking a levy for a political organization, according to the provisions of the clause with which we are now dealing a penalty could be imposed on the organization concerned. I think that that is an important consideration, and I am of the opinion that the clause should be omitted. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Does the honorable member think that we could establish that such a provision would be unjust? {: .speaker-JWR} ##### Mr CHAMBERS: -- I believe that it would be unjust if the Government attempted to put into an act of parliament provision that an industrial organization should not have the right to impose a levy on its members for a particular purpose. I think that to do so is the business of the industrial organization concerned. I do not agree that any government, whether it be a Liberal government or a Labour government, has the right to interfere with the business of an industrial organization if it decides, by unanimous vote of its members, to strike a levy. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- That matter is not before the committee. {: .speaker-JWR} ##### Mr CHAMBERS: -- No, but I see .a danger in this clause, in that, without any further consideration by the Government, the provisions of the clause could result in the restriction and penalizing of an industrial organization which struck such a levy. I would like the Minister to remember that, throughout the years, industrial organizations have struck levies. If, for some particular political purpose, two men in one organization of all the industrial organizations throughout Australia, want to make political capital, or if any particular organization wants to make political capital, out of a levy to which members have subscribed over the years, I think that this Government, or any other government, should not fall into the trap. It should permit industrial organizations to carry on their business as they see fit, provided that justice is done to both the organization and its members. I have risen to protest against this particular paragraph of the proposed section because I believe that if, at a later date, the Government decided to prevent political organizations from imposing levies on their members, it could do so under this provision. The Minister has not convinced me that a penalty could not be imposed on industrial organizations in the terms of paragraph (c) of proposed section 140(1.). {: #debate-30-s26 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .- I thought that the honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden)** made it perfectly clear that clause 24 was virtually in the same terms as those in the act at present. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- I think that we had better send for **Sir Garfield** Barwick. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN: -- I do not think that that will be necessary. The honorable member for Bruce made the point that it was proposed to repeal section 140 of the principal act and to insert a new section simply to remove the executive character of the section and to stress the judicial character. The Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** gave an undertaking and an explanation, and then the honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie),** with what I hope was not a customary lack of charity, got up and said, " I do not believe you ". That was a little odd. A few moments ago, the honorable member for East Sydney was speaking about coercion. He said, with reference to a particular aspect of the legislation, that no member of a trade union should be coerced or exposed to coercion. Then the honorable gentleman raised the issue of political levies. That matter had not been introduced from this side of the chamber, but was injected into the debate by the honorable member for East Sydney. I should hope that, in the undertaking that the Minister has given to consider the issue of political levies, some consideration will be given to an examination of the English system, under which members of trade unions are given the right of contracting out when a levy is imposed to assist a political party. The honorable member for East Sydney has injected this into the debate, and I think it is a vital principle. It is quite plain that many tens of thousands of trade unionists do not support the Labour party, yet they are compelled, on many occasions, to support it directly by the imposition of political levies. I hope that the honorable member for Wilmot and the honorable member for Adelaide **(Mr. Chambers)** will see the point that was made by the Minister in charge of the bill and will also recognize the very valid point made by the honorable member for Bruce. {: #debate-30-s27 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney -- I rise only to put the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** right. He seems to think that there is some inconsistency between the earlier argument I used in respect of coercion, compelling men to work under conditions or terms of a contract which they regard as being unreasonable, and the contention that political levies should be struck by the trades union movement to help the Australian Labour party. The point the honorable member fails to appreciate is that the industrial and the political movement are parts of the one organization. We are the Labour movement; we are not two separate and distinct organizations. Does anybody suggest that a member can join an organization and contribute to part of its activities and object to supporting the remainder of its work? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- There are two Labour parties. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- There is only one Labour party, the Australian Labour party. There is a splinter group which brands itself as a kind of Labour party but its title is only a misnomer, assumed in an endeavour to delude the workers. In this country there is only one Australian Labour party and it receives the overwhelming support of the industrially organized workers. For the benefit of the honorable member for Moreton, I wish to inform him that the industrial Labour movement preceded the political movement which is actually the creation of the industrial movement. Consequently, when a worker joins a trade union to-day, he is certain that it will work to protect his industrial conditions. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I rise to order. How far is this discussion relevant to the clause under consideration. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I am afraid that a discussion on political organization is entirely outside the ambit of this clause and I must rule accordingly. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- I was only answering the argument which you, **Mr. Chairman,** allowed the honorable member for Moreton to introduce into the debate. Now I will proceed to deal with sub-clause (c). Whether the Minister for Labour and National Service realizes it or not, he will not be the one who will finally determine these questions. If any action were taken in accordance with the provisions of this provision, either in its present form or as amended, the people to decide will be those who sit in judgment on these matters, not the Minister for Labour in this Parliament. A situation could easily arise in which a trade union, instead of declaring a special levy from time to time, as has been instanced in the case of the Tasmanian waterside workers, may decide that the fairest and most convenient way to collect a political levy - or an affiliation fee if that term is preferable - would be to include it in the ordinary contributions paid by a member. It could say that the contributions for the year would be so much, a portion of which would be set aside for the ordinary management and working expenses of the union and a proportion for political activities to help the Australian Labour party which has the same objectives as the union of which he has become a member. If that were done, one could easily visualize the possibility of some court or judge declaring that such an imposition was unjust in accordance with sub-clause (c). No doubt there are judges, as there are members in this Parliament, who refuse or cannot possibly visualize the reality of industrial and political Labour working together in unison as one great movement; therefore, they might regard the imposition of a fee which includes a political levy as being unjust. Members of the Opposition believe that that is the implication of this sub-clause and that we are justified in asking the committee to vote against it. I am not satisfied with it. As a matter of fact, the Minister himself seemed to give the game away to some extent because he said that the judges are of the opinion that it is difficult to establish that something is unreasonable. But their viewpoint evidently is that it is much easier to determine that something is unjust. For that reason it would appear that this sub-clause would facilitate the work of the court in dealing with those matters to which the Opposition is directing attention. Because the Opposition believes that this amendment has some ill intent towards the Labour party and the industrial movement in particular, we intend to vote against it. Question put - >That the clause be agreed to. J The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.) AYES: 50 NOES: 27 Majority . . . . 23 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 25 (Application for cancellation of registration). {: #debate-30-s28 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I want to raise three points on this clause. The first point relates to proposed new section 143 (1.) (h). It is proposed to introduce something new into section 143 of the principal act. I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service to have a good look at proposed sub-section (l.)(h) with a view to being more positive about " a substantial number of the members " of the union. I have in mind some of the things that are happening in unions other than those that normally worry the Government. The "substantial number" to which reference is made in the proposed new sub-section could be a force which would cause a union to lose its registration. I think that a more positive statement should be made in the act. A percentage has been prescribed in other legislation. Some words different from " a substantial number " should be used. A head-on collision between the Government and the Opposition could result from what the Minister has referred to as a novel provision in sub-section (3e.) of proposed section 143. Having regard to the Minister's speech on this question, it seems to me that there is no possible chance of getting him to change his mind on it. For that reason alone, the Opposition will oppose this portion of the bill with all the force at its disposal. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider, between the time that this bill is disposed of in this chamber and the time that it reaches another place, the view that has prompted him to insert a provision which would avoid the necessity to call the Parliament together if a decision of the Parliament were upset by a court decision. This is a principle that should never be recognized in a free democracy. Whatever the position might be at the time the court decided that some legislation of this Parliament was invalid, the Parliament should come together to correct the position. The power of proclamation should not be used. I ask the Minister, before the bill reaches another place, to consider fully the impact of what the Government is doing, with a view to changing the provisions of proposed new sub-section (3e.), which is contrary to the principles of parliamentary government. I also make a strong appeal to the Government in connexion with the provisions of sub-section (5.) of proposed section 143. I ask the Minister to preserve the provisions of the sub-section (5.) of section 143 of the principal act. Sub-section (5.) of the act of 1928, which was amended by the act of 1956, provided - >Upon cancellation of the registration of an organization, the organization and its members shall cease to be entitled to the benefits of any award made under this Act and, subject to any order to the contrary made by the Court, the award shall in all other respects cease to have any force or effect. The provision that an award shall have 21 days of life after the deregistration of the union is, as I have already said to-night, a dangerous one. The Minister said that these amendments have been examined by leaders of the trade union movement. I can only say that the leaders of the trade union movement- {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I did not say that. Do not misrepresent me. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I am sorry. However, if any leader of the trade union movement were to acquiesce in this proposition, he would have forgotten completely the lessons that we all should have learnt from the events of 1917. It took us eight years after 1917 to get the trade union movement and management back to a level of understanding. Anybody who has read the history of the 1917 dispute will not tolerate a situation in this country in which the gate is open for scab organizations to move in, during or after a dispute, and take over the rightful position of the recognized trade unions. At present, when a union is deregistered, the award expires. To all intents and purposes, it is dead. The union retains its life as an association under sub-section (6.) of section 143 of the act. The very fact that the award expires at the same time as the union is deregistered forces the membership of the union to look at their own positions and the position of the malcontents who may have caused the deregistration. I appeal to the Minister to stick to the present sub-section (5.) of section 143 and not to permit this waiting period. Even though the court might discountenance applications made to it under the new provisions, it would create in the trade union movement greater bitterness than we have experienced since 1917. I dare say that the Minister has an explanation for this provision, but I invite his attention to the results of the dispute of 1917. Despite attempts to heal the wound in 1925 the effects carried on until 1933. Scab unions, and in some cases employer unions, moved in and took over the awards of deregistered unions. The New South Wales Railways Commissioner paid railway employees to set up a new union to take over the award of the union that had been deregistered. That could happen again if we provide for this breathing space of 21 days between the deregistration of a union and the expiration of the award. I appeal to the Minister not to open this gate at this stage of our industrial history. I ask him to reconsider this proposition, with the object of retaining the sub section of the 1943 act. The provision of 1943 is harsh enough. Do not let us create a situation which could result in a return to days that we want to forget {: #debate-30-s29 .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN:
Smith · Kingsford -- This clause brings the Minister for Labour and National Service right out into the open in regard to the attempt to smash the trade union movement of Australia. Sub-section (3E.) of proposed section 143 provides - >At any time at which there is in force a Proclamation declaring that the Commission may exercise powers under this sub-section, the Commission in Presidential Session may, upon the application of an organization or person interested or of the Registrar, direct the Registrar to cancel the registration of an organization if it considers that for any reason the registration of the organization ought to be cancelled, but the Commission shall not give such a direction upon a ground specified in the Proclamation as a ground upon which the powers of the Commission under this sub-section shall not be exercised. The honorable member for Blaxland **(Mr. E. James Harrison)** reminded us of the debacle in 1917 when **Sir George** Fuller made his famous declaration that the employees in the New South Wales railways at Eveleigh could eat grass as far as he was concerned. He sought a tool that he could use as was the case with the Hurseys. He found one in the person of a gentleman named Skelton, who lived in Newcastle. Skelton was only too happy to set up a scab union within the structure of the already deregistered organization. Riots broke out and men were killed. Brown was murdered opposite the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. He was shot while driving a lorry. There were other bad incidents brought about by a proclamation of the kind that the Minister proposes to re-introduce. Since that time there have been other strikes, and other riots have broken out because similar conditions have operated. Instances occurred in the dispute relating to the permanent casual waterside workers, and again during the timber strike. Through the years we have seen a succession of these incidents. I have heard members of the Opposition claim that Government supporters are living in the past. The Minister for Labour and *National* Service is certainly living in the past when he seeks to give legislative effect to these clauses. He has taken them almost word for word from the legislation that was introduced to smash the 1917 strike and to smash the organizations that were created by the " diggers " of the 1914-18 war. Those " diggers " went away to fight, and while their backs were turned the anti-Labour government prepared to smash the organizations that they had painfully toiled over the years to establish. The same thing will happen again if the Minister is allowed to go his merry way in his violent attempts to destroy trade unions in this country. His search for a slogan is brought into bold relief. The Government has no chance of winning the next election unless it can find a slogan that will appeal to the people. The only slogan that it can think of is, " Law and order ", and this clause will allow the disruption of law and order by the simple process of the court using the old subterfuge of de-registering the established unions and registering scab outfits that the Government is prepared to pay handsomely in its attempt to destroy the trade union movement. Members of the Fuller Government cut sorry figures in 1917, and it took years for the trade union movement to recover the ground it had lost. The Government is endeavouring to bring about conditions similar to those of 1917. The Government is antiAustralian, and any honorable member opposite who supports this bill is of the same frame of mind as the Minister and the other members of the Cabinet. Government supporters are afraid that at the next election the people will wipe them out, and they are depending upon the slogan " Law and order " to save them as it has saved the progenitors of this Government in the past. The Government is now seeking advice from as many people as possible as to the best way to recover the ground it has lost over the last eight years through its action in selling up the assets of the people. The Government knows that it will be defeated unless it can contrive something- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member must discuss the clause. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- The Government knows that it will be defeated unless it can cause something to happen as a result of this clause that will allow deregistration of the unions and their replacement by " scab " unions. I appeal to the Minister again, as I have been appealing to him all night, to use some common sense. He is pre pared to use all means at his disposal to gain the coveted honour of Prime Minister of Australia, but he will surely fail- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member must sit down if he is not prepared to deal with the clause. Question put - >That the clause be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.) AYES: 49 NOES: 26 Majority . . . . 23 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1829 {:#debate-31} ### PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY BILL 1958 Bill received from the Senate. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Mr. Osborne)** read a first time. {: .page-start } page 1829 {:#debate-32} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1958 Bill received from the Senate. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Mr. Osborne)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-32-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP .- I move- >That the bill be now read a second time. This bill presents several amendments to the machinery provisions of the Customs Tariff 1933-1957 to simplify the work associated with Customs Tariff alterations. I will refer first to two amendments of a minor nature and will then deal with the more important provisions of the bill. Clause 2 amends the definition of " British non-self-governing colony " and also defines " item " as including part of an item in the Customs Tariff. The amendment proposed by clause 4 will remove from section 12 of the Customs Tariff provisions which have become redundant as a result of the re-arrangement of ministerial functions which followed the establishment of the Department of Trade. The Tariff Board Act imposes a responsibility on the Minister for Trade to refer to the Tariff Board certain matters relating to deferred duties. Provisions in the Customs Tariff which place a similar responsibility on the Minister for Customs and Excise will now be amended so that there will bc no conflict with the Tariff Board Act. The more important amendments in the bill are designed to facilitate the work associated with tariff alterations and are concerned with powers which the Parliament has traditionally vested in the Executive. The powers and the method of carrying them out are defined in sections 9 and 9a of the Customs Tariff. The Government now seeks parliamentary approval for a variation in the machinery whereby these powers are exercised. Section 9 and 9a of the Customs Tariff provide that the Governor-General may, by proclamation, declare that the rates of duty in the columns headed " British preferential tariff " and " Intermediate tariff " in the Schedule to the tariff shall apply to goods listed in the proclamation when they are the produce or the manufacture of specified countries. When tariff proposals are introduced into the House, it is almost invariably necessary for a British preferential tariff proclamation or an intermediate tariff proclamation to be made and published in the " Gazette " not later than the day following the introduction of the amendments. This generally requires a special meeting of the Executive Council to be called, and at times when His Excellency the Governor-General is away from Canberra the documents must reach him and be signed on that day, wherever he may be. The proclamations always give effect to decisions made by the Government. The procedure would be simplified, and the need for special meetings of the Executive Council avoided, if the British preferential tariff rates and the intermediate tariff rates were applied to goods by ministerial order instead of by proclamation. This is proposed in clause 3 of the bill. Orders will be published in the " Gazette " as is now done in the case of proclamations. Under the present arrangement, administrative difficulties can arise if a customs tariff proposal is amended at short notice by the House and in consequence it becomes necessary to convene a special meeting of the Executive Council to consider the repeal or variation of proclamations. The present act also fails to provide clear legislative authority for the application of the British preferential tariff or the intermediate tariff to goods specified in Customs Tariff Proposals. The existing practice, which is very old, has been to include special provisions in the proposals purporting to authorize the making of proclamations and to validate the proclamations later when an enabling act is passed to give effect to the provisions in the proposals. The Government's legal advisers consider that this practice is open to some objection. The Government proposes, therefore, to insert in the Customs Tariff, provisions authorizing the application of the British preferential rates or the intermediate tariff rates to goods covered by proposed items or existing items under amendment. Clause 3 of the bill, in addition to amending the Customs Tariff to authorize the application of British preferential tariff and intermediate tariff rates by ministerial order also provides that certain provisions of sections 48 and 49 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1957 shall apply to these ministerial orders in the way that those provisions apply to regulations. This gives honorable members the right to move for the disallowance of an order. I commend the bill to the House. {: #subdebate-32-0-s1 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne -- In view of the fact that, in the Senate, the Government accepted an amendment providing that either House may disallow a regulation made under the terms of this measure, the Opposition offers no objection to the passage of the bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1830 {:#debate-33} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF (PRIMAGE DUTIES) BILL 1958 Bill received from the Senate. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Mr.** Osborne) read a first time. {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP -- I move- >That the bill be now read a second time. **Mr. Speaker,** the bill before the House amends the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Primage Duties) 1934-1950 to provide for variations in primage duty to be made by Ministerial Order instead of by Proclamation. This is complementary to Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1958, which has just been introduced and passed through all stages. Most of the alterations to primage duties are associated with Customs Tariff alterations proposed in the Parliament and the goods on which primage duty rates are varied are usually goods covered by items in the Customs Tariff Proposals. It is necessary, in these instances, for a primage proclamation to be made and gazetted not later than the day following the introduction of the Customs Tariff Proposals. This procedure may require special meetings of the Executive Council to deal only with proclamations which give effect to decisions already taken by the Government. Administrative difficulties of the sort 1 described earlier also arise if His Excellency the Governor-General is absent from Canberra at the time when the proposals *re tabled in the Parliament. These procedures would be simplified if provisions were inserted in the schedule to the act authorizing the Minister to make an order, which will be required to be published in the " Gazette ", varying the primage duty on goods. This is proposed in clause 2 of the bill. I commend the bill to honorable members. {: #subdebate-33-0-s1 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne .- The Opposition offers no objection to the passage of this measure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1830 {:#debate-34} ### ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following bills reported: - >Bills of Exchange Bill 1958. > >States Grants (Additional Assistance) Bill 19S8. > >Judges' Pensions Bill 1958. {: .page-start } page 1830 {:#debate-35} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: - >Western Australian (Northern Development) Bill 1958. > >States Grants (Universities) Bill 1958. Wheat Acquisition (Undistributed Moneys) Bill 1958. > >Cotton Bounty Bill 1958. Beer Excise Bill 1958. > >Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1958. {: .page-start } page 1830 {:#debate-36} ### NAVIGATION BILL 1958 {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 6th May (vide page 1476). on motion by **Mr. Osborne** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- During an earlier discussion I protested against the Government introducing this type of legislation in the declining hours of a sessional period. This legislation is most important, and it is now a quarter to twelve. It appears to me that the few members awake in this chamber are members on the Labour side of the House. {: #subdebate-36-0-s1 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay: Order! The honorable member will resume his seat. I must ask the House to come to order. It is impossible to hear the honorable member above the interjections. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- This is an illustration of the fact that the Government is legislating by exhaustion. The Minister for Air **(Mr. Osborne)** has admitted that the bill has been in preparation for the last three or four years. There is no real urgency about it. We have a Navigation Act, which is functioning to-day. It may need amending in certain ways, and I believe it does. However, as this bill has been in preparation for three or four years, it could have waited a little longer and been introduced during the next sessional period, if the Government is determined to adjourn the sittings to-morrow. I suggest that, instead of setting out on this process of exhausting members in order to pass this measure, the Parliament should sit for a further week so that we can give proper consideration to the legislation. Let us have a look at the bill. The Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Senator Paltridge),** who introduced the measure in another place, took exactly 12i minutes to deliver his speech. The Minister for Air, who merely read the same speech in this chamber- {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- That is not true. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- Well, it is almost identical. The Minister for Air took almost the same time to read his speech. Half the speech of the Minister for Shipping and Transport and half the speech of the Minister for Air was devoted to relating the history of the control of navigation in this country. My colleague, the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam),** will deal with this problem and with the division of authority. The Government has admitted on a number of occasions the difficulty of legislating in this important field because of the divided constitutional authority. Why does it not seek the power over navigation from the people? Surely, there should be no division between intra-state commerce, interstate commerce and overseas commerce; commerce should be controlled by the national Parliament as a national project. If the Government had wanted to do something realistic about reorganizing this great industry, it should have set out, first, to clothe the Parliament with the necessary constitutional power, lt would then have been able to prepare a decent Navigation Bill that would have been acceptable to those employed in the industry and to members of the Parliament. It is amazing that, with this type of legislation, we have no memorandum and no explanatory notes. Honorable members will recall that on a number of occasions when a large act has been amended in many ways, we have been supplied with a memorandum and with explanatory notes, so that we have not had to keep referring to the principal act to understand the significance of the proposed amendments. However, on this occasion, no memorandum has been prepared. Surely the Government has had ample time to prepare such a document for the information of honorable members. This legislation contains many important provisions. They are so important that they should not be discussed at midnight, as is being done on this occasion. I will frankly admit, as the leader of the Australian Labour party in the Senate also admitted, that this is almost essentially a committee measure. It is a measure that must be dealt with clause by clause in the committee stage. Some vital changes are being made, and some vital issues and principles are involved in the amendment of this act. There are questions such as those of the under-manning of ships and of compensation. May I say to honorable members that the Government has been adopting the practice of overriding, by legislation, the terms and conditions of the award applying in the industry. I think it is a most serious matter when a government, by legislative enactment, infringes conditions contained in the award, which is the legal document and contract under which the men employed in the industry are working. This is a most important industry and an essential one for Australia. The seamen's occupation is a hazardous one. The hazards are great enough in time of peace, but in time of war members of the mercantile marine suffered heavier casualties than were incurred among other groups of people who were regarded as being in the front line. Seamen accepted great risks willingly, and they are, therefore, entitled to greater consideration than they have received at the hands of this Government. Although I shall leave this phase of the matter to be dealt with by my friend, the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam),** let me say that the Government has neglected to give effect to conventions that have been introduced by the International Labour Office - not just at its last session but over a period of years. The Government has allowed these conventions to accumulate, or to gather on the stocks, as it were, and it now proposes an overall acceptance or endorsement of them. The Labour party does not object to this because, in general principle, we agree with the conventions determined by the International Labour Office. Let us consider, however, whether the Government has been fair in the consideration that it has given to this House and the members of it with regard to the provision of time for a proper debate on this measure. The bill itself consists of 85 pages. There are 208 clauses in it. The act contains 435 sections. I have already said that the bill was three or four years in course of preparation. There has been an absence of adequate consultation. To illustrate that point, let me say that in the Other chamber, of 23 amendments presented by the Opposition, ten were accepted by the Government, so strong were the arguments in support of them. This shows that proper consideration was not given to the legislation when it was being drafted. If the Government had consulted with the people who could have advised it properly, it might have brought down a different measure, not in the slipshod and loose form in which this bill has been presented to us. Under the existing legislation a committee of advice has been set up. Was that committee consulted by the Minister on this matter? Not at all! The committee of advice, which includes representatives of shipowners as well as employees, made a request to the Minister that it be consulted with regard to this legislation. The committee knew nothing about it until the bill was announced and tabled in this Parliament. The Minister refused the committee's request. It is perfectly true that under the provisions of the act the Minister is not obliged to consult the committee of advice, but he has the opportunity to do so, and, as far as I can ascertain, the practice has been, over a long period, for Ministers to confer and consult with the committee of advice, which is representative of all interests in the industry. On this occasion the Minister said that there was no use in conferring with the committee, because one section of its members would merely have expressed the point of view of the employers, while the other section would have given the views of the employees. He said that the committee would not have been able to reach agreement on any of the provisions of the bill and that the decision, finally, would have had to be made by the Minister or the Government. Did you ever hear such a ridiculous argument advanced in support of a failure to consult this committee of advice? If the points of view of the employers and employees differ so widely with regard to the provisions of this legislation, why have a committee of advice at all? How is the committee ever able to reach agreement on any matter submitted to it if such a serious division exists among its members? Let me remind honorable members of the length of time that this measure has been in course of preparation. It is perfectly true that in 1955, over two years ago, the committee of advice had a draft bill submitted to it, which it considered. But the new bill, which proposes many more vital changes than did the draft bill of 1955, has been withheld from the committee of advice, which was not given the opportunity to examine the bill. The members of the committee, the shipowners' and the employees' representatives, unanimously decided to send a telegram to the Minister, using in some places language of a kind that I could not even mention in this chamber without being called to order. The committee expressed its criticism of the Minister and the Government, and the Minister sent a long-winded reply by telegram. I think T should read it to the House, because what the Minister said is quite interesting. The telegram read as follows: - >Resolution of Committee of Advice was conveyed to the Minister who advises as follows quote It is not function of Committee of Advice as such to consider proposed amendments of navigation acts unless specifically referred to it by me stop. Have not referred current proposals to committee for reason that parties on committee acting in their separate interest had ample opportunity to present their views at conferences held during drafting of bill stop It is pertinent to point out that separate parties took advantage of this opportunity and full consideration was given to views expressed by them stop Bill introduced in Senate March 29th and it cannot be said that interested parties have not by now had time to study it stop In response to request on behalf of maritime unions I agreed to receive their representations and made appointment for Tuesday last in Canberra which however union representatives failed to keep stop Should any other parties wish to make representations to me I would be pleased to receive them and if as result their representations any amendments are considered necessary by Government they can be introduced when bill is before Parliament unquote . . . That is signed by a person who, no doubt, is the Minister's secretary. It is quite true that the Minister agreed to receive the representatives of the unions on the Tuesday, but the Minister failed to point out that he had previously made an appointment to see the union representatives on the Monday. Those representatives were prepared to come to Canberra on the Monday to keep the appointment, but it was the Minister who cancelled that earlier appointment, and he did so at very short notice. He then wanted the unions to send their representatives to Canberra on the Tuesday. Some of those representatives could not come here on the Tuesday because they had to appear in court on industrial matters affecting their members. They advised the Minister to this effect. They came to Canberra on the Wednesday, and I understand that the Minister then declined to receive them, arguing, no doubt, that they should have been here on the previous day. That is the way in which the representatives of the maritime unions have been treated with regard to consideration of this matter. The first appointment made by the Minister was for 21st April. That was postponed, as I have said, at short notice, until Tuesday, 22nd April. Then, finally, when the union representatives arrived on the Wednesday, the Minister refused to see them. Some important provisions are contained in this legislation. I do not deny, and neither do other members of the Labour party, that in some minor respects the legislation has been improved. But, no doubt this is merely the sugar-coating of the pill, because in many other respects the maritime group of unions is placed at a disad vantage. The Minister sought to make an important point of the fact that penalties provided for breaches of the legislation by shipowners have been substantially increased. He mentioned this matter in his second-reading speech. He said - >The penalties throughout the act have been reviewed, and many of them have been increased. In particular, I invite attention to clause 123, which raises the penalty from £100 to £1,000 where life-saving appliances are deficient. Does any honorable member believe that when life-saving appliances, which are declared by the act and by awards governing employees in the industry to be necessary, are found to be deficient, the raising of the maximum penalty from £100 to £1,000 is an adequate provision? I remind honorable members that this kind of failure to carry out the provisions of the act may endanger the lives not only of the men employed on a vessel, but also of the passengers carried in it. I do not believe that the penalty provided is by any means sufficient. Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 12.30 a.m. (Thursday). Thursday, 15th May, 1958. [Quorum formed.] {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- When the sitting was suspended I was dealing with the provisions in the bill to increase penalties on shipowners. I referred to the fact that the Minister for Air had made much of the provisions to increase the penalty for failure to provide lifesaving appliances as required in the regulations under the principal act. The Minister said that the penalty was to be increased from £100 to £1,000. While that might be regarded as a substantial increase, in my opinion £1,000 does not mean a thing to one of the wealthy shipping companies. If the requirements of the law are that certain appliances must be carried, the penalty for a breach should be much more severe than that provided in the measure. The other penalty to which reference has been made is that for submersion of load lines. That is to be increased from £100 per inch of submersion to £500 per inch. That is not a terrific penalty to impose on a shipping company for failure to carry out the requirements of the act. The Australian Labour party believes that penalties should be much more severe than those provided. 1 indicated earlier that, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Australian Labour party, this was essentially a committee bill. It can be dealt with much more appropriately in the committee, but the Labour party intends to vote against the motion for the second reading. We shall do so because we think the bill makes vital changes in the existing law and practice. We consider it is wrong for any government, by legislation, to override any of the conditions or protections contained in the award of any of the men working in the maritime industry. Further, we believe that what is required is a complete overhaul and recasting of this sort of legislation to bring it more in conformity with the realities of the present situation so that this great and important Australian industry will be put on a proper basis. For those reasons, the Opposition intends to vote against the motion for the second reading. {: #subdebate-36-0-s2 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON:
Fawkner -- The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** has never been seen to worse advantage than he was when delivering the speech has has just inflicted on the House. He complained that the Minister for Air **(Mr. Osborne),** who is in charge of the measure in this chamber, had merely echoed the speech of the Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Senator Paltridge),** who controlled the bill in another place. That was as far from the truth as the statements that are usually made by the honorable member. The truth is that the best that the honorable member for East Sydney could do was to read almost word for word the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. He did not bring one new thought to this debate. His speech was almost entirely a repetition of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. However, the honorable member dealt with one or two points. As was mentioned in the Senate, he said that the committee of advice was not consulted on this legislation, yet we know perfectly well that there was consultation, first with the unions concerned over a period of months. Therefore, all their views were taken into consideration. At a later stage, all the representatives of the shipowners were consulted. Again, those consultations took place over a long period. Therefore, after such considerable consultation, it was quite natural that the Minister should not consider it necessary to bring the committee of advice together once again as the same interests were represented on it. The honorable member for East Sydney made a mountain of the fact that ten amendments were accepted by the Minister for Shipping and Transport when the bill was in another place. Despite the fact that none of those ten amendments in a bill of 208 clauses was of great importance, their acceptance by the Minister was an indicaion of the wish of the Government to deal with the measure, so far as possible, in a spirit of goodwill in the interests of all those engaged in the maritime industry. The third point made by the honorable member for East Sydney again revealed the desire of the Labour party to gain complete control of all shipping. He wanted another referendum to put more and more power into the hands of the bureaucrats. For years, the Opposition has tried to achieve this objective. Thank goodness, the people of Australia have learnt by experience the dangers of the moves advocated by the honorable member for East Sydney! Having said all that, the honorable member complained of the lack of time that had been allowed for consideration of the bill, yet in a speech of twenty minutes, he devoted more than ten minutes to complaints about the lack of time. He dealt with nothing more of any effect than the few matters I have mentioned. I should like to say in a few words what has not been referred to by the Opposition at any stage so far; that is, the objects of the Navigation Act. The objects of the act should be to safeguard the safety of ships and their passengers and cargo on the Australian coast, and, secondly, to improve the administration of shipping on the Australian coast. The bill that is before the House now is merely a series of amendments to the principal act. It is a magnificent consolidating measure. The preparation of it must have imposed on the Minister for Shipping and Transport a tremendous amount of hard work. I am certain the thanks of the House must go to him. He must be congratulated on the result that is now before us. The Opposition has concentrated so far only on matters concerning the conditions of seamen. That is only a portion of the measure but as usual, the Opposition considers only one portion without looking at the whole bill. The maritime industry is vital to Australia. Our aim surely is to have an efficient merchant marine operating on the Australian coast. Therefore, if it is possible to make certain improvements, particularly of an administrative nature, we ought to see whether this can be achieved by the passage of the bill. We should approach this matter in a spirit of cooperation. Honorable members on both sides should get together in an endeavour to improve the bill by making various amendments, instead of voting against the bill, as Opposition members propose to do, just because they object to two or three clauses. Above all things, our aim should be to produce a navigation act which will enable all those concerned with this industry to adopt new methods for the operation of coastal shipping. If costs are reduced, we shall have made an important step forward in the operation of our merchant marine. Unless costs are reduced, after a time there will be no Australian shipping on the Australian coast. We have seen the way in which the employees in this industry have done everything possible to work themselves out of a job. {: .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr Coutts: -- What rot! {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON: -- The honorable member may say, " What rot! ", but we know the degree to which the carriage of goods by sea around the Australian coast has declined because of high costs in the industry. One has only to read the report of the Tait committee to realize the extent to which high costs are engendered by the attitude of the people running the various maritime and waterfront unions. We have to ensure that all people engaged in this industry have a constructive attitude towards changing methods in the operation of ships and stevedoring companies. If we can induce a constructive attitude to change, we shall see a rejuvenation of the Australian merchant marine. If we cannot induce a better attitude than the destructive attitude exemplified to-night by the honorable member for East Sydney, we shall see a gradual deterioration of our merchant marine to the stage where it will no longer be able to operate on our coast. Some of the objections raised by the honorable member for East Sydney related to amendments that were made to the act in 1952. That is not really an issue before the House now. Those amendments were made six years ago, and already they have proved to be of help to the industry. The aim of this bill is merely the consolidation of the legislation. This industry, above all others, is a complex industry. The factors affecting the safety of ships must override all other considerations. That is the matter at which we must look first and foremost. The honorable member for East Sydney dealt with one or two points affecting seamen's conditions of work. On the Australian coast we have seen through the years a continuous improvement in the working conditions of seamen. To-day the conditions of seamen in Australian ships are as good as, or better thn. those of seamen serving in any other merchant marine. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Do not spoil a good speech. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON: -- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not agree with that statement? {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- They are not as good as the working conditions of the seamen of some other countries. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON: -- I think the honorable gentleman would have difficulty in naming a merchant marine that offers better conditions than we have in Australia. The honorable member for East Sydney drew attention to two clauses, one of which deals with under-manning. I direct attention to the words of the Minister for Shipping and Transport, who dealt with an objection taken by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. The Minister said that **Senator McKenna** had confused the two types of manning - operative manning and prescribed manning. The bill provides that a ship may sail one short of its ordinary quota, so long as it is not under-manned according to its prescribed quota, and no member of the crew objects. This is an effort to get greater efficiency in the operalion of this industry. The proposal has been agreed to by all bodies concerned, and it is surprising that the Opposition still objects to it. The Opposition objects also to the various clauses relating to the sickness of seamen. I should have thought that provisions designed to facilitate the movement of seamen to their home ports as soon as they were fit to travel, in order to get them within the confines of their own homes so that they could be looked after as well as possible in their home environment, would have been supported wholeheartedly by the Opposition. Yet an amendment has been foreshadowed. I find it difficult to believe that this attitude is really in the best interests of the seamen, whom Opposition members are supposed to represent. There are certain other wider matters which should be examined, but which have not been referred to at any length by the Opposition. True, the honorable member for East Sydney spent a few moments talking about life-saving appliances and the increased fines to be imposed for non-compliance with the provisions. Surely the important matter is the need to provide proper life-saving appliances. Not only are the normal appliances to be provided, but also inflatable rafts, so we are keeping up to date with new inventions and new means of saving life at sea. These wider aspects are surely much more important than fines and penalties, which seem to be the only matters to which the Opposition is really giving any consideration. The provisions relating to submerging the so-called Plimsoll line are intended to achieve a greater degree of safety for ships at sea. The Minister has given attention to the fact that a number of new Australians are now working on ships on the Australian coast. I am certain that the Minister for Immigration **(Mr. Downer),** who is listening to this debate, will be keen to see those provisions implemented. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- Is he listening, or only sitting? {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON: -- He is listening, which is probably more than some Opposition members are doing. We have looked at this matter from the point of view of encouraging new Australians who have engaged in the shipping industry before they came here to qualify in the coastal shipping trade for higher posts than those for which they have hitherto been able to qualify. The Minister has been really constructive in his attitude to this matter. He has also looked at the question of salvage at sea, particularly where naval ships go to the assistance of merchant ships. In the past, it was not easy for ships of the Royal Australian Navy U> claim salvage. At the same time, the reverse position applied. A merchant ship going, to the assistance of a naval ship could noL claim salvage. This matter has been looked at and has been placed on a proper basis. In future, the same provisions will apply tonaval ships as apply to ships run by private enterprise. Also, the same liability in. regard to damage is provided for naval ships as is provided in respect of privately owned ships. There is one matter of importance with, which I wish to deal. It relates to the position regarding tourists who wish to travel by ship on the Australian coast. At the present time, tourists may travel in a. British ship only if there is no Australian ship available on which to travel, and they may do so only if a special permit is given by the Minister. It is proposed to amend the act to enable the permit system to be extended to cover not only British ships but also ships of foreign merchant marines. I wish that this provision of the act had been even more widely extended. There is certainvidence that the number of passenger ships run by Australian companies is becoming fewer. There seems to be little inclination on the part of private enterprise to build new tourist ships, or ships for passengers on the Australian coast. That being so, we should do everything we can to encourage the tourist industry and to encourage people to travel by sea instead of by other means of transport. I hope that, in due course, the Minister will have another look at this clause with a view to widening the permit system even further, so that it will be open to travellers to take passage in foreign-going ships, if the routes suit them. The tourist industry is something that we all wish to foster and I believe that by means of this bill we could amend the act in such a way as to afford real encouragement to the industry. As the hour is late, I shall do no more now than sum up my views on this bill. I believe that the Minister has done an extremely good job in this magnificent task of consolidation of a very complex act. He has amended it, in many instances, so that it follows the lines of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act, on which our Australian Navigation Act was originally based. It is a pity that such a long time has elapsed since the act was previously amended. Having regard to the way in which the conditions relating to navigation on the Australian coast change from year to year, perhaps such a long period will not pass before the act is amended again. I hope that there will be a regular review of its provisions, possibily every two years. Above all, the act should be a help to all those who have the responsibility to administer this industry. Therefore, I feel that all honorable members should think of this matter in a co-operative way. Their approach should not be merely destructive, like the approach of the Opposition so far. We all should aim to give the bill a speedy passage. I support the measure. {: #subdebate-36-0-s3 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa -- I support the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** in his desire that the Commonwealth should take the necessary preliminary steps to institute a national code for navigation, and I deplore the attitude of the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr Howson)** in criticizing the suggestion of the honorable member for East Sydney as another plea for increased power for bureaucrats. **Sir, the** difficulty with navigation is not in the bureaucrats that there should be, but in the bureaucrats that there are, because there is not in Australia merely one Navigation Act passed by this Parliament; every State parliament also has a navigation act. There is not just the Seamen's Compensation Act passed by this Parliament; there is a workers' compensation act, concerning seamen, passed by every State parliament. In this Parliament, where we are responsible for the whole of the expenditure for this nation, and in the waters surrounding our land, on lighthouses and radio aids; where we superintend the arrangements for stevedoring in any port of a reasonable size in Australia; where we provide the customs services and the immigration people who meet every person who comes into this country, through any of its ports; where we provide all the subsidies for every ship that is built in Australia, with the sole exception of the ships which the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited builds in its shipyards and keeps for its own services; surely it is a very reasonable proposition, as the honorable member for East Sydney has said, that we should complement the existing powers of the Commonwealth in regard to navigation, round them out, and have one national code in a matter that concerns the whole nation. The attitude of the honorable member for Fawkner is in fact a justification for the continuation of the anomalous and extravagant overlapping bureaucracies of the Commonwealth and the six States. Whether we choose to call them bureaucrats or administrators, they do their best within the machinery which the Australian parliaments provide. It is about time that we in this Parliament gave the people of Australia the opportunity to provide the wherewithal for the bureaucrats, if we like to use that snobbish term which the young Liberals apply to those on the pay-roll, or to public servants in the best sense, to carry out a vital role in the country's communications and commerce, to see to it that there is a modern code. Let me remind the honorable member for Fawkner that it is by mere oversight that the Commonwealth Parliament has not power to legislate in relation to all aspects of navigation. Let me quote from a paper prepared by the the first Commonwealth Solicitor-General for the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers on constitutional matters in 1934. **Sir Robert** Garran stated - >It is due to an oversight in the hurried last stages of the drafting of the Constitution that the Federal Parliament has not express and plenary power to make laws with respect to navigation and shipping. Canada has that power. In the Australian draft Constitution of 1891 " Navigation and shipping " were included among the specific subject matters of Federal legislative powers. At the Federal Convention of 1897-8 the same provision was inserted. At a late stage of the sittings of the Convention it was pointed out that in the United States Constitution navigation and shipping were deemed to be implied from the trade and commerce power and the Admiralty jurisdiction and it was suggested that the express mention of navigation and shipping in the Australian Constitution might be construed to limit the trade and commerce power. Accordingly, the subject-matter, navigation and shipping, was omitted and by the declaratory words of section 98 the trade and commerce power was expressed to extend to navigation and shipping. The fact was overlooked that the trade and commerce power was limited to interstate and external trade and that this limitation also would extend to navigation. Let me indicate the bureaucratic overlapping that can occur in the administration of navigation in every port in Australia by another quotation from **Sir Robert** Garran's paper on that occasion. **Sir Robert** stated - >Commonwealth and States have to administer Navigation Departments which carry on precisely the same kind of work. Moreover, there is often the greatest difficulty in knowing which jurisdiction is applicable. For instance, in the case of Hume v. Palmer (38 C.L.R. 443) a master of an interstate steamship had been convicted under the New South Wales law of a breach of the Navigation Act of that State by disobeying in Sydney Harbour the Collision Regulations under that Act. The High Court held that the State law with respect to this offence had been superseded by the Federal Navigation Act, and the conviction was quashed. On the other hand, in the case of King v. Turner (39 C.L.R. 411) an application was successfully made to the High Court by the Marine Board of Hobart constituted under a State Act to prohibit the Commonwealth Court of Marine Inquiry from inquiring into a collision between two harbour steamships in the port of Hobart, but just outside the course ordinarily used by steamships engaged in interstate trade. The deficiencies of the Commonwealth Constitution in regard to navigation and shipping are the charter of the bureaucrats, and that is largely responsible for the lack of certitude and the delays and expense which attend shipping between the Australian ports, and also between Australian and overseas ports. The deficiencies of Commonwealth power clearly emerge in many sections of this act. I shall refer merely to sections of the act which are amended, in one way or the other, by clauses of this bill. First of all, there is an amendment to section 2 of the act. That is the section which sets out what sort of shipping this act purports to cover. There are doubts in the department - and I should think quite reasonable doubts - whether it is possible for this act to cover, as it purports to cover, in every respect, all the trade between the ports in the Australian territories and ports in the Australian States. It might be doubted whether the Commonwealth could, under the power to legislate for its territories - section 122 of the Constitution - assume jurisdiction to the exclusion of State law in the case of a collision in a State port between a ship engaged in intra-state trade and a ship engaged in trade between the State and a territory. Yet section 2 purports to cover such a position and excludes such a State act. There are very real doubts in the department whether the section is worth the paper it is written on. There are many amendments in this bill to section 85 and sections 149 to 160 which deal respectively with a seaman's rights to wages in case of termination of services by wreck or loss of the ship, and the property of deceased seamen. Although the act is expressed by section 2 to cover the position of ships registered in Australia but trading between ports outside Australia, there is very real doubt as to whether we can, in fact, do anything under those sections, if the sections really give the protection which we purport to confer. Again, the department has expressed doubts on that subject. There is the whole question of the registration of Australian ships. The terms of registration always cover how tonnage is to be computed, and the relevance of tonnage is in the limitation of damages to passengers or consignors, that limitation being related to the tonnage of the ship. We have inherited the Imperial Merchant Shipping Acts which lay down the relationship between tonnage and liability for damages and the quantum of damages. It is true that we can vary the terms of registration and the computation of tonnage and liability for damages in regard to ships which trade, in the terms of placitum (i) of section 51 of the Constitution, with other countries and among the States. But we cannot do it in respect of those ships which trade from one port in a State to another port in the same State. This is a very real problem. The only intra-state shipping which takes place in New South Wales is between Newcastle and Sydney by the 60-milers. One of these 60-milers foundered a couple of years ago and the liability for damages to the widows of the seamen who lost their lives in that wreck is limited by the Imperial act. There is nothing we in this Parliament can do about it. There is nothing the State Parliament can do about it. It is something which the Imperial Parliament at Westminster alone can deal with. That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory position. Finally, the bill amends sections 286 to 288, dealing with the licensing of ships to engage in the coasting trade, although the road transport cases in the High Court make it most doubtful if such a discretionary licensing system will hold water. Let me pass to other features of this bill, some of them very desirable and not less so because they are so overdue. Let me refer to some of the proposed sections which involve the adoption of various international treaties. I shall not be able to give the careful attention to them that I should like to give at a more reasonable hour or at a more reasonable time in the session. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- Do it in committee. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- No, 1" think I will do it now, otherwise one would have to rise on several occasions during the committee stage. This bill will provide machinery for ratifying some five International Labour Organization conventions. There are really six, one of the conventions having modernized the first of the conventions I am about to refer to before we got round to ratifying the first one. The most venerable convention was I.L.O. convention No. 7, the Minimum Age (Sea) Convention of 1920, which Australian Government delegates supported at the I.L.O. conference that year. It was revised by the 1936 convention of the same name, in turn supported by the Australian Government delegates. Now I am happy to say that section 40A of the act in conjunction with clause 22 of this bill will enable the conventions to be adopted. In 1926 the Australian Government delegates supported the adoption of I.L.O. convention No. 23 which dealt with the repatriation of seamen. This is covered by clause 102 of the bill which will enable us to ratify that convention. In 1946 Australian Government delegates supported three conventions, No. 69, the certification of ship's cooks, No. 73, medical examination of seafarers, and No. 74, certification of able seamen. We will be able to ratify these when we have passed clauses 76, 78 and 26. There is one other I.L.O. convention dealing with shipping which we cannot ratify. It is No. 92 dealing with the accommodation of crews and it was passed at the I.L.O. conference in 1949. We comply with it under sections 135 to 138B of the act, but we cannot ratify that convention because the States have not brought their legislation into line with the prescription of the convention. It is a clear case of the Commonwealth Government only being given international recognition. The Commonwealth Government alone can conclude international treaties and we go through this farce of being unable or unwilling to ratify these international treaties because we say that the States will not comply or cannot be made to comply with international laws. I have stated the significant virtues of this act in enabling us, at long last, to ratify six I.L.O. conventions, five of which are still current. May I compliment the Government on its resolve, tardy though it is, to implement these conventions. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Are there any others which we supported? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Indeed there are. There was one in 1948. It was the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, concluded in London on 10th June, 1948. Australia was a signatory to it. Five years later, in 1953, we got round to amending the Navigation Act by Act No. 96 of 1953 to give effect to that convention, but we cannot ratify it until we have made regulations under it. Another five years have gone by, but we still have not made the regulations. Australia has the worst reputation in the free world - perhaps I should be more precise and say in the English-speaking world or the western world - for carrying out its international obligations. No other country has concluded more international agreements and ratified so few. The very name of this convention indicates its importance. It is the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. A total of 47 countries have already ratified it, including the following members of the British Commonwealth: - Canada, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Every important maritime country in the world has ratified it. It has been ratified by the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Japan, Norway, and even by Liberia. All the largest ship-owning countries in the world have ratified it. Why have not we ratified it? I am inclined to believe some of the things which are said by Liberals concerning bureaucrats when I see that there has been five years' delay in introducing a bill to ratify that convention, and at least another five years' delay before regulations are made to enable it to be ratified. There is no guarantee that they will be made now. Or is this merely another case in which sluggish and senile Ministers hide behind bureaucrats? The honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** indicates, by interjection, that he disagrees with my suggestion. I am reminded by his interjection that senility is not confined to the Government front bench. The only difference between the Minister for Air **(Mr. Osborne),** who is at the table, and the honorable member for Moore, is that the Minister is coherent, whereas the honorable member for Moore is merely articulate. There is another treaty which touches on this subject and which we have failed to carry out. It is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil. I quote the facts on it as given in an answer supplied to me by the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Townley),** representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, on 25th March. The Minister conceded that in May. 1954, we attended the conference which drew up that convention; that the convention prohibits the discharge of oil within 50 miles of land and, in the case of Australia, within 150 miles of the eastern, southern and south-western coasts of the continent; that the United Kingdom passed an act to implement the convention in May, 1955; that the British act came into operation in September, 1956, with the exception of a sub-section dealing with the Australian zone; and that a sufficient number of countries had ratified the convention by July, 1957, to permit it to come into force. The Minister then went on to say that the Commonwealth and State authorities had not commenced discussions on the measures necessary to enable Australia to ratify the convention until 24th February, 1956, nine months after the British Parliament had passed its act; that the discussions were still proceeding; and that it was hoped that it would be possible to introduce legislation before the end of this year. Until we follow the example of the requisite number of countries which have already signed this convention and ratified it, we cannot get the benefit, in the whole of the southern part of Australia, of freedom from pollution of the sea by oil. This is a very real problem, considering that we now have refineries at Fremantle, Port Phillip and Botany Bay. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- And there will soon be one on St. Vincent's Gulf. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- That is so. The bureaucrats or the senile Ministers, by their inaction, are depriving Australia of the benefits of this international convention, which was signed four years ago this month. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- What benefits? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Benefits of freedom from pollution of the sea by oil. This freedom, in the case of Australia, is to extend, not merely 50 miles, but 150 miles from the coast. When we adopt the convention, it will apply, not only to Australian ships, but to British ships - including the numerous British tankers - and to the ships of every other maritime country of the world. These may appear to be technical legal matters to the honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Bowden),** who interjects. But if we value Australian shipping and the part it plays and could play in our economy, it is up to us to give the country the modern machinery which every other country in the world has. The honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Howson)** referred to costs. In accordance with his formula, high costs are the responsibility of the seaman. According to him, it is always the human factor that is in error. It is never the stevedoring company, it is never the shipping companies, and it is never governments. It is always the seaman. It is very easy to put the responsibility on the man who has the least responsibility - the man who is paid least - because he is expected to take least responsibility. The man who is paid to take the most responsibility is the port authority, the Minister, the top bureaucrat, or the man who gets the most out of shipping - the man who owns the ships and who also, in every instance, owns the stevedoring company. Does the honorable member for Fawkner expect people to overlook this fact and forget it? There is one significant provision in the bill which proposes the repeal of section 421 of the principal act. That section reads as follows: - (I.) The owner of every ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade (not being a fishing boat) shall in each year make a return to the Minister at the prescribed time showing the aggregate gross earnings during the preceding year of all ships so registered or engaged in the coasting trade of which he is owner, in the prescribed form . . . (2.) The Minister shall not publish or disclose in any way any return made under this section, or any summary of such returns other than figures only showing the percentage variations from year to year in the aggregate gross earnings returned, distinguishing, if he shall think fit, the coasting trade . . . According to an answer that I received from the Minister, that section was proclaimed to come into operation on 1st March, 1923, but regulations prescribing the time at which returns to the Minister were to be made and the form in which the information was to be furnished were not issued by the Government in office at that time or by any subsequent government. Consequently, no returns have been furnished. Therefore, after 35 years we are repealing the section. We have deprived ourselves of information which would have shown to what extent shipowners were suffering losses or making exorbitant profits. Never shall we be able to find this very modest and anonymous information which would enable us to tell how efficient, profitable or disastrous is the industry concerning ships registered in Australia. There is one other section to which I wish to refer. The last section of the act is also being amended by this bill. It provides for the making of regulations. The first regulation-making power is in relation to the inspection and testing of machinery and appliances for the loading and unloading of ships. A decision was given by the High Court on 3rd May, 1957, in Darling Island Stevedoring Company Limited v. Long, reported in 1957 " Argus Law Reports " at page 505, and more accurately in the " Australian Law Journal ". In that case the High Court held that the duties created by the loading and unloading regulations pursuant to the section I have just cited are imposed upon the person actually exercising control on the spot where loading and unloading operations are being carried out, and not upon the employer of that person. It is true that if any man is injured at work now because the obligations of the regulations have not been carried out, he can sue the man who is superintending the job on the spot, the man who is physically present - that is, another man whose emoluments and financial resources are little greater than those of the man who is injured. It is a perfect let-out. The employer, the man who provides the machinery, who has to buy it, maintain it, and replace it, goes completely scot free under the regulations. On 25th March last I placed a question on the notice-paper asking the Minister whether he had seen the decision of the High Court and read the comments of the judges. I asked the Minister whether he would have the regulations amended so as to impose the statutory duty and civil liability on the employer. On 7th instant - six weeks after I asked the question - I received a reply. It takes the Minister a marvellous long time his wonders to perform, but I suppose in a department that takes ten years, and in some cases 40 years to do some things, I can be grateful for the courtesy vouchsafed on this occasion - or I could be if the Minister, after a delay of six weeks, had not taken refuge behind the Standing Orders. Let me quote what **Mr. Justice** Williams, who presided on the bench, said - >The statute or regulation can, if Parliament or its duly authorized delegate- That is, the Governor-General - sees fit, impose a personal duty on the employer and he is then bound to see that the duty is performed. This legislation contains the first amendment of the statute since that decision was given on 3rd May last year. At least, while amending this particular section we should see that this injustice is corrected. Australia has the longest navigable coastline of any nation in the world. We are one of the twelve largest trading nations in the world. The sea is the most economical way of carrying bulk cargoes around the periphery of Australia, the settled part of the continent. Thus it is time that we had a co-ordinated, modern code for this essential feature of our communications and commerce. {: #subdebate-36-0-s4 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP -- in reply - Some of the remarks of the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam)** should be answered. The first part of his speech was directed in the main to the lack of constitutional power in this Parliament to legislate for a code covering shipping intra-state as well as interstate. That is a difficulty under which this Government, in common with every government since federation, has laboured. The honorable member knows as well as I do that it is not practical to seek such a constitutional power. If such a power had been sought and the Opposition had taken the same attitude on it as it has taken in respect of other attempts to seek additional constitutional powers, the Government would not have had the slightest chance of obtaining, the power. The honorable member knows that the Constitution Review Committee, consisting of members of both sides of the Parliament, is at present reviewing the whole of the Constitution. Therefore the first half of his speech was irrelevant as a criticism of this measure. The honorable member somewhat belatedly agreed that this measure is a monumental work of considerable value. Then he chided the Government for not having ratified international conventions. When asked to name the conventions to which he referred, he named only two - the 1948 convention on the safety of life at sea, and the convention on the pollution of the sea by oil. He leaves out of consideration the difficulties of any federation in ratifying international treaties, and also the fact that the 1948 convention on the safety of life at sea makes minor amendments only to the 1923 convention, which this Government has ratified. As to his second complaint about the pollution of the sea by oil, that matter does not arise under this act at all. If that is the total substance of the honorable member's criticism about the ratification of international conventions, it does not go very far. If those are the worst things that the honorable member can say about a monumental piece of legislation like this it cannot be too bad. As the Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Senator Paltridge)** has said, this bill is by no means the last word on the amendment of our shipping laws. The Minister will keep the legislation under review and minor matters such as the honorable member for Werriwa has mentioned can no doubt come up for consideration. Question put - >That the bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.) AYES: 52 NOES: 21 Majority . . ..31 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1842 {:#debate-37} ### ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Mr. Osborne)** proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #debate-37-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .As the Parliament will be adjourning for some considerable time- Motion (by **Mr. Osborne)** put - >That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. W. R. Lawrence.) AYES: 49 NOES: 21 Majority . . . . 28 Set out hereunder is the information sought by the honorable member: - AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 1.38 a.m. (Thursday). {: .page-start } page 1843 {:#debate-38} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - Commonwealth Statutes and Instrumentalities. Snowy Mountains Authority Housing Scheme. {:#subdebate-38-0} #### Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration {: #subdebate-38-0-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has any refund of fines imposed by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration which were subsequently declared by the Commonwealth High Court and the Privy Council to have been beyond its powers been made to the defendants in these actions? 1. Has any action been taken to compensate those who were subjected to terms of imprisonment as a result of sentences imposed by the same court which were also subsequently declared upon appeal to have been beyond its powers? 2. If so, what are the details? 3. If no refund or compensation has been made, what is the reason for the Government's failure to do so? {: #subdebate-38-0-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- The Attorney-General has replied as follows: - 1, 2, 3 and 4. So far as questions 1 and 2 are concerned, the questions are based on assumptions as to the legal position and cannot be answered without going into the legal position. So far as questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, the questions cannot be answered without a statement of the Government's policy. In this regard, the honorable member's attention is invited to Standing Order 144, which provides, inter alia, that questions should not ask Ministers to state the Government's policy or for legal opinion. II err Alfried von Krupp. {: #subdebate-38-0-s2 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did Herr von Krupp, a German industrialist who recently visited a number of places in Australia, only serve approximately one quarter of a ten years' prison sentence imposed upon him by an Allied War Crimes Tribunal for having employed and grossly ill-treated slave labour during World War II.? 1. At the time of his release in 1953, was he required to give an undertaking that he would proceed to liquidate the greater part of his interests in the coal and steel industries within a period of five years? 2. If so, is the Minister able to say whether any action has been put in hand by Herr von Krupp to comply with this condition of his release? 3. If Herr von Krupp has ignored this condition which he accepted when granted his freedom, what action has the present Australian Government taken to bring this matter to the notice of the United Nations with a view to appropriate action being taken to enforce his compliance, or, alternatively, his return to prison? {: #subdebate-38-0-s3 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Alfried von Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach was tried by a United States Military Tribunal and sentenced on 31st July, 1948, to twelve years' imprisonment and to forfeiture of his property on charges of spoliation in occupied countries and employment of slave labour. The term of imprisonment was deemed to have commenced on 11th April, 1945, the date of his arrest by the Allied authorities. On his release from prison on 3rd February, 1951, he had thus served five years and six months or almost half of the prison sentence. 1. The United States High Commissioner for Western Germany, in announcing Krupp's release, said the sentence imposed on him had been reduced to the time actually served and that the decision to confiscate his property had been rescinded. There was no undertaking required from Krupp at the time of his release with regard to the disposal of his property. However, subsequently on the 4th March, 1953, an agreement was reached between the Allied High Commissioners, the Federal German Chancellor **(Dr. Adenauer)** and representatives of Krupp covering the breaking up within a fixed period of the former Krupp coal and steel interests. This period is due to expire early in 1959. The Australian Government has no legal standing in the enforcement of the agreement of 4th March. 1953, which is the responsibility only of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. 2. There was no such condition (see answer to 2 above). I understand, however, that under the 1953 agreement, Krupp assets to the value of £5,300,000 sterling have been disposed of. 3. See answer to 2 and 3 above. Petrol from Indonesia. {: #subdebate-38-0-s4 .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr Coutts: s asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will the action of the Shell Company in closing down its Indonesian installations affect adversely the supply of petroleum products toAustralia? 1. If so, what action does the Government propose to take to maintain supplies? {: #subdebate-38-0-s5 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne:
LP -- The Minister for National Development has furnished the following answer: - 1 and 2. It is assumed that the honorable member's question relates to the closing of the oil installations at Balikpapan. The Department of National Development has been assured by the company concerned that the closing of these installations will not adversely affect the supply of petroleum fuels to Australia. {:#subdebate-38-1} #### Telephone Services {: #subdebate-38-1-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice - >How many telephone applications are outstanding in each State and in Australia? {: #subdebate-38-1-s1 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
CP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is asfollows: - >There are 46,939 telephone applications outstanding throughout the Commonwealth. TheState figures are- New South Wales, 16,828; Victoria, 19,175; Queensland, 177; South Australia, 6,998; Western Australia, 2,918; Tasmania, 843. {: #subdebate-38-1-s2 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many applications for public telephonesare outstanding in the areas of Marrickville, Newtown, Lewisham, Petersham, Dulwich Hill,. Summer Hill and Stanmore respectively? 1. How long has each application been outstanding and when will they all be satisfied? {: #subdebate-38-1-s3 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Two approved applications are outstanding. 1. Three weeks, and both should be satisfied in about four months' time. {:#subdebate-38-2} #### Diplomatic Immunity {: #subdebate-38-2-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What, exactly, is the extent to which diplomatic immunity applies to the representatives in Australia of other nations? 1. If it is at present all-embracing, is it considered proper that immunity should extend to laws dealing with conditions of employment, workers' and accident compensation, &c? 2. If it is not considered to be proper, will he immediately initiate action with a view to having the position corrected? {: #subdebate-38-2-s1 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The question really involves matters of law for determination in the last resort by the courts. It is thus not a question which under the Standing Orders should properly be asked. I can say, however, that so far as foreign diplomatic representatives are concerned it is a generally accepted rule of international law that they possess certain immunities from the jurisdiction of the countries to which they are accredited. They are, for instance, not liable to arrest or detention; their property, residences and archives are inviolable and they are immune from civil and criminal jurisdiction. The application of these general principles in particular cases is, however, a matter for the courts. As regards the immunities of representatives in Australia of Commonwealth countries there is specific legislation - the Diplomatic Immunities Act 1952-1958. It is generally accepted that diplomatic personnel should respect the laws of the countries to which they are accredited and flagrant abuses of such laws may be dealt with by requesting the recall of the offender. 2 and 3. See answer to question 1. The above answers the honorable gentleman's question so far as it can be done in a reply of reasonable length. If the honorable gentleman wishes further information I suggest that he consult section 8 of the Article on Constitutional Law in Volume 7 of " Halsbury's Laws of England " (Third Edition) and Chapters XVI., XVII. and XVIII. of Satow's " Guide to Diplomatic Practice " (Fourth Edition). The honorable gentleman may also refer, so far as the immunities of representatives in Australia of Commonwealth countries are concerned to the Diplomatic Immunities Act 1952-1958. {:#subdebate-38-3} #### War Service Homes Division Repayments {: #subdebate-38-3-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. To what funds does the War Service Homes Division transfer (a) periodic repayments over the term for which an applicant was granted assistance and (b) repayments where an applicant sells a home before the end of that term? 1. What amounts were transferred to these funds and in these categories in each year since the Government restricted approvals for second assistance? {: #subdebate-38-3-s1 .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr Roberton:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers to the honorable member's questions: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The provisions of sub-sections 2(c) and (4) of section 39 of the War Service Homes Act, and sub-section 4 of section 9 of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act, when read together, require that: - (a) The portion of the periodic repayments over the term in which an applicant was granted assistance that represents repayments of principal shall be paid to the National Debt Sinking Fund; and the portion that represents repayment of interest shall be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund; (b) repayments of principal where an applicant sells a home before the end of the specified term shall be paid to the National Debt Sinking Fund. 1. The amounts paid into these two funds since the Government restricted approval for second assistance are as follows: - No separate record is kept of how much of the moneys paid to the National Debt Sinking Fund was attributable to each category referred to in 1. However, it is estimated that the amount paid into the National Debt Sinking Fund that comprised repayments in cases where the applicant sold before the end of the repayment period was about £3,000,000 in the twelve months to 31st March, 1957, and £2,900,000 in the eleven months to 28th February, 1958.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 May 1958, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1958/19580514_reps_22_hor19/>.