Senate
13 October 1909

3^rd Parliament · 4^th Session

QUESTION
- FEDERAL TERRITORY
PAPERS
SUPPLY BILL (No. 3)
QUESTION
- LOAN REDEMPTION
QUESTION
- CAPTAIN AND HONORARY MAJOR CARROLL
QUESTION
- TOBACCO AND BREWING INDUSTRIES
HIGH COMMISSIONER BILL
SEAT OF GOVERNMENT ACCEPTANCE BILL
INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL
- Second Reading

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 4406

QUESTION

FEDERAL TERRITORY

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the VicePresident of the Executive Council be good enough to have exhibited in the chamber a map showing the land at Jervis Bay proposed to be handed over to the Commonwealth? It would be a great convenience if a map, even on a small scale, were exhibited ; it would facilitate the discussion of an amendment which I intend to move.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

– I shall endeavour to obtain, as early as possible, a map on the lines indicated by the honorable senator.

page 4406

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers: -

Quarantine Act 1908. - New Regulation 54. (Provisional). - Statutory Rules, 1909, No. 100.

Bounties Act 1907. - Cancellation of Regulations 20-28 (Statutory Rules, 1908, No. 69), and substitution of new Regulations 20-22 in lieu thereof.- Statutory Rules, 1909, No. 103.

Lands Acquisition Act1906. - Weston, New South Wales : Post Office.- Notification of the Acquisition of Land for Site.

Public Service Act 1902. - Documents in connexion with the appointment of Major A. J. Pinchen to the position of Assistant Military Engineer, Public Works Branch, Central Staff, Department of Home Affairs.

International Conference on Leprosy, held at Bergen, Norway, from 16th to 19th August, 1909; Report by Dr. Bull.

Transcontinental Railway Survey, Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta -

Instructions to the Engineers-in-Chief for Railways ;

Ministerial approval of the expenditure of the sum of£20,000;

Report by the Engineers-in-Chief, dated Melbourne, nth October, 1909.

Reply of the Minister of Trade and Customs to the question to be asked this day by Senator St. Ledger with regard to State Loans redeemed since Federation.

page 4407

SUPPLY BILL (No. 3)

Assent reported.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

– But no tobacco would have been smoked then.

Senator PULSFORD:

– Very likely. But that is not my point. I wish to know where the Customs officials derive their authority to go behind the provisions of our Customs Tariff Act, and to deliver these goods to the tobacco industry free of duty. Section 24 of the Excise Act of 1901 reads -

Excisable goods and goods liable to duties of Customs may in prescribed cases and subject to the prescribed conditions, be delivered free of duty, or subject to such lower duty as may be prescribed for use in the manufacture of excisable goods.

I venture to say that no member of the Senate, or of the House of Representatives, ever anticipated that this innocent-looking provision would be used by the Customs authorities in the way that it has been used. I take it that it was accepted by all as a provision pertaining to an Excise duty, which was1 clearly the only charge intended to be levied. Let me now come to the Customs Act. Honorable senators know perfectly well that it is the wish of Parliament that that Act should be administered in a very stern spirit, and that wherever any question arises as to the amount of duty chargeable upon any commodity, the doubt must always be decided in favour of the Crown. Section 138 of the Customs Act reads -

If any goods enumerated in the Tariff are, or can be, classed under two or more names, headings, or descriptions, with a resulting difference as to duty, duty shall be charged when it is a difference between liability to, or freedom from, duty, and the higher or highest of the duties applicable shall be charged when it is a difference as to two or more duties.

It will be seen, therefore, that the instructions to our Customs officials, that the largest amount of duty must be collected, are emphatic. The next section reads -

Whenever any goods are imported which, in the opinion of the Minister, are a substitute for any dutiable goods, or are intended to be, or can be, used as such substitute, or for any purpose for which such dutiable goods can be used, or for any similar purpose, the Minister may, by Gazette notice, direct that such first mentioned goods shall be charged with the duty chargeable upon such dutiable goods, and the same shall be so charged accordingly.

That provision, too, is very clear and emphatic, and I should interpret it as meaning that if in the manufacture of tobacco a material is used which under the Customs Tariff Act is subject to a less duty thar is tobacco leaf, the duty which is chargeable upon tobacco leaf shall be levied upon the substitute for it. The Customs authorities, however, have not adopted that course. They have not even collected the smaller duty to which these goods are liable under our Customs Tariff, but have delivered them to the tobacco industry free. Now, the spirit in which that Act should be administered is well known to all of us, but I cannot illustrate it better than by. citing a Gazette notice which appeared on 15th November, 1901, within a few weeks of the introduction of the first Commonwealth Tariff. That notice reads -

By virtue of the powers conferred by section 139 of the Customs Act, I do hereby direct that “ Rice Straw “ shall be charged the same rate of duty as Broom Corn Millet, such “ Rice Straw” being, in my opinion, a substitute for Broom Corn Millet.

C. Kingston.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I do not know that I altogether take the view which Senator Pulsford did. I am not so much concerned with the question whether the importer is to be put to a disadvantage, as compared with the local manufacturer.

Senator Pulsford:

– Oh, no ; I only explained the position under the law, and showed that the administration had gone beyond it.

Senator PEARCE:

– I wish to put the position to Protectionists. Do they not think that they are doing an injustice to a number of other industries just as deserving as the tobacco industry? The fact that the latter is rapidly eliminating oversea competition shows that the Tariff is amply protecting it. But how does it treat other industries? I venture to say that Australia, the home of the vine, can produce as good spirits as can any other country. Spirits are sold as cheaply here as elsewhere. Yet ihe tobacco industry imported 12,000 odd gallons of spirits in one year. Why ? Simply in order that they might obtain a cheaper and probably inferior spirit from outside the ‘Commonwealth. In doing that they injure an established local industry. When we were dealing with Ihe Tariff Senator Findley put up a good fight, and succeeded in getting a high duty on liquorice imposed in order to assist the manufacture of confectionery. Why should not the tobacco manufacturers use locally made liquorice? Will the Protectionists here say that it is an inferior article? Will they contend that the tobacco manufacturers should be encouraged to go outside the Commonwealth for liquorice? If they .do, look at the position into which they force themselves. According to that argument the local boot manufacturer should get his leather duty free. If the local tobacco manufacturer is to get spirits and liquorice duty free, why should not ihe local boot manufacturer get his leather duty free? Why, too, should not the leather manufacturer get his hides duty free? Although we have a starch industry which is competing successfully against the imported article, yet tobacco manufacturers imported 1,120 lbs. of starch. Again, we have paid a very high price to establish a sugar industry, yet the tobacco manufacturers, in order to avoid paying a higher price in the Commonwealth, imported 184 tons of sugar. According to the Minister, we cannot even produce the little tin tags which are put on the tobacco; We are told that if we produce these articles and compel the tobacco manufacturers to use them, we shall ruin the tobacco industry. That . is the most peculiar Protectionist argument that I have ever heard. Not many years ago the honorable senator told us that Protection cheapened prices. If Protection does not raise prices then there is no need to allow tobacco manufacturers to import these ingredients duty free.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– The practice has been followed for the last seven or eight years.

Senator PEARCE:

– The question has been raised quite, recently by Senator Pulsford, and if Parliament thinks it is a reversal of a good policy, it does not matter whether the practice has prevailed’ for seven or twenty-seven years. The tobacco manufacturers also use imported’ cork, although there is a factory in this city which is supplying cork in various forms to other industries. Although we can manu- facture paper in the Commonwealth, yet the tobacco manufacturers imported no less than £2,272 worth. I venture to think that millions of tags could be purchased for £100. In one year no less than £1,797 worth of tags was imported, and probably the tobacco manufacturers had them printed outside the Commonwealth in order to dodge giving work to the local printers. This practice is resorted to by manufacturers who are making an immense fortune. There are no manufacturers in the whole gamut of protected industries who are making as large profits as they are. It is also questionable whether these ingredients are required. On that point the Tobacco Commission took evidence. Our information was that in England none of these flavourings are used. Practically the only ingredients which are used there are sugar and water and in some cases spirits. English manufacturers do not use essences, petroleum jelly or starch. Perhaps the Minister will admit that Mr. William ‘Cameron is one of the best authorities on tobacco manufacture in the Commonwealth. Prior to the formation of the Trust he was a leading manufacturer, and he is now a director of that body. On page 254 of the report of the Tobacco Commission, he is reported to have given-after referring to the list of articles imported duty free, the list referred to by Senator Pulsford - the following evidence in reply to myself : -

Do you use imported sugar? - I think that that question again trenches upon private matters, and I decline to answer it.

If these ingredients were necessary, if there was nothing to hide in connexion with their use, why. should he call it a private matter ? If their use be necessary, in order to flavour tobacco, why did not this gentleman frankly say so? I then asked him -

I suppose you recognise all the articles contained in that answer? -

His reply was -

I recognise them all.

I further put it to him -

Are they all necessary in the process of manufacturing tobacco?-

To that, his reply was -

I would rather not say.

Why would he “ rather not say?” If the, are necessary to the manufacture of tobacco, why did he not give a straight-out affirmative reply? Later on, Senator

Findley asked him - as will be seen by reference to question 5554 -

Do you not think that the difference in the flavour of Australian tobacco, as compared with English, is due to the fact that you use seasonings ?

To that the witness replied by inquiring as to what was meant by “seasonings.” Senator Findley then enumerated under that heading, spirits, glycerine, liquorice, sugar, starch, orange peel, flavouring essences, essential oils, and petroleum jelly, and inquired whether the fact that tobacco manufactured in Australia is seasoned or adulterated, whereas the tobacco produced in England is not so seasoned, did not explain why a taste had been created for the Australian article. The reply of the witness was -

I do not think so. As- far as my knowledge goes, I deny that there are any injurious effects from the materials used in the manufacture of tobacco here, and I may add that in years past examinations of my father’s tobacco showed that it was one of the purest tobaccoes ever made.

Mr. Cameron was then further examined as follows : -

Are you aware that in England, ingredients such as those used here, are not allowed to be employed, that the only ingredient permitted is water? - I am.

Would not that to a great extent be the reason for your opinion regarding the flavour of Australian tobacco? - I have never understood the reason why they do not allow other materials to be used in England.

Why are these seasonings used in Australia? - I do not know, except that the Australian climate, being dry, materials must be used in manufacturing tobacco, to keep it moist. These ingredients, to a certain extent, keep it moist.

LOAN REDEMPTION

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minis ter of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

The amount of loans of each State re deemed since the date of Federation by the proceeds of new loans?
The amount of such new loans?
Amount of interest paid annually before redemption in respect of such loans?
Amount of interest paid annually in respect of the new loans?
Average rate of interest referred to in question No. 3?
Average rate of interest referred to in question No. 4?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

page 4415

QUESTION

CAPTAIN AND HONORARY MAJOR CARROLL

Senator PEARCE:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

In connexion with the case of the claim of Captain and Honorary Major Carroll for recognition of promotion in South Africa -

Was there any other case where an officer was promoted in South Africa, and such promotion was officially recognised by the State Government responsible for the despatch to and control of such officer in South Africa? 2 If there are no other cases, does not such recognition and gazettal constitute a greater claim in Captain Carroll’s case than in others?
If there are no other similar cases, will the Minister for Defence reconsider his decision on the matter?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– The answer to the honorable senator’s questions is as follows : - 1, 2, and 3. The promotion of all Australian officers in South Africa was officially recognised by either the State Government or by the Commonwealth Government, responsible as the case may be, for the despatch of such officers to South Africa.

All officers and men who served in South Africa were under the control of the Imperial Authorities.

It has. already been pointed out that -

On the 8th July,1901, the Cabinet decided that all officers who were promoted in South Africa should, on return to Australia, retain such higher

Tank, as brevet rank, in the Military Forces of the Commonwealth.

On the 30th April, 1902, the Cabinet amended their decision of the 8th July,1901, by substituting the word “honorary” for “brevet.” 240 officers of Australian Contingents served in South Africa in a rank higher than that which they held in Australia.

Prior to the Cabinet decision of 30th April, 1902, 29 of these were permitted to retain the higher rank held by them in South Africa, as brevet rank in the Military Forces of the Commonwealth; in the remaining cases (211) and which were dealt with subsequent to the date of the decision referred to, they were permitted to retain the higher rank as honorary rank.

page 4416

QUESTION

TOBACCO AND BREWING INDUSTRIES

Senator PEARCE:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

In reference to the reply given by the Minister to SenatorPulsford on 7th inst. to the effect that, “ It is not considered that brewers are placed at any disadvantage as compared with tobacco manufacturers, who pay duty at tobacco rates on the weight of all articles used for the purpose of flavouring “ -

Is it not a fact that in the case of imported leaf, import duty has first to be paid on the leaf, and then excise duty on the manufactured article ?

Does any reason exist for differential treatment as between leaf and flavourings or preservatives ?

Is it not a fact that these ingredients are largely used for the purpose of enabling manufacturers to maintain a high percentage of moisture in manufactured tobacco, and to counteract the effect of such moisture on the keeping qualities of the tobacco?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

Yes.
In accordance with the settled policy of fostering and encouraging local manufacture, it is not considered that in addition to the duty specially imposed by Parliament on the leaf, duty should also be levied on the ingredients for flavouring. Where such ingredients add to the weight, duty is charged accordingly.
No. As a matter of fact in England the percentage of moisture is higher.

page 4416

HIGH COMMISSIONER BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 8th October, vide page 4327):

Clause 7 -

A person appointed to be the High Commissioner shall not, during his tenure of office, except as prescribed or allowed by the Minister be or act as director or agent of or hold any office in any company or syndicate whether incorporated or unincorporated or hold any other office or employment, whether within or without the Commonwealth.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [3.39]. - Everybody will admit that this is an exceedingly important and absolutely essential provision. I suggest that the prohibition should be absolute. It is a good and proper prohibition. No High Commissioner ought to be even within reach of temptation, or be placed in the position of having to ask the permission or authority of the Minister ; and the Minister ought not to be placed in the position of having to exercise any discretion in such a matter. Therefore, 1 trust that my honorable friend will see that it is desirable to make the prohibition absolute by striking out the words “except as prescribed or allowed by the Minister.” Then again, the words “ or hold any other office or employment “ require some definition to make them workable. For instance, there is such a position as that of a trustee. The High Commissioner might be appointed a trustee under a will or in connexion with the administration of some other affairs. I do not expect that it is intended to disqualify the holder of the office from accepting such a position. Trustees nowadays are permitted to receive emoluments. There used to be an idea that a trustee should not be paid, though he performed onerous duties.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– With regard to the last point raised by Senator Symon, I would point out that the deletion of the words ‘ ‘ or hold any other office or employment “ would have the effect of leaving the High Commissioner open to accept employment in connexion with a company.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Of course that ought not to be.

Senator MILLEN:

– Such an amendment would leave an opening which would probably not be availed of freely. But still, we do not desire to leave an opening at all. The prohibition should be quite effective. I think it is necessary to retain the words. The difficulty suggested as to whether the term “ office “ is not loose, commends itself to me, but I can hardly suggest at the moment words which would, while preventing the High Commissioner from accepting outside employment, still leave him free to discharge such duties as those of trustee. I do not attach much importance to the words “ except as prescribed or allowed by the Minister,” because no Government would be likely to give its sanction to the High Commissioner acting in such a capacity unless under peculiar circumstances. For instance, a body might be formed for philanthropic purposes, but might consider it desirable to be incorporated as a company.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Such a body would not be what we call a syndicate or company.

Senator MILLEN:

– It might be. I have in mind a case where a number of gentlemen for a purely philanthropic purpose decided to form a company. I attach very little importance to the retention of the words, though I cannot regard them as open to the objection suggested. If Senator Symon cares to move an amendment I shall not divide the Committee upon it.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [3.48]. - I move -

That the words “ except as prescribed or allowed by the Minister” be left out.

I recognise the force of what has been said by the Vice-President of the Executive Council about philanthropic bodies. In South Australia, however, we incorporate such bodies as institutions; they are not called companies. We use the phrase “ Such and Such an Institution (Incorporated).” A company is a body which is incorporated for the purpose of gain. I thoroughly agree with my honorable friend, however, that it is absolutely laudable in every sense that this clause should be effectively carried out. With regard to the other point which I have raised, I suggest that if we leave out the words “office or” we shall avoid any trouble in connexion with a position of trustee or executor.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments (by Senator Sir Josiah Symon) agreedto.

That after the word “ hold,” line 6, the words “ or exercise “ be inserted ; and that the words “ office or,” line 7, be left out.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

page 4417

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT ACCEPTANCE BILL

Debate resumed from 8th October (vide page 4310), on motion by Senator Millen -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator Millen:

– It is not the payment of 25s. per head, but the abolition of the bookkeeping principle which the honorable senator has to bear in mind. The money which is paid in Customs duties will go into the Federal Treasury, and will not be to the credit of New South Wales.

Senator GIVENS:

– We have to consider this Bill in view of the laws as they are, not as they may be. We have no guarantee as to what the law on this subject will be next year. We have no right to assume that any Bill will become law. We should legislate for things as they are at present. Even if what the Minister assumes should prove correct, it will not be an injury to the Bill to make the provision which I have suggested. In Committee, I shall move an amendment in that direction, but I would much prefer that the Government should submit the necessary provision. I do not know what the population of the suggested territory may be, but, be it 500, or 1,000, or 5,000, the revenue derived therefrom must belong to the Commonwealth, and the State must have no claim upon it. I think it is not asking too much to ask the Minister that that should be done. If possible, I shall try to substitute Dalgety for Canberra. But, if I fail to make that substitution, I shall give the Minister every possible assistance to pass the Bill, and I hope that, after it becomes law, there will not be an hour’s unnecessary delay in arranging matters, so that the Commonwealth Parliament and Government can be housed on Federal Territory at as early a date as possible.

Debate (on motion by Senator Puls ford) adjourned.

page 4427

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6th October (vide page 4142), on motion by Senator Sir

Robert Best -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Commission had been submitted to the Government.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Yes; whilst their inquiries were in progress. It was passed with a view to redressing an anomaly which existed under the first Commonwealth Tariff.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act was passed to deal with a special case. The plan embodied in that Act was afterwards taken up by the Labour party, worked out in detail, and suggested to the Government, which adopted it. The Minister of Trade and Customs also said that from certain interjections from this side of the chamber he inferred that the Labour party had apparently swung round in regard to their administration of Wages Boards. That was an unfair statement. We have not changed our attitude regarding Wages Boards. In the State of Victoria particularly the Labour party has enthusiastically supported Wages Boards, though it is dissatisfied with the sort of Boards, which have been established. In Western Australia we have had no admiration for . the Wages Board system. We have fought strongly for an Arbitration Court, which has done excellent work. The bulk of the Western Australian industries, both rural and urban, are working under the Arbitration Court to-day. I say also that, in proportion to our population, the awards of the Arbitration Court in Western Australia extend over a greater area than do the decisions of the Wages Boards in Victoria. The Minister referred to a recent award of Mr. Justice Higgins as a reason impelling us to swing round in favour of an Arbitration Court. He referred to that award as a passing circumstance. I regard it as marking an epoch in the industrial history of Australia. I do that, not because, it was the award of an Arbitration Court, but because it expressed a vital principle which in industrial matters will, I venture to say, hold more and more the imagination of the people of this country. Mr. Justice Higgins laid it down as an axiom that a fair and reasonable wage is such a wage as will enable a man, with his wife and family, to live up to a reasonable standard 0i comfort, to make provision for sickness and old age, and to educate and bring up children as they ought to be reared. This was the first time in the industrial history of Australia that any Court had laid down that axiom, and it was a statement of principle which has since been regarded by every other Industrial Court in Australia. It constituted a challenge upon which every other Industrial Court has had to express itself. I shall deal later with some comparisons between the decisions of Arbitration Courts in reference to that principle. The Minister also said that the Labour Government were very indefinite in regard to this subject. In the GovernorGeneral’s speech, however, there was this paragraph -

Proposals will be submitted to you for the amendment of the Constitution to enable Parliament to protect the interests of the consumer and ensure a fair and reasonable wage to every worker in the Commonwealth. In protected and unprotected industries this will be secured through such extension of the industrial powers of the Parliament as may be necessary.

Court of Industrial Appeals before Justice a’Beckett, March 25-31 ; April 1-7 ; 28-30 ; May 17.

In re Fellmongers’ Board.

The Court of Industrial Appeals exists for the purpose of correcting mistakes made by Special Boards in making determinations as to the lowest rates of pay and maximum hours of work in the various industries for which such Boards are appointed….. The term “ living wage “ as used in section 122 of Act 1975, refers to the personal living wage and not to the family living wage, i.e., such a wage as will support a man and his wife and his family in frugal comfort.

Application to revise or to alter a determination of the Court of Industrial Appeals.

On the 15th May, 1904, the Wages Board relating to the trade of fellmongers, scourers, and tanners of sheep skins made a determination whereby the working hours of persons employed in that trade were fixed at fifty-four hours per week.

In August, 1906, the Board revised that determination and reduced the hours of work to forty-eight hours per week.

The employers representatives thereupon appealed to the Court of Industrial Appeals, and on 2nd October, 1906, Justice Hood amended the Board’s determination by fixing the working hours at fifty-four per week instead of forty-eight. This was an application by the majority of the representatives of employes on the Board to have the determination of Justice Hood revised or altered.

The grounds of the application were : -

That the prices or rates paid in New Zealand are higher than those paid in Victoria for the same class of work.
That the hours worked in New Zealand are less than those worked in Victoria for the same class of work.
That the prices or rates paid in New South Wales are higher than those paid in Victoria for the same class of work.
That the hours worked in New South Wales are less than those worked in Victoria for the same class of work.
That the cost of living has increased during the last five years.
That the number of hours worked is higher than the hours worked in a large majority of other trades in the State of Victoria, and in the other States of Australia and in New Zealand.
That the prices or rates paid are less than the prices or rates paid in a large majority of other trades in the State of Victoria and in other States of Australia and of New Zealand.
That the said price or rate is not a living wage. a’Beckett, J., read the following judgment : -

Sitting for the first time in the Court of Industrial Appeals, I am asked by the employes in the fellmongers trade to revise a determination as to the hours of labour and the rates of payment.

In entering upon this duty I have to determine the principles which should guide me in discharging it, and, like Mr. Justice Hood, the first Judge of the Court, I find the greatest difficulty in discovering from the Act what Parliament intended to be the governing considerations for the Special Boards and for the Court that hears appeals from them. (He here quotes from Justice Hood’s previous decision : - “ I take the current as the only fixed factor and make it the starting point. If nothing is said against it, I assume that it is correct. That assumption, however, can be displaced with the utmost ease. It would vanish if it was shown that the current rate had been arrived at by reason of combination or oppression or over competition either amongst employers or employed, or if any serious change in the previously existing state of things was proved….. “)

I was urged, as was Mr. Justice Hood, to fix a new standard on a liberal estimate of human needs, and of the provision for them which should constitute the just reward of labour, though doing so might cause an industrial upheaval which would shake all industries within the operation of the Act.

I answer, as my predecessor did, that on reading the Act I can find no indication of any intention that Wages Boards should resort , to such a radical readjustment of the relations of employers and employed ; and, as I have said, the Act intended Wages Boards, not Judges of the Supreme Court, to settle those matters. . . . I now proceed to consider the demand for an increase of wages.

One of the grounds set out in the demand is that the cost of living has increased during the last five years. . . (after dealing with evidence as to cost of living increased) …. it does not follow that an all round increase of wages should be enforced under these Acts whenever a rise in the cost of living occurs. (He then points out section 122 of Act compels him to take into consideration effect of award on industry.)

That is important, in view of the fact that Mr. Justice Higgins took quite a different view. Section 122 amounts to a mandate that an industry must pay its employe’s a living wage. Here he refers to the arguments of counsel in the following terms -

The decision of Mr. Justice Higgins in the Harvester case has shown what “ fair and reasonable “ mean. That is, a wage which will support in frugal comfort, not only the employe himself, but his wife and three children. This wage at the present cost of living cannot be less than 42s. a week. You must, therefore, in devising the present determination, begin, by giving the man placed lowest in it 42s. a week. This argument … of Mr. Arthur is supported by reference to the judicial pronouncement of Mr. Justice Gordon, of South Australia, sitting as Judge of the Industrial Court of Appeals under an Act almost the same as ours. . . . The decision of Mr. Justice Higgins, sitting in a Federal Court, under a Federal Act, does not bind me, and if I dissented from it I ought not to follow it. But my construction of our Act involves no dissent from the attractive doctrines of the Harvester case. I concur in all that is there said of what is necessary to constitute the frugal comfort of the working man. On the evidence as to household expenses before me, evidence of the same character as that which was before Justice Higgins, I think that the 42s. per week fixed by him is a proper allowance……… The discussion of whether a living wage was intended to be prescribed is of no practical importance unless” living wage “ in section 122 means a wage sufficient to support a man, his wife and family, for there can be no doubt that the minimum of 36s. is more than a living wage for the man himself . Looking at the object of section 122, I think the living wage there contemplated is a personal wage. It is a section to safeguard an endangered industry, to preserve it from destruction, and it would be a strange way of doing so to insist as a condition to its existence, that the least it should pay to any of its employes should be a wage large enough to support a man, his wife, and family. … As a matterof construction, I say that the Act does not prescribe as the lowest wage to be fixed by a Wages Board, a wage which will support a man and his wife and family in frugal comfort. There is no appeal from my decision. If I have misconstrued the Act, Parliament alone can correct my mistake.

Here is a Judge who, upon the evidence, declared that there was absolute proof that a man could not maintain a wife and family if he received less than 42s. per week, and yet the Act recognises that he has no power to award that wage. In Other words, the industry must be his first consideration. He is not allowed to consider what constitutes a living wage.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– Andthis Bill permits that defect to be remedied. That is the very object of it.

Sitting suspended from 6.30to 7.45p.m.

Senator PEARCE:

– As an interesting sequel to the fellmongers’ case the judicial report of which I was dealing with before the adjournment for dinner, and bearing upon the Minister’s interjection that what I referred to in that case would be rectified under this Bill, let me inform honorable senators that the Fellmongers’ Union appealed to Mr. Murray, the Premier of Victoria, who, the Minister says, is prepared to give us the power to remedy the defect. They drew his attention to Mr. Justice a’Beckett’s ruling in the case. Honorable senators will find that it is reported in the Argus of 22nd June, 1909, that a reply was sent to the Fellmongers’ Union through the Chief Inspector of Factories, who, after arguing the pros and cons of the case, says, referring to the Minister -

He cannot consent to amend the Factories and Shops Act in the direction desired by the Operative Fellmongers’ Union.

The request of the union was that the disability pointed out by Mr. Justice a’Beckett should be removed, and that in deciding what was a living wage the. Court should have the power to take into consideration the position of a married man with a wife and family. It is on record, therefore, that Mr. Murray declined to alter the Victorian Factories and Shops Act in that direction. If, after considering a formal request made to them, Mr. Murray and his Government were of opinion that no such alteration of the Act should be made, what authority have we for assuming that they are now of a different opinion? We have no authority fo assuming that the Vic torian Factories and Shops Act will be amended in such a. way as to enable Victorian workers to secure a wage on which they would be justified in marrying. I propose to quote from the “ Report of the Agreement, Resolutions, Proceedings and Debates of the Inter-State Conference, held at Melbourne in August, 1909,” statements appearing on pages 12 and 13 which were made by Mr. Wade, Premier of New South Wales, and spokesman on this question at the Conference. He said -

As I say, in the first place, the mere fact of there being Inter-State competition should not in itself be a ground for the third body being called into operation. If the existence of such competition were to be in itself a ground for invoking the new tribunal, we would find a foundation so laid for invoking the Commonwealth tribunal in nearly all branches of industrial and commercial life……

Mr. Moore. Will not this tribunal which it is proposed to constitute have jurisdiction over the whole of the States, irrespective of whether the dispute extends over more than one Stateor not?

Mr. WADE. I take it that it will be confined to the exact point where Inter State competition exists, and that in so far as the local tribunal cannot adjust the matter it should be left to a body charged with larger powers for the purpose. The other negative condition is that the mere fact of a difference of wages should not in itself be a ground for giving this body jurisdiction.

The Commission may, of its own motion or on the application of any person interested, vary any determination by it under this Part ; Provided that the determination shall not “ be extended as to its subject-matter or as to the area of its application, except pursuant to a reference by a Court of a State at the instance of a State Industrial Authority.

That is to say that if the Appeal Court of Victoria which has refused to extend the jurisdiction of a Wages Board to a particular part of the State asked the Inter-State Commission to do something which it had deliberately abstained from doing itself, the Inter-State Commission would be clothed with the power to do it ; but not otherwise. When honorable senators come to realize the difference between that and what is generally - understood by the term “new Protection,” they will admit that

I am justified in saying that this Bill is a mere hypocritical pretence and contains none of the real principles of the new Protection. There are many industries in Australia that absolutely refuse to take advantage of the Wages Board provisions of the Factories and Shops Act, because of the restricted powers of the Boards. In the Age of 8th July, 1909, honorable senators will find a reference to the case of the Engineers Society. They refused a Wages Board. They went to the Premier of the State and asked that they should not be brought under a Wages Board for these reasons -

Because there is no control over apprentices.
The ruling of the Supreme Court that in fixing wages no consideration should be given to the fact that a man was married.
Because the Act does not apply all over Victoria.
Because of the limited powers of Boards re overtime rates.

As to boy labour, Mr. A. Long, General Secretary of the Bootmakers’ Union, said, as reported in the Age of the 17th June of this year, that the New South Wales regulations provide for seven boys t<? twelve journeymen, whereas, under the Wages Board in Victoria, there is no power to regulate the number or proportion of apprentices. In several Victorian factories, according to Mr. Long, the proportion was three boys to one man. Now I return to the Conference. We are, however, under a certain disadvantage; the Minister says that I have only quoted statements anterior to the adoption of the Government scheme. Whose fault is that? I cannot quote the Conference debates. I cannot quote the reasons that led to this Inter-State Commission Bill being submitted to Parliament. The fault is that of the Minister and the Government to which he belongs. They cannot produce a report of the debates which took place at the Conference. No official record of them was kept. Evidently something so disgraceful took place that, for the first time in the history of such Conferences, no record was kept. Yet the Minister now taunts me with being unable to quote the speeches delivered at the Conference. He and his colleagues took are that we should never have an opportunity of quoting from them. I should very much like to have a report before me. I find, for instance, the following skeleton report of a meeting of the Conference on page xi. -

Industrial Matters - Vesting in Commonwealth by States of Certain Powers.- The Order of the Day for the consideration of this question having being read - The Honorable C. G. Wade initiated the debate on this subject.

The Honorable J. D. Brown moved, That the debate be now adjourned.

Question - put and resolved in the affirmative.

Ordered - That the debate be adjourned until Monday next.

That is all that the people of Australia are to know as to what took place. If the Minister wants us to understand thoroughly what this Bill means, why did he not get his colleagues to furnish us with a report, and let us know what they did at the Conference?

Senator de Largie:

– Why cannot the Minister give us the information himself?

Senator PEARCE:

– Why not? I find that Senator Best was present at some of the meetings. For instance, on page xvi., there is the following record : -

Attendance of Commonwealth Ministers. - The Prime Minister of Australia (the Honorable Alfred Deakin), the Commonwealth AttorneyGeneral (the Honorable P. McMahon Glynn), the Minister of External Affairs (the Honorable L. E. Groom), and the Minister of Trade and Customs (Senator the Honorable Sir Robert Best) entered the Conference Chamber at halfpast Ten o’clock, and, in Committee, conferred with the members of the Conference on the various subjects brought under consideration.

It would have been most enlightening could we have known the views expressed by Commonwealth Ministers as to these industrial questions.

Senator de Largie:

– If Ministers cannot tellus what State Ministers said, they should, at all events, tell us what they themselves said.

Senator PEARCE:

– In the absence of such information, we have to fall back upon the views of State Ministers themselves concerning this question; and I propose to lay before the Senate some of the views expressed by Mr. Wade, as representing the opinions of the State Premiers.

Senator St Ledger:

– Views expressed at the Conference?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes. On the second day, according to the official record, the Conference dealt with industrial legislation. This was the meeting at which the now historical letter from Mr. G. H. Reid was received. The first order of the day. “ Commonwealth and State Finance,” was postponed. Then the Conference discussed industrial legislation, and, in the course of a speech, Mr. Wade said -

What I have to say to-day is, that I wish to intimate at once a strong desire to maintain the rights of the States as far as they have been stated by the Constitution, and only to allow, so far as we are concerned, any deviation from that condition of affairs when it can be proved that there is some gap in the machinery of the law, and that it is necessary in the public in-‘ terests for some departure to be made.

He further said -

I do not know whether it has been experienced in other States, but great objection was raised among working men in New South Wales during the last election to the possibility of the imposition of protective duties leading to a higher cost of living to the working men, with no corresponding advance in his wages.

Mr. Wade there altogether misrepresented the feelings of the working men. The motive impelling them was that they should share in the protection now being granted to the manufacturers.

Senator St Ledger:

– It was expected that Protection would increase the cost of living.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is Mr. Wade’s view, but I venture to say that the majority of workingmen, being Protectionists, do not believe that Protection increases the cost of living. No convinced Protectionists believe that. Mr. Wade went on to say -

During the life of the Fisher Government this question of giving a living wage to workers in protected industry was talked of very freely, but Mr. Fisher himself never came to close quarters with it. He dealt in generalities, and only at the early part of this year did we first ascertain’ what was the precise purpose behind this apparent humanitarian proposal.

After outlining what the Labour party, proposes, he said -

That brought the case down to a simple issue - a proposition to alter the Constitution of the Commonwealth so as to give the power of doing what every State but one in the Commonwealth had full power to carry out.

Mark the ingeniousness of this !

With the exception of Tasmania all the States of the Commonwealth, whatever the form might be, had machinery whereby they could provide a living wage for every worker, whatever the trade might be.

Is not that interesting in the light of Mr. Justice a’Beckett’s statement? Read Mr. Justice a’Beckett’s declaration and apply it to Victoria, and then what becomes of Mr. Wade’s view of a living wage? His view is that a living wage is a personal wage, and not a wage on which a married man can bring up a family. Mr. Wade went on -

At that time Captain Evans was in power in Tasmania, and he intimated to me that if he remained in power he proposed to bring in legislation in the ensuing session to provide machinery of the nature indicated by the complaints of Mr. Hughes and his colleagues. At that time that fact was made known to the public, and at all events for the time being, an objection of that kind was silenced. Since then, of course, the position has changed.

I should say that it had ! Here we have an illustration of the illusory character of the promises of the Premiers. Here is the statement of Mr. Wade himself, that he had the promise of Captain Evans that during the last preceding session of the Tasmanian Parliament a Wages Board measure would be introduced and passed. We can say of Captain Evans’ party, in the language of Hans Breitmann, “Where is dot barty now? “ And where are Captain Evans and his promises? His Government has been relegated to the category of forgotten things.

Senator Chataway:

– The honorable senator was quoting him a little while ago as a man likely to become Premier of Tasmania again.

Senator PEARCE:

– Apparently he will. But these State Premiers are ephemeral and their promises go with them. I can place no reliance upon them because they lack power to carry out their undertakings. Mr. Wade went on to say -

One of the arguments that is used, and can be used effectively in the future, is that if the States have the power by their respective Constitutions to create machinery to adjust industrial disputes within their own. boundaries, and they either do not do it or do it ineffectively, the Commonwealth is not only justified in stepping in but has the obligation cast on it to step in and create the necessary machinery to provide for that blank. So what I wish to point out at this stage is that if the Tasmanian Government can see their way to take the necessary action to establish industrial machinery for that State, then we have destroyed and removed the only substantial argument that has been advanced hitherto in favour of vesting the Commonwealth generally with industrial powers which the States now enjoy.

As reported on page 10, Mr. Wade also said -

I say that is a real danger that has to be faced by all the States, and in so far as that branch of the case is concerned, if our friends in Tasmania can see their way to announce that they will take action in the future, it will enable all the States to stand solidly and to announce to those who make the advances on the Commonwealth side that ‘the States have got the power to deal with industrial matters, that the States are entitled to reserve to themselves that power under the Constitution, and that until it is shown that there has been some inherent failure in the machinery of the States there is no justification for this move to shear them of their industrial rights. I have had some practical experience of the working of the arbitration tribunals in New South Wales for some years past, both through taking an active part in the Court itself and through being head for some years of the department administering the Arbitration Act, and I am quite satisfied from my own experience that in New South Wales we have got ample machinery, and at all events, if the machinery is not sufficient, that we have got ample power in the Constitution to enlarge the scope of these tribunals to enable them to give all reasonable redress in connexion with all branches of industrial life. Over and above the powers which the State tribunals enjoy of adjusting a dispute between the actual parties before them who may be some particular employers and employes, they have the power to extend the scope and the area of the award they make to all those neighbourhoods where competition exists and where the conditions of life are of a like character.

In order to show the principles upon which the State tribunals fixed awards I quote the following statement from Mr. Wade -

In nearly all instances where the trade before the Court or the Board is one of’ Inter-State interest the State tribunals have full power to adjust the position, because the rule, as far as I can see - I am taking one or two cases - is that the employes when they bring their cases before the Court usually begin by quoting wages in adjoining States as a foundation for some relief in the local Court.

Mr. moore : That is where the wages are higher in the adjoining States.

Mr. WADE : If the wages in the adjoining States are higher they are quoted by the men. So far as the employers are concerned, if the wages paid in the adjoining State are higher, and the manufacturers there have to bear the further cost of freight and transfer to the local State, as a rule the employers do not offer much resistance to considering, an increase of wages in their own State. It usually happens that they are able to compete successfully with the adjoining State, which is then paying a higher wage, and, as far as my experience goes, there is not much difficulty in those cases. But the difficulty arises - and this, I think, is what Mr. Deakin had in his mind when he made these proposals - where the wages in the adjoining State are lower. Where the same business people carry on trades in their own State, and in the local State the employer at once says, “ We are now faced with the fact that our competitors in the adjoining State are able to hold their own in our markets in this particular form of industry, and they have the further advantage that they are only called upon to pay a wage less than we are now paying. Therefore, if the men succeed in their request that we are to still further increase the wages here, and to that extent further handicap ourselves, the trade cannot carry on.” But, in all those cases, the position is usually dealt with in a practical manner because the parties invariably produce evidence of the cost of production of the article in the adjoining State, and they quote the wages paid in the adjoining State.

That goes to show that, in so far as the Bill does anything to adjust wages, that is already done by the Wages Boards. Mr. Wade states that these principles now guide the Wages Boards in fixing the wages. Another phase of the question is dealt with by Mr. Wade on page 12, in these words -

There are these two classes of cases in which competition exists. In one case the wage that is paid by the competing State is very much lower than that paid by the complaining State, and there is no power in the competing State by which the Wages Board or the Industrial Court can adjust these wages. Then there is the second case, where the wages may be equal for the same class of work, but the competing State employs a different kind of worker from the complaining State. If I may still quote the boot trade as an illustration, the view taken, I understand, by the boot manufacturers in New South Wales, is that, however much the local Court may adjust these matters in laying down what is a fair wage, even if they equalize the wages paid by Victoria they cannot control Victoria, as she employs a larger number of apprentices, which makes the cost of the article less. In New South Wales the manufacturer has to employ apprentices in a very different ratio. It is possible that a case of this kind may arise in the future as between State and State where competition exists, where the conditions cannot be equalized, and where the result is unfair to one or the other. It does seem that there is what I might call a gap in our local industrial powers, a gap that we cannot bridge over, and the suggestion is that in this case, where there is such competition that is unfair in the sense of being unreasonable and cannot be adjusted, there should be a power reserved for some other body to come in and adjust that particular difficulty, making its determination obligatory on the parties concerned. That is really the essence of this proposal of Mr. Deakin’s. In the first place, he differs from the movement enforced some months ago, which was to confirm the Commonwealth jurisdiction and power with regard to industrial matters, although confined to the State itself.

I think that Mr. Wade is talking of the second Mr. Deakin, not of the first Mr. Deakin, because I have in my possession a newspaper cutting which shows that when Mr. Deakin was asked in Ballarat at the last election - “ If you raise the duties for the woollen industry how do you propose to fix the wages in Victoria in order that they may be equalized in the competition with the’ other States?” he replied - “We propose to deal with that and with all other industries on exactly the same lines as we have done in the agricultural harvester case.” That is one of the most definite replies from Mr. Deakin which I have ever read, and it was made in too6.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– Yes, and it was found that it could not be done under the Constitution.

Senator PEARCE:

– It could be done by an alteration of the Constitution. Mr. Deakin has not yet redeemed that promise. Mr. Wade must have been referring to the second Mr. Deakin, who has appeared during the last few months. Then Mr. Watt asked - “ How do you know what suggestion Mr. Deakin is making?” Evidently he had in his hand a collection of Mr. Deakin’s election speeches. To that question Mr. Wade replied -

His letter has been sent to all the Premiers. These are the points. He makes that first distinction, that it is no longer a request to give the Commonwealth jurisdiction in matters of purely State concern.

Now we shall see where Senator Best s statement comes in.

Well, so far as I am concerned, I would be absolutely against any proceeding of that kind, and if we cannot regulate this matter so as to avoid all the dangers of making this Commonwealth tribunal a Court of Appeal, I think we would be far better off in leaving it entirely alone, because if you are going to make the Commonwealth tribunal a Court of Appeal, and leave the right of appeal, as is now done, to one of the parties concerned, you will find that an inclination will arise to transfer to the Commonwealth the jurisdiction in all industrial matters -

Mr. Wade recognised the rising tide, but with his Partington mop he purposes to sweep it back - and that in every case the employes, unless they get what they want, which may be injurious to the employer, will take steps to appeal to the Commonwealth Court. We know that a Court of Appeal is always the Court which practically determines the conditions that we are to deal with, and if there be a Court of Appeal over and above our State tribunals in the hands of the Commonwealth, that only means indirectlyshearing our State tribunals of the right they now enjoy of exercising ultimate power. Therefore, to give the right of appeal to the parties, to be always invoked by the losing side, Would be, as I say, to open the door to the destruction of our rights as to industrial matters. The only safeguard that occurs to me, and I think, to a large extent, Mr. Deakin will be prepared to agree with this, is to have some judicial authority as the only channel and the only motive power for invoking the aid of the Commonwealth tribunal - that is, to remove the power from both parties in the dispute and leave it to some responsible person of standing and judicial character who is there not for party purposes but to ascertain whether, as a matter of fact, a real hardship exists owing to InterState competition of an unfair character. We have in most of the States at the, present time officers who would conform to those requirements. There is a Judge of the Arbitration Court in Western Australia. We have in New South Wales a Judge of the Industrial Court somewhat similar in character. They are both men of standing, and men whose judgment is relied upon. But in the other States, where there are Wages Boards presided over by chairmen, there is not the same character of individual presiding over those various Boards.

Mr. Watt : Of course, in Victoria we have a Court of Appeal in addition to the Wages Boards.

Mr. WADE : That will be all right, then; for Victoria.

Mr. Wilson : Do you propose that either party to a dispute shall he able to move the Arbitration Court and to state a case on appeal?

Mr. WADE : It is a matter of detail whether the parties should move the Court, or whether the matter should be brought before the Court in another way. But the point I wish to impress on the Conference is that action should not be taken unless some authority of a judicial character gives his sanction to the movement.

Mr. Watt : That is, you would have a kind of buffer court to decide whether there is a primâ facie case to go to the Arbitration Court ?

Mr. WADE : That is really what it would amount to. Queensland and South Australia, I understand, have Wages Boards presided over by chairmen who occupy positions quite different from those of the Judges whom we have in Western Australia, New South Wales, and Victoria.

Mr. Peake : South Australia has a Conciliation Board presided over by the Commissioner of Insolvency, and we also have a Judge of the Supreme Court, who is a Judge of Appeal.

Mr. WADE : That will simplify the position. Where the tribunal is a Wages Board pure and simple the chairman, of course, may be just a layman- he may be a business man or he may be a police magistrate, but he seldom is a Judge in any jurisdiction, and to leave the power of moving the Commonwealth tribunal to the chairman of a Wages Board, who might not realize the full responsibility of his action, might also open the door to dangerous results. What I have in my mind is that this permission to move the Commonwealth tribunal should be granted only on the authority or certificate Of a Judge of the Industrial Court or Arbitration Court, where there is one, and where the supreme head is not a Judge then upon the authority of a Judge of the Supreme Court. In that way I think we would have protection afforded to the various States, and to the parties with a just cause, and we also meet the position that where there is a real cause for the Commonwealth interposing that will be given effect to.

Mr. Peake : You mean that the Judge of the Industrial Court should certify that it is a proper case to go to the Commonwealth tribunal.

Mr. WADE : Yes. There must also be a further condition that the competition is unfair, and that the local tribunal cannot adjust it. You may have unfair competition which the local tribunal may be able to adjust.

– He says that he will not agree to setting up a Court of Appeal. He declares that access to the tribunal to be established should be gained only through the medium of a Judge of the Supreme Court - that the parties affected by any dispute must prove to the satisfaction of a Judge of that Court that competition of an unreasonable nature exists in any particular industry, or that the wages paid in it are of an unreasonable character. Having done that, the Judge may make a reference to the Inter- State Commission, and the latter, to the extent of the area affected - which may be only a limited one - may then adjust the rates which are operative in the various States. No scintilla of original jurisdiction will be vested in the Board. Upon page 15 of the report, Mr. Watt raised the question of a living wage, and Mr. Wade’s reply was -

If we give effect to any suggestion to make the interpretation of industrial law uniform, we may open wide the door to giving control to the Commonwealth. Once that power is given a large inroad is made with regard to the powers of the States in remaining matters. If we confine it to special cases of the character outlined,then we are doing no wrong to ourselves - there is no violation of State rights, and we supply machinery for a gap that apparently from time to time may exist. I think, myself, in some instances when these facts are brought before the States concerned in a practical way, they would be able, through the power of Inter-State community, to adjust matters. Cases may arise in which that is not practical or is not desired, and to meet special cases of unfair competition through reasons that the complaining States cannot control, we are asked to give power to the Commonwealth tribunal to step in. The last stage of this general sketch is as to what form this so-called Commonwealth tribunal should take.

As to who is the originator of these proposals as affecting new Protection, a little daylight has been let in by Mr. Wade. Upon page 16 of the same document he is thus reported -

Our concern is that our views are very much in agreement with those Mr. Deakin has laid down.I saw Mr. Cook, one of the present Ministers, before he took office actually - I know his views are still unchanged - and discussed this question with him. I know that his own personal feeling was that they would be quite content if the moving party was somebody responsible, such as a Judge presiding over an industrial tribunal or a Judge of one of the higher jurisdictions of the State. I want to say, by way of a final word, that I recognise this as a most difficult question. We are trenching on dangerous ground, and while I can see a logical reason for asking for certain additional powers to meet certain deficiencies which the State machinery cannot supply, at the same time we must conserve the State Constitutions from any encroachment of a serious character, and the granting of these powers should be surrounded by verystrict safeguards.

So that this matter was arranged before the Government came into office. Upon the statement of Mr. Wade, the Bill formed a part of the Fusion arrangement, and there was collusion between the Premier of New South Wales and the Fusion Ministers. Perhaps that information supplies the real reason why the Premiers’ Conference sat with closed doors, and why we have no record of the debate which took place between the Commonwealth and State. I notice that the last portion of this Bill deals with the question of investigations. I regard that as so much padding. We already have in existence a Commonwealth Statistical Bureau, and I venture to say that practically the whole of the functions mentioned in Part VI. of the Bill might well be discharged by that Bureau. Do we need to establish an Inter-State Commission at a cost of . £20,000 annually to supply us with information affecting -

The production of and trade in commodities.
The encouragement, improvement, and extension of Australian industries and manufactures.
Markets outside Australia and the opening up of external trade generally?

Do we need to pay a man £2, 500 a year to preside over a body whose duty it will be to compile statistics? Is the InterState Commission to be a roving Commission? Does not our Statistical Depart ment supply us with information relating to the growth of our manufactures ? Do we require an Inter- State Commission to investigate matters affecting -

Bounties paid by foreign countries to encourage shipping or export trade?

What is our Parliamentary Library for? I venture to say that any honorable senator who asks our librarian for information upon that matter can obtain it within a very few minutes. Then the functions of theCommission are to extend to -

Unemployment and insurance relating thereto.

Will anybody affirm that we require a Commission to tell us that unemployment exists in Australia?

Senator Trenwith:

– But we might have more accurate information as to where that condition obtains.

Senator PEARCE:

– If the honorable senator will take the trouble to write to the secretaries of the labour bureaux in the different States, he can easily get that information. They keep their registers, and endeavour, as far as possible, to find employment for those who are unemployed. Will the Inter-State Commission be availed of to a greater extent in that connexion than are the labour bureaux of the States? I also learn, from a perusal of the Bill, that the Commission is to inquire into matters affecting population and industrial conditions and immigration. I say that all these provisions represent only so much flapdoodle, which is intended to be used at the next general election. They will then be trotted forward in the hope that the electors may not know that these matters are already being dealt with by efficient bodies. The Bill, so far as it relates to the creation of an Inter-State Commission, is unnecessary. The causes which might call for it do not exist. An agreement regulating our railway freights is already operative, and there is no indication that it is likely to be repealed. The Bill offers no redress in the matter of industrial conditions to the workers throughout the Commonwealth. At the last general election, they asked the Prime Minister for bread, and he now proposes to give them a bundle of statistics. They ask him to give effect to his pledges in respect to the new Protection, and in reply he says, “ I will not listen to you until you can prove to the satisfaction of a Judge of the Supreme Court that Inter-State competition of an injurious character prevails. I will not allow you to approach the tribunal which

Senator Trenwith:

– But they will present an altogether different case to the Appeal Court, and an entirely different issue.

Senator PEARCE:

– They might or might not do so. The honorable senator has diverted me from the. point that I intended to make. Where a body of workers have approached a Wages Board and that Board has awarded them something less than a living wage, say 36s. a week, as in the fellmongering industry in Victoria, they can go to the Appeal Court and say, “ We appeal to you to allow us to appear before the Inter-State Commission.” What will the Appeal Court say? The Court will say, “ You have to establish your case. You have to prove that you are being unfairly competed with by workers in other States.” They cannot possibly do that. If they said, “ In New South Wales workers are paid 45s. per week for the work for which we receive 36s.”, the reply would be, “ There is no necessity for an appeal to the Inter-State Commission so far as you are concerned. It is the workers in New South Wales who are suffering from unfair competition, and it is the New

South Wales Court that must make the application.” But in New South Wales it would be, not the workers, but the employers who would feel that they bad any reason to complain.

Where a Court of a State has on the complaint of a State industrial authority in the State-

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I believe that if it becomes law the Bill will bring about confusion. The Minister of Trade and Customs, in moving the second reading of the measure, said that in 1901 a similar Bill was introduced. It was shelved on that occasion, because Parliament considered at the time that such a Bill was premature. I am of the opinion that a similar objection can be urged against this Bill. The Minister certainly did not advance a single argument why such a Bill should become law. He enumerated what he considered the’ good points in the Bill, and said that it was wide and comprehensive; but I should like to saythat it is very wide of the particular purpose for which the Minister tried to convince the Senate it was intended, namely to confer upon the workers of Aus- tralia the benefits of the new Protection. I have here a memorandum circulated by the Minister, and on which his speech was based. It is a summary of English and American legislation. On going through it I find that the only thing we have to depend on is the fact that in England and America similar legislation has been passed for the regulation of freights, railway rates, and so oh. In proof of that I quote from the speech delivered by the Minister in moving the second reading of the measure. Referring to the powers of the proposed Inter-State Commission the honorable senator said -

The Commission, according to the terms of the Bill, will have jurisdiction over transport and carriage on land and water, so far as InterState trade is concerned. In England, there is a similar or corresponding body, which has full and like control over railways, canals, and ships chartered by railway companies in connexion with their traffic. In the United States, there is also an Inter-State Commission, which has full and complete jurisdiction over land and water carriage when both are used and are under common’ control, management, or arrangement for the continuous carriage or shipment of goods; but the Inter-State Commission of the United States has not jurisdiction over exclusively water, as apart from land traffic.

That was the first portion of the Minister’s speech, in which he tried to justify the second reading of this Bill. Further on he said -

In respect to English legislation, we draw upon the Railway- Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, thc Railway and Canal Act of 1854, the Regulation of Railways Act of 1873, and particularly upon the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888. ‘ The -Railway Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 contains what is called an equality section, which provides that tolls shall at all times be charged equally to all persons at the same rates. The Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854 especially dealt with undue preference and traffic facilities; and, amongst other things, provided that no company should make or give any undue or unreasonable preferenceor advantage to, or in favour of, any particular person or company or any particular description of traffic. Under the Act of 1873, provision was made for the appointment of three Railway Commissioners of whom one was to be of experience in the law, and one of experience in railways; but that section was subsequently altered in the Act of 1888, to which I shall afterwards refer.

I quote the exact words use’d by the Minister in order to prove that the basis of this Bill is really the regulation of railway and shipping traffic between the States. But while that is the real purpose, the measure is held up to the public gaze as one which will give to the people what has long been promised, a corollary to the last Tariff in the shape of new Protection. The Minister also said -

The Commission will have power to prescribe reasonable and just rates in regard to railway rates, shipping freights, &c.

Once we leave that phase of the situation, however, we are done with the Bill as a utilitarian measure. It has been said that the Bill is subject to constitutional limitations. That, to my mind, . is the key of the arch. There is a doubt about the legality of the measure. But even supposing that its general provisions are legal, 1 should like to know how we can constitutionally or legally over-ride the decision of the High Court on Mr. Justice Higgins’ award in the McKay Harvester case. I am assuming that the Government are serious, and that Senator Best is convinced that if his Bill becomes law the Inter-State Commission will have power to enforce new Protection regulations. No doubt, the Minister will tell us in his reply that the real object of the Bill is to give practical effect to the new Protection idea. But I fail to see how such a policy will be forwarded by the passage of the measure. While it contains provisions enabling the Commission’ to prescribe reasonable and just shipping and railway freights it does not contain specific powers for the prescription of fair and reasonable wages for workers in various industries. If the intention of the Ministry really be to establish the new Protection principle the Bill is in that regard entirely useless. It is simply » piece of waste paper. The Government are doing nothing better than throwing dust in the eyes of the people. Senator Best said that the most controversial portion of the measure is Part V. I agree with him. Indeed, that is the vital part. But I am afraid that it will leave us exactly where we axe with respect to industrial legislation. We have been told that a model Bill has been framed by the Premiers. The Minister assures us that the Premiers have agreed to facilitate the passage of that model Bill through the State Parliaments. But even if they have agreed to do so, does the Minister himself think for a moment that the model Bill will be passed by the Legislatures of the States? I do not think that Senator Best is so foolish as to believe such a thing. He says that the Government are prepared to trust the Premiers. No doubt they are gentlemen of honour and of integrity. But a few months ago the same Minister, when in charge of the Tariff, told us that he was prepared to trust the manufacturers.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

Senate adjourned at9.43 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 October 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1909/19091013_senate_3_52/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate13 October 1909

QUESTION

FEDERAL TERRITORY

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

PAPERS

SUPPLY BILL (No. 3)

The PRESIDENT:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator Givens:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Story:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Givens:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Best:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Best:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator Findley:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Findley:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Turley:

Senator Findley:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Findley:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Sir Robert Best:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Sir Robert Best:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator Pulsford:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Sir Robert Best:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Sir Robert Best:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Sir Robert Best:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator Sir Robert Best:

Senate
13 October 1909

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator ST LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913