Senate
12 December 1912

4^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH BANK
QUESTION
- MATERNITY ALLOWANCE
CALL OF SENATE
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE) BILL
- Second Reading
NAVIGATION BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Auditor-General’s Report : Maternity Bonus

The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

PAPER.

Senator McGREGOR laid upon the table the following paper : -

Public Service Act 1902-1911. - Promotion of W. G. Chapman to position of Clerk, Fourth Class, Public Works Branch, Department of Home Affairs,New South Wales.

page 6863

QUESTION

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

– Can the VicePresident of the Executive Council give us any idea as to when the report of the Auditor-General on the accounts for the year ending 30th June last will be available to honorable senators?

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have no information on this subject, but I will obtain it for the honorable senator.

page 6863

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Money Market

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is the Minister aware that certain financial institutions throughout the Commonwealth have issued instructions to their branch managers to call in advances and overdrafts, with the result that a temporary tightness may be caused in the money market?
1. Is the Minister aware that this course of action may have a political aspect, and may be an arrangement entered into to injure the present party in power?
Will the Governmentuse every endeavour to expedite the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank,in order that the primary producers of Australia may not be restricted in their operations by the causes mentioned ?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– The answers to the questions are -

No,
See previous reply (No.1).
It is understood that the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank has almost completed his arrangements for undertaking general banking business.’ Probably about the middle of January, 1913, general business will be undertaken.

page 6864

QUESTION

MATERNITY ALLOWANCE

Senator READY:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

What amount has been disbursed in maternity allowances since the passing of the Act?
How has this been distributed among the various States?
What proportion do the claims recognised bear to the total births?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– The answers to the Questions are -

Figures relating to the total births are not yet available. The Commonwealth Department does not get information relating tothe total number of births, that being a matter of State registration.

page 6864

CALL OF SENATE

Motion (by Senator McGregor) agreed to-

That there be a Call of the Senate on Wednesday, the 18th day of December, 1912, for the purpose of considering the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Trade and Commerce) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Corporations) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (IndustrialMatters) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Trusts) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Nationalization of Monopolies) Bill, and the Constitution Alteration (Railway Disputes) Bill.

page 6864

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from nth December (vide page 6798), on motion by Senator McGregor -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

These would sometimes make even a lawyer’s head reel with confusion in the endeavour to follow the intricacies to which the Courts are reduced in trying to divide what is really and substantially an individual whole - to divide the commerce of the community into parts, and to say that one part shall be under the Government of one Parliament and another part under another Parliament.

That statement by Mr. Irvine is, I believe, one of the soundest justifications for our proposal to” take power to control corporations and regulate them. It means that, as regards trade and commerce, which comes under the head of corporations and is largely controlled and dealt with by them, it is practically impossible to get a sound definition of what is Intra-State commerce and what is Inter- State commerce. The Commonwealth Parliament should have the necessary power to deal with corporations in order that we may avoid such complications. It is significant that nearly every lawyer who has dealt with these matters has agreed that the power to create and dissolve corporations should be vested in the Federal Parliament. We know that where it is desired to conduct operations throughout the Commonwealth there is considerable difficulty connected with the creation of six distinct companies, and also very considerable difficulty associated with their dissolution. To relieve those interested of such difficulties and burdens, we find that certain persons are agreed that the creation and dissolution of companies should be within the power of this Parliament. It would not be regarded as in any sense an interference with State rights to pass a uniform company law for Australia for these purposes. But when it is desired that we should be in a position to insert in such a law provision for the protection of workers and consumers, and the investments of less wealthy members of the community, we are invited to believe that that is a different proposition altogether. I need not refer to the “ Serbonian bog,” as the allusion has already become so well known. I may, however, quote a statement made by Mr. Sidney Kidman, as reported in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of nth- September. He said : -

Three or four of the meat companies in Queensland fixed the price of cattle. . . . Beef will not be cheap again.

That is a very definite statement, and Mr. Kidman appeared to have no doubt about it. .

Senator Millen:

– Mr. Kidman did not say that beef will not be cheap again, because of the existence of the Meat Company referred to. He dealt with the cattle supplied before he made the statement that beef would not be cheap again.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

- Senator Millen may have had the advantage of being present at the personal interview, but I think that I am entitled to quote from a report of Mr. Kidman’s statement in the Sydney Daily Telegraph.

Senator Millen:

– So long as the honorable senator makes a fair quotation.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

- Senator Millen ought not to talk about fair quotations. Only yesterday I was compelled to withdraw a statement I made when I asked the honorable senator not to misquote an honorable member of another place. The honorable senator fell back upon the doubtful authority of the Argus, and I again challenge his statement. I have the copy of the Argus referred to before me now, and while I do not for a moment question the fact that Senator Millen may have honestly believed that he was quoting correctly from memory, if he will read the Argus report again, he will find that the honorable member for Bourke did not make the statement which he attributed to him yesterday. The question is, do we desire to interfere with State rights. I have already said that I do not think there is any such thing as State rights. It is a question for each individual to determine whether the laws which he desires to have passed can be most ef_fectively dealt with by the State Parlia- ments or the Commonwealth Parliament. A cry has been raised, not merely in this Chamber, but outside, “ Let us preserve our Home Rule.” It is remarkable that people who clamour most for Home Rule have usually an empty record so far as any personal effort to bring about Home Rule is concerned. People are asked not to give up their State rights to the Federal Parliament, but what right have I, or any member of the Senate as a unit of the citizens of a State which we could not continue to exercise, should the powers asked for be transferred from the State Parliament to the Commonwealth Parliament? These are cries which appeal not to the intelligence of the people, but to prejudice against the Labour party. When these proposals are submitted to the people, I trust that we shall not have a repetition of the misrepresentations of the last campaign, and the attempts then made to hide the real issue. The question is really a simple one. The people are to be asked to transfer certain powers which theoretically are possessed by the State Parliament, but have never been effectively exercised, to the Commonwealth Parliament, over which, as electors, they have themselves a greater control than they have over the State Parliament. The object is that laws may be passed in the interests of industrial peace and to nationalize combines and monopolies that have robbed the consumers of this country. I hope that the electors, when given a fair opportunity to understand the effects of the proposed amendments of the Constitution, will be prepared to give a favorable verdict, and so enable this Parliament in future to deal with these matters in the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [11.32].- Honorable senators generally may agree with much that was said by Senator Russell at the commencement of his speech. It is reasonable to ask how these powers can be most effectively exercised. The honorable senator said that, if they could be effectively exercised by the State Parliament, well and good, and, if not, that they should be intrusted to some superior power. There could be no objection to that, but the honorable senator viewed the matter rather from the stand-point of Unification than in the light of existing conditions. Our Constitution was definitely framed upon certain broad lines, and the respective rights of the Federal and State’ authorities were so defined and separated that they should not interfere with each other. We know the difficulties that surrounded the establishment of Federation, and before the people would consent to federate it was made an essential condition that the sovereign rights of the States to deal with matters affecting their local interests should not be taken from them, lt was agreed that powers which might be best exercised by a national Parliament should be the powers given up by the State Parliaments. Many persons, in addressing themselves to these questions, have truly said that the impelling force bringing about Federation was the general desire for an effective system of national defence. It h’ad long been realized from the reports ofmilitary authorities that if the defence ot Australia was to be made effective, it must be the defence of the Commonwealth as a whole, and not merely of individual States. If, prior to Federation, an attack were made upon any of the States, except as a matter of self-preservation, New South Wales, for instance, would have had no particular interest in protecting Victoria, or Victoria in the protection of New South Wales. The systems of defence followed in each of the States might have been entirely different, and it is recognised that the necessity for a uniform system of defence for the whole of Australia was the primary object of Federation. The repre sentatives of the States at the Federal Conventions had, of course, to consider whether there were not other matters which might be dealt with more effectively by the Federal than by the State Parliaments. It was found necessary to transfer the collection of Customs and Excise to the Federal authorities, and it was realized that that was a matter which should better be dealt with in the interests of Australia as a whole than that there should continue to be Tariff wars between the different States, which might have led to conflicts. We know the difficulties which are constantly arising between neighbouring nations in Europe, and it was seen to be necessary to avoid the possibility of such differences in Australia. The people generally speedily recognised that, in many respects, Federation would be to their interests, and it then only became a question of the form of Federation which should be adopted. Many members, even of the first Federal Parliament, were opposed in some respects to the provisions of the Constitution framed by the Federal Convention, believing that it did not sufficiently provide for fair play between the different States. The question of the representation of the States in the Senate gave rise to the expression of many differences pf opinion. Many of those who took part in the Federal movement did not, on thai question, see eye to eye with the framers of the Constitution. They did not believe that there should be equality of representation in the Senate, but it was found that that was necessary in order to induce the smaller States to join in the Federation with some assurance that their particular interests would not be swamped by the larger States. If it had been proposed at the time that the Federal Parliament should have the power to interfere, as now proposed, in matters of purely local concern, the people of the different States would have turned the Constitution down unless it provided for proportionate representation in the Senate.

Senator de Largie:

– Nothing of the kind is proposed.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– It has already been stated, and I believe I shall be able to show, that there 1 is a strong desire to bring about a system of Unification, and make the State Parliaments entirely subservient to the Federal Parliament.

Senator Rae:

– To the people.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– No, not to the people. I recognise that it is not proposed to add anything to the powers possessed by the people, because” those powers were possessed by the people of the various States before Federation was established. I realize that certain of these powers can more effectively be administered by a National Parliament than by State Parliaments. I refer particularly to the powers with regard to Defence, Customs and Excise, and certain other matters mentioned in section 51 of the Constitution. We are reminded that the Constitution contains a power of amendment. Of course it does. However well the Constitution may have been drawn originally, inequalities and deficiencies were bound to be discovered in it that would require to be rectified sooner or later. Therefore a power of amendment was inserted, subject to certain restrictions and conditions. But I remind honorable senators that at the inception of Federation no State was bound to accept the Commonwealth Constitution unless it saw fit. No State could have been dragged into the Union. The preamble to the Constitution reminds us of what happened. The people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania - agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and- Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established.

The Constitution “ hereby established “ made provision that certain powers should be transferred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Section 51 provides that -

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to -

Senator McGregor:

– So can a Labour man.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

.- At what peril?

Senator Pearce:

– At the same peril. We would fire them out, and I suppose you would fire them out.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– You would undoubtedly fire them out. The Government were unable to carry these proposals when they were not a plank of the Labour party’s platform, but because there is a majority of the Labour party in favour of them now, they are going to make members of the party come to heel and support these proposalsor go out at once. When these referenda proposals were before the country some time ago a number of prominent members of the Labour party, particularly in New South Wales, were not favorable to them, and an attempt was made to compel those gentlemen to support them because they were brought forward by a Labour Government. Mr. Holman was one gentleman who was most troublesome on this question ; and, to show the feeling that existed amongst the Labour party respecting this gentleman. I shall quote the following extracts from a letter which appeared in the papers at that time, signed by Mr. Driscoll -

Sir, -You needn’t worry about Mr. Holman and the referendum. He can blow off steam about what he is going to do, and butter no parsnips in the operation. He and Mr. McGowen and Mr. Griffith and Mr. Flowers, with one or two other Labourites, expressed very emphatic opinions about the financial agreement referendum, but when it came to toeing the mark they had to fall into line with their bosses, the Labour organizations, or be thrust aside. The Conference is supreme, and woe betide the Labourite M.P., be he Prime Minister or rankandfiler, who dares to act contrary to its directions. We are top dog in the political arena, and no man in the Labour movement has any right to exercise any individual opinion on matters of public policy ; it is destructive of that solidarity which is the backbone of the Labour movement in politics and in the unions. The days of individual judgment and action in the Labour world are past. Collective opinion and collective action alone count. The Conference will either bring Mr. Holmnn to heel or pass him out if he is stubborn. The choice lies with himself. - Yours, &c,

January 27. T. P. Driscoll.

Some members of the High Court Bench have done all they possibly can to narrow the powers of the Commonwealth, and to conserve or widen the powers of the States ; and if that is notevidence of the State Rights mania, I do not know what is. But I hope the day will come when there will be Australians on the High Court Bench.

Let me remind him here that the High Court Bench has a duty to perform whether it is composed of little Australians, as he chooses to term some of them, or of great Australians; and one duty is to hold the balance fairly between the States and the Commonwealth, to see that neither attempts to intrude upon the province of the tother. To charge the High Court Bench with having done all they possibly could to narrow the powers of the Commonwealth and to conserve and widen the powers of the States, is to make an unwarranted allegation. I have quoted decisions of the High Court which maintained the position of the Commonwealth, and other decisions which maintained the position of the States. The Judges have to hold the balance of power fairly. I believe that they are put on the Bench because they not only have a knowledge of law, but are able to deal with any matter judicially without fear, or favour, or affection towards an individual or an institution. Further on, the Vice-President of the Executive Council said -

I want an interpretation that will be broad and Australian, not narrow and in the interests of the States.

Is that a proper remark to make in regard to the Judges of the High Court?

Senator McGregor:

– It is.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Again the honorable senator said -

I want the Constitution to be framed, interpreted, administered, and amended when necessary, in the interests of the people of Australia as those interests appear to me, and so does every member of the party to which I belong.

Senator Clemons:

– In the meantime you want your own party represented on the High Court Bench.

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– I want the views of this party represented on the High Court Bench-,

Senator McGregor:

– Read on.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I intend to read on - and I say that they are represented there, because, in many of the decisions, the view held by this party has been given expression to.

We do not want the views of any party represented on the High Court Bench, but we want the meaning of the laws expressed there.

Senator McDougall:

– If they cannot find a flaw, they will make one. They have done it now in the Officers case.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– A man who has a grievance in regard to a particular decision is very apt to complain of the action of the Judges because they did not see through his spectacles.

Senator McDougall:

– It has nothing to do with me. The men spent thousands of pounds on their case, and now the Judges find a flaw for them.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The honorable senator objects because the decision of the Court is not such as he thinks ought to have been given. I admit there are many pitfalls and difficulties to contend with in connexion with the interpretation of the various Statutes. What do we find after the speech of Senator McGregor ? A Bill is brought down - to do what? - to add to the High Court Bench at this particular juncture, not merely to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Mr. Justice O’Connor, but to appoint two additional Judges, and then to make further provision regarding the decision of constitutional matters.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order. I hope the honorable senator will not start to discuss that measure, because it is being considered in the other House.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– We have cognisance of such a Bill having been brought before the other House, because that fact is disclosed by the Votes and Proceedings of the other House, which are placed on the table of this Chamber. I admit that it is not competent for me to discuss the provisions of the Bill, but I submit that I should be allowed to refer to any matter appearing on the official records of the other House which are supplied for our information.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not prevent the honorable senator from stating that a Bill had been introduced with the object of increasing the number of Judges on the High Court Bench, but he then proceeded to go into the provisions of the Bill.”

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I only propose to say that a Bill has been introduced to increase the number of Judges and to deal with the majority for the decision of constitutional matters. The very introduction of the Bill, taken with the utterance of Senator McGregor, at once raised a question as to whether the Labour party desire to place themselves in such a position as to have the Constitution - interpreted, administered, and amended where necessary in the interests of the people of Australia, as those interests appear to me, and so does every member of the party to which I belong.

Senator Rae:

– The honorable senator knows that once a Judge is appointed to the High Court he is there for life.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Unless, of course, he is removed in consequence of misbehaviour. .

Senator Rae:

– Therefore he is in an independent position to express his opinion.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The point is, a,re we to regard this an an authoritative utterance on the part of Senator McGregor that the Labour party want the laws interpreted, administered, and amended as the interests of thepeople appear to him and his supporters? In my opinion, we do not want that at all. Our duty in the framing of the laws is to express our opinions in apt words so that the Judges may always gather from the laws a full knowledge of the intention of Parliament. It is the duty of a Judge, even if he is opposed to every provision of a law, to carry out the law fairly and honestly; and, as Senator St. Ledger reminds me, he takes an oath to do so.

Senator McGregor:

– Nobody ever wants them to do anything else.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I am very glad to get that disclaimer from Senator McGregor. He knows that there are very good reasons why we should not, except on a specific motion, discuss the decisions or the conduct of the Judges on the Bench. That has been done, not only here, but in another place. It is a very great pity that such references should be made, because, if one man praises the uprightness or the integrity of the Judges, or the way in which they perform their duties, another man, who thinks they are not acting as they should, may wish to express the opposite opinion. One of the great advantages of the rule that Judges should not be criticised in Parliament except on a specific motion, is to enable them more effectively to discharge the duties of their office, and, at the same time, to create what is of vital importance to a community, and that is, the belief that the Judges can be trusted in all circumstance*, and that, even if a decision is given against a man, he must respect that decision, and be satisfied that it was honestly arrived at, however disagreeableit may be to him.

Senator Rae:

– Is there not a broad distinction between the wisdom of a Judge and his honesty?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– A decision may be given by the High Court to-day with which the honorable senator and I may not agree, but we can say, “ There is the law authoritatively declared, and now it is our duty to see if we cannot amend it, “and then, of course, we are free to discuss the decision, not from the stand-point of the Judges, but from the stand-point of the law. Senator E. J. Russell mentioned in his speech that there was a great economic change coming over the community ; that now we have collective bargaining and effective organization of both employers and employes ; that the system was entirely different from that which obtained in the old days when individuals or ordinary partnerships conducted business. I admit all that, but it does not help forward thisproposal to obtain authority to override powers which are now vested in the States. Honorable senators opposite have to show that it is necessary to make a change, and to do that they will have to proceed in an entirely different way. Originally, this Parliament was empowered to legislate with respect to -

Trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States.

But now it is proposed to obtain power to regulate -

Trade and commerce, but not including trade and commerce upon railways the property of a State, except so far as it is trade and commerce with other countries or among the States.

Apparently, the Government propose that, so far as the railways of a State are concerned, we should not interfere with trade and commerce so long as it is Intrastate and not Inter- State. That is proposed with a view of saying, “ We recognise that railways are instrumentalities of the States, and that we have no right to interfere with them unless they come within the scope of our trade and commerce power.” The Government also desire that this Parliament should be clothed with power to. legislate with regard to -

Conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes in relation to employment in the railway service of a State.

A few years ago when we first dealt with the question of conciliation and arbitration, provision was made for the case of railway servants, and it was held to be ultra vires of our powers, since we could not interfere with State instrumentalities. It is now proposed, in one

Bill, to observe the powers of the States as regards Intra- State trade and commerce, but, in another. Bill, to take a very wide power to deal with conciliation and arbitration in relation to their railway servants. Why should we attempt to interfere with the States in dealing with their own servants ? The States provide the money for the construction of railways and the payment of railway servants, and are responsible for the freights and charges imposed. Once we take from the State authorities the power to control the railway employes, we take from them practically the control of the railways. The Government say that it is not proposed to interfere with trade and commerce within the boundaries of a State, but at the same time they propose to dictate to the State authorities what they consider necessary and proper conditions to be observed between those authorities and their servants.

Senator Rae:

– Would not a big dispute in connexion with the railways of one State prejudicially affect the working of the railways in other States?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– If such a dispute extends beyond the boundaries of a State it at once comes within the Federal power. We know that in Victoria, some time ago, there was a big railway strike, but the Victorian Parliament found no difficulty in dealing with it.

Senator Rae:

– By passing legislation which the honorable senator would not dare to introduce.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The Victorian Parliament passed legislation which effectively dealt with the strike, and I say that the State authorities have ample power to deal with any dispute occurring between their servants and themselves. If the State Governments are out of harmony with their employes, public opinion will still exercise its proper influence. If the railway servants of the State are being unfairly dealt with by the Government, the people of the State will be in a position to remedy their grievances. We are bound to recognise the sovereign powers of the States. When they federated it was never intended that this Parliament should assume the position of an overlord. Coming to the question of the regulation and control of corporations, it is generally admitted that ‘ certain amendments of the Constitution are necessary for this purpose, but not such extensive powersas are asked for in these measures. The

Government ask for an amendment of the Constitution to enable this Parliament to deal with corporations formed under the law of a State, including the creation, dissolution, regulation, and control, of such corporations, ‘but not including municipal or governmental corporations, or corporations formed solely for religious, charitable, or scientific purposes, and not for the acquisition of gain by the corporation or its members. The Government desire to be in a position, so far as State railways are concerned, to regulate the wages and conditions of railway employes, but when we come to deal with corporations they disclaim any desire for power to deal with municipal or governmental corporations. Suppose the case of a governmental or municipal corporation formed for the construction and working of a railway, I ask whether it is intended that the proposed amendment of the Constitution to enable this Parliament to interfere in connexion with industrial disputes in the railway services of the States should cover a case of that kind.

Senator Rae:

– Has the honorable senator no confidence in the ability of the Courts to decide such a matter?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I should have confidence in the ability of the Courts to decide such a matter if it were referred to them.

Senator Pearce:

– Would not the authority mentioned by the honorable senator be a governmental corporation?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– My point is that the railway, under its control, would not be a State railway. But that is a matter which is open to argument, and I say that it would have to be dealt with should the proposed amendments of the Constitution be made. We have another measure proposing that powers should be asked for in connexion with labour and unemployment, and the AttorneyGeneral was quite right in saying that by the proposed amendments of the Constitution the Government are seeking for the transference to this Parliament of tremendous powers. It is not, in my opinion, right that we should attempt to interfere with the autonomy of the States in dealing with matters of this kind. Can they effectively deal with them within their own borders? I say that they can. Senator Russell has told us this morning that Wages Boards in Victoria have made attempts to deal with industrial matters, but that a Minister has been in a position to exercise a power of veto upon their decisions. That is a matter entirely for the consideration of the people of Victoria. If they believethat Wages Boards should have authority to regulate certain matters, and that noMinister of the Crown should have theright to override their decisions, they cansecure the passage of legislation to give effect to their desire. They need not, unless they please, leave this autocratic power in the hands of any Minister. The question of the influence of the LegislativeCouncils does not come in here at all. The veto referred to is exercised by a Minister of the Crown, who owes his position tothe good-will of the people of the State. If necessary, he may at any time be forced to make way for another, and we may besure that no Minister would veto the decisions of a Wages Board if he believed that the people generally approved of those decisions. The people might provide that the decisions of a Wages Board should ‘be referred to a judicial tribunal if those concerned had reason to believe that they would operate unjustly. We have heard many complaints about the LegislativeCouncils of the States blocking legislation from time to time. I recognise that in some of the States the Legislative Councillors are nominees of the Crown, and that inother States they are elected on a restricted’ franchise.

Senator Rae:

– On a property qualification.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Even men who have ‘been elected’ upon a property qualification become amenable to the influence of public opinionHonorable members opposite may laugh, but they cannot deny that the real powerrests, after all, with the House elected by the popular vote. We know that even in> the case of the House of Lords, a legislative body entrenched behind centuries of power and the recognition of authority, the Imperial Government were able to carrydrastic and startling reforms. If such a thing could be done in the case of theHouse of Lords, why not in the case of theLegislative Councils’ of these States ? Tohear some persons speak one would imagine that the possession of property necessarily places a man in direct antagonism to thebest interests of the country. It may be urged that an Upper House elected upon a restricted franchise is bound to be a veryconservative body, but the most conservative House must eventually recognise the desires of the people in the government of” the country. It has been pointed out .that there is a marked difference between the methods ^employed in the Bill dealing with trusts and combines and that dealing with the nationalization of monopolies for the definition of a monopoly. Under the first measure the Court is to be asked to define what a monopoly is, and under the second practically the Government of the -day will do so, if they desire to nationalize a particular industry. This is a matter which, in my opinion, would be much better left to the decision of the Court than to the decision of any Parliament. We should, I think, in the first place, indicate the monopolies it is proposed to deal with, though in dealing with widely differing industries it becomes difficult to define what a monopoly is, but I assume that in the absence of any express definition by Parliament a Court would be guided by accepted definitions and the circumstances of each case brought under its notice.

Senator de Largie:

– Could the honorable senator give a definition of “ monopoly “ which would cover everything?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Probably I could not, but I have said that in my view the matter should be left to the Court. That is proposed in one of the Government measures, but in that referring to the nationalization of monopolies a most dangerous proposal is made, and this Parliament is to be asked to define what is a monopoly which should be nationalized. If the dominant party in Parliament desire to nationalize a particular industry they will be in a. position under the Government proposals to declare it to be a monopoly, and may thus give effect to their desire by a purely party vote. This is a most dangerous power in view of the fact that we have a party which does so much of its work “behind the backs of the people, and gives so little information concerning the way in which its decisions are arrived at. Let us say, for the sake’ of argument, that one political party numbers seventy out of a total of in parliamentary representatives.

Senator Mcdougall:

– That is the whole “trouble.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– That is undoubtedly a serious matter. There may be forty men in the Labour party who favour the nationalization of a particular industry. They consider the matter in caucus, and decide that that should be done, notwithstanding the protest of the other thirty members of the party. Then the whole of the seventy members of the party come out from the caucus, and vote in the one way.

Senator McGregor:

– The honorable senator knows all about the workings of the party, does he not?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– We have heard of the solidarity of the Labour party, and we know that whatever a majority of the party determines upon the whole of the members of the party must stand by it. I say that there is here a very considerable difficulty at once raised when the Government begin to deal with the interests of private individuals.

Senator Findley:

– But there is no sane man in the Labour party who is not in favour of the nationalization of monopolies.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Senator Russell has told us this morning that trusts and combines are the natural evolution of industry. If an industry, when established, is successful and gradually swallows up competitors in the same line of business, it becomes a monopoly, and, according to Senator Russell, the Government of the day should then nationalize it.

Senator McGregor:

– Not necessarily; it may not be a destructive monopoly.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator de Largie:

– You have been cursing these men ever since they were appointed ; now you bless them.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I know that this report is a bitter, pill for the Labour party. Nevertheless, let us hear what the Commissioners say -

Advocates of the public ownership of industries rightly dwell upon the avoidance of wastes of competition, but, in the case of the refining industry in Australia, such wastes are negligible. Further, taking into consideration the various difficulties with which public ownership has to contend, and the high efficiency of the present refining business in Australia, we do not think that the public ownership of the refineries would prove as financially successful as the present private ownership.

The cost of nationalizing the refining industry would involve an initial capital outlay of some millions by the time allowance had been made for the cost of refineries, good-will, floating capital, &c. To secure a fair interest on this capital outlay without penalizing consumers would, we believe, be difficult, if not impossible.

Senator Rae:

– They also urge the regulation of prices.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– They point out that it would tie impossible to nationalize the refinery industry in the interests of the public at large. From this we may learn what would be the effect if we tried to nationalize other industries. I have no doubt that the same difficulty would be experienced in regard to the tobacco industry. The Minister of Defence at one time was very keen with regard to that. He secured the appointment of a Royal Commission which took evidence. Would he be prepared, with the knowledge that he has since gained, to say that such an industry should be taken over by the Commonwealth, and that it could be run with advantage to the Commonwealth itself?

Senator Pearce:

– I do.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– No attempt has been made in that direction. No proposal has been made.

Senator Pearce:

– We cannot.

Senator McGregor:

– What is the use of talking rot like that, when the honorable senator knows that we cannot do it?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The people of this country will never be prepared to allow the Commonwealth Government to nationalize all these great industries. But, even if they did so, the Government would simply make a failure of the attempt. The influences that are brought to bear upon any Government render it incapable of managing industries efficiently and properly. I do not know of any Government industry that has been a success. We have had scandals over and over again. Take the Fitzroy Dock, where our war-ships are being built. The industry conducted there has not attained its present position without grave scandals.

Senator Rae:

– All the charges have been disproved.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– When a great industry is controlled by private individuals, no matter what their political views may be, they exercise all their energies and abilities with one end in view. They have not to keep their eyes open to ascertain how one party or another may favour any particular step. All they have to do is to keep within the limits of the law, and devote themselves to their business. But that is not so with a Government enterprise. Take the irrigation works at Yanco, in New South Wales. We have had scandals there. A Minister who has constituents who want work, sends them up to Yanco. Supporter after supporter of Ministers has been sent there. They have very little to do, and everybody knows it. One of the gags in use in a theatre in Sydney is founded upon this state of things. One of the actors says, “I “have plenty of money; I have ^30 a week.” Another says, “ What are you working at?” “ Oh,” says the first man, “ I arn not working; I am at Yanco.” Of course, our railways are run by .the State Governments, but even as to them it is recognised that business management cannot be conducted satisfactorily under political influence. The Governments of the States have therefore divested themselves of direct control over the railways, and placed them in the hands of Commissioners, who exercise their powers under Acts of Parliament, often in direct opposition to a political Minister.

Senator Ready:

– There is a great movement in England for the nationalization of the railways.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I am showing that you have to get rid of political control in regard to railways before they can be successfully managed. They still belong to the State, but, instead of the Government being allowed to say in what way they shall be managed, Commissioners are appointed as managers. These are selected, I presume, on account of their business ability and capacity.

Senator Ready:

– Are we not doing the same in connexion with the Commonwealth Bank ?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Are you going in for wholesale nationalization, and do you propose to appoint independent Commissioners to deal with each industry ? If so, we shall have Federal officials from one end of the country to the other. Where are you going to get the money to take over all these industries? You have to go to those who have money, and it is not likely that you will get money from those who have already made it in order to destroy the opportunities of private individuals to make it. An honorable senator wanted to know about the fixing of prices. That is another fallacy which was exploded years ago. It is quite impossible to fix the price of everything that is produced in this country. If you are going to fix the price of one commodity, or the prices pf half-a-dozen commodities, why not fix the prices of all? Last year we exported produce to the value of £51,000,000, and minerals to the value of £11,000,000. Where were the prices fixed of the articles which we exported ? They were not fixed in Australia; they were fixed in other parts “of the world. Last year we exported £10,000,000 worth of wheat, £26,000,000 worth of wool, and £4,000,000 worth of butter. How could we fix the prices of those particular commodities ?

Senator Guthrie:

– They were sold perhaps half-a-dozen times on the voyage.. The prices were changing all the time.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT’ GOULD:

– That is due to speculation, but the price of wheat was fixed in Mark. Lane. How are you going to fix the price- for your wool?

Senator Guthrie:

– How does Mark. Lane fix the price?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator St Ledger:

– Who said that?

Senator PEARCE:

- Mr. Irvine has said it, and in his address this morning Senator Gould pointed out that there was a danger as to the use which could be made of the powers, and he quoted the attitude of cer-, tain Labour senators, and particularly of myself. Senator Millen also quoted me and other honorable senators to show’ the extreme use we might make of the proposed powers. I am justified in saying that if their opposition is directed to anything at all it is practically a threat to the people of Australia. “ It may be necessary that there should be increased powers given to the Commonwealth Parliament, but we will do our best to prevent it from getting them so long as you return a. majority of Labour members.”

Senator St Ledger:

– Did not Mr. Irvine say something about the form of, your demand ?

Senator PEARCE:

– In his speech, Sena> tor Millen attempted to make great use of the recent Presidential election’ in the United States of America. He said that ‘ it was fought out on the question of the increase of Federal or State powers. He quoted ex-President Roosevelt as the champion of increased Federal powers, arid the president-elect, Dr. Woodrow Wilson, as tine- champion ©f State authority. He said that it. was the primary factor on which the election was fought’ out. I have here a newspaper called Progress, which circulates in Melbourne. The front page of its issue of 2nd December contains a photograph of Dr. Woodrow Wilson, and underneath appears the following quotation from his speech accepting the nomination of the Democratic party -

We must break down that great dam that runs around all our coasts - the restrictive Tariff that Hems- us in, that chokes us, that smothers us.

That was- the dividing line’ between himself and the other candidates. That was the main principle put forward by his party, the Democratic party, and that is borne out by the platform of the party of which- he was the selected candidate.

The first and principal plank of the platform refers, to the Tariff, and is as follows : -

We. declare it to be a fundamental principle of the Democratic party that the Federal! Government, under the Constitution, has no’ right or power to impose or collect Tariff duties; except for the purpose of revenue, and” we demand that the collection of such taxes, shall be limited to the necessities of government, honestly and economically administered.

That is the first and’ principal plank of their platform,, and it is the first and principal plank of the. platform on which ©t. Wilson was elected. How was that viewed by the’ party- journals, who are the political sponsors of honorable senators opposite? Commenting on the victory of 0r. Wilson, in a leading article of 6th November, the Melbourne Argus says -

His victory is unquestionably a crushing blow to. the cause of high protection.

Vet Senator Millen would have the Senate md the people of the Commonwealth to

– I am not concerned with that. I am pointing out the fact that in asking that it should be done the representatives of the States at the InterState Conference have recognised the necessity for uniform legislation of this description. I wish to quote in this regard no less an authority than Mr. Glynn, who was Attorney-General of the Fusion Government, and when occupying that position went into this question, and embodied his views in a Memorandum relating to the Australian Industries Preservation Act and the industrial power, together with suggestions “ for the amendment of the Constitution in relation to trusts and industrial1 matters.” That is to say, a member of the present Opposition, who will go before the people and ask them to reject this very power, is the gentleman whose observationsI am now about to quote. After giving an historical account of the laws dealing with corporations in the United States, and the results which have followed from thoselaws, I find that in paragraph 7 of hisMemorandum he says -

It will be seen from these references that in the United States of America, where combinations and monopolies are more numerous and extensive in their operations, the ineffectiveness, of divided power is felt, and greater Federal control is advocated by men who have no desire to unnecessarily narrow the sphere of the States. That the power of Congress is as great in respect of Inter-State, as it is admitted to be in respect of external trade, has been questioned ; but there can be no reasonable doubt that the power of the Commonwealth Parliament under section 51 (i.) of the Constitution extends to the prevention of any interferences with the absolute freedom of trade and commerce between the States provided for by section 92.

The point is not the plenary character of “the Federal power within its acknowledged sphere, but whether, in the interests of the public, that power should extend to legislation in respect of contracts or operations in restraint of trade, whether Inter-State and external or intra-State, of corporations, or corporations and persons.

Among the considerations that affect opinion in the matter are the difficulties of divided, and the advantages of Federal control, and the magnitude of the evils to be dealt with. As to these, a few remarks may be made.

No State Acts in the matter exist, or if passed, could effectively meet the necessities of the case. It is clear that all Acts, Commonwealth and State, while covering operations of persons or companies in different fields of jurisdiction, should be similar in purport or terms. Otherwise the lawfulness of operations would depend on locality, and similar facts might be made the basis of different charges, under the State and the Commonwealth Acts respectively. This would mean the application, to the same Acts, of conflicting views or standards of policy or morals, different rules as to proof, on the same evidence, conviction under one jurisdiction and acquittal under another, and in States without any legislation in the matter, freedom for the operations of the offending persons or companies except so far as controlled by common law.

As regards administration, the difficulties in securing uniformity, so desirable in the case of States presenting similar conditions, would be great. It is clear that, to the extent to which concert in the enforcement of the Acts of the States and Commonwealth was not attained, the attempts to prevent or suppress the evils would be ineffective.

That is Mr. Glynn’s comment upon the situation with which I have been dealing.

I wish now to say a few words in regard to the Bill which proposes’ to alter the Constitution by inserting after paragraph xxxv. of section 51 the words -

Conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes in relation to employment in the railway service of a State. It is said that this power is intended to take away from the State Parliaments and State Governments the means of fixing wages; and it is argued that we are attempting something in the nature of a revolution. It is alleged that we are taking away the sovereign power of the people of the ‘States to fix the wages of their own railway servants. Let us look at the facts. There ‘is not a State in Australia to-day whose railways are not controlled by Railways Commissioners. In the Railways Commissioners Acts of the States, autocratic power is given to those officials for the very purpose of removing the railways from political control. Those Commissioners practically stand, as far as concerns their relation to their employes, in exactly the same position as do private employers towards theirs.

Senator Fraser:

– No; they can be suspended.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– Subject to an alteration of the Railways Commissioners Acts.

Senator PEARCE:

– Subject, of course, to an amendment of the Acts under which they are engaged.

Senator Millen:

– Subject, also, to Parliament finding the money.

Senator PEARCE:

– The State Parliaments have not shown the slightest disposition to interfere with those Acts or to take away from the Commissioners their powers, except in one regard. In the States of New South Wales and Western Australia what has happened? The Governments there have established industrial tribunals, and the railway employes of those’ States have been given the right to appeal, with respect to rates of wages fixed by the Railways Commissioners, to those industrial tribunals.

The writer proceeds -

Governor Wilson says he “ will make war upon such a proposition to the utmost of his power.” That is the attitude of the Democratic party ; it is opposed to Federal control and regulation, of trusts. No other power can do it.

The article then goes on to say -

The great corporations must be regulated by the said Government or not at all. The choice is between Government regulation and a lawless private plutocracy growing constantly greater by unrestrained privilege. The Progressive policy is to strengthen the Sherman anti-trust law by defining what acts constitute a restraint of trade, and to quickly enforce it through the proposed Commission. Great combinations of capital must exist. To allow them to be formed, and to do business for years without interruption, and then bring suit for dissolution, is illogical and ineffective, as demonstrated by the Standard Oil and Tobacco Trust suit. The Progressive party would subject them to constant Governnent control, take from them every special privilege which has been the principal means of monopoly, and so leave the way open for competition where competition is needed.

The balance-sheets of the company, as a matter of fact, indicate, since the inauguration of the Commonwealth, an annual dividend of not less than 10 per cent, on the subscribed capital. In addition, there have been some bonuses. For the year ending 30th September, 1912, the dividends (inclusive of bonuses) amount to 12½ per cent. But in order to ascertain the real dividend we have to take into consideration the fact that at various times profits have been capitalized by the issues of shares (wholly or partially paid for out of profits). £625,000 has been capitalized in this way. Now, a nominal dividend of12½ per cent. on nominally paid-up capital of £3,000,000 is in reality a dividend of approximately 15¾ per cent. on the actually paid-up capital of £2,375,000. In addition, over £80,000 has been added for the same year to the balance of the profit and loss account. Taking into consideration the fact that the balance to profit and loss account, September, 1911, was £123,444, and bearing in mind that the company has a further disclosed reserve labelled replacement and depreciation fund of £500,000, the conclusion would appear to follow that the company might have distributed with perfect safety the £80,000 carried for the year to the balance of profit and loss account. Had this been done the dividend would have exceeded 19 per cent. on the actually subscribed capital.

This means that £2,375,000 has yielded investors generous dividends distributed halfyearly, and reserves (inner and distributed) of £3,625,000. We think it fair to conclude from these figures, supplied by a company whose expansions of business have been built on a basis of milling and refining profits, that the milling and refining industries in Australia are conducted as a matter of fact under conditions which admit of high profits.

Unfortunately, when we come to the growers, we find a very different story. While the millers and refiners make handsome profits, the profits of the growers, as a class, are quite inadequate.

That, of course, is the old tale of the trusts the world over. If you were to compare the report of this Commission with the report of the inquiries held by the United States Courts into the operations of the Standard Oil Company, and various other trusts, I do not suppose that you would find a very great variation - huge profits, exorbitant prices to the community, and crushing prices to the producers who supply them with the raw material. Then we come to the question of the public control of prices. Honorable senators opposite are for ever saying that it is impossible to control prices. They remind me of the old lady who, when she first saw a locomotive, said, “ It will never go; it can never go”; but, when it commenced to go, she said, “ It will never stop ; it will never stop.” She was a true Conservative. Whenever any new legislation is proposed, the Opposition cry out with one voice, “ It cannot be done; it is impossible,” and, when it is put into operation, they say, “ Where is this sort of thing going to stop ? “ So it is with the proposed regulation of prices. They say, “ It cannot be done,” although they see it being done all around them. They see the ancient law of supply and demand interfered with time and again in the business world. This Royal Commission inquired into the question, and dealt pretty exhaustively with the control of the prices for raw sugar and sugar-cane. I may be excused for quoting somewhat largely from the report on this question, because I suppose there is no industry into the operations of which there has been as thorough an inquiry by men who, at any rate, are of fairly high intelligence. The report states -

The cost of growing sugar-cane is difficult to estimate. Apart from fluctuations in land values, allowance has to be made for floods, cyclones, scarcity of rainfall, pests, &c. The cost of the manufacture of raw sugar, and of sugar refining, can be calculated with relative certainty. Hence the question arises whether it would not be possible for public authorities to arrange a sliding scale according to which the price to be paid for raw sugar and sugarcane respectively would vary in a fixed proportion to the selling price of refined sugar - due allowance being made for milling and refining costs, inclusive of depreciation and a reasonable percentage on capital outlay. The sliding scale of prices would, of course, be no novelty. The

Colonial Sugar Refining Company, as we have seen, pays £9 7s. 6d. per ton for raw sugar when the selling price of refined sugar is £19. For each £1 increase in the price of refined sugar, the price of raw sugar is enhanced by 18s. Further, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company has, at one time or another, made overtures to the growers for the adoption of a sliding scale of prices with respect to sugar-cane, although the growers, for reasons not difficult to understand, have generally preferred the offer of a straight-out price. Other millers have paid for cane, or have offered to do so, on a sliding scale.

The disadvantages of existing arrangements or offers as to a sliding scale of prices are chiefly two -
1. The growers rarely share any part of the bonus paid to millers of 18s. for every £1 increase in the selling value of refined sugar.
2. The sliding scale, in so far as it is in operation, is fixed, not by competition, nor by collective bargaining, nor by an impartial body, but by private business concerns which enjoy a more or less monopolistic control.
The difficulties to which allusion has just been made could, as we believe, be overcome by legislation constituting machinery for the purpose of insuring that the prices for raw sugar and cane respectively shall be determined, not as at present by one party to a bargain, but by some authority or authorities empowered by law to act in the interest of all parties. We believe that along these lines is to be found the ideal solution of the problem of insuring an equitable adjustment of the profits of the sugar industry among its various branches. Before proceeding to work out this suggestion in detail, we think it desirable to consider some preliminary objections which have been submitted to us, or have occurred to us, in the course of our investigations.
It has been urged that the proposal is revolutionary. We are not disturbed by this objection. The industrial organization of modern society is rapidly changing, and, more especially in some of its branches, calls for novel legislation. Within the Australian Commonwealth, probably no more striking example could be adduced than the sugar industry. The existing methods of price determination place a virtually despotic control in the hands of the purchasers. The substitution for those methods of a public control of prices is one way out of existing difficulties. In our opinion, the other alternative is nationalization of the refineries. We have already given our reasons for not advocatingnationalization. Moreover, Australia has already pledged itself to the determination, by “public authorities, of the price of labour. One witness expressed the present situation as follows’: - “ The grower is between the Devil and the deep sea.” The grower has to pay a price which is fixed by public authorities for labour, while he receives for cane a price which is fixed by the miller. We see no reason why the principles which underlie our industrial legislation for the protection of the wage-earner should not be extended to protect the grower. Parliament (whether Commonwealth or State), following the analogy of legislation for fixing theprice of labour, might adopt either of three alternatives : - (1) It might fix prices by law directly- the policy of the legislative minimum. (2) It might arrange for representatives of the various branches of the industry to agree to a scale of prices - the policy of Wages Boards. (3) It might intrust the determination of the sliding scale to an impartial tribunal - the policy of compulsory arbitration. As to the choice between these various policies, we shall venture to express an opinion later on.

Then they quote some evidence, and in subparagraph 3 of paragraph 30 they say -

We are also at a loss to see why, if prices can be fixed as they are at present by one party to a bargain, they cannot be fixed by a public authority acting in the interest of both parties. The prices of raw sugar and sugar-cane in Australia at present are fixed, not by laws of supply and demand (within the Tariff wall), but by refiners in the one case and millers in the other. We have already dwelt on this fact at some length.
1. Apart from the objections just considered that a public control of prices is revolutionary and impossible, the objection has been urged that no reason exists for singling out the sugar industry for special legislation. But to this, the obvious answer is that the conditions in the sugar industry are exceptional, and call for exceptional legislation. . We know of no other industry in Australia in which the determination of prices is to so large an extent in the hands of one party to the bargain.
2. It has been urged that, although prices may be fixed under public control, no law could compel the miller or the refiner to buy. It has also been urged that, with regard to the Central Mills, the State of Queensland has a vested interest in the maintenance of the present system until those mills have discharged their indebtedness to the Government. We consider these objections together, because they both have their apparent origin in a misunderstanding with respect to the purposes of any rational scheme for the public control of prices. The objects of such a scheme would not be to prevent any branch of the sugar industry from making reasonable profits, but to secure a reasonable distribution of profits.

If it were found upon such reasonable distribution that one or more branches of the industry were not securing an adequate return on capital outlay, then the import duty would have to be raised. We believe that when once the scheme was established, it would be recognised by all parties, and by the State of Queensland, as a just solution of existing problems.

One possible objection to public control of prices is that public control, by giving a public guarantee of fair prices, would result in the production of a surplus. There might be, for example, a surplus of Australian-produced sugar ; or there might be a surplus of cane supplied at one or more of the mills, i.e., a greater supply than the mill could crush. As regards the latter surplus, the difficulties could be overcome as at present by mutual arrangement between millers and growers. As regards the surplus of Australian-produced sugar, we do not think it likely ‘to occur for some years to come in view of the expanding local market. Should it occur, however, a difficult situation would arise in view of the facts that exportation must involve a loss, that sugar is not a commodity which can be stored for indefinite periods, and that, being one of the necessities of life, no great increase inthe local demand would be stimulated by loweringthe price on the local market. The situation would not, however, be wholly novel: and it might be dealt with as under existing conditions.

If the surplus tended to recur, despite the deduction in price, the fact would indicate that the protection was unnecessarily high ; and the proper remedy would be to lower the import duty. Otherwise there would be introduced into Australia some of the more objectionable features of the Cartel system.

We have spoken, hitherto, of the public control of prices. The expression is designedly ambiguous. It evades the difficult question of the spheres of Commonwealth and State action. It says - nothing of the particular machinery which, whether State or Federal, is to interpret public control in definite executive action. Under other circumstances we might have felt entitled to leave such questions to the consideration of Legislative Assemblies. But, as we have recommended a departure from existing legislative practice in Australia, we feel it to be our duty to consider briefly the means for giving effect to the policy which we have advocated.

At the outset, we venture to express the opinion that the machinery should be Federal. Several reasons, taken cumulatively, enforce this conclusion upon us : -

The burden of protecting the sugar industry is borne by the consumers of the Commonwealth.

The purposes which are served by the sugar industry, more especially the settlement and defence oftropical or semi-tropical areas, are national in a special sense, and give to the industry a unique national significance.

The import duty (the amount of which should be assessed from time to time by authorities in organic relationship with the authorities which control prices) is fixed by the Commonwealth Parliament, and could in the nature of things be fixed by no other body.

The price of raw sugar could not be fixed by any one State,’ since the refineries are established in several States. The absurdity of invoking legislation and accessory machinery in four States when the same object can be achieved by Commonwealth action must be apparent.

Assuming, and we see no other conclusion possible, that Commonwealth authority should control the price of raw sugar, it follows by inevitable sequence that the same authority should control the price of sugarcane. We do not wish to call in question for a moment the claims of the States to self-government in matters of purely local concern ; but we are quite unable to resist the conclusions that what is imperatively needed in the case of the sugar industry is a single controlling ultimate authority, and that such authority must in the very nature of things derive from the Commonwealth. If sugarcane were produced only in Queensland, the conclusions just suggested would follow with less force than they do. But sugar-cane is already produced in New South Wales on the northern rivers; and, in time to come, it may be produced in the Northern Territory.

We are aware that an amendment of the Constitution may be necessary. But we believe that the passing of such an amendment should not be difficult, in view of the national importance of the sugar industry, the burden imposed Upon the Australian consumers by the continuance of the sugar policy, and the various reasons which we have urged for securing by Commonwealth authority a just distribution of the profits which accrue in the sugar industry as a result of the protective policy.

Resolved - That it is expedient that a Bill embodying provisions to the following effect be adopted by the State Parliaments -

Then follow provisions to enable disputes coming within the constitutional section to be referred through a certain channel from State tribunals to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The State Premiers proposed to make provision to achieve in a roundabout way what we propose to achieve in a direct way. That is a recognition by the State Premiers that State legislation is ineffective, and produces unequal and unfair conditions in industry, and methods were suggested by them to invest the Commonwealth tribunal with power to overcome that difficulty. That is a confession of the unsatisfactory nature of the present distribution of industrial powers. All the Opposition can now say is that they do not deny the need of some tribunal to equalize industrial conditions, but they object to the methods by which we propose to bring it about. I can not only refer to the resolutions of the State Premiers, but I have here a copy of the InterState Commission Bill introduced into this Chamber by Senator Best as a member of the Fusion Government. Part V. of that Bill dealt with industrial matters, and proposed to do almost what the State Premiers suggested. It proposed the establishment of a Federal Court of Industrial Appeal, to which appeals might be made from State industrial tribunals, in order to equalize competition in different industries. In these two proposals we have a recognition from those who now oppose the alteration of the Constitution pf the need for the possession by this Parliament of these powers, the only difference of opinion being as to how the powers should be exercised. We can resort in - this matter also to Mr. Glynn’s memorandum as giving, I presume, the views of the Fusion Cabinet then in power. I do not know whether honorable senators opposite will repudiate Mr. Glynn’s memorandum, but, dealing with suggested constitutional amendments, he says, at page 8 -

Power for the Federal Parliament to make laws : -

For enabling the Inter-State Commission toregulate industrial matters in any State, so far as is necessary in the judgment of the InterState Commission, for the purpose of removing such obstacles to the establishment in any State of fair industrial conditions as arise from unfair competition, or the prospect of unfair competition, from other States.

In exercising powers under any such law, the Commission shall take into account the difference of economic conditions in different parts of the Commonwealth, and shall have due regard to the interests of producers, workers, and consumers, and of the public generally.

In addition to that, we have the famous memorandum on new Protection by Mr. Deakin. That was issued before the formation of the Fusion party, and, I presume, will be repudiated by members of the party now. But it is interesting in the light of recent history to read what Mr. Deakin said on this question -

These proposals, to some extent, cover theground that is already occupied by legislation in some of the States. Every exercise of power by the Commonwealth in matters in which Commonwealth and States have concurrent authority must be subject to this condition. The cooperation of the States Governments is most desirable in every aspect; but the Commonwealth cannot ignore its obligations, so far as the Constitution allows, to secure equitable and uniform industrial conditions in all the industries which come within the range of its fiscal legislation.

The proposals for requiring the maintenance of fair and reasonable conditions in protected industries are simply a corollary to the power of imposing protective duties. To restrict the powers of the Commonwealth to the mere imposition of these duties while the conditions under which the manufacture of protected articles are carried on differ so widely in the different States would be to permit inequality, discrimination, and discord. The ideal of the Constitution is equality and uniformity in all national matters. With that end it prohibits the imposition of taxation in such a way as to discriminate between States or parts of States. The ideal can hardly be realized if uniformity of protection is coupled with wide diversity in the conditions of manufacture. Effective and useful as State industrial laws have in many cases proved, their operation is circumscribed by State boundaries, and it can hardly be claimed for them that they either door can secure uniformity in the conditions of manufacture throughout Australia. No authority but the Commonwealth Parliament can do this, and the attempt to do it in the way that has been outlined, is in fullest harmony with the Federal aims and character of the Constitution.

This is the gentleman who now says that these proposals mean Unification. He then said -

The way that has been outlined is in fullest harmony with the Federal aims and character of the Constitution.

The way outlined by Mr. Deakin in his new Protection memorandum was not through the Inter-State Commission, but by direct operation of the Federal power itself. Yet, in a few short months, this same gentleman will be taking the stump and asking .the people to reject these proposals on the ground that they lead to Unification. > I wish now to refer to the proposed alteration of the Constitution for the purpose of dealing with corporations. In my opinion, the necessity for a uniform company Taw has long been- recognised, and it is only party bias and prejudice which prevents members of the Opposition from saying so. There are no gentlemen better acquainted with company law than some of those who sit on the Opposition benches, and no one knows better how difficult it is to conduct business under six separate company laws operating in the different States. Before the amendment of the Constitution came to be viewed as a party question, business men in Australia from time to time urged the necessity for a uniform company law. What is our present position in this regard ? Up to the time of the Huddart Parker case under the Australian Industries Preservation Act, members of this Parliament, not merely those occupying the Government benches, but those occupying the Opposition benches as well, believed that we had far more power than the High Court has decided that we have. Any one who reads the judgment in the Huddart Parker case must come to the conclusion that we have no power other than the power to register, and when we find four Judges expressing four different opinions, we can be excused if we also come to the conclusion that even the Judges of the High Court themselves are not sure as to what powers we have. As the Huddart Parker case was one in which our power with regard to corporations was defined, it is important that we should get a grasp of what the judgment meant, and its effect to-day upon our Constitution. I say that its effect has been to alter the meaning of words, and to read into words contained in the Constitution a meaning which they do not commonly bear. I refer honorable senators to the report of the case -

Sections 4 and 7 of the Australian Industries Preservation Act constituted certain acts offences when performed by any person in relation to trade and commerce with other countries or among the States.

Sections 5 and 8 of the same Act constituted <he same acts offences when performed by any foreign corporation or trading and financial cor- poration formed within the limits of the Commonwealth, in relation to trade and commerce simply (not trade and commerce with other countries or among the States).. In other words, the Commonwealth Parliament, since it had power to legislate with regard to “ foreign corporations or trading and financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth,” thought that it could legislate under that power to control the operations of such corporations in connexion with all trade and commerce, and that it was not restricted to the case of InterState or foreign commerce.

Proceedings were instituted against a corporation under sections 5 and 8, and the corporation challenged the validity of these sections on the ground that they were not in substance legislation regarding corporations, but regarding trade and commerce, and should therefore have been limited to Inter-State or foreign trade and commerce.

The Court, by a majority (Isaacs, J., dissenting), upheld the contention of the company, and decided that the two sections in question were invalid.

Here is an extract from the head-note of the case Huddart Parker and Company Proprietary Limited v. Moor head, reported in 8 Commonwealth Law Reports, page 330-

By the whole Court. Section 51 (xx.) of the Constitution does not confer on the Commonwealth Parliament power to create corporations, but the power is limited to legislation as to foreign corporations and trading and financial corporations created by State law.

By the Court (Isaacs, J., dissenting). - Sections 5 and 8 of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 are ultra vires the Commonwealth Parliament and invalid.

By Griffith, C.J., and Barton, J. - Section 51 (xx.) of the Constitution confers upon the Commonwealth Parliament power to prohibit foreign corporations and trading and financial corporations formed under State laws from engaging in trade and commerce within a State, as distinguished from trade and commerce between States or with foreign countries, or to impose conditions subject to which they may engage in such trade and commerce, but does not confer upon the Commonwealth Parliament power to control the operations of such corporations which lawfully engage in such trade and commerce.

By O’Connor, J. - The power conferred by section 51 (xx.) of the Constitution is limited to the making of laws with respect to the recognition of corporations as legal entities within the Commonwealth, and does not include a power to make laws for regulating and controlling the business of corporations when once they have been so recognised and are exercising their corporate functions by carrying on business in the Commonwealth.

By Isaacs, J. - Section £r (xx.) confers on the Commonwealth Parliament power to control the conduct of the specified corporations in relation to outside persons, but not the powers and capacities of corporations, and sections 5 and 8 of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 are a -valid exercise of such power.

By Higgins, J. - The power conferred by section 51 (xx.) of the Constitution on the Commonwealth Parliament is a power to legislate with respect to the classes of corporations named, -as corporations - that is, to regulate the status and capacity of such corporations and the conditions on which they may be permitted to carry on business; but does not include a power to regulate the contracts into which corporations may enter within the scope of their permitted powers. Sections 5 and 8 of the Australian Industries Preservation Act r()06 are not legislation with respect to such corporations, but legislation with respect to trade and commerce.

The sum and substance of that is that practically our powers with respect to trading corporations are those of registration only and that the carrying on of trade and business is completely within the functions of the States. The words of the Constitution, therefore, with respect to the control of corporations, are absolutely blank and meaningless. That judgment attracted the attention of legal luminaries all over the world, and has been discussed in the legal journals by very high authorities. I pl Cpose to quote one criticism of it, published in the *Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation for July,1 1911. The article is contributed by Mr. A. Berriedale Keith, D.C.L. After quoting the substance of the judgment which is practically what I have read, the writer goes on to say -

Nor in the case of the Australian Industries Preservation Act r()o6, does the judgment of the majority of the Court seem very convincing. The power of the Commonwealth to legislate with regard to foreign corporations and trading and financial companies formed under State laws is no doubt not an unlimited one, but the particular exercise of the power to which exception was taken, the prohibition of such companies or corporations forming monopolies or conspiracies in trading matters, seems an exercise of power which it is peculiarly probable that the Commonwealth Parliament was meant to have. It is notorious that in Australia certain great foreign corporations are believed to have, or to desire to secure, a hold such as to defeat other competition, and only a Federal law, it is clear from the experience of the United States, could successfully deal with such corporations. If the matter were left to State activities, probably the whole end of prohibition would be defeated by the action of one State, just as Tasmania supports Tattersalls after its exclusion from the rest of the Commonwealth. No doubt the interpretation of the full ambit of the power of the Commonwealth regarding such corporations would be difficult, but it is hard to think that it was in any way ultra vires to forbid corporations to monopolize trade. Moreover, if this power is not vested in tV Commonwealth, it is clearly one which must, in the public interest, be so vested.

That is the judgment of a lawyer, who, 1 take it, must be an authority, or his opinions would not find a place in a journal of such repute. He is. far removed from our party conflicts. He looks at the matter entirely from a lawyer’s point of view, and that is his ccol, calm, collected judgment on the case, regarding it as one who is not in any way mixed up in our local politics. His judgment, in my opinion, is worthy of all consideration by the people of this country. Mr. Glynn also dealt with this point in paragraph 3 of his memorandum of 1910. He said -

It may, therefore, be well to consider the desirability of” obtaining, by reference to the State Parliaments under section 51 (XXXVII.), or preferably by an amendment of the Constitution, greater or full power to control the con-, tracts and acts of persons (including corporations) within the purpose of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-7.

The method of amendment (section 128) which enables the people to speak both through their national representatives and directly at the poll on a referendum, is evidently more in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution than that of parliamentary reference (section 51, (XXXVII.) which applies to matters affecting the interests rather of two or more States than of the whole Commonwealth.

Mr. Glynn goes on to argue the point again in the following terms : -

It will be seen from these references that i» the United States of America, where combinations and monopolies are more numerous and extensive in their operations, the ineffectiveness of divided power is felt, and greater Federal control is advocated by men who have no desire to unnecessarily narrow the sphere of the States. That the power of Congress is as great in respect of Inter-State, as it is admitted to be in respect of external, trade, has been questioned ; but there can be no reasonable doubt that the power of the Commonwealth Parliament under section 51 (i.) of the Constitution extends to the prevention of any interferences with the absolute freedom of trade and commerce between the States provided for by section 92.

The point is not the plenary character of the Federal power within its acknowledge sphere, but whether, in the interests of the public, that power should extend to legislation in respect of contracts or operations in restraint of trade, whether Inter-State and external or Intra-State, of corporations, or corporations and persons.

Among the considerations that affect opinion in the matter are the difficulties of divided, and the advantages of Federal, control, and the magnitude of the evils to be dealt with. As to these, a few remarks may be made.

No State Acts in the matter exist, or,, if passed, could effectively meet the necessities of the case. It is clear that all Acts, Commonwealth and State, while covering operations of persons or companies in different fields of jurisdiction, should be similar in purport or terms. Otherwise, the lawfulness of operations would depend on locality, and similar facts might be made the basis of different charges, under the State and the Commonwealth Acts respectively. This would mean the application, to the same Acts, of conflicting views or standards of policy or morals, different rules as to proof, on the same evidence conviction under one jurisdiction and acquittal under another,, and, in States without any legislation in the matter, freedom for the operations of the offending persons or companies except so far as controlled by common law.

As regards administration, the difficulties in securing uniformity, so desirable in the case of States presenting similar conditions, would be great. It is clear that, to the extent to which concert in the enforcement of the Acts of the States and the Commonwealth was not attained, the attempts to prevent or suppress the evils would “be ineffective.

Mr. Glynnstrongly presses the view that it is desirable to take these powers, and that preferably they should be obtained directly by an amendment of the Constitution. Mr. Glynn drew up that memorandum when he was Attorney-General in the Fusion Government. I am, therefore, justified in making the statement that that was his own well-considered opinion, committed to paper as the result of his experience as AttorneyGeneral of the Commonwealth, after he had had the duty thrust upon him of investigating the cases that had arisen under Australian law, and after the delivery of the judgment in the case that I have quoted. Therefore, I do say that the charge can be levelled at honorable senators opposite that they are not prepared to deal with these questions on their merits, but that their opposition arises purely from party prejudice, and because there happens to be a Labour Government in office. I have a few words to add, in conclusion, upon the Bill to enable the Constitution to be altered with respect to the nationalization of trusts and combines. In that regard, I wish to say that my position has always been clear. I am one of those who believe that it is in the interests of the people themselves that the great trusts organized throughout the world should not be broken up, and that industry should not be set back into a state of unrestricted competition. I believe that these trusts are doing great work in the economic field, for the benefit of humanity, in that they are organizing industry as, perhaps, it could not otherwise have been organized. I believe also that they are, unconsciously to themselves, taking a definite step in the direction of the public ownership of industry, which will be facilitated by the very work they are doing in organizing their industries under collective control. We have to recognise that one of the pleas that has always been urged for State ownership is that it would make for the elimination of competition, and the waste that results from it. These trusts have proved that you can exercise a control over great industries which is not a personal control, in the sense that those who direct it are not themselves personally interested in the profits. Who are to-day controlling the great industrial enterprises of Australia ? Are the men who are managing the sugar industry and directing its movements the actual owners of that industry ? What do the directors of the Tobacco Company know about tobacco manufacturing? I doubt whether any of them could explain the process by which a cigar is made, or a plug of tobacco manufactured. So it is with other gigantic industries. They are being organized and run to-day by men who, in many cases, have no personal interest in them, who are paid salaries, whose ability and knowledge is bought by the directors. These industries are themselves governed by directors, who themselves have no technical knowledge of the businesses they are directing.

Senator Fraser:

– The businesses are under their control, and many of the managers get a commission on the success of the industries they manage.

Senator PEARCE:

– Of course, the industries are under their control. ‘ But what does that imply? It supplies a complete answer to the statement that used to be made a few years ago that the State could never run these great industries successfully, because, as was alleged, it would not have a personal interest in them such as always arises in the case of a man who is running his own industry. The day when the man who owned an industry ran it for himself has gone for ever. One has only to keep his eyes open and to look around to see that industry is going through a process of evolution. Industry is conducted on lines and under conditions that were absolutely unknown, and could not have been dreamt of, in the time when Adam Smith and other writers on political economy wrote their treatises. Conditions have entirely changed. Yet there are people who would attempt today to regulate commerce and industry on lines laid down by the political economists of old. In my opinion, the conditions of today demand new methods of legislation, and it is because of that that I believe that we should not attempt to break up and disperse these gigantic corporations. I believe that their organization is for the benefit of humanity. The evil arising from them lies here - that whilst you have under collective ownership a means to organize and produce on an economic scale, that very power gives to those who control those industries a means of exploiting the community, and, by exerting an influence on the business life, and even on the political life, of the community, to become dangerous to others. It is dangerous to place in the hands of any group of individuals such an enormous power. Therefore, whilst we want, on the one hand, to conserve the benefits which may be derived from the gigantic corporations, trusts, and combines, we want also to avoid the evils that arise from the exploitation by a few invididuals of the community as a whole. We say that .we can achieve that only by nationalization.

Senator Fraser:

– We cannot have good management, then.

Senator PEARCE:

– Will the honorable senator say that we have not good management on our railways to-day? I venture to say, as I said when Senator Millen quoted my statement on the Australian Industries Preservation Act, that one reason why the trusts in Australia have not been so successful as they have in America - one of the reasons why they have not been able to ex1ploit the people to the same extent - is that they have not been able to get hold of those great arteries of commerce, the railways. The very fact that those railways are the property of the States saves the people of Australia from exploitation by trusts and Combines, as has been the case in America. I do not propose to detain the Senate any longer. In my opinion, the proposals now put before the people are reasonable. They are necessary. If they are explained to the people in such a way that their meaning can be grasped, I have every confidence that they will shortly be embodied in the Constitution of Australia.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– There is one statement upon which the Minister of Defence placed a great deal of importance, and that was as to the platform laid down by the Progressive party in the United States of America. It was pointed out by Senator Millen that Woodrow Wilson, throughout his Presidential campaign, never asked for an alteration of the Constitution. Although he was cognisant of the evils of trusts and combines, he never sought to protect the United States of America from the evil effects of those trusts and combines by advocating an alteration of the Constitution. The Minister of Defence seemed to try to make out that Woodrow Wilson advocated an alteration in the Constitution.

Senator McGregor:

– Do not put words into the Minister’s mouth that he never uttered. ‘ The Minister said nothing of the kind.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– The Minister produced triumphantly the declaration of Woodrow Wilson with regard to the dangers of trusts and combines, and though he did not actually say so, he inferred that Woodrow Wilson intended to alter the Constitution of America in order to deal with combines. The Minister quite correctly stated the issues in that campaign, and how Woodrow Wilson dealt with them ; but he ought to have gone further. In these matters we are not mere advocates, we are trustees of the people, and the Minister of Defence, when reading those quotations from Woodrow Wilson’s declaration in order to make out his case, should have read another declaration. I intend to read it. It is as follows : -

To that end we urge the establishment of a strong Federal Administrative Commission of high standing, which shall maintain permanent active supervision over industrial corporations engaged in Inter-State commerce, or such of. them as are of public importance, doing for them what the Government now does for the national banks, and what is now done for the railroads by the Inter-State Commerce Commission. Such a. Commission must enforce the complete publicity of those corporate transactions which are of public interest ; must attack unfair competition, false capitalization and special privilege; and by continuous trained watchfulness guard and keep open equally to all the highways of American commerce. Thus the business man will have certain knowledge of the law, and ‘will be able to conduct his business equally in conformity therewith ; . the investor will find security for his capital ; dividends will be rendered more certain, and the savings of the people will be drawn naturally and safely into the channels of trade.- Under such a system, constructive regulation, legitimate business, freed from confusion, uncertainty and fruitless litigation, will develop normally in response to the energy and enterprise of the American business man.

As a part of the scheme they say -

We pledge ourselves to the establishment of a non-partisan scientific, Tariff Commission, reporting both to the President and to either branch of Congress, which shall report first, as to the costs of production, efficiency of labour, capitalization, industrial organization a”d efficiency, and the general competitive position in this country and abroad of industries seeking protection from Congress.

– May not the peoplehave learned a lesson from bitter experience ?

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator ST LEDGER:

– It is as plain as possible that the Vice-President of the Executive Council’s interjection has been made for the purpose of inducing me to made a declaration that would possibly be hereafter uncomfortable, not only to myself, but to others of my party. -I have been too long in politics to be led off the scent by red herrings like that. When the proper time comes, I shall not hesitate to express my opinion. It is contended by the most eminent authorities in Canada that the best way to deal with these combines is through the Tariff. Here is a declaration that was made by Mr. McKenzie, Minister of . Labour in the Canadian Government, in 1910 -

In labour troubles the penalties are unimportant. Negotiations, advice, and publicity are the effective things. The loss of Tariff protection, the loss of patent protection, or a substantial fine, is a genuine danger to the Constitution. Not in the United States, not in Canada, nowhere in the world in modern times, have such remedies as these been proposed. Nowhere in the world has nationalization been suggested as the dread and only alternative.

In Canada there is a law which provides that if any trust or combine is dealing unfairly with the public, and is operating upon manufactures which are practically brought into existence by the Tariff, the Tariff can be lowered.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Will the honorable senator vote for the lowering of the sugar duties?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– As that question has been asked me, might I ask Senator Russell, will he vote in favour of an alteration of the Tariff for the purpose of dealing with these trusts and combines?

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I will vote in favour of increasing it. Will the honorable senator vote in favour of lowering it?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– If there is any trust or combine in Australia that is carrying on an industry which is dependent upon the Tariff, and is using that industry to the detriment of the public, I am prepared to consider a revision of that Tariff, with the view of lowering it. In Canada they put forward that remedy, and that remedy is available to us now. That being so, before we seek to amend the Constitution we should make inquiries into the operations of these combines, to see whether the Tariff has enabled them to oppress the worker on the one hand, and exploit the public on the other hand. But are these combines in Australia destructive of our industries? Atc; they enemies of Labour? I cannot find evidence of it. I look in some quarters where I think I shall get strong evidence, and this is what I find : A gentleman occupying a very’ prominent position in Labour ranks, and well known in Australia, made these remarks - 1 am quite with the honorable member that we should take care that nothing is done to prevent such legitimate combination amongst coal-owners as may be found necessary to enable them to get a fair profit on their capital invested and to insure fair wages to their employes.

That is a declaration made by Mr. Watson, the ex-Leader of the Labour party. tfe admitted that this particular Combine, which has been the- subject of a prosecution in the High Court, was a beneficial one. Speaking at Newcastle about the same time, he said -

At Newcastle miners have practically gone out on strike to get a general agreement with their proprietors, and incidentally to bring the proprietors into combination.

The Vend was beginning its operations at the time when Mr. Watson made those statements in another place, in order to protect that Combine. We on this side had our doubts about the Combine, and took steps to investigate its operations. Mr. Watson also made these remarks -

I wish it to be distinctly understood that the position at Newcastle ought not to be disturbed, because I believe that to -disturb an arrangement of that description would bring an injury, not merely upon the combination of proprietors, but upon all employed at their collieries.

It is contended that one of the reasonswhy we should amend the Constitution isthat the High Court delivered a judgment favorable to the operations of that Combine, on account of the narrow restrictionsof the Constitution.; but the High Court, in-, its judgment, really said what Mr. Watson said over and over again in another Chamber. The operations of that Combine were the subject of discussion in this Senate about three years ago, as the result of it motion, for the adjournment of the Senate by Senator Millen. What was the attitude of honorable senators on the other side on that occasion? The fact of a combination having been formed between the steamship companies and the colliery proprietors was practically applauded by honorable senators on the other side. It was pointed out by them that since the Combine had been formed better wages had been paid that, prior to the Combine being formed,, the miners were reduced to starvation wages, and that it was only fair that whenthe Combine had guaranteed to give betterwages to the colliery workers, the publicshould pay the increase. I indorse every one of those remarks. The principle invol ved’ is thoroughly sound, and it is one which weshould like to apply, as far as we can, in, all our legislation. But those who are nowmaking such a song about combines, were strong supporters of that Combine, which’ was brought before the Court by the Liberal party.

Senator Millen:

– lt was brought into existence at the instance of the Labour, unions themselves.

Senator de Largie:

– Not at all. Theunions had nothing at all to do with the Vend.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– It is a matter of history that the colliery workers were receiving poor wages until a combination was formed between the steam-ship companies and the colliery proprietors.

Senator de Largie:

– The steam-ship owners .came in later, and they have always been objected to by the Labour side.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– lt was pretty well understood that the miners could not get decent wages until a combine was-, formed, at least amongst the colliery, owners. It is also known that there was. a long and persistent effort on the part of the coal miners to induce the colliery owners to combine. The miners said tothe owners, “ You should combine in such a way as to control the prices ;. and if you control the prices, you can give us better conditions.” When that arrangement was made, it would have been ineffective unless the shipping companies had been brought in. Their proceedings were thoroughly investigated, with the result that the judgment of the High Court was practically a mere paraphrase in legal terms of what has been said over and over again by Mr. Watson. I mention this to show that the High Court could not have placed a very narrow interpretation on the law. So long as the operations of these combines are beneficial, and until it can be shown by the Clearest of evidence that they are detrimental to the public, there is no need to take action against them. The prosecution in the Vend case failed, but the powers of the Constitution have not been exhausted, because, in 19 to, we passed an Act of a far more drastic nature than the Statute under which the Vend was prosecuted. In order to show that the judgment Of the High Court is identical with the case put forward by the members of the Labour party, I intend to read some extracts from the judgment of the Chief Justice. He quoted the following passage from the judgment of Lord Macnaghten, in the Maxim.Nordenfeldt case, 1894 A.C. 535. -

It is a sufficient justification, and, indeed, the only justification, if the restriction is reasonable- reasonable, that is, in reference to the interests of the parties concerned, and reasonable in reference to the interests of the public, so framed and so guarded as to afford adequate protection 4o the party in whose favour it is imposed, while at the same time it is in no way injurious to the public.

The Chief Justice, applying these principles to the case before him, said -

Cut-throat competition is not how regarded by a large portion of mankind as necessarily beneficial to the public Indeed, it is against the evil consequences of that class of competition that the second part of section 4 is aimed. . . The Wages Boards’ Acts of the Australian States, with many others which have for th”eir object to secure a fair reward for honest labour and enterprise, whether through Customs laws or arbitration, are based on the same motion.

He then gave the History of the coal industry in Newcastle and on the South Coast, and of the arrangements made, and he said -

In substance, therefore, the arrangement was that the owners and the workmen should divide in the’ proportion of 11 to r3 any increase in the selling price. This arrangement may or may not have been based on sound principles of political economy, but during a period of forty years it commended itself as satisfactory to all persons concerned.

After dealing with the facts of the case, he continued -

In our opinion, the fair inference to be drawn from the tenor of the Vend agreement itself is that the intention of the parties was to’ put the Newcastle coal trade on a satisfactory basis, which would enable them to pay adequate wages to their men, and to sell their coal at a price.

And yet it is said that the Constitution does not enable us to do justice to the public and to the employes in any industry. It is not disputed that the public might suffer injury, but, so far as the relations of the coal-owners with their employes were concerned,, there was no doubt that the latter were greatly benefited, and because no intention to detrimentally affect the public was proved the case broke down. It is admitted that the object of these amendments is to give to the Federal Parliament a very much more extended jurisdiction. It is also admitted that a large proportion of the powers proposed to be conferred have hitherto been embraced within the State jurisdiction, and if both propositions are correct, it follows that the endowment of the Federal authority with these powers will detract from the powers now exercised by the States. Why are these powers to be taken from the States? It is argued by those who support the Constitution in its present form that the State Governments are the proper instruments through which these powers should be exercised. We go further, and say that the State authorities can more wisely and more effectively exercise jurisdiction over these matters than can the Federal authority. We go still further, and say that if these powers are transferred to the Federal Parliament the public interests will materially suffer. Those who hold these views are said to be suffering from State Rights mania. But I will quote an opinion that will throw a flood of light On the subject. After reviewing the two different kinds of jurisdiction, and pointing out the jurisdiction which, in his view, should prevail, the speaker whom I am about to quote said -

It seems to me that the administration of our laws, the management of our mines, the handling of our railways, the great arteries of transport, the control and regulation of industry,, the education of the whole population who are to- be engaged in these ways, the administering of the whole system Of laws and justice which controls every relationship, the establishment of that local government which is in future’; we hope, following, the example of Europe, to be the instrument by which a vast amount of social reform’ is to be worked, but the whole of these vital matters are’ in the hands’ of the State Parliaments.

If we want decent land laws, this House has to make them. If we want decent mining laws, this House has to make them. If we want a complete railway policy, this House alone must be responsible for it. If we want industrial legislation outside those big prominent cases which can fight their way into the Federal Arbitration Court, this House has to provide it. The Federal Court is all right for those powerful and wealthy unions which have branches all over Australia, and are. sufficiently well organized to come together and .fight their cases before that almost inaccessible tribunal.

Whenever we turn” our eyes to matters which are directly in issue in the struggles of politics to-day, it is to the State and not to the Federal Parliament we appeal.

– I venture to submit that possibly we are only quarrelling about the meaning of terms. I think it is much more correct to say that the prices of land in Ireland were not fixe’dThe land was taken from the landlords of Ireland, at its market value at the time. A Commission was appointed with power to inquire into the whole matter, and to determine the value of the land. There was then a grant made from the Imperial Treasury to enable the tenants to purchase the freeholds of their holdings from the landlords, and some £140,000,000 was made a charge on the Imperial Treasury for that purpose. I am considering the ordinary application of the term, and I say that, in its ordinary acceptation, fixation of prices was swept away by the French Revolution. The passing of the Corn Laws in England saw the last of the delusions there, and no modern legislation by any Parliament has sought to fix prices.. Looking into history a little, I find that in the reign of Henry VIII. there was a Statute fixing the wages of artificers, and side by side with that the prices of articles and commodities. Going back to the time of Edward III., I find indications of a measure to fix the price of labour and the price of poultry. These prices were fixed by the same Act. I ‘find again in the reign of Henry VIII. a Statute fixing the price of beef and pork at Jd. and of mutton and veal at half-a-farthing per pound. Going a little further back, I find an outline of an Act fixing the price of scarlet cloth at 26s. per yard. Side by side with that, there is a record showing, that the wages of bricklayers and tilerswere fixed. One of the most startling discoveries I made in my little . research intothe history of this delusion was that in the reign of the well-known despot, King John, there was what was called an “Assize of Bread.” There was a tribunal going about fixing the price of bread, and fixing it irrespective of the price of corn. Another astonishing thing that I found was that King John was not content with fixing the price of bread. He also fixed the price of beer at 2d. a gallon in the towns and id- a gallon in the country. He probably fixed the price of bread and beer because he, as King, thought, as many politicians think, that the way to obtain power is through bread and beer. At the time that King John took this action he was contending with his barons. They tried to get the people on their side in order to drive the despot out of England; and King John, in order to get the people on his side, determined to fix the price of bread and beer. We should like to know whether the price of bread and beer is going to be fixed by the Government of this country?

Senator Millen:

– If so, we should like to know whether the prices of bread and beer are to be fixed up or down.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Perhaps we ought not to press the Government too closely upon that point, because, as the Royal Commission has pointed out in the case of sugar, you cannot fix the price of an article like bread without also fixing the price of wheat, regulating wages, controlling exports and imports, and touching everything connected with the manufacture of bread, until ultimately either the Government will be landed in a lunatic asylum, or the people will rise in revolution against their policy. When you come to fix the prices of the necessaries of life you have to contend with insuperable difficulties. It may be easy enough to fix the price of an expensive gold watch or a grand piano, but it is quite different with commodities that everybody must have. Take such a necessary of life as potatoes. Suppose that potatoes are selling at 12s. per cwt. in New Zealand, whilst they are being sold in Victoria for 9s. per cwt. Would the Government forbid the farmer in Victoria from exporting to the 12s. market in order that he might get a better reward for his labour?

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I have asked whether the Government would prevent a producer of potatoes from sending his commodities from this country to New Zealand in order to obtain better prices. Take the converse position. Suppose that in Australia the price of potatoes was fixed at 13s., whilst in New Zealand the price was down to 10s. Why should not the consumer in Australia be able to import potatoes from New Zealand at, say, TIS per cwt. ? But if that were done, would it not operate against the price fixed by the

Government in Australia ? These are some of the difficulties that would arise immediately an attempt to fix prices was made. Although the law of supply and demand may not always lead to the most equitable results, it is nevertheless a fact that every other expedient for regulating prices has been found to be utterly defective, and has merely resulted in exaggerating the very evils it was intended to prevent. It must be evident at once, in regard to the necessaries of life which depend on natural production, that whether there shall be plenty or scarcity depends, not upon legislation, but upon a superhuman power. In every country in the world the idea of regulating prices -by legislative means has been abandoned. It has been left for the Government of Australia to revive this exploded device. It is intended, through the cumulative effect of these proposals, to remodel the whole structure of our Constitution. We who are objecting to these wholesale modifications say that they amount to Unification. The other side deny that that is so. My personal opinion is that they amount to something worse than Unification. It is admitted by the AttorneyGeneral that the powers, if granted, may not be used - that, indeed, they may not be needed. Surely the Attorney-General was simply apologizing for this policy when he had to say to this Parliament : “ The powers to which some of you object as too drastic we may never need, and may never use if we get them.” It is an abuse of legislative power to ask for powers for which no necessity is apparent. As far as I know, there is no precedent for a Government asking for powers which it admits itself are not required. In every constitutionally governed country of which I have ever read, before a Government asks a Legislature to pass legislation it is prepared to meet the question : “ What is the defect you intend to cure? What do you need these powers for?” That has been the governing principle in the framing of laws in every civilized land. . But now, for the first time in modern history, we have a Government, through its chief law officer, admitting that it is asking for powers which may never be used nor even needed. It is contended, and, to some extent, rightly, that in some respects our National Parliament under its Constitution is fettered, and that greater freedom should be given to it. May I ask. to what extent are the powers of the National Parliament impeded under the terms of the Constitution? No direct answer has been given to that question, either here or elsewhere. . From the judgments of the High Court it dees :not appear that the legislation which we have passed is defective, or is likely to fail. It” has not yet been stated what powers the Federal Parliament possesses. One power which this Parliament possesses is that of practically unlimited taxation. I do not think that there is a member of Parliament, or any jurist in the Commonwealth of Australia, who can say how far our unlimited power of taxation can be made to extend. In this connexion I am driven to the consideration of the decision of Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, in the United States of America. In that judgment, Chief Justice Marshall was called upon to draw the line between the jurisdictions of the Federal and State Governments, and he made the following remarks : -

The power to tax involves the power to destroy. That the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create are propositions not

AO be denied.

There may be a doubt as to where the power to create on the part of the States ought to be checked, and where our power to destroy what we think is inimical to the National Parliament should be invoked, and on that point the judgment of Chief Justice Marshall is instructive. So long as we possess supreme powers of taxation, there is not any State instrumentality or agency which we cannot control. I think that the reasoning of Chief Justice Marshall in that judgment will in the main be adopted, if there ever is an encroachment upon the jurisdiction of either the Federal or the State Parliaments. A land tax was imposed by the Commonwealth Parliament - I” do not approve of the exercise of that power by the Commonwealth - in order to achieve certain objects which were considered desirable by the party now in power, and which they say they achieved through that power of taxation. Before 1 am going to consent to the drastic amendments in the Constitution which are now proposed, I want to ask when, how, and where those supreme powers of taxation are not regarded as sufficient to achieve, immediately or indirectly, the end which is now aimed at. In that very judgment there was set up, for the first time, a sort of lighthouse for the State and Federal jurisdictions. Chief Justice Marshall further said -

No political dreamer was ever mad enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass.

– Of course, it is I was one of those who hoped that under this system the conditions would be improved, though at no time did I place much, reliance upon the principle of compulsion as applied to conciliation and arbitration. But now it is proposed to extend the principle, and to apply it over the whole continent. If there is any hope for the material improvement of the worker through State Wages Boards it will foe found only in decentralization, and not by centralizing the jurisdiction of existing Conciliation and Arbitration Courts. It is because of the proposed wholesale centralization of each jurisdiction that I oppose the desired grant of power. The highest authorities in the world are against the extension of the State jurisdiction by way of compulsory conciliation and arbitration between the employer and the employe, and it is because of these opinions mainly that I oppose the proposal to extend the power. I shall give briefly some warnings which have been delivered on the point, and I think 1 am entitled to quote some authorities. I have here a short extract from the recommendations of a Royal Commission on Labour, which was appointed by the Imperial Government, and submitted its report in 1894. The question of compulsory conciliation and arbitration came prominently before the Commission, and its finding is given in these terms -

In the case of the larger and more serious disputes arising with regard to the terms of future agreements frequently between large bodies of workmen on the one side and employers on the other, we have had to consider in the first place suggestions for the compulsory reference of such disputes to State or other Boards of arbitration, whose awards should be legally enforceable. No such proposal, however, appeared to us to be definite or practical enough to bear serious examination.

Senator Vardon:

– The workers of Great Britain will not have it.

Senator ST LEDGER:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– To foment rebellion.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Yes; to foment rebellion. There was a terrible position and a terrible dilemma created in Queensland, but I may say that the Liberal Government of the State took up the gauntlet that was thrown down to them, and were returned with a party that was never more united, or in a greater majority.

It has been said that the Prime Minister never justified the Brisbane strike. I do not believe that the right honorable gentleman will himself make that defence or apology. He has been unmistakably reported in the newspapers as having done so. When he visited Rockhampton, and addressed a large audience there, there were two reporters present, one representing the organ supporting the Labour party, and the other the newspaper which was on our side. The Prime Minister was asked a direct question by an elector, and his answer before that large audience was -

Make no mistake ; that strike was amply justified.

Those were the right honorable gentleman’s words. They appeared in both of the newspapers to which I have referred. When we find such a statement made by the head of the Government that is asking the people for these extended industrial powers, we are entitled to ask, “ What guarantee will you give that if we concede these powers you will not indorse and justify a syndicalistic strike again?” Almost every one of the right honorable gentleman’s colleagues supported him in the matter. The members of the State Labour party in Queensland also justified and indorsed the strike. The Prime Minister and his colleague, the Vice-President of the Executive Council, went up to Queensland and assisted every State Labour candidate who had assisted to engineer or who had even indorsed that strike. We are bound to .see that the powers which remain with the State Parliaments shall be preserved to them to the utmost limit. The State railways are at present under the supreme and unfettered control of the State Parliaments. We know that these syndicalistic strikers in Brisbane tore to pieces the agreement registered in the Federal Arbitration Court, and, going further, dragged out the servants of the Commissioner of Railways in that State. They paralyzed the trade of the State, and prevented people from getting their supplies by land or by sea. Yet, in view of these facts, we are asked to take away the jurisdiction of the States in these matters. For what purpose? Is it in order that the Prime Minister may go up to Queensland, and, on behalf of the National Parliament, justify interference with the agencies of the State? It is said that if we give these extended powers to the Federal Parliament the States will not lose by it, but we know that the Prime Minister and his supporters in Queensland justified an interference with a State agency which is of the greatest importance in the settlement and development of the country. In face of that example, I am not going to ask the people of my State to give greater power to the Federal Government. I am going to ask them why they should give greater power to this Government, when the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth indorsed a strike which was intended to cripple, harass, and almost destroy the existing agencies of a State. It will be said that my speech is that of a rabid, inconvertible Tory, and that I am utterly opposed to the expansion of the powers of the National Parliament. I have heard that kind of thing before, and I dare say I shall hear it again. It does not affect, me. I am no opponent of any expansion of constitutional powers which will enable the National Parliament to do that work which the people intend it to do. In the: light of experience, we may regard it as a safe maxim that the people should not be wholly governed by the hand of the dead,, but it is a sounder and wiser maxim that an infant Constitution should not be strangled, almost at its birth, by the ruthless hands of the living.

Senator LYNCH (Western Australia> [9.13]. - The speech of the honorable sena*tor who has just resumed his seat may be described as having been delivered mainly with an eye upon the electors of Queensland. If I were not in danger of transgressing the rules of the Senate, I would move that Senator St. Ledger is quite a fit and proper person to represent the Fusion fizgigs of his State; but seeing that we are engaged on more serious work, I have decided not to transgress. The debate has roamed over a very wide area, and I suppose that it would be impossible at this stage to bring forward anything new. The field has been ploughed, harrowed, and’ scarified in all directions; and very industrious efforts would be required to find a single patch which has not been touchedmore or less by those who have preceded me. I therefore feel somewhat handicapped in approaching the subject. I amafraid that before the electors have pronounced on the subject the discussion will have fallen far below the level at which it should have been maintained. Already wehave plenty of indications on all sides that the main issue will be lost sight of, and? that the electors, instead of being treated to a sane, rational, fair exposition of the subject, will be asked to vote upon extraneous issues, and will have their minds as far as possible dragged away from the main point. The pity is that such a weighty issue promises to be enveloped in the mists of circumstances wholly foreign to its nature and harmful to its consideration. Instead of appeals being made to the sane and sober judgment of the people, they will, in many instances, be made to prejudice. Poisoning the mind of the public is a chief feature of Fusion warfare. I deplore that fact. Amongst the matters that have been introduced which are quite foreign to the subject is the old bogy of Unification. As one who has been in the ranks of Labour since the beginning, I know that much time has to be devoted to rooting out of the public mind false notions concerning the aims of that party. The air has resounded with this false .and bogus cry.

As one who has for some time been in the firing line of politics, I have had it brought home to me that, instead of our opponents representing our policy in a fair and square way, much of their time is consumed in striving to circulate misrepresentations so as to prevent a fair and honest discussion of the merits of our proposals. What is the truth ? Unification is not, and never was, intended by our party. But the cry has been brought forward again, as it was in 1910. We have the old stuffed lion brought out once more, and we recognise the candle and turnip that have clone duty so often. Two years ago the country was covered with literature that had for its object the misleading of the people. It was said that the Labour party meant Unification, and nothing else.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– Does not the honorable senator believe in Unification?

Senator LYNCH:

– No; I have never believed in it. Since the honorable senator has mentioned the subject, it is just as well that I should show what the Labour party’s attitude is, as defined by the highest of its councils, namely, the Congress held at Hobart last year. The subject was discussed, and the report records what took place in this way -

Unification.

The motion of the previous day - “ Unification of the Australian States with provision for local governing bodies” - was called on.

Mr. Watson moved that Conference go into Committee to consider the motion, and also questions of constitutional amendments.

The motion was agreed to, and after a lengthy discussion in Committee Mr. Watson formally reported to Conference that in Committee the resolution for Unification had been defeated by nineteen votes to six. The decision arrived at was recorded in the minutes.

In the face of that authoritative statement, it is mere idle, childish rubbish for any honorable senator to say that we are in favour of Unification.

Senator Vardon:

– The report shows that some members of the party were.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is an indication of the freedom which the members of our party enjoy in the expression of their views. But the question was dealt with by the party, as a party, in the manner I have described. We may, therefore, put aside the Unification bogy as unworthy of further consideration. In regard to the efforts made to defeat our referenda proposals on the last occasion, it is worth while to put on record the fact that the Labour party had to depend entirely on its own resources and its platform work. Our cash resources were pretty slender, and the sources from which that cash was drawn were on every occasion open to inspection. Not a penny was spent by the Labour party that was not keenly scrutinized. Every penny was accounted for, and the accounts were printed. How does that record contrast with the efforts of those opposed to us? The chairman of that huge monopoly, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, refused to say, when examined before the Royal Commission, that his company had not contributed £50,000 to the party fund of our opponents. Since that statement may be disputed, it is well to put on record exactly what Mr. Knox said. He was examined as follows : -

By Mr. Hinchcliffe.- Did the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited contribute money out of its undistributed profits or out of any other fund belonging to the company, to support the opposition to the proposed law to alter the provisions of the Constitution of the Commonwealth relating to monopolies, which proposed law was submitted to the electors on* 26th April, 191 1? - You ask did we contribute anything ?

Yes; did you contribute anything? - That is a matter I am not prepared to give you any information on. We have not done anything in that matter or in connexion with anything else, or relating to the business of the company, which is not strictly legal.

You do not deny such a contribution was made? - I do not say anything about it one way or another. You have no right to ask thequestion.

The Chairman:

– We have a right to ask the question, but no right to compel an answer.

By Mr. Hinchcliffe. - I thought I was giving the company an opportunity to repudiate it - When you began about Mr. Parker Moloney, I thought you were going to suggest if we had paid the .£50,000 that is where it has gone. I do not say it would not have gone with a very good object. But we did not make that contribution.

You did not make the contribution? - I do not “say we did not make the contribution ; we did not make that contribution.

The amount might be more or less. Around this transaction is an amazing mass of secrecy. The chairman of directors of the company refused to deny the statement made, and the electors of Australia can put their own construction upon his lack of frankness. With regard to our own party, it is quite plain that every penny of our funds is accounted for. The accounts of our associations are scrutinized both in the State and the Federal arena, so that any money expended by us cannot come from a secret source in the same manner as money goes to the funds of members of the party opposite. A lady in Victoria testified to the enormous stream of gold that was poured in to resist the extension of the power of the Commonwealth Parliament. The following is an extract from the Labour Call -

After the last referenda, Mrs. Berry, of the Women’s National League, stated that £50,000 -was spent on defeating the referenda, and just before the last Victorian State elections the official organ of the Women’s National League said : - “ The Socialistic party, if it were returned in a majority at the coming State elections, could bring into operation all that it had asked the people to allow it to do at the late referenda, and the £50,000 which had been spent in defeating them lately, was the best money ever spent, so far.”

So that while Mr. Knox would not give a straight-out reply to the question put by Mr. Hinchcliffe/ Mrs. Berry states frankly and unreservedly that, in Victoria, £50,000 was used to oppose the proposals at the last Federal referenda. I mention this to show the different methods pursued by the two parties in the field.

The Labour party, with no press worth mentioning at their backs, and very slender resources, are taking the field on’ this occasion just because we do not desire to desert a principle that we hold so dear, and against us is arrayed a powerful Opposition that has the whole of the press with it, with an odd -exception here and there, and that has the -command of unlimited cash at its back to use in a referenda campaign. Senator Shannon and members of another Chamber have been asking what right the Labour party have to push on these proposals for the extension of the powers of the Federal Parliament in face of the overwhelming vote that was given against the proposals two years ago. I believe human credulity has its limits, and that it was reached on that occasion. There is no special prohibition against doing what we think is right. I can remember when the party opposite mixed oil and water in the politics” of this country, when there was a fusion of men who were at opposite poles on many issues, but who found a sudden fraternal feeling for each other, and went into each other’s unholy embrace. They had nine short months of office, and when the electors were appealed to, they did not return a sufficient number of members of the party to this Chamber to form a corporal’s guard.

In view of the necessity on that occasion for an appeal to the electors, and in view of the fact that the electors sent many of the members of the Fusion party about their business, there is ample justification for us to appeal to the electors again, seeing that on the last occasion we had a strong vote, and that we believe an extension of the powers of the Federal Parliament is absolutely necessary in order 40 safeguard the material welfare of the people of this country.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– After your victory, the people turned round, and knocked you out by 250,000 votes.

Senator LYNCH:

– I remember when we had even a greater majority against us in this country, but see where we are to-day. There was a time in the political history of this country when the Labour party were in a large minority, and did not even exist in some of the States; but where are we to-day? We are on the rising tide. We are still ascending. The great merits of the policy which we are in charge of fortify us in fighting great odds, believing that we shall retain our present popular position in the eyes of the electors of the Commonwealth.

Some honorable senators would seek to put a halo around the Constitution. I am one of those who have no particular respect even for a Constitution if it does not serve the purpose for which it was created. I believe the Constitution to be an instrument of government which is made for the people. The people are not made for the Constitution. Those who drafted .that Constitution were so wise in their generation that they made it easy of amendment. They recognised that in the future development of the country circumstances might arise which would cause the succeeding generation to regard the Constitution of ten or twenty years ago as insufficient for their purposes, and they wisely provided an easy means of amendment. That easy means of amendment w.e are now seeking to put into operation. I am fully aware that in seeking for an extension of the powers of the National Parliament we are handicapped to a slight extent, because we have to-day a force in our public life, the influence of which it is very hard to gauge.

We have two definite sets of opinion arising from different sources. We can trace those two forces back to the days of pre-Federation. There was at that time a purely parochial opinion, and side by side with that was a wider and truly Australian opinion. Those two sets of opinion still survive, and though the parochial opinion no longer exists in its old form - that is, in holding its hand strongly and obstinately against its neighbouring State - it still believes that each State should be a separate entity. That opinion has merged into a larger body of public opinion that will be launched against us in the coming campaign. Then we have a body of opinion that is very jealous of the powers of the States. We have in our system of government in Australia two areas of jurisdiction, Federal and State. The Federal area of jurisdiction I might compare with the sun, annually revolving on its own axis, and then you have the six smaller States revolving in their respective spheres. They are not supposed to clash at any point, but when they do clash a reference is made to the umpire, the High Court. Reverting to the parochial opinion, let me say that those who would not have Federation at any price, who believed that the six States should continue as they had been from the date of their establishment, will be assisted on this occasion by the jealous State Rights opinion, which has come into play since Federation has been accomplished. Those who support these proposals therefore have no small odds against them, but I feel sure that when the electors are appealed to they will recognise that, owing to the exigencies of the moment, owing to the vast changes that have taken place since the establishment of Federation, it is idle to continue to live under a Constitution which might have been suitable in past days, but which is certainly not suitable for the needs of the present day.

If my opinion is asked as to the working of a Constitution, or the results that can be obtained from any system of government, let me say that I do not care for having any other test than that of securing the highest standard of living for the people and improving their well-being, and if the system under which we are living to-day does not minister to those ends, it is wanting. If the Constitution under which we are living cripples us in any particular direction, prevents us from exercising powers which will secure to us the maximum measure of well-being, then the Constitution wants amending or ending. I do not propose that we should end it.

I propose that we should amend it, and if we look around us, and take into consideration what is happening, we cannot be blind to the fact that the Federal Constitution and State Constitutions are totally inadequate for the purpose of coping with the evils that exist in our midst. Where is the Constitution derived from in its first and most important particular ? Much of it is taken .word for word from the Constitution that was framed in the United States of America 125 years ago. That Constitution was framed to suit thirteen colonies on the American continent, and at that time intense jealousy prevailed amongst those colonies. The result was that the Constitution was framed to reconcile the differences of the States on one hand, and with a view to the establishment of a National Government on the other. As regards the power of the Commonwealth over trade and commerce, we find that the provision has been taken word for word from a Constitution that was framed by people living 125 years ago.

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

-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - And the people of that country are still living under the same Constitution.

Senator LYNCH:

– They want to alter it badly, but they know how impossible it is for them to do so. There is a vast number of people in America to-day who would alter that Constitution if the opportunity that we have were afforded them. I object to .our Commonwealth being any longer dominated by. the dead hand of over 100 years ago. I have great respect for those who have gone before us. They taught many a philosophical lesson for the benefit of mankind, but in the matter of useful legislation for the present-day needs of our population we should have no more respect for what was done in the misty past than for what was done only a few years ago. We should be extremely foolish if we did not fashion our Constitution to suit our own needs. Senator St. Ledger had something to say about the Canadian and German Constitutions. He said that the powers now sought exceeded those enjoyed by the central authorities in Canada and Germany. I have taken the trouble to look up the Constitutions of those countries, and to ascertain the provisions in regard to trade and commerce. In the case of Canada, I find that the Central Government has exclusive powers with regard to the regulation of trade and commerce, and yet Canada has not a unified form of government. Furthermore, the central authority has more extensive powers than are possessed by the Commonwealth Government, and more than are now sought. It has control over the Savings Banks - as we propose here - and also power to regulate and control the Indians within the Dominion, and all the lands reserved for the Indians. Furthermore, it has full control over penitentiaries. I might mention a number of other powers in excess of those for which the Government are now asking.

Under the German Constitution it is provided that, within the Federal territories, the Imperial Parliament shall exercise the right of legislation in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and the laws of the Empire shall take precedence over the laws of the State. Among the exclusive legislative powers conferred on the Central Government are those relating to taxation and commerce. Exclusive power over trade and industry is also given. I would particularly emphasize the fact that the Central Government has control over -industry because that is what we are now asking for. There is not a unified form of government in Germany, and no cry of Unification was set up in Canada or Germany when the powers to which I have referred were granted. The Central Government in Germany has control over railways, and, subject in Bavaria to Article 46, over the construction of land and water-ways for the general purposes of defence and commerce. These powers are far wider than any powers that have been thought of or dreamed of by the Labour party. Therefore the statement made by Senator St. Ledger is not borne out by the facts.

Senator Millen, in addition to the other equally invalid arguments he used against these proposals, said that the Government were flying in the face of the history of the British race. This is a very old friend. It is one of those bogies which will be brought forward every day. during the forthcoming campaign. No doubt we shall also have the other bogey - Home Rule - brought forward. Let me say, once and for all, that there is no connexion whatever between the question of Home Rule and the additional powers that are being sought by the Federal authorities. To compare the powers of the Central Government of the British Empire with those of the Commonwealth Government of today, or with those which would be possessed by the Commonwealth Government if the present proposals were carried into effect, would be to compare like with unlike. On this question I need only quote some words which recently fell from the British Prime Minister. On nth April Mr. Asquith said -

Let the House consider for a moment the extent and variety of the field over which we insist upon exercising daily and exclusive supervision. Look on the question paper of this House on a Monday or Thursday in any week you care to select. What does it include, or rather, what does it not include? Delay in the Postal service of some hamlet in Connemara. A dispute about trawling in the Moray Firth. A discussion perhaps about some poaching case by a rural Bench in Wales. A case of deportation in South Africa. The position of the Mohammedan community in the Presidency of Bengal The efficiency or inefficiency of the rifle that was served out to the Territorial Forces. The seaworthiness of the latest Dreadnought ; and perhaps the International relations between Great Britain and Germany. This is only a sample.

Now, I ask this question : Has any deliberative assembly in the history of the world ever taken upon itself such a grotesquely impossible task?

It will thus be seen that there is no excuse for talking about Home Rule in connexion with the proposals now under consideration. The powers enjoyed by the Imperial Parliament do not bear the slightest resemblance to those exercised by the Commonwealth Parliament, and there will be no analogy between the two cases for the next 100 years. During the last fifty years Great Britain has been adding possession after possession to her dominions, and naturally the work of the Imperial

Parliament has been greatly increased. It exercises control over 300,000,000 of people, and has to deal with all matters relating to even the remotest parts of the Empire. The suggestion that the congestion of business in the Commonwealth Parliament will approach that of the British Parliament will not bear even the most casual examination? The devolution of power has been practically forced upon the Imperial Parliament, which now finds itself unable to effectively discharge its everincreasing duties.

Turning to our present position, it is claimed that we have adequate powers to-day. This Parliament has been working under a Constitution which has formed a kind of shield or shelter for the people, and under this Constitution endeavours have been made to pass Acts which would secure the greatest amount of advantage for our citizens. What do we find ? No less than six Acts which have been passed in perfect good faith have been declared null and void, because of their failure to comply with the terms of the Constitution. The Labour Government were not in power when these measures were passed, and they were not responsible for them. Other parties, including that to which members of the Opposition belong, must have thought that, in bringing forward these measures, they were acting within the limits of the Constitution, or they were merely fooling the people. I give my honorable friends the benefit of the alternative; but I would point out that if they believed they were justified in bringing forward these measures, they are not showing high statesmanship in refusing .to extend the powers under the Constitution which have been shown to be defective, but are taking the downward path of political advantage and party intrigue in order to circumvent the only true Australian party.

The first of the Acts referred to was the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which has been the subject of several onslaughts, and which has been rendered absolutely unworkable owing to three or four of its vital provisions having been declared ultra vires. Then there was the Excise Tariff Bill, which was introduced by the Deakin Government with the object of protecting the three sections of the community - manufacturers, employes, and consumers - concerned in the imposition of Customs and Excise duties. They said they desired to hold the scales fairly for all parties concerned. When that Act came to be pronounced upon by the High Court, it was declared ultra vires, and so is no longer the law of the land. We now seek power to legislate in that direction. When the Trade Marks Act - an Act which was designed to wisely differentiate between goods made under fair and reasonable conditions and goods not so made - came to be dealt with by the High Court, it, too, was declared ultra vires.

Senator Vardon:

– The union label is not a trade mark.

Senator LYNCH:

– Happily there was a division of opinion on that subject in the High Court, and one which is worthy of being taken notice of. The Australian Industries Preservation Act was passed by this Parliament to defend the people from the encroachment and rapacity of trusts and combines; and when it was taken before the High Court it, of course, was declared ultra vires. The party to which Senator Vardon belongs imagined that this Parliament had power to pass the Seamen’s Compensation Act ; but when it came before the High Court it shared the fate of other measures, with the result that to-day we have six Acts high and dry on the bar of unconstitutionality, no longer of use to the people, although the Parliament of- this country passed them, and other parties were in power when they were passed. Yet the members of those parties urge the strongest opposition to our obtaining additional powers, notwithstanding the fact that when they were in office they sought to pass the six measures I have cited.

The allegation has been made here that our effort to amend the Constitution in certain respects is a purely party matter. According to my conception of the duty and position of the Labour party, it is a party matter, and we do not wish to deceive the public in the least in that regard. With respect to our honorable friends opposite, whatever they may say, or think, or ask the people to believe, it can be recalled that when certain members of their party wanted to assert their independence they were instantly called to heel and made to renounce their opinions, and now we find that party standing as a kind of dead wall against our proposals. While our party frankly acknowledges, and wishes to tell the electors, that with, us this is nothing but a party question, honorable senators opposite will want the people to believe that it is not a party question, although they have silenced some of their principal members and made them eat their own words.

As regards the warrant that exists for taking some of the powers which are included in our proposals, let me quote a statement which was made by Mr. Watt at the Inter-State Conference held at Melbourne in January last -

I did not hesitate to say during the referendum campaign that if some of those propositions were standing by themselves I would advise the Victorian electors to vote “ yes.”

In regard to the appearance of monopolies in Australia, Mr. Watt said -

At the present time, and I am not speaking as an alarmist, but as an ordinary student of events, I can see the roots of monopoly gradually working their way into our soil in Australia.

I wonder how he will treat these referenda proposals. Will he be found in the position of some prominent members of the party sitting on your left hand, sir, who have gone back on their words and professions of two years ago? Will he be made to swallow the opinions which he solemnly expressed in January last - to stifle the conviction in his breast, and act and vote in deliberate opposition to what he expressed and professed only two years ago? He continues -

I would give to the Commonwealth power to regulate or nationalize it (a monopoly). I speak as an anti-nationalist. When once the judicial examination is complete, and a verdict is given, the Commonwealth should have the power to do what it thinks best in the interests of the nation.

Senator Vardon:

– As laid down in their proposed Bill.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– Which Senator Lynch will find at the beginning of the report he holds in his hand.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is so. The State Premiers proposed to give powers to this Parliament, but they made, to my mind, the very undemocratic proposition of getting the High Court to declare, behind the back of this Parliament, what a monopoly should be. The State Premiers propose to place it in the power of the High Court to interpret the feelings and the wishes of the people on this allimportant question. What the State Parliaments desire is to substitute the High Court for this Parliament. I contend that there is only one institution which should have the custody of the people’s welfare, and the exclusive right of pronouncing upon what they are in need of, and that is this National Parliament. But, instead of that, we find that the State Parliaments desire that the High Court should usurp the function of this Parliament, and declare what a monopoly is before the people of the Commonwealth can move hand or foot in the matter. That is not the attitude of the Labour party. We propose to get power for the Parliament to act after the electors are duly consulted. Concerning the new Protection, Mr. Watt said -

If we attack this set of problems, four in number, in the proper spirit, we will achieve most of what our Parliaments and our people expect us to do. With regard to new Protection, I may say that I am a Protectionist, and a new Protectionist, to a certain -extent. I believe that the Commonwealth does well to impose duties that encourage manufactures. In the past I have seen large protective duties lead to flourishing industries, and the manufacturers getting the largest benefit from them. It was not long before I was convinced that it was a fair thing that the advantage should be shared by the co-operators in the industry. I go that far in connexion with new Protection, and that is what it means to the bulk of the liberal thinkers in Victoria.

Here we find Mr. Watt declaring himself unequivocally on the subject of new Protection. He said that, as one who believed in new Protection, it ought to be passed. I wonder if he will go on the platform and urge the adoption of at least two of these proposals.

Touching the proposal- to enlarge the “trade and commerce” power, 1 wish to direct attention to what is happening to-day in the Commonwealth. If we go to Sydney to see how some of the big warehouses carry on their trade, we find that Anthony Hordern and Sons have their hoardings placarded with a map of Australia showing no State boundaries at all. This firm of universal providers send their stuff throughout the Commonwealth. No State boundaries bar their operations. Only one thing stops the area over which they trade, and that is the boundary of the Commonwealth itself. Again, in Queensland, Finney, Isles, and Company, another very large firm, display in their window a map of Australia, on which they advertise that they send wares and merchandise over the broad areas of the Continent. There are no artificial barriers to the conduct of the business of these two firms. No doubt honorable senators can call to mind other* firms which do the same thing. We find that in Melbourne the harvester manufacturers and implement suppliers have not the State of Victoria alone as a theatre for their operations, but trade far and wide, recognising no State barriers. So far as commerce is concerned to-day, its only limits are those which divide the land and the water, that is to say, the boundaries of the Commonwealth itself. Seeing that commerce has so overspread the Commonwealth, is it not only reasonable and logical to ask that the power to regulate that Commerce should be coterminous with its operations ?

Senator Long:

– It is the natural corollary to Inter- State Free Trade.

Senator LYNCH:

– I should think so. Up to the present time, we have had six independent authorities working within the area of their respective jurisdictions, and all to the disadvantage of those who carry on commerce, and those who are benefited thereby. It is unnecessary for me to remind honorable senators that we are still wedded to a power which was created over 125 years ago, and embodied in our Constitution. When it was originally framed, trade and commerce was vastly different from what it is to-day. At that time thirteen independent colonies formed what was then known as the young American nation. Those who are acquainted with the origin of the trade and commerce power know that those colonies were most jealous of the power of each other - indeed, so jealous were they that they intended to raise Tariff barriers against each other. Trade and commerce within the areas of the thirteen colonies was small and circumscribed, and entirely different from what it is to-day in Australia.

Senator Rae:

– There were no railways then.

Senator LYNCH:

– Exactly. Seeing that the times have so entirely changed, will it not be foolish not to also change’ our political systems? There has grown up a mighty ever-spreading net-work of trade in the Commonwealth, and it is the acme of foolishness, bad management, and want of economy to apply worn-out constitutional methods that served their purpose very well in former days, but do not suit the different circumstances of to-day. It will take me some time yet, sir, to deal with several matters which I desire to discuss. Therefore, I ask leave to continue my remarks on a future occasion.

Leave granted; debateadjourned.

page 6931

NAVIGATION BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives, with the message that the House had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the amendments of the House, except the amendment No. 128, to which it had agreed with an amendment, and that it had agreed to the consequential amendments made by the Senate.

Standing Orders suspended, and message taken into consideration forthwith.

In Committee :

Clause 287 (Licensing of foreign ships to engage in coasting trade).

Senate’s Amendment. - Add to sub-clause 3 the following paragraph : - ” (c) That in every ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade where a library is provided for the use of passengers, members of the crew shall be entitled to obtain books therefrom under the same conditions as may regulate the issue of such books to the passengers.

Penalty (on owner) : Ten pounds.”

House of Representatives’ Amendment of Amendment of Senate. - Leave out the words “ members of the crew shall “ and insert in lieu thereof the words “ every seaman and apprentice shall where no library for their special use is provided.”

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That the Committee agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives upon the Senate’s amendment.

The effect of the amendment made by the House of Representatives would be that where a library is provided for the crew the members of the crew would not be entitled to obtain books from the ordinary library provided for the use of passengers. I trust that the Committee will accept the amendment.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

. -Ifind it difficult to decide what will really be the effect of the amendment which the House of Representatives has made upon our amendment. It may afford an opportunity to ship-owners to provide a. dozen yellow-back novels, which would be of no use whatever to seamen, and then claim that they had provided a library for the use of the crew. If the House of Representatives’ amendment is to be accepted, some provision should be made to determine the class of library which shall be provided for the crew.

Senator de Largie:

– We do not prescribe the kind of library to be provided for passengers.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is true, but it is reasonable to suppose that a much better library would be provided for passengers than is likely to be provided for the crew. It appears to me to be quite clear that under the amendment of the House of Representatives the ship-owners would be at liberty to provide a few secondhand books for the use of the crew, and then claim that they had complied with the provision inserted by the Senate. We should, I think, insist that where a library is provided for the crew, it shall consist of books that will be interesting, instructive, and, if honorable senators please, edifying. I wish to see a library worthy of the name provided for the use of seamen, where the ordinary passengers’ library is not open to them. I move -

That the House of Representatives’ amendment be amended by inserting after the word “ library “ the words “ as may be prescribed.”

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I ask Senator Lynch not to press his amendment. We are very anxious to expedite the passage of this Bill. If the honorable senator’s amendment be agreed to, it will involve another exchange of messages between the two Houses, and I cannot give any guarantee that the Minister of Trade and Customs would recommend another place to accept the amendment. I would ask the honorable senator to consider whether, in view of the valuable principles’ contained in this Bill, it is desirable, for the sake of pressing his amendment, to further delay its passage. We are very anxious that the Bill shall be sent to the GovernorGeneral as soon as possible, in order that the Royal assent to it may be obtained. The honorable senator will recognise that some delay will probably take place before the Royal assent is received to the Bill. If the measure has to be sent to Great Britain for the purpose, as I anticipate will be the case, it is very desirable that it should be forwarded as soon as possible. There are some practical difficulties in the way of carrying out what the honorable senator suggests. I am not satisfied that he will effect anything by his amendment. If it is to be the Minister who is to prescribe the kind of library to be provided for seamen, is it intended that he should mention the class of books, the names and values of the books to be provided, and say how they are to be kept? I invite Senator Lynch to imagine the kind of books which Senator St. Ledger would probably prescribe if it ever were the misfortune of this country that that honorable senator should occupy the position of the Minister administering this measure. lt is almost certain that it will be found necessay in a future session to introduce some amendments in a Bill of this character, and, if necessary, this provision might then be amended in the direction suggested by the honorable senator. In the meantime, I ask the honorable senator to give the provision, as amended by the House of Representatives, a trial, especially in view of the desirability of expediting the final passage of the Bill.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I was waiting to see if Senator Lynch was disposed to withdraw his amendment. As he has not done so, I wish to say that I am quite prepared to support him. If there is one feature of the legislation of this Parliament that is objectionable, it is that matters are left to be finished at the close of the session, when they are rushed through, and the Senate is then always asked to give way. It is suggested that the Bill must be sent across the water, and it is possible that it may not then receive the Royal assent. In the circumstances I do not see that a delay of a day or two in the passing of the measure would make any difference.

Senator Needham:

– The Royal assent to the Bill will not be refused.

Senator GARDINER:

– I understand that the Royal assent was refused to a Navigation Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament. The reason given by the Minister for resisting the amendment submitted by Senator Lynch is that it is very desirable, to finish the business, but this is the business for which we are here, and we should finish it. in the way which honorable senators think desirable. I was not here when the provision amended by the House of Representatives was inserted in the Bill, but I take it that it received full consideration from the Committee before it was accepted. The amendment made by the House of Representatives would leave it in the power of ship-owners to practically defeat the intention of honorable senators in inserting this provision by providing for the use of seamen a few books which would be of no use to them. I am not sure that, if I had been present, 1 would have supported this provision when originally proposed, because, from the little experience I have had of seamen,

I should say that they have no time to do anything else but work. In my view, the amendment of the House of Representatives is an indication of weakness. I should have preferred honorable members in another place to have disagreed with the Senate’s amendment, instead of submitting an amendment upon it to make it unobjectionable to ship-owners, and enable them to provide two or three second-class books for the use of the crew, and call them a library. If it was necessary for the Senate to take action in this direction at all, it appears to me that we should see that effect shall be given to the desire expressed by honorable senators. The difficulties in the way of prescribing the kind of library to be provided for the crew should not be very great. A regulation might be framed including a list of books, which might be added to from time to time, and vessels of a certain size, and carrying a number of men, might be expected to provide a certain number of those books. It was hardly worth while putting in the amendment in the first instance, but as it has been inserted in the Bill, we should not leave it possible for ship-owners to get over the difficulty of allowing the crew to have the use of the ship’s library by providing a special one for them, and that not of a suitable character. It appears to me that this is a slipshod way of doing things.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I will ask the Committee even at this late hour to reconsider the whole position. When Senator Lynch ‘s amendment was originally submitted, the Minister of Defence put forward views which induced me to oppose it. Those views hold ‘ good to-day. It appears to me to be carrying legislation of this kind to a ridiculous extent to insert such a stipulation. Although I recognise that an amendment upon the Senate’s amendment was necessary, I recognise a’lso that we are up against a difficulty. We have either to accept the amendment of the House of Representatives, or to submit an alternative, but there is a way out of the difficulty, if we choose to take a little trouble. That would be by rejecting the amendment of the House of Representatives, which would enable us ultimately to eliminate Senator Lynch ‘s amendment altogether.

Senator Lynch:

– That would be a lovely thing to do !

Senator MILLEN:

– It would be a commonsense thing to do. I hold that the Senate made a mistake which will make us look extremely foolish, and we should do as much as possible to rectify it. I urge that we should reject the House of Representative’s amendment with a view of bringing about an interchange of messages, and. if necessary, a conference, which would enable us to put ourselves in the position of rejecting the original amendment.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I was rather influenced by the Minister’s appeal to Senator Lynch in regard to saving time, but I am entirely opposed to the view which Senator Millen has put forward. I supported Senator Lynch’s amendment warmly. Even if the idea was not expressed happily, the object was a good one, namely, to insure that those seamen who liked to read, and had any time to spare, should have access to the ship’s library. Some people appear to be rather horror-struck with the idea of a common every-day seaman having the right of entry to the library used by saloon passengers. I know that it has been pointed out that ship’s libraries, as a rule, are “no great shakes.” But I have seen very good works of travel and adventure, and a reasonable amount of fiction in some of them. Personally, I think that any book is better than none if one feels inclined to read. I protest against the action taken in another place. In fact, I am disgusted with what has occurred. They have not had the manliness to reject the amendment. If they did not like it, they should have turned it down. That would have been much better than amending it as they have done. I feel inclined to have a tilt at our own Ministers on this matter. When an amendment of this kind was made in the Bill, Ministers should have had it re-drafted so that it might convey adequately the intentions of the Senate. Then there would have been no necessity Tor another place to amend it in a clumsy and ineffective way, and send it back to us in an emasculated form. When an amendment is made upon a Bill which requires re-drafting, the legal advisers of the Government should take it in hand, and put it in proper form. The Minister has said that probably the Navigation Bill will have to be amended at some future time. Inasmuch as this Bill will have to be sent ‘to England for the Royal assent, are we to assume that amending Bills will also have to be sent Home?

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted (Senator Lynch’ s motion) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 12

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment of the House of Representatives’ amendment negatived.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I hope that Ministers will now take into consideration the suggestion of Senator Millen.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That suggestion cannot be accepted. The Standing Orders would not permit it to be done.

Senator Millen:

– There is nothing to prevent our rejecting the amendment made by the other House.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That can be done, of course, but I did not understand that that was Senator Millen’s suggestion.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– My suggestion rested on the assumption that we should, by rejecting the amendment of the House of Representatives, place upon that House the alternative of either accepting our original amendment or sending back a message which would lead to a Conference. I recognise the position in which the Minister stands. But I urge him, as he did not believe in Senator Lynch’s amendment originally, to take a course which would enable both Houses to delete from the Bill a provision which has no right to be there.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I would point out to Senator Gardiner that I am in this peculiar position : I did not accept the amendment which was carried against the Government, and I have no guarantee that we can agree in Committee to reject our own proposal. Unless I can get a guarantee that the Committee will also reject the other amendment, I would prefer that the amendment of the House of Representatives be accepted. This procedure also has the advantage of quickness.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I do not think that I would have supported the amendment moved by Senator Lynch, but it is only a pretence to make that amendment in its present form. It is time we made a stand against this pretence to do things. If there is one thing more objectionable to me than another it is making an effort to-day on behalf of a certain section of the community and then tomorrow putting our tongues in our cheeks when an amendment is brought forward that cuts the ground that we have taken up from under us. The suggested procedure would only mean the delay of a day or two, and that means very little in connexion with a Bill that has been hung up for five or six years.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I think the suggestion of Senator Millen is more in the nature of a challenge. I am prepared to take up the gauntlet that he has thrown down. Whilst I voted against the amendment of Senator Lynch, I am prepared to stand by the original vote of this Committee. If a division be called for I shall vote against the amendment of the House of Representatives, in order that some understanding may be come to between the House of Representatives and this Chamber as to the original intention of the mover of the amendment.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I want to make this final appeal to the Minister. He says his difficulty arises from his inability to determine what might be the ultimate attitude of the other House.

Senator Pearce:

– Not of the other House; of this Committee.

Senator MILLEN:

– Accepting the statement of the Minister, the worst that could happen would be the carrying of a message from this Chamber to the other House and the possible receipt of a message from the other House, and that would occupy probably about ten minutes of our time. If the Minister believed in the proposal that he is supporting, I would not address the appeal to him, but he does not believe in if anymorethanido.Ithinkitis worth making an effort again to remove from the Bill that which he himself regards as a blemish.

Question - That the amendment of the House of Representatives, on the Senate’s amendment, be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 8

Majority ……5

AYES

NOES

Question so. resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported ; report adopted.

page 6935

ADJOURNMENT

Auditor-General’s Report : Maternity Bonus

Motion (by Senator McGregor) pro-‘ posed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I’ should like to ask the VicePresidentof the Executive Council if he can give an answer to a question I asked earlier in the day regarding the AuditorGeneral’s report?

Senator SHANNON:
South Australia

– I have spoken to the VicePresident with regard to the maternity bonus. We notice that some 8,000 bonuses have been paid ; that 1,400 applications are held in abeyance, and about 59 have been rejected. I should like the Vice-President of the Executive Council to state what those rejected cases mean.

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– In reply to Senator Chataway’s question, I may state that the financial statement on which the Auditor-General’s report is based was forwarded by the Treasury to that gentleman at the beginning of this week, and the Auditor-General and his staff are working overtime so as to allow of the report being laid on the table before Parliament prorogues. As regards

Senator Shannon’s question, the majority of the claims were rejected because the children were still-born, and not viable. A small’ number were rejected because the children were still-born, and there was no doctor’s or midwife’s certificate that they were viable. A lesser number were rejected because they were claims in respect of children born before the Act came into operation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.54 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 December 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1912/19121212_senate_4_69/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate12 December 1912

QUESTION

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

Senator McGREGOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Senator READY:TASMANIA

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

QUESTION

MATERNITY ALLOWANCE

Senator READY:

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

CALL OF SENATE

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE) BILL

Second Reading

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator St Ledger:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator St Ledger:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator St Ledger:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

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

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Fraser:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Fraser:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Fraser:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator St Ledger:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Fraser:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Vardon:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator St Ledger:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator St Ledger:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Fraser:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Millen:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Millen:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Millen:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Fraser:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator FRASER:VICTORIA · PROT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Fraser:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Millen:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Millen:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Millen:

Senator Fraser:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Millen:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Millen:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator de Largie:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator Rae:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator de Largie:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator Rae:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator Rae:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator Fraser:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator McGregor:

Senate
12 December 1912

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

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

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator FRASER:
VICTORIA · PROT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP