Senate
17 December 1912

4^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION BILLS
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN MAIL CONTRACT
QUESTION
- ROYAL COMMISSIONS
STATISTICS: ENROLMENT
HOUR OF MEETING
PAPERS
NAVIGATION BILL
SUGAR EXCISE REPEAL BILL
SUGAR BOUNTY ABOLITION BILL
BOUNTIES BILL
MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL
WOOD PULP AND ROCK
IMMIGRATION BILL
NAVAL DEFENCE BILL
JUDICIARY BILL
INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL
POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL
COMMONWEALTH WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE) BILL
- Second Reading
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RAILWAY DISPUTES) BILL
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRUSTS) BILL
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRIAL MATTERS) BILL
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (CORPORATIONS) BILL
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL

The President took the chair at 3 o’clock, and read prayers.

page 7165

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION BILLS

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether it is correct, as stated in a morning newspaper, that, in addition to sending out a document regarding the Referenda Bills prepared by representatives of the two parties, it is also intended to send to each elector a copy of the Hansard report of the debates on the several measures ?

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

– So far as 1 am aware there was no authority for making a statement of the kind. If the honorable senator cares to give notice of the question I shall ascertain the position.

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

– Is it the intention of the Government, in addition to the pamphlet mentioned, to issue a limited number of the reports of the debates in the same way as was done at the last referendum ?

Senator McGREGOR:

– I understand so.

page 7165

QUESTION

TASMANIAN MAIL CONTRACT

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister representing the Postmaster- General yet laid upon the table the papers relating to the recent negotiations for the Tasmanian mail contract in accordance with the order ofthe Senate, and, if not, are they likely to be tabled during this session?

Senator FINDLEY:
Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

– The papers will, I believe, be laid upon the table this afternoon.

page 7165

QUESTION

ROYAL COMMISSIONS

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the VicePresident of the Executive Council tell me when the order of the Senate for a return showing the costs of Royal Commissions will be complied with ? In reply to my last inquiry, 1 was informed that the return would be tabled last week, but I have heard no more about it.

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– I have done all that I possibly can to expedite the production of the return. 1 gave the Department a reminder, and was informed that ithas not yet been furnished with all the par ticulars required. When they will be ready I cannot say.

page 7165

STATISTICS: ENROLMENT

Senator MILLEN:

– I wish to ask the Minister of Defence if he has yet had time, pursuant to the promise he made the other day, to inquire as to the discrepancy between the electoral rolls and the State Statistician’s figures as to population.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes ; and the Chief Electoral Officer told me that he expected to be able to furnish me with’ a further statement to-day. 1 may be able to answer the honorable senator’s question on the motion for adjournment.

page 7165

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator McGregor) agreed to-

That during the remainder of the present session, unless otherwise ordered, the hour of meeting of the Senate on Wednesdays and Thursdays be half-past Ten o’clock in the forenoon, and that unless otherwise ordered the sittings of the Senate or of a Committee of the whole Senate on those days be suspended from 1 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

page 7165

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers -

Defence Act 1903-1912. - Regulations amended, &c-

Universal Training -

Statutory Rules 1912, No. 228.

Statutory Rules 1912, No. 230.

Royal Military College.- Statutory Rules 1912, No. 231.

Entomology : Report of Second International Congress.

Maternity Allowance Act 1912. - Provisional Regulation. - Statutory Rules 1912, No. 225.

Public Service Act 1902-191 1-

Promotion of C. H. Auty to position of Clerk, Fourth Class, Accounts Branch, Central Staff, Department of Home Affairs.

Provisional Regulations. - Statutory Rules 1912, No. 232.

The Clerk laid upon the table the fol lowing return: -

Return to Order of the Senate of 28th November, 19,12 -

Mail Service, Melbourne and Tasmania - Tenders, &c.

page 7166

NAVIGATION BILL

The PRESIDENT reported the receipt of a message from His Excellency the Governor-General, recommending certain amendments in the Bill.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That the message be taken into consideration forthwith.

The two amendments which have been recommended by the Governor-General should have been made, consequential upon other amendments, when the Bill was going through Committee. Neither of them involves a new principle. One amendment is to omit page 3 of Schedule III. I may mention that the page, if retained, would probably be inoperative, although itmight cause some confusion of thought amongst ship masters. The amendment to substitute “ fifty “ for “ fifteen “ in clause 115 is entirely consequential upon a series of amendments dealing with the same matter, and is not of any importance. It would seriously inconvenience the working of the Bill if the word “ fifteen “ were allowed to remain in the clause. I shall fully explain the amendments when we get into Committee.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I raise no objection to the motion. It is impossible for any one who has only heard the message read to know whether or not the amendments open up questions of any importance. I am quite willing to assist the Minister in dealing with the Bill as far as I can, but it must not be assumed that, in assenting to the motion, we necessarily agree to- allow the amendments to pass, unless they are of such a character that it is possible to arrive at a judgment on the spot.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I must take exception to this business being brought on forthwith, for the reason that the amendments may have an important bearing on the Navigation Bill. I do not know what they are.

Senator Keating:

– They are only drafting amendments.

Senator STEWART:

– That may be the case, but I do not think that honorable senators should take anything of that kind for granted.

Senator Keating:

– The Government have given their assurance that these are drafting amendments.

Senator STEWART:

– I do not think that even that is good enough, because strange things have happened before now in connexion with Bills, merely because honorable senators were indifferent, and took too much for granted. I think that the amendments should be printed and circulated.

The PRESIDENT:

– If there is an objection by any honorable senator, the matter cannot be proceeded with.

Senator STEWART:

– I object.

Ordered -

That the message and amendments be taken into consideration in Committee to-morrow.

page 7167

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed : -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

page 7168

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives; Standing Orders suspended, and (on motion by Senator Findley) Bill read a first time.

REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALERATlON) BILL (No. 2).

Bill received from House of Representatives; Standing Orders suspended, and (on motion by Senator Pearce) Bill read a first time.

page 7168

COMMONWEALTH WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message intimating that it had agreed to amendments 3 to 8 made by the Senate, and had disagreed with amendments 1 and 2 for the reason that they caused a limitation.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That so much of the Standing Orders besuspended as would prevent the message being at once considered and all consequent action taken.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– - I suggest to the Government that in view of the way in which these Bills are being dealt with, it would only be fair that they should indicate what business it is proposed to take to-morrow. We are tobe asked to deal with measure after measure, and how can we say that it is desirable to put down a particular Bill for tomorrow when we see that the businesspaper is already crowded? We are now asked to consider forthwith the message of the House of Representatives with reference to the Workmen’s Compensation Bill. That may mean turning aside from the consideration of the Constitution Alteration Bills. A call of the Senate has been arranged for to-morrow, and may have to be postponed if the debate on those Bills is not finished by then.

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

– - The amendments of the Senate which have not been accepted by another place are of a trifling character, and I am sure that when they are explained, Senator Vardon, who moved them, will not insist upon them. The first amendment that has been rejected by another place is that with respect to the father of an illegitimate child against whom a pre-maternity order has been made. When Senator Vardon moved his amendment he had in his mind a provision in the South Australian Act in connexion with pre-maternity allowances. But under the Bill as it stands the father of an illegitimate child is responsible for its support. By making the amendment we should not widen the scope of the Bill, but should rather limit it. Consequently, another place has not accepted the amendment. In view of the reason given, I trust there will be no difficulty about concurring with the action that has been taken elsewhere.

Question resolved in the affirmative. in Committee :

Clause 3 - “ Dependants “ means such of the members of the workman’s family as were wholly or in part dependent upon the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, or who would, but for the incapacity due to the accident, have been so dependent; and where the workman

being the parent or grandparent of an illegitimate child, leaves the child so dependent upon his earnings, or
being an illegitimate child, leaves a parent or grandparent so dependent upon his earnings, includes such an illegitimate child and parent or grandparent respectively :

Senate’s Amendment. - After “child” (first occurring) insert “or of a child in respect of which any maintenance or pre-maternity order has been made.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend- ment disagreed to.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That the Senate does not insist upon its -amendment.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales) £3.40]. - All that I have to say is that I am not in a position to assent to or dissent from the motion submitted by the VicePresident of the Executive Council. I have not even had time to turn to the Bill to see what it originally provided, or how far the reason submitted by another place is good, bad, or indifferent. It is impossible for me, under the circumstances, to take part in the discussion of this proposal.

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

– -Ihave already pointed out that the amendment made by the Senate was not necessary, because the parent of an illegitimate child was already liable in respect of it. With the very best of intentions Senator Vardon secured the insertion unnecessarily of an amendment taken from the South Australian Act.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I have looked into this matter, and am satisfied that my amendment is not necessary. I was influenced by a case which occurred in New South Wales, and which was referred to in the course of our debates. My idea was to broaden the Bill, and make it as comprehensive as possible, but I am now convinced that no practical benefit would be secured by the amendment. In fact, strictly speaking, the amendment would cramp the Bill rather than enlarge its scope.

Motion agreed to.

Senate’s Amendment. - Leave out “ an ille gitimate,” line 13.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend ment disagreed to.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) agreed to-

That the Senate does not insist upon its amendment.

Resolutions reported; report adopted.

page 7169

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13th December, (vide page 7030), on motion by Senator McGregor -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator VARDON:

– I beg the honorable senator’s pardon. That is a gratuitous statement on his part. I have expressed no objection to them, and if the honorable senator were at all acquainted with the history of the matter, he would be aware that it was largely due to my own influence that Wages Boards were established in South Australia. I wish now to show that Canada has followed upon other lines in the passage of the Industrial investigations Act. Their idea was conciliation and conference. The leading feature of the measure may be expressed in the words. “ Come : now, and let us reason together, and see if we cannot arrive at a mutual understanding.” The Canadian Act has been very economical in its working. I refer to it because I believe it would be worth the while of. this Parliament to consider the advisability of adopting similar legislation rather than of continuing the expensive system we have established. Under the Canadian Industrial Investigations Act before a strike or lock-out can take place, the matter in dispute must be referred to a Board created under the Act. The Board consists of three persons, one appointed by the employers, the second by the employes, and the third by the first two, or, if they fail to agree upon an appointment, by the Minister administering the Act. Thirty days’ notice has to be given before action of this kind can be taken. The mode of reaching the tribunal is as follows : - Application forms are provided and these forms embody -

The parties to the dispute.
The nature and cause of the dispute.
The approximate number of persons; affected by the dispute.
The efforts made by the parties them selves to settle the dispute.

There must also accompany the application a declaration that, failing adjustment of the dispute, there will be a strike or lock-out in the industry. An application may be made by organized unions or unorganized employes. When the Board is constituted, it is its duty to investigate the whole case. It sits with open doors, and takes sworn evidence. It pays the expenses of witnesses, and imposes penalties if its summonses are disobeyed. The members of the Board, . during the time of sitting, are paid a sum. . of £4 per day. If a settlement is arrived. at, a memorandum is drawn up and signed by both parties to the dispute. This is put in the form of an agreement to last a certain time, and is made binding. If a. settlement is not reached, a full report of the case is made to the Minister, with such recommendations for a settlement of the dispute as may to the members of the Board seem fit. The report is signed by the Registrar and published in the Labour Gazette. That is the end of the matter so far as the Board is concerned, and where an agreement is not reached, a strike or lockout may be resorted to. The great virtue of the Act is that it brings the parties together, permits of a frank discussion of differences, and the publicity of the proceedings usually brings about a settlement as - the result of the pressure of public opinion. So far as I am able to learn, the working of the Act has given general satisfaction. I believe that if we were to pass legislation on such lines, it would be a boon to this community, and would result in a great saving of time, expense, and friction. I ask honorable senators to take note of the results of the operation of this Canadian measure. The number of disputes dealt with in 1907-8 was34 ; in 1908-0, 21;-: in 1909-10, 27; in 1910-11, 24: or a total of 106 cases. The number of cases in which a strike or lock-out was averted in 1907-8 was 32 out of 34; in 1908-9, 19 out of 21; in 1909-10, 25 out of 27 ; in 1910-11, 19 out of 24 ; or a total of 95 out of 106 cases. The number of cases in which a strike or lock-out was not averted was, in 1907-8, 1 ; in 1908-9, 1 ; in 1909- 10, 4; in 1910-11, 4; or a total of 10 such cases. The number of employes estimated to have been affected by the 106 disputes is given at 101,680. I want to compare these results with the results of arbitration proceedings. New South Wales enacted a Conciliation and Arbitration Act in 1901. Mr. B. R. Wise, who was the author of the Act, took exceptional pride in it, and looked upon it as an almost perfect piece of legislation. He declared that under it there -was no form of dispute that might not be very quickly settled. But what was the result of its operation? In 1901 there were 2 strikes; in 1902, 12; in 1903,II; in 1904,II; in 1905, 36; in 1906, 29; in 1907, 52 ; and during the first three months of 1908 there were 33 strikes. The result was that the. Court was quite unable to deal with the business brought before it, and declared at that time that it had as much business in front of it as would take it two years to do. The result was that the Act was abolished, and tribunals in the nature of Wages Boards substituted for Arbitration Courts. It appears to me that this goes to show that the system of arbitration is not by any means the best system that could be adopted. Let me give an illustration of the operation of the Canadian Act, which I quote from the Registrar of Boards of Conciliation and Investigation for the years 1910-11 -

Application from members of the Toronto Railway Employees Union - No. 113 employed by the Toronto Company - Board established - Unanimous report by Board - Strike averted.

Application received July 5,1910.

Parties concerned - The Toronto Railway Company and employees. Members of the Toronto Railway Employees Union number 113.

Applicants - Employees.

Nature of industry concerned - street railways.

Nature of dispute - concerning demand for new working agreement.

Number of employees affected - 1,300.

Date of constitution of Board - July 16th 1910.

Membership of Board - His Honor Judge John A. Barron, Stratford, Ont, Chairman, appointed on the joint recommendation of the other members of the Board : Mr. J. P. Mullarkey, Montreal, Que., appointed on the recommendation of the employing company; and Mr. J. G. O’Donoghue, Toronto,Ont., appointed on the recommendation of the employees.

Report received - August, 20, 1910.

Result of inquiry - Board presented a unanimous report making certain recommendations for the settlement of the dispute which were accepted by both parties concerned - a strike being thereby averted.

A copy of the schedule was embodied in the Board’s report, the same to take effect from the 16th July,1910, and to remain in force for two years from the above-mentioned date.

The new schedule of wages provided for increases from 21 to 24 cents, or nearly is. per hour, to the various men in the employ of the company. It is further stated that -

The Board expressed in its report its appreciation of the spirit of fairness exhibited by the parties to the dispute, and of the deep sense of responsibility which each side felt that it owed to the city of Toronto. It was the opinion of the Board that the final acceptance of the award was due to the large concessions made in the interests of the public by the President and officers of the company on the one side and their employees on the other. Referring to a critical period in the inquiry the Board also stated : - “ It was then that the respective sides began preparations, one to order a strike, the other to meet it. In fact, both sides at this point kept calling for the award, eager to quickly meet the consequences which were then believed to be inevitable. It was at this critical moment that the splendid advantages of conciliation were most apparent.”

That shows, I think, a very satisfactory state of things. Let me now compare the cost of the Canadian method with the cost of arbitration in Australia. I hold in my hand a letter whichis signed by Mr. F. A. Acland, Deputy Minister of Labour in Canada, and reads as follows; -

I would state that the cost of administering the Act has averaged about $25,000 each year since the Act was enacted. The Boards have averaged annually about twenty-five in number, so that it may be said generally that an inquiry under the Act costs about $1,000; needless to say, some disputes reach a far higher cost than this figure, but the average is reached because of other inquiries being conducted at slight cost. This expenditure covers payments of members of the Board, charges of witnesses called by the Board, all travelling expenses of members, witnesses, &c, and occasional travelling expenses of an officer of the Department. The figure named ($25,000) does not include expenses other than occasional travelling and printing incurred in the Department, nor were any officers of the Department appointed expressly for the purposes of the Act, though naturally clerical assistance has been somewhat increased by the duties of administration.

The letter reveals that the administration of the Industrial Investigations Act costs about £5,000 a year, and that the actual cost of settling a dispute averages200. I ask the Senate to contrast the working of the Canadian Act with the working of our Arbitration Act, to note its expedition, and to see whether Canada does not com- pare very favorably with Australia in this regard. That is all that I want to say regarding the question of industrial disputes. I stand now, as I have always stood, for the recognition of the fact that there is a community of interest between capital and labour, that they are dependent one upon the other, and that there should be mutual consideration one for the other, with the desire on both sides to do justice. I feel sure in my own mind that the taking of parties before the Court, one being the Complainant and the other defendant, breeds a spirit of antagonism, and instead of bringing the parties together pushes them further apart. Personally, I would sweep the Arbitration Court out of existence, and establish something a good deal better in its stead.

Regarding the other proposals to amend the Constitution, I desire to say a few words. It is proposed to insert in section 51 the following new paragraph -

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

– I have read it over and over again.

Senator VARDON:

– The proposal reads -

When each House of the Parliament, in the same session, has by resolution, passed by an absolute majority of its members, declared that the industry or business of producing, manufacturing, or supplying any specified services, is the subject of a monopoly, the Parliament shall have power to make laws for carrying on the industry or business by 01 under the control of the Commonwealth, and acquiring ‘ for that purpose on just terms any property used in connexion with the industry or business.

Labour and employment, so far as is necessary to enable the Parliament of the Commonwealth -

to prevent and settle industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State, and to provide that any condition of employment determined by any award or order of any authority constituted under any law of the Commonwealth for the prevention or settlement of any such industrial dispute shall, if such authority so determine, be a common rule of the industry concerned.

So that it will be seen that the Premiers of the States were only prepared to cede those powers on certain conditions, and as regards powers in industrial matters they were proposed to be limited to disputes extending beyond the boundaries of any one State. The State Premiers also agreed to this provision -

Combinations and monopolies in relation to the production, manufacture, or supply of goods or services so far as is necessary to enable the Parliament of the Commonwealth to control or to acquire on just terms the business or industry of any such combination or monopoly when such business or industry extends beyond the limits of any one State, and when such combination or monopoly has been declared by the High Court to be in restraint of trade or commerce to the detriment of the public.

I think the Premiers adopted a commonsense attitude in that matter. They laid it down that it was not advisable to interfere with a man’s business until it had been proved that the business was a monopoly, in restraint of trade and detrimental to the public.

Senator Guthrie:

– Good old Conservative gag.

Senator VARDON:

– We have heard that before, but, unfortunately, honorable senators opposite have not provided anything reasonable in substitution for what the State Premiers proposed. What they want to do is to take matters into their hands, and merely say, “ This is a monopoly,” without proving anything whatever. Mr. Holman, a member of the Labour Government of New South Wales, speaking at the State Premiers’ Conference, said -

What I wish to emphasize is that if the whole control of commerce is handed over to the Federal Parliament, then the local control by the States is reduced to only a few narrow and formal matters, which, I confess, Mr. President, it is hardly worth maintaining the State Parliaments to carry on.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear !

Mr. HOLMAN. ; What would it mean? The hawker who sells peaches on Prince’s-bridge is engaged in domestic commerce. ‘His business would be regulated by Federal law. The regulations in Sydney about the wire netting of butchers’ shops would have to be re-enacted under Federal law. The man engaged in shop keeping in the selling of any commodity, how. ever small, or however large, is engaged in domestic commerce, and the control of all the interests arising out of that would be a Federal matter. As I say, I think it is indisputable that all men are engaged either in commerce or industry - that is, all the men who are in any way contributing to the upkeep of the community. If that be so, the immense range and sweep of the proposal to hand domestic commerce over to the Federal Parliament becomes at once apparent. Without further labouring- the point, I can only say that it is one of “the most radical and revolutionary changes in the relations between the States and the Federal Parliament that can be conceived; and I venture to say, as a Labour man, that it is a change which is in no way necessitated - I will put it in that way - by the demands of our platform or of our movement. It would constitute, I think, a very deep and serious inroad upon the local governing powers of the States, and I am inclined to think, so far as one can judge of such a wide movement, that that was one of the objections which seriously contributed to the defeat of the referenda proposals. It was felt that this was a proposal to hand over somewhat gratuitously to the Federal Parliament a large power, which would injure the effectiveness of the State Parliaments without improving the effectiveness of the Federal Parliament.

I quite agree with Mr. Holman in the attitude which he took up on that occasion. I fail to see that the Government have put forward any good and sufficient reason for asking for these powers from the people. I sincerely hope that when the question is put to the vote of the people they will, as they did on a previous occasion, turn the proposals down by a very large and substantial majority.

Senator READY:
Tasmania

.- I did not intend to speak in this debate, but in view of the importance of the subject, and the fact that there are some considerations which present themselves to one who represents the smallest State in the Commonwealth, I shall not allow the occasion to pass without saying a few words.

The great underlying principles of these referenda proposals are briefly these : First, that the people should control the conditions under which they live; secondly, that they should use the most effective means of controlling those conditions. We on this side differ materially from our friends opposite, inasmuch as we do not think that the prosperity of a nation is made up altogether by the amount of wealth that is produced. We believe that the prosperity of a nation depends on the happiness and comfort of the units that compose that nation ; and in that respect there is a very wide line of demarcation between the legislation of- the Labour party and that of those who now compose the Liberal party.

Senator Shannon:

– They all like to get as much as they can, do they not ?

Senator READY:

– That is human nature. We, personally, do not claim to have more virtues than our friends on the other side, but we do claim to have a set of principles which make for the progress and prosperity of a young nation ; and we fur ther claim that there is an absence of those principles in our friends opposite. The people have, through the State and the Federal Legislatures, two avenues for expressing their wishes. To hear our friends on the other side discuss this question, one would imagine that there were two different communities actuated by entirely different motives. That is not a fact.

We are as a people desirous of having our wishes carried out as speedily as possible. As far as the State of Tasmania is concerned, the wishes of the people have been systematically ignored by the Liberal party, not only of Tasmania, but also of? Australia.

I have noticed during the course of this debate that very little has been said by honorable senators opposite regarding the effectiveness of Federation., They have continually slummed and skimmed over those portions which, they know would weaken their case. They have slummed over the fact that when Federation took place the people thought that certain specific powers were given to the Commonwealth. It was thought that we had greater powers over corporations than subsequent events proved to be the case. It was thought that we could legis-late to prevent trusts and monopolies when we federated. It was thought that we had power, by legislation, to bring new Protection into force. Did not the Leader of the Liberal party go to the country with very glowing promises, and great flag flapping, making magnificent speeches in favour of that policy of new Protection? Where is it now? What have honorable senators on the other side to say about it?

We thought that we had power to make a common rule when we established our Arbitration Court. We thought that when an award was given in a certain industry we had power to apply it to every employer and employ^ engaged in that industry in the Commonwealth. Yet what did we find? A condition of chaos for a certain period of time. We found in Melbourne, for instance, that when the Arbitration Court fixed the minimum wage of those employed in the bootmaking industry at £2 1 6s. a week, owing to- the failure to apply the common rule, employers were paying £2 8s. a week under the award of a Wages Board. That was penalizing the employer who was paying the higher wage, and was a very undesirable condition of affairs. In order to make our arbitration legislation effective, the representatives of the Labour unions have had to cite before the Court every employer engaged in a particular industry.

Again, it was not known that the power did not exist to enforce union labels. It was thought that our Trades Description Act gave us very much greater powers over goods that are sold in Australia, and yet we found that many of those proposals which were advocated by honorable senators on the other side were impossible of fruition after a few years of Federation. The Minister of Defence alluded at length to the Trades Description Act. He showed that articles detrimental to the public were being imported to Australia, and that it was necessary for the protection of the public that the constituent parts of those articles should be branded on the packages containing them. We find that patent medicines, to which are attached all kinds of fictitious statements as to their curative properties, are being sold all over Australia. The labels cannot be attached to them when they are being passed through the Customs, but they are attached when they are landed in Australia. For instance, there is one preparation which is called the Radium Microbe Killer, and this is the description which appears on the label-

It is a positive and certain cure for all diseases, and is guaranteed to be perfectly harmless. lt will effect a cure in every instance if given a- fair trial. The microbe killer’ is perfectly harmless, and can be taken* in any quantities without danger.

That label is false on the very face of it, and there are hundreds of other similarly misleading labels attached to packages in order to bulldoze the confiding public. A friend of mine, who is a chemist, quite recently gave me the constituents of a teething necklace which had come through the Customs, and was being retailed in Tasmania for 9s. The article consisted of a bone necklace and a powder. The necklace was to be put round the neck of an infant suffering from teething, while the powder was to be consumed. The analysis showed that the powder consisted of a small quantity of resinous matter and a larger quantity of mineral matter, chiefly magnesium compounds. This was supposed tr- work wonderful cures upon children. When the article was stopped at the Customs, the persons who made a profit from it commenced manufacturing in Aus- tralia, and the Federal Government are. powerless to interfere. The Queensland meat importers, having to work under conflicting laws in different States, put up their commodities in tins with different brands upon them.

These conditions exist only because the Commonwealth Parliament have not power to enact one law applying throughout Australia. ‘ Owing to the helplessness of the Federal Government the cost of living has risen all over the Commonwealth. It has been asserted that the cost of living has risen because of the increase in wages. I do not deny that the increase in wages has had some influence in increasing the cost of living, but I say, also, that in many instances the increased cost is due to the fact that, as one manufacturer put it to me the other day, when wages rise 10 per cent., profits rise 20 and 25 per cent.

Senator Findley:

– The new President of the United States of America says that the cost of living has risen because of high Protection and combinations.

Senator READY:

– The increased production of gold has also had an influence, in Tasmania prices have risen almost twice the extent of the rise in wages. Some figures were compiled by the Hobart Public Service Association, in order that they might be presented to a deputation that waited on the Premier of the State. They show that the increase of wages in Tasmania was 32 per cent., whilst the increase in the price of clothing, such as would be used by the labouring classes in Hobart, was, during the same period, 64 per cent. Another table shows that provisions in Hobart rose 85.57 per cent., and that house rent rose no less than 48.5 per cent. So that the cost of living and the amount of profits increased altogether out of proportion to the increase in wages. That is what we have been complaining about. Some manufacturers have been enabled, under our present system, largely owing to the weakness of the Federal Constitution, to extort more out of the pockets of the confiding public as wages have risen. By means of these referenda proposals we are making a serious attempt to cure the evil.

We know that the cost of living and the cost of commodities in every trade have risen enormously. We know that the prices of meat, wheat, flour, tobacco, coal, sugar, the cost of transport, and the charges for ail kinds of necessaries have risen altogether out of proportion to the rise in wages. 1 have before me an extract from the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Customs leakage. When the Commission sat in Hobart, Mr. Barnard, the Collector of Customs, was examined by Mr. Roberts, M.P., as follows: -

I hold in my hand an Inter-State certificate relating to a consignment of envelopes. The entry sets forth that the selling value of the consignment at the time of transfer was £10 2s. 6d., but that the estimated value of the goods for the purpose of duty was only £4 10s. In other words, there is a difference of £$ 12s. 6d. Can you tell me whether that difference is a fair index of the difference between the selling value of goods and their value for the purpose of duty in all cases? - I cannot say but it would seem to be about a fair thing! You must add to the value for duty oversea freight, warehouse costs, landing costs, profit and duty. These, I think, would pretty well absorb that £z.

Here is another Inter-State certificate relating to vehicles and parts thereof. It sets out that the estimated selling value of these goods was £12 15s., and that their value for the purpose of duty was £.6 3s. 4<1. So that this case was about on a par, or only a little better, from the exporter’s point of view, than the one to which I have just directed your attention? - Yes.

I have here still .mother certificate, which relates to cotton piece goods from the United States. Their selling value is set down at £<) 7s. 6d., and their value for the purposes of duty at ,£5 4s. 6d. The duty is 5 per cent., which would add only 5s. 3d. to their value for the purpose of duty, thus leaving a balance of over £4 on an article the selling value of which is £<) odd. What have you to say to that? - It is very much on the lines of the other cases which have been quoted.

The certificate which is now before me sets out that the estimated selling value of a consignment of silk is £13 ros. 6d., and that_ its value for the purpose of duty is £3 15s. What is your opinion of these figures? - They disclose

big profit.

Mr. Griffith then deals with blue metal, and shows the enormous saving effected there. Referring to lime and cement he says -

Then there is lime, for which we were paying £2 a ton. Butnow the Government will be able to land it in Sydney at £I a ton. Then there is cement. I got from New Zealand the manager of one of the biggest cement works to visit our works, and his report shows that the first year’s supply will pay for the whole of the plant. These’ are a few of our undertakings, and we ask your support to go further and extend our operations. (Applause.)

Dealing with the profits, Mr. Griffith says -

The quarry in nine months, after allowing for depreciation, sinking fund, and interest, showed a profit of£2,742. The joinery works - according to Mr. Borchardt, the public accountant - has a capital invested of £47,000. The sales were £64,000, the gross profit £16,000, and the net profit £11,590, showing a return on the money invested of 14 per cent.

Regarding the brick works, Mr. Griffith said -

The foreman in charge of the Balmain Technical College reported that the face bricks sent to him were the best he had seen. The man in charge of the Daceyville works, in reply to the Minister’s request for his opinion, said he had never used better bricks ; the delivery had been good, and the weekly supply well kept up.

Senator Vardon:

– In South Australia it cost £,25 some time ago to make six bricks.

Senator READY:

– The people of South Australia should get a Labour Government, and then they might do better.

Senator Vardon:

– This was done by a Labour Government.

Senator READY:

– The gentleman continues -

The Government could make bricks at £I a thousand less than it could buy them, and when the maximum of 1,000,000 a week is reached, the Government will be saving £1,000 a week for the taxpayer. (Applause.) I wish the combine to know that next year, if they do not bring their prices down to a proper thing, the Government will go into competition, which will make them do so.

Senator READY:

– Exactly. I could cite more instances, but I do not wish to speak at too great length. With these successful examples before us, we, as the Labour party, believe that we can not only extend the influence of nationalization beyond the State arena, but manage many big industries which, in the interests of the people, should be managed nationally, and not by a few persons.

Before proceeding to deal with the arbitration proposal, I wish to quote two statements of about twenty-eight words each to show the attitude which has been taken by some members of the Opposition with regard to our proposals. In 1910, Mr. W. H. Irvine said -

We on this side should not be afraid to give this Parliament a wider power, because the governing political party is directly opposed to us on these matters.

That is a very statesmanlike utterance regarding the trade and commerce proposal. In a recent speech, Mr. Irvine said -

I hope that it will be safe at some future time to extend the trade and commerce powers of this Parliament, but I say emphatically that it is not safe to do so at the present time.

– I find that one honorable senator of the Federal Parliament stated that the Legislative Councils were the bulwarks of the States, and when we hear a remark of that kind made, we know that that honorable senator was a little more candid than other honorable senators sitting on the opposite side. In the first Federal Parliament, Mr., now Mr. Justice, Higgins, moved the following motion : -

That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient for the Parliament of the Commonwealth to acquire (if the State Parliaments see fit to grant it under section 51, sub-section 37, of the Constitution Act) full power to make laws for Australia as to wages and hours and conditions of labour.

Sir William McMillan, speaking in support of that motion, said -

Since we met in the Federal Convention which framed this Commonwealth Constitution, there has been a considerable evolution of thought with regard to certain matters that were then discussed. … I hold generally that everything that affects the rights and liberties, especially the industrial life of the community, ought to be in the hands of the National Parliament. . . I hail with delight this motion, and I trust the Government will have sufficient influence to get the States to surrender powers which they have now, so that we may deal with those great and far-reaching subjects.

Mr., now Mr. Justice, Barton said ;

That there ought to be such a power exercised I am now convinced, and for this reason, that the grant of Inter-State freetrade which follows the adoption of a uniform Tariff is likely in many respects to be crippled unless the Commonwealth has power to deal uniformly with the conditions of employment throughout Australia. . . That this grant of the power should be made to enable us to meet the inequalities of conditions which ought not to occur amongst an equal people I have, on full investigation of this motion, convinced myself.

– Of course it is. While I am dealing with statements made in connexion with the last referenda campaign in Tasmania, I should like to give a few extracts from speeches delivered by Mr. N. K. Ewing, a member of the State Legislature, who was, I believe, for three years a member of the Senate. As reported in the Hobart Mercury of Wednesday, 15th March, 1911, Mr. Ewing told the electors -

That if the Referenda was carried Tasmania would lose five out of her six senators and probably one member of the House of Representatives, and he asked them to consider what chance this State would have, with such small representation in the Federal Parliament.

That was a deliberate misrepresentation, as Mr. Ewing well knew, because section 128 of the Constitution provides that -

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

– I cannot pretend to speak with authority on Victorian matters.

In 1898, the Tasmanian Legislative Council threw out the Wages Attachment Bill; in 1899, it threw out the Wages Attachment Bill and the Workers Compensation Bill j in 1 90 1, it threw out the Workmen’s Compensation Bill; in the first session of 1902 it threw out the Employers Liability Bill and the Factories Regulation Bill; in the second session of 1902 it threw out the Employers Liability Bill and the Factories Regulation Bill; in 1903 it threw out the Early Closing Bill; in 1904 it threw out the Weekly Half -holiday Bill ; in 1906 it threw out the Shops Half-holiday Bill; in 1907 it threw out the Truck Bill; in 1908 it threw out the Shops Half -holiday Bill; and in 1909 it threw out the Wages Board Bill and the Workers Compensation Bill. It was only in 19 10, after the “ kick “ administered by the electors in returning the Labour party to power in the Federal Parliament, that the Tasmanian Legislative Council consented to place any industrial legislation on the statute-book. Yet, honorable senators opposite ask that the well-being of the electors of Tasmania should be intrusted to that august body !

Senator Walker:

– The honorable senator is a representative of Tasmania, and is not supposed to denounce his own State. He should stand up for it.

Senator READY:

– I cannot stand up for a condition of things in which 18,000 people elect one branch of the Legislature which dominates the legislation of the country. I am looking to this Parliament to effect a remedy for that state of affairs. What happened when the great Lyell strike took place? This affords an example of the value of the “ leave it to the State “ argument. The men approached the Premier of Tasmania, Sir Elliot Lewis, and told him that if he would act as arbiter, they would submit to his decision. But the directors of the company in Melbourne refused the offer, and the men went on strike. After that, Mr. J. Ogden, M.H.A., Deputy Leader of the State Labour party, suggested to the Premier of Tasmania that he should induce the Legislature to pass a short Arbitration Act to deal with the special circumstances of the Lyell strike. To the discredit of the Liberal Government, controlled by the party which is so well represented by the Opposition here, they refused to take that course, and the strike went on. One of the aftermaths of the strike was that horrible accident which plunged all Australia into gloom a few months later, and as the result of which one of the finest industries in Tasmania has received a blow from which it will take many years to recover. All that was because of the incapacity of past Liberal Governments, and if our Federal Arbitration Court had had jurisdiction, the strike would have been speedily settled. I remind honorable senators that between ,£300,000 and £400,000 has been invested in the Mount Lyell Mine, which has paid nearly £2,750,000 in dividends, although the directors refused to concede the reasonable conditions asked for.

With reference to the feeling engendered by Arbitration Courts and Wages Boards, I have a quotation to read from the secretary of the Victorian Rural Producers’ Association, the Rev. C. W. Wood, who said in Sydney, at a Congress of the Farmers and Settlers’ Association, in July last -

If the Rural Workers’ Union said settlers must pay £3 to £3 7s. 6d. a week for labour, they were mad. The men were being led by a pack of irresponsible wretches, who were only using them for their own ends. .The)’ were probably men who were too mean to join the association - who would sit back and reap the benefits without “ forking “ out the five shillings subscription. Men who did that were only living on the members of the association, and they were not fit to be called men.

In reply to this bitter statement, let me quote what Mr. Justice Higgins has said concerning the Rural Workers’ Union. His Honour said that -

Except in the case of the United Labourers’ Union, the leaders of labour organizations were always found to exert their influence in favour of peace, which statement was based on actual and careful investigation made by an impartial tribunal, and .was contrary to the statement, so often made by a priori theorists who fancied they knew, without inquiry, that all labour troubles were due to agitators misleading unfortunate workers for their own ends. He did not hope to convince these theorists, but thought it wise to let the public know what he found to be the case on a close scrutiny of actual facts.

That is a pretty conclusive argument in answer to some of those advanced by the other side.

I should also like to put into Hansard a fact with regard to how the present Legislative Councils came to be constituted as they are. I have before me an extract from a despatch sent by Sir William Dennison, Governor in Tasmania in 1848, to Earl Grey, then Colonial Secretary. The colonists were asking for self-government. Sir William

Dennison drew up a report, in which he-‘ stated -

There is essentially a democratic spirit which actuates a large mass of the community, and’ it is with a view to check the development ofthis spirit that I would suggest the formation-, of an upper chamber.

We are paying the penalty of that to a certain extent in Tasmania to-day. That relic of the dead past affords ample indication of the real reason for the TasmanianLegislative Council. Sir William Dennisonalso suggested -

That bishops be members of the Upper House besides certain ex officio representatives of the Government, and the rest, whether members, of the Crown or elected by the people, ‘to holdtheir seats for life.

– You are asking for more power.

Senator RAE:

– We are not asking for any more power, because we are specifically exempting from our proposals any power to deal with trade and commerce on State railways other than that already provided for in the Constitution.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 -p.m.

Senator RAE:

– When the sitting was suspended, I had commenced to refer to the criticism levelled against us last year for not dividing the referenda questions, and this year because we have done so. I understand that a constitutional point was raised that the questions could not be submitted to Parliament in one Bill, even though they were voted upon by the electors separately. Senator Millen referred in his speech last week to what the people of Australia decided when they adopted Federation. I shall read the remarks he made -

In regard to the Constitution that prevails in Australia the people decided that they would adopt as the broad dividing lines the principle that the only powers they would surrender to the National Authority would be those in regard to matters which were national in their scope and purpose.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Is it?

Senator Long:

– Yes.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON.- We have to deal with our own system. One honorable senator was good enough to assist me by interjecting that we have more powers than has Canada. I think not.

Senator Lynch:

– Will you point out where they are less?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– They are infinitely less, as I shall point out in a moment. The Australian people would not have the Canadian form at any price. What is our Federal system? The VicePresident of the Executive Council, whose speech I read with the utmost attention, gave a sort of historical summary, which, though interesting, was, I think, erroneous. My honorable friend said -

The reason for that opposition was that the framers of the Constitution built it on the American model. We could not afford to hobble and fetter ourselves as the American people had been hobbled and fettered for more than a hundred years. Therefore, the Australian Constitution was not carried on the first attempt. . . . It was too near the American pattern to be accepted by the people of Australia.

It so happens that our Constitution was framed absolutely on the American model - on the model of that Constitution, which certainly, till ours was framed, was considered the finest written system of government which was ever brought into force. This is what Mr. Bryce said about it -

After all deductions it ranks above every other written Constitution for the intrinsic excellence of its scheme, its adaptation to the circumstances of the people, the simplicity, brevity, and precision of its language, its judicious mixture of definiteness in principle with elasticity in details.

Senator Givens:

– And yet her people are groaning under corruption to-day.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– That, to a large extent, is due to the abominable Tariff which is in operation. The first ten amendments that were made in the American Constitution were merely the adoption of a sort of postscript, or supplement - a Bill of Rights largely dealing with the personal freedom of individuals. Two others were mere nominal corrections. After the War of Secession a very vital amendment was made in the Constitution - an amendment registering the result of that war, and putting an end to slavery. In 1910 came an amendment which we do not require, because we already have the .power to impose income tax. I have tried to find reasons in the speech of the Vice-President of the Executive Council for the amendments proposed by the Government, but the honorable gentleman did not do himself justice. His method of commending the proposals is not fortunate, and his references to the High Court must be regarded as unwise as well as illogical. He said that- all the difficulties that have arisen with respect to the legislation we have passed have been due to the narrow interpretation of the Constitution given by the High Court.

He told us that the High Court has an appellate jurisdiction in regard to the

Courts of the States, and that that brings it into such a relation with the States that it is apparently dominated by preference for them. He said, further -

Our High Court, in addition to its work of interpreting the Constitution, is given an appellate jurisdiction ; the Supreme Court of America has nothing whatever to do with the States.

I do not think that any honorable senator will say that that argument ought to have been used, or will admit that because the High Court hears appeals from the State Courts it is therefore influenced in its decision on judicial questions by a bias towards the States.

Senator Millen:

– The judgments of whose Courts it sometimes overrules.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Yes. The Vice-President of the Executive Council stated -

The result has been that any extension of the United States Constitution has arisen from the action of the Supreme Court. It could arise in no other way, because the Court has no particular interest in connexion with any State.

Senator Keating:

– The success of Mar-i shall’ s interpretation of the American Constitution was due to the fact that he alwayslooked upon the Constitution as if it had been drawn up on the day on which he dealt with it.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Quite, so. That is a sound principle upon which every Judge would desire to act. Some mayarrive at one conclusion, and some at another ; but we are fairly entitled to say that that has been the guiding principle. Whenthe Judges give their decision that the limit of expansion by interpretation has been: reached ; when, to use Senator Rae’s expression, they say in regard to any power or its exercise, “thus far and no farther,” it is for us to be guided by that decision. Should the enlargement of the power be imperative in the national interest, it mustcome from the people and from the States.. But the experience of twelve short years is insufficient to enable us to say that these proposed alterations are indispensable to the national safety and progress, and we should pause before endeavouring to put them intoeffect.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– It is not my intention to detain the Senate long at this hour of the morning. I thank Senator Long for giving, me the opportunity to speak now, because, in accordance with the custom of the Senate,, he had the right to be called next. Out of consideration for my age, and for the fact that I spent last night in the train, he iswilling that I should get away at a comparatively early hour. The speech which we have just heard from Senator Symon was a very fine educational effort, and those who have taken an interest in Federation from the start felt as if we were back in the Convention again, matters were so clearly explained. Senator Rae has spoken of the manner in which the proposed amendments of the Constitution were submitted to the people last year. He was right in asserting that it was most difficult on the last occasion for electors to decide whether to vote “yes” or “no” in reply to questions which involved more than one alteration. The Government deserves credit for proposing to submit the alterations on this occasion by means of six questions; whether six Bills are necessary I am not prepared to say. With six separate questions, each amendment may be dealt with on its merits ; and it will be open to an elector to vote for one and reject another if he so desires. Senator Symon dealt pretty fully with the references to the Legislative Councils of the States. Australia has certainly reason to be pleased that at present we have a Legislative Council in New South Wales. Two amendments of our Constitution have been effected already ; one empowering the Commonwealth to nationalize the debts of the States - present and future - should it think fit; and the other altering the financial year, so that, instead of ending on the 31st December it ends on the 30th June. I am not opposed to having referenda, but I agree with Senator Symon and others that referenda should not be too frequent. I have a few remarks to make on each of the Bills, and I shall make them in the order in which the Bills are named in the motion for the Call of the Senate, taking first the Constitution Alteration (Trade and Commerce) Bill. I am afraid that if the amendment proposed in that Bill were carried there would be a tendency to centralization, and I favour decentralization. I have lived long enough in Australia to remember what a great advantage it was for Victoria and Queensland to separate from New South Wales, and to assume the management of their local affairs. They have gone ahead greatly since then, and much more rapidly than they did before. I should not like us to go /back to the old arrangement, though I think that that is now impossible. The people of the States would not like to revert to it. They are not desirous of losing Home Rule, df I may so put it. Besides, Senator St. Ledger has drawn my attention to the fact that, under section 98 of the Constitution -

The power of the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to trade and commerce extends to navigation and shipping and to railways the property of any State.

It is rather singular that many who are fond of talking about Home Rule for Ireland do not see the necessity for Home Rule for the States. Each State was an entity before joining the Union, and wishes to preserve its individuality, and independence. The next Bill on the list is the Constitution Alteration (Railway Disputes) Bill. It contains such an extraordinary proposal that I do not think anything can be said in favour of it. If an outside body can fix the wages which must be paid by the States in connexion with their railways, the States will be at a terrible disadvantage. I consider that if the wages of the railway men were fixed by the Commonwealth, the rights of the States in regard to the railways would amount almost to nothing. The States would scarcely have the power to make their railways pay under those circumstances. With regard to the third measure, the Constitution Alter,ation (Trusts) Bill, it has to be admitted that trusts and combines flourish in an extraordinary fashion in the United States of America. There are millionaire manufacturers in the Mother Country, but for every British millionaire there are several multi-millionaires in the United States of America. ‘ A close consideration of the circumstances will show that the Tariff has a good deal to do with that. Our friends opposite call themselves Democrats ; but in America the Democratic party is the more Conservative side. It has chosen Dr. Woodrow Wilson as President. He is a pronounced revenue tariffist, and will do anything he can to reduce the Tariff rates, and to prevent the trusts from flourishing as they do to-day. Protection, I believe, and so do many others, is an exploded economic fallacy, despite what rabid Protectionist newspapers may say to the contrary. Reference was made the other day to the Dutch. I had forgotten that Holland was a Free Trade country. Great Britain has often, been referred to as the only Free Trade country, but Holland is also a Free Trade country, and a wonderful country, too. It will probably be impossible for Australia to give up Protection for many years to come; but I hope it will reduce its Tariff considerably. Senator Symon has made some very instructive remarks about the

Constitution Alteration (Industrial Matters) Bill. As to wages being the same all over Australia, I can say in regard to one of the banks, at least, that we pay in Western Australia 12 J per cent, more in salaries than in the other States owing to the distance of that State from the others, and because of the fact that wages are higher there than elsewhere. The Bank of Australasia gives 20 per cent, more to those of its officers who have to reside in Northern Queensland, as a climatic allowance. It is not to be expected that the rate of wages ruling in Tasmania will be the same as that ruling in the Gulf of Carpentaria. As to the Constitution Alteration (Corporations) Bill, surely, as Senator Symon pointed out, each State should be able to manage its own corporations. It has already been noted that many a well-to-do merchant, when he finds himself advanced in years, turns his business into a proprietary company, so that his family may retain its interest in it. That is purely a State concern. With regard to the Constitution Alteration (Nationalization of Monopolies) Bill, I have always been under the impression that the whole is greater than the part, and I cannot see why, because a section desires the nationalization of an industry, the rest of the community should allow it to take place, when it is in the general interest that it should not. I am glad that the Sugar Commission reported before the nationalization proposal could be considered. The moral of its report is that before any industry is nationalized, there should be an impartial investigation of it. I do not see why this Parliament should have the power, by a resolution passed by an absolute majority in both Houses, to declare that a business is a monopoly which is really not a monopoly. Half-a-dozen companies may be engaged in an industry, no one of which could be said to have a monopoly. In the sugar industry there are two refinery companies and several sugar mills, so that it cannot be said that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company has a monopoly. The real monopoly threatening this country is the trade union monopoly. The trade unionists wish to prevent those who are not unionists from making a decent living. I have never known why unionists and non-unionists should not work together in peace and harmony. The theory is that because Unionists have been instrumental in obtaining good wages and getting better conditions, they should have a monopoly of employment, all who are not trade unionists .being looked upon as belonging to an inferior caste. What occurred the other day in connexion with the strike at Waihi, in New Zealand, proves that even in the Labour ranks there is a distinct division. Some of the men engaged in that strike were prepared to obey the arbitration law, while others believed in obeying what I may call the law of the Trades Hall; and I hope that what occurred in New Zealand will be a lesson to us. It is quite evident that if these referenda proposals be carried, the legislative powers of the Commonwealth will be greatly enhanced, and those of the States correspondingly diminished. The States are the parents of the Commonwealth ; and such a result would partake of the nature of political parricide or matricide. The Senate is essentially the House that should uphold the rights of the States; and I cannot understand how any honorable senators can hold it to be consistent with their duty to deprive the States of those rights as embedded in the Constitution.. If Unification is to be brought about, let it be by doing away with the Constitution, which is at once democratic and not democratic. The Senate represents the States, but it cannot be said to be democratic, because, if it were so, New South Wales would be entitled by population to eight senators for each senator that Tasmania sends here. Recently, there has been an attempt to bring the State Savings Banks and the Commonwealth Bank into competition, and I am sorry that this has happened, because I think the States resent the attempt, only one State showing any disposition to support the proposals of the Commonwealth.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator WALKER:

– We are told iii Euclid that the whole is greater than the part, and in Johnson’s dictionary that “ monopoly “ is something owned by one person or company; but in these days it would appear about mathematics that we know more than did Euclid and Johnson, about lexicography. Section 51 of the Constitution transfers thirty-nine powers to the Commonwealth, but a great many of these have not yet been taken over, including marriage and divorce, bankruptcy and insolvency, and so on. For instance, I see that in some of the States it is considered that the time has arrived when the Commonwealth ought to take over the control of the lighthouses.

Senator Keating:

– There is a very good Bankruptcy Bill in circulation.

Senator WALKER:

– I am glad to hear it. Honorable senators will remember that that great monarch, Louis XIV., said, “L’Etat c’est moi,” and it would now appear that a certain section of the community arrogate to themselves the right to say that what they desire is proper for the whole community. Under all the circumstances, it would be quite appropriate if the Trades Hall , party adopted the saying of Louis XIV. as their motto. The last remark I have to make is called forth by a comment by Senator McGregor in regard to the High Court, the duties of which will doubtless be increased if these referenda proposals are accepted. I have always maintained that the High Court should be strictly non-political, and I am glad to see that the Attorney-General is of the same opinion. Mr. J. C. Watson, the first Labour Prime Minister, told me in days gone by that we need never be afraid of a Federal Labour Government making bad appointments, because such would recoil on the Government themselves. I was much interested the other day in reading one or two .quotations from the judgments delivered in the High Court, and I should like to submit them to honorable senators. The first is by Sir Samuel Griffith, who said - -

The question of determination is entirely one of construction, and it seems necessary to say once more that the function of this Court is to interpret the Constitution as it finds it, and neither to strain its language to a construction which this Court may think is more beneficial than that which the words express nor to vary its construction from time to time to meet the supposed changing breezes of popular opinion.

Then Mr. Justice Barton said -

The very method and form of this constitutional delimitation involves this consequence, that before a grant of power to the Commonwealth can be held to cut down any power included in the general reservation in favour of the States, it must be clear, either from the words of the grant itself, or by necessary implication from those words, that such an effect is intended. This Court fulfils its highest obligations’ to the people, and truly keeps the trust which they handed to it to defend, when it insures that no attempts at unification on the one hand, and on the other hand no straining of what are called State rights, shall be allowed to sap the sound foundations of the edifice. To hold that a mere claim unsatisfied is, in fact and in law, an industrial dispute, is to cut down the industrial powers of the States in violation of the Federal principles on which the Constitution is built. And just as we have defended it against several undue assertions of State powers, so now we are under an equal duty, though the danger is from an opposite .quarter.

Senator Rae:

Senator KEATING:

– I shall take the hint. It is not my desire to run up against what might be described as a “ stone wall “ of silence. Whatever the merits or demerits of these proposals may be, I contend that they should not be submitted to the public at a time when it would not be reasonable to expect the electors to judge of them impartially and as carefully, calmly and considerately as we should like them to deal with every amendment of the Constitution. I have, in conclusion, only to thank honorable members opposite for the attention they have given me, notwithstanding that it has been a silent and unresponsive one.

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

– I have no desire at this hour of the morning to occupy the attention of the Senate at any length. I have only to thank honorable senators for the elaborate way in which they have put their views before the Chamber and the public. As to the question put so often by Senator Keating, I can only say that the people will be asked to give a reply at the next general election, and that, until then, I do not desire to add to the volume of the arguments in which the Opposition have indulged.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 6

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 7238

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RAILWAY DISPUTES) BILL

Bill read a second time, and reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That the report be adopted.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 6

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

page 7238

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRUSTS) BILL

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 6

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 7238

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRIAL MATTERS) BILL

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 6

Majority … …11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported without amendment ; report adopted.

page 7238

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (CORPORATIONS) BILL

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 6

Majority … …11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported without amendment ; report adopted.

page 7239

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 6

Majority …11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported without amendment; report adopted.

Senate adjourned at 3.35 a.m. (Wednesday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 December 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1912/19121217_senate_4_69/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate17 December 1912

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION BILLS

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:

QUESTION

TASMANIAN MAIL CONTRACT

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator FINDLEY:Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

ROYAL COMMISSIONS

Senator SAYERS:QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:ALP

STATISTICS: ENROLMENT

Senator MILLEN:

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

HOUR OF MEETING

PAPERS

NAVIGATION BILL

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator Keating:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Keating:

Senator STEWART:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator STEWART:

SUGAR EXCISE REPEAL BILL

SUGAR BOUNTY ABOLITION BILL

BOUNTIES BILL

MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL

WOOD PULP AND ROCK

IMMIGRATION BILL

NAVAL DEFENCE BILL

JUDICIARY BILL

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Needham:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Lynch:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Needham:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Lynch:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Vardon:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Australia

Senator Millen:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Millen:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Millen:

Senator NEEDHAM:

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

COMMONWEALTH WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

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

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

Senator VARDON:South Australia

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE) BILL

Second Reading

Senator VARDON:South Australia

Senator Millen:

Senator Lynch:

Senator VARDON:

Senator Lynch:

Senator VARDON:

Senator Needham:

Senator VARDON:

Senator de Largie:

Senator VARDON:

Senator McGregor:

Senator VARDON:

Senator McGregor:

Senator VARDON:

Senator McGregor:

Senate
17 December 1912

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator FINDLEY:
Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

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

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

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

Senator READY:
Tasmania