View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
9 September 1915

6^th Parliament · 1^st Session

ASSENT TO BILLS
QUESTION
- APPOINTMENT OF DR. CARTY SALMON
CALL OF THE SENATE
- Absence of Senator Bakhap
QUESTION
- KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY
QUESTION
- TREATMENT OF MEN ENLISTED
QUESTION
- HAREFIELD HOSPITAL
QUESTION
- RECALL OF MEDICAL OFFICERS
QUESTION
- PATRIOTIC FUNDS
QUESTION
- LIVERPOOL CAMP
QUESTION
- DISTRICT COMMANDS
QUESTION
- DECEASED SOLDIERS’ EFFECTS
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN CAMPS
QUESTION
- WAR CENSUS
PAPERS
QUESTION
- LAUNCHING CEREMONIES
MILITARY ENCAMPMENT SITE, HAMILTON
QUESTION
- ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS
INCOME TAX BILL
REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL
INCOME TAX BILL
- Second Reading
THE SCHEDULES
FIRST SCHEDULE
SECOND SCHEDULE
- Rate of Taxupon Income Derivedfrom Property
QUESTION
- THIRD SCHEDULE
CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL
- Second Reading
REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Panama Exposition Commission
- Melbourne, 8th September, 1915
- Dear Senator Gardiner,

The President took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 6725

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills re ported: -

War Pensions Bill (No. 3).

Supply Bill (No. 2) 1915-16.

Supply (Works and Buildings) Bill (No. 2) 1016-16.

Sugar Purchase Bill.

War Census (Postal Matter) Bill.

Wireless Telegraphy Bill.

page 6726

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF DR. CARTY SALMON

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister of Defence if he has confirmed the appointment of Dr. Carty Salmon as medical officer in command of the Base Hospital, St. Kilda-road?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Upon inquiring into this matter I found that the appointment is one which does not come before the Minister for confirmation. Under the powers vested in the Commandants to call upon officers for service, the Victorian Commandant is vested with authority to make this appointment, and it was made in that way.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Has the Minister of Defence power to review appointments by the State Commandant, such as that of Dr. Carty Salmon to command the Base Hospital, Melbourne?

Senator PEARCE:

– -Every appointment is subject to review by the Minister, and by the Military Board. I understand that some objection has been taken to Dr. Salmon’s appointment on the ground that he has not practised as a doctor for a considerable time. I find on inquiry that the position is not medical, but administrative, and I therefore see no need to interfere with the’ Commandant’s action.

Senator LONG:
TASMANIA

– Is Dr. Carty Salmon identical with the high, great, glorious, and most worshipful grand’ master of the. Masonic Lodge of Victoria ?’ If the Minister has not that information now, can he supply it later.?

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not think that that is a question upon which the Defence Department can supply information.

Senator Long:

– I think your Selection Committee could.

page 6726

CALL OF THE SENATE

Absence of Senator Bakhap

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

– I have an explanation to make and an apology to offer to honorable senators for my absence when the call of the Senate took place on Thursday last. It will doubtless be recollected that I was in my place in this Chamber, and, as a matter of fact, spoke, during the early portion of Thursday’s sitting. A friend of mine, however, in terviewed me here, and. solicited my presence on a matter of some public importance at a place down the city. I therefore accompanied him thither, andupon attempting to returnfrom the bottom end of Collins-street I found myself impeded by the large concourse of people which had gathered to witness the funeral of the late Major-General Bridges. The result was that I reached the parliamentary buildings only to find that the Senate had just risen. I can assure honorable senators that. I was absent in no contumelious spirit, and I hope, therefore, that they will accept my apology.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That Senator Bakhap, having made a satisfactory explanation of his failure to answer the call of the Senate; and having apologized for his absence, be excused for failing to answer the. call.

page 6726

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Officials’ Employed: Cooks and Waiters

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Assistant Minister if he has yet obtained a reply to the questions which I put to him. some time ago in regard to the. number of officials engaged at the different railway offices in connexion with the transcontinental railway - at the Melbourne office, the Kalgoorlie office, and. the Port Augusta office?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

– I have not the informationyet, but I will endeavour to obtain it right away.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs received information regarding, the conditions and hours of cooks and. waiters at the western end of the transcontinental line?

Senator RUSSELL:

– I have received the following, information: -

Eight hours.
Fifty-six hours.
Cooks- Time of starting, 6 a.m.; time of finishing,6.30 p.m. Waiters and kitchenmen - time of starting, 6.30 a.m.; time of finishing, about 7 p.m., with the exception of two waiters, who take turn employed cutting cribs, (luncheon). This work finishes about 8.30 p.m.
From four to four and a half hours allowed, each employee
Seven days a week.
It is not proposed to reduce the number ofhours worked during the week, viz., fiftysix. Thesewere agreed tobythe union representing the employees.

page 6727

QUESTION

TREATMENT OF MEN ENLISTED

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On Tuesday last, in reply to a question which I put to the Minister of Defence, I was assured that men recruited at Sydney were not compulsorily sent away after they had been enlisted. In these circumstances, I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that I have received a letter from the Department informing me that men enlisted have been turned adrift, and that instructions were now being given to discontinue the practice?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– I am not aware that the honorable senator has received a letter from the Department. Has he received it from theDistrict Head-quarters?

Senator MILLEN:

– I have received it from the Melbourne Head-quarters. It is signed by Mr. Trumble.

Senator PEARCE:

– That letterhas been sent without my knowledge, and I would like “the honorable senator to let me have a copy of it. The information which Isupplied to the Senatewas that which hadbeenfurnished to me.

page 6727

QUESTION

HAREFIELD HOSPITAL

Treatment of Sick and Wounded soldiers.

SenatorNEEDHAM.- I ask the Ministerof Defence whetherhe has received any further information in connexion with the charges made regardingthe supply of food to sickand wounded soldiersat the Harefield Hospital, England’?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– On the 26th ultimo the honorable senator asked -

Has his attentionbeencalledto an article in the Melbourne Herald of Monday, 23rd August, where serious complaints are made by Australian soldiers as to the quality and quantity of thefood beingsupplied to Australian sick and wounded soldiersin the Harefield Hospital, England?
Will he make inquiries, and, if the statements are true, take such steps as will insure a plentiful supply of wholesome food?

The replies given to those questions were as follow: -

Yes.
Yes; immediate inquiries willbe instituted.

A cablegram in the following terms was accordingly despatched to the High Commissioner’s office: -

Articles appearing Melbourne Herald, 23rd inst., severely criticising arrangements Harefield, quoting Rita Fiske. Appears she furnishedmaterial articles; also Katherine Prichard,British Australasian. General nature complaint that insufficient food, indifferent ‘quality. Only goodmealthat provided A.N.A. picnic. No attention special cases, when men unable eat ordinary food. Minister would appreciate brief report week-end cable. anda reply as under has now been received -

Your week-end received here 31st. When complaints were made, High Commissioner personally investigated them. The Australian auxiliary hospitals are under Imperial authority, and British dietary scale was in force. He, out of RedCrossfunds from Australian branch, ‘authorized extras, since which complaints have ceased. Agent-General South Australia lives near the hospital; often visits it,andspeaks in highest terms of management, and contentment of men.

page 6727

QUESTION

RECALL OF MEDICAL OFFICERS

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:

– It is a fact that a considerable sum of money is being ex pended on huts at all our military camps; and we cannot suspend those operations, because if we did so there would be more complaints.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Is Colonel Kirkland still Commanding Officer at Liverpool Camp? I believe he was suspended for a time, or that something else was done in regard to him. Has he been reinstated in the position, or is it intended to continue him there ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Colonel Kirkland is the Camp Commandant at Liverpool. He has not, to my knowledge, been suspended. The question of his retention there is under consideration.

page 6728

QUESTION

DISTRICT COMMANDS

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister of Defence whether it is the policy of the Department to select officers in each military district to command the portions of our Expeditionary Forces which are raised in those districts, or whether officers are chosen in one district to command the men raised in another district?

Senator Pearce:

– To what commands does the honorable senator refer t

Senator LYNCH:

– To the appointment of officers in any given district. Do you select the men in that particular district for the Expeditionary Force commands?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– So far as the Expeditionary Forces are concerned, in the selection of officers for the higher commands we treat the Commonwealth as a whole. For the command of a brigade we select the officer that in the opinion of the military authorities is best fitted to command, no matter from what State he may come. In regard to subsidiary commands, we endeavour, as far as possible, to select the officers from the State in which the unit is being raised, because of their familiarity with the men of whom they will have the immediate command; but cases sometimes arise in which there is no officer deemed suitable in that particular district. Battalion commanders are sometimes brought from another district, but as a rule they are selected from the district from which the battalion is raised. So far as regards district administration in connexion with the camps, although not necessarily in connexion with the Expeditionary Forces, we treat the military list of the Commonwealth as a whole, calling up any officer we think fit from any district, and sending him to any part of the Commonwealth where we think his services can be made good use of.

Senator Lynch:

– There are complaints that men have been brought from other districts.

Senator PEARCE:

– That has been done where it has been deemed advisable.

page 6729

QUESTION

DECEASED SOLDIERS’ EFFECTS

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister of Defence received further information regarding the question asked by Senator Story about the control by Cook and Sons of the transportation of the effects of deceased soldiers?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The arrangement entered into with Cook and Sons is as follows : -

The effects of deceased soldiers of the Australian Imperial Force are dealt with as follows: -

The officer in charge of the AdjutantGeneral’s Office at the Base is responsible that the pay-book, and all available documents and effects, are searched for a copy of the will left by deceased; that the pay-book after the withdrawal of the will is sent to the paymaster, and that the will, and all documents of value, are transmitted, together with any other effects, to the Australian section of the Intermediate Base Depot, Alexandria.

The kit of the soldier, and any personal property which it is not desirable to send away, are sold or otherwise disposed of, and the amount realized by the sale is sent to the District Paymaster, and credited to. the deceased soldier’s account.

The personal effects of a sentimental value are not sold, but are disposed of in accordance with the directions in the will, or, if there is no will, they are transmitted direct to the next-of-kin shown in the soldier’s records.

Following on the procedure adopted by the Imperial authorities, who have arranged for effects of deceased members of the British Army to be forwarded to Messrs. Cox and Company, London, similar arrangements have been made by the Officer Commanding, Australian Intermediate Base Depot, Egypt, with the approval of the Minister for Defence, for Messrs. Cook and Son, in respect to deceased members of the Australian Imperial Force. Parcels containing these personal effects are handed over to Messrs. Cook and Son for despatch to relatives, th is firm acting merely as forwarding agents.

No information has yet been received regarding the rates to be paid for the service, put it is presumed that the cost will be based on the rates approved by the Imperial authorities for similar service for the British Forces. Particulars in this connexion are being obtained from the Officer Commanding, Australian Intermediate Base, Egypt.

The Minister of Defence has also approved of such effects being insured.

I would suggest to honorable senators that, as they will be repeatedly asked questions concerning this information, it would be well for them to cut it out of Hansard.

page 6729

QUESTION

TASMANIAN CAMPS

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Has the Minister of Defence received any report from Tasmania as to the necessity or desirability of establishing a second military camp in the northern part of the island?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– No report has yet been received.

page 6729

QUESTION

WAR CENSUS

Senator KEATING:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs aware that there is a very limited knowledge in the community as to the responsibility of every person over eighteen for making one of the returns under the war census, and that the limited character of that knowledge is most apparent amongst the female portion of the population? Will the Government take steps to have it brought home to the public that every person over the age of eighteen is bound to make one of the returns?

Senator RUSSELL:
ALP

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s representations under the notice of the Minister, to see what can be done to give greater prominence to the matter.

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

-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - Is it intended to require domestic servants to send in returns?

Senator Pearce:

– The Act says “ all persons.”

page 6729

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902-1011 and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1000-1912. - Regulations. - Statutory Rules 1915, No. 154.

European War - Further Correspondence with the United States Ambassador respecting the treatment of British Prisoners of War and Interned Civilians in Germany - Paper presented to British Parliament.

Lands Acquisition Act 1906 - Land acquired under, at -

Kalgoorlie, Western Australia - For Defence purposes.

Lytton, Queensland - For Quarantine purposes.

Public Service Act 1902-1913-

Appointments, on probation, without examination, of the following Engineer

Operators, Wireless Telegraph Stations : -

A.Bagot,Class F, Adelaide.

G.G. Phillips, Class E, Townsville.

Promotion ofR. W. Hamilton, as Clerk, 3rd Class, Accounts Branch(Expenditure), New . South Wales.

Return of Temporary Employees for the financial year 1914-15.

page 6730

QUESTION

LAUNCHING CEREMONIES

Supply of Intoxicants

Senator WATSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for ‘the Navy, upon notice -

Is it a fact thatintoxicating liquors were dispensed at the launching of the destroyer Torrens last Saturday at Cockatoo Island ? If so, and , in view of the example set by His Majesty the King in abolishingintoxicants fromhis household during the war period, does theMinister not consider that similar example should be shown at public functions such as the launching ofwar vessels? Will the Minister takesteps to preclude intoxicants being served at future launching ceremonies?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The answer is -

The practice followed at the launching of the Torrens will be followed at the launching of theBrisbane,that is, drinks of various kinds will be available, and those present may please themselves as to what they drink.

page 6730

MILITARY ENCAMPMENT SITE, HAMILTON

SenatorBLAKEY asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Has an officerofthe Department visited Hamilton (Victoria.) for the purpose of reporting on itssuitability as a military encampment site?

If so, has his report been presented?

Will the Minister state the nature of the recommendations contained therein and will he give effectto same?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– Theanswers are -

Yes.
Yes.
The recommendationswere adverse to establishing a Campat Hamilton at thepresent time.

page 6730

QUESTION

ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

In view of the urgent need for medical menat the seat of war, and of the serious depletion of the medical staffs in the public hospitals of Australia to supply adequate medical attendance to our troops, will the Minister take steps to insure that the many duly qualified, law-abiding, reputable medical men long established in Melbourne, with other medical men, including the homoeopathic practitioners over the Commonwealth, shall receive the official circular issued to Australian medical men under the direction of the Medical Department inviting their services in a professionalcapacity to serve their country at homo or abroad?
1. Have some of these gentlemen expressed their desire so to serve and received in reply to their written application formal acknowledgments practically shelving their request, while mere youths (newly qualified) have received responsible appointments in all directions as army medical officers at home and abroad ?
2. Does the Minister of Defence not consider that the medical body controlling the Australian branches of the British Medical Association have used the powers intrusted to it by his Department against a section of their brethren in the profession because of some trifling question of medical ethics, while the country is in urgent needof the professional services of all?

Senator PEARCE:

– With reference to the honorable senator’s questions, I am informed by the Deputy Director-General of Medical Services as follows: -

The circular was not official. Steps have been taken to insure that the British Medical Association’s circular will be sent, if possible, to all reputable medical men registered in the Commonwealth. Homoeopathic methods of treatment in military hospitals cannot be recognised. 2.No information is to hand, but it will be obtained.
No information is to hand at present that the British Medical Association have used their powers in the manner suggested. Stepshave been taken to insure that no offers of service by reputable medical men will be turned down bythe Department.

page 6730

INCOME TAX BILL

Bill received fromthe House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orderssuspended,and(on motion by Senator Russell) Bill read a firsttime.

page 6730

REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL

Billreceived firom the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and (on motion by Senator Gardiner) Bill read a first time.

page 6730

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1st September (vide page 6527), on motion by Senator Russell -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western: Australia

– At this late stage of the debate it is not my intention; to occupy very much time- in the consideration of this measure, because nearly everything that can. be said on the subject has already been said by the different speakers. When we adjourned the discussion on the Bill, I was pointing out that an income tax for war purposes is somewhat similar to a premium for insurance, and, consequently,, the greater amount of property or income enjoyed by a person the greater will be the premium he will be called upon to pay for his insurance. Every one, therefore, will admit that this tax is fair in its incidence, because we know that the greater portion of revenue derived from Customs and Excise duties is paid by the poorer classes of the community.. In no State has this burden been heavier than in Western Australia, where the revenue collected in the first few years of Federation from this source was about £6 per head of the population. I have prepared some figures bearing on this subject, in order that we may know whether, in levying this tax, we shall be going to the extreme, or shall merely get a fair amount of revenue. Under Mr. Fisher’s War Budget, if I may be permitted to apply that term to it, the Treasurer estimates that the income tax will bring in something like £4,000,000. In the Commonwealth the total of Customs and Excise revenue is about £1’5,000,000 sterling, collected from about 5,000,000 people, so the income tax will represent rather less than one-third of the Customs duties, whereas in the United Kingdom, instead of the Customs and1 Excise- dutiesbeing’ two-thirds greater than the income tax, the income tax will really produce’ the larger amount, thus showing that direct taxation, in the Old Country is. greater than, the indirect taxation through the Customs.

Senator Lynch:

– The direct taxation in Australia is much lighter than in the United Kingdom.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– At one time Australia was. very lightly taxed. To-day it is much more heavily taxed, and the taxation is. growing still heavier. We must bear it. in order to carry on the war, and no vote of mine will be cast for any departure from that principle, but. I would urge upon honorable senators’ the importance of economy in the administration of our ordinary affairs so as to satisfy the people that we are not raising money simply, to squander it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clauses1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Definitions).

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. (‘New South. Wales), [4..44].-

The wording of the. definition of” absentee “ is peculiar. If a man whose, business, interests are all in Australia goes away for twelve or eighteen months, will he be. classed as an absentee?

Senator Russell:

– No; he simply has to satisfy the Commissioner that he resides in Australia.

Clause agreed to..

Clauses 4 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 11-

The following incomes, revenues, and funds shall he exempt from income tax:. -

the revenue of a municipal corporation or other local governing body or of a public authority;
the income of a society registered under a Friendly Societies Act of the Commonwealth or a State, and not carried on for pecuniary profit; (c), the income of a trade union;
the income of a religious, scientific, charitable, or public educational institution;
the income derived from the bonds, debentures, stock, or other securities of the Commonwealth issued for the purposes of the War Loan Act (No. 1) 1915;
the income of a provident, benefit, or superannuation fund established for the benefit of the employees in any business ; and
the salary of the Governor-General and the salaries of the Governors of the States.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [4.48].- I should like to see the exemption go further, as indicated in my second-reading speech, and include other organizations or societies not carried on for pecuniary profit. I therefore move -

Thatthe words “ or any society or organization not carried on for pecuniary profit “ be added to paragraph b.

The organizations I have in mind are cricket clubs, football clubs, or any bodies of that kind, established to promote sport, and not forthe pecuniary benefit of any particular member.

Senator Russell:

– Would you exempt such clubs as the Australian Jockey Club, and the Victorian Racing Club, and the Melbourne Cricket Club ?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– We might make some exception with regard to them.

Senator Bakhap:

– It must not be forgotten that the racing clubs have been most generous in their donations to war funds. Theyhave given far more than would be extracted ‘from them by way of taxation.

Senator Russell:

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That paragraphc be amended by the addition of the following words: - “or of an association of employers or employees registered under any Act of the Commonwealth or a State, relating to the settlement of industrial disputes.”

The object of the amendment is simply to prevent the measure from being lopsided. As exemptions are granted to trade unions, it is also desired to exempt employers’ unions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 -

The income of any person shall include -

profits derived from any trade or business and converted into stockintrade, or added to the capital of, or in any way invested in the trade or business.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [5.10].- I am not quite clear as to how far this clause will affect persons who are engaged in business. A certain amount of stock has to be disposed of before a man can have any profits to convert into stockintrade. Suppose that he re-invests the money in the purchase of fresh stock, will that be taxable?

Senator Russell:

– The object of the clause is really to prevent persons from converting part of their income into capital and dodging the tax.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– A man in trade expects to turn his stock over twice or thrice in a year. Suppose that in the second portion of the year he replenishes his stock out of a good deal of the profits which he made in the first portion of the year, will that money be taxable ?

Senator Russell:

– He will be taxable on any profits which he has made on the deal.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Suppose that a man started with £10,000 worth of stock, and that out of his profits he got another £5,000 worth of stock, will he have to pay the tax on the £5,000 ?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– Suppose that a man starts at the beginning of a year for whichthe assessment is made with £10,000 worth of stock. He may turn that stock” over, but he will have the exemption of the £10,000 in stock. Men do not as a rule sell or buy stock for the fun of the thing. If they buy £10,000 worth of stock they generally endeavour to sell it for at least £12,000 or £14,000. In the event of a man turning over his stock, and re-stocking, he will still be allowed ‘the .exemption of the £10,000 he had in capital. If he makes a profit of £3,000 or £4,000 in turning the stock over, that amount will be taxable, because it will be income as differentiated from capital.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South. Wales) [5.13].- It must “be remembered that in earning a profit of £2,000 6r £3,000 a man will have to meet’ the ordinary expenses of living and carrying on the business. A. provision of this character will, I think, have a tendency to deter a .man from increasing the value of his stock-in-trade. If a man starts to trade with £10,000 worth of stock, practically what the clause does is to limit him to that amount, and he will not be able to increase the value of his stock without having in the first instance to pay toll to the Government. In other words, if he wants to put £2,000 of his profits into new stock he will have to pay toll to .the Government in respect to that amount, and then the value of his stock will .run up to something like £10,000. We ought to ,do all in our power to encourage a man to increase and enlarge his business. If a trader has the misfortune to ‘lose a couple of thousand pounds he will get no consideration, practically, in respect to the loss. Why should he not be dealt with in the same way when he has the good fortune to make a profit to that extent ?

Senator Russell:

– A man who loses in business will not have to pay the tax on the amount of his loss.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The Business man will have to take all the risk, and -the Government will stand to win all the way through. If a man makes a loss he will have to ‘put up with the loss, but if he makes a little profit the Government will come along and take their toll out of it.

Senator RUSSELL:
.Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– May I point out that the business of ‘a man in buying and selling stock is treated as an ordinary trading account, and the income tax is levied only on the profits of the business. A man has a right to debit his losses against his profits, and it is the net profit that is the basis of taxation. If he makes no profit, he will not be taxed.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 (Agent selling goods for foreign principal).

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– It is not very often that in considering a taxation measure an honorable senator rises to suggest that the scale of taxation proposed may be somewhat too low. Without committing myself to that view straightway, I should like to ask the Minister why it is deemed that the profit derived from the sale of foreign goods is only £5 per cent, upon the price at which the goods were sold. We have to consider that the agent is an agent for a trade absentee. I understand that the settled fiscal policy of the Commonwealth is one of Protection, and it occurs to me that in this connexion we might do something to encourage Australian trade. I am of opinion that people who export goods to Australia on a very large scale are not satisfied with a .profit of 5 per cent. No doubt the Government have consulted their experts in fixing the profit at this rate, but perhaps the Minister will be able to inform the Committee as to the manner in which the 5 per cent, has been arrived at. Many of these trade absenteesare foreigners, and many of them were inhabitants of countries that are now hostile to us. I feel sure that they make a great -deal more “than “5 per cent, profit on -their -exports to Australia. Without committing myself to the ‘view that ‘5 per -cent, -is too low to adopt as a standard, I ask the Minister -to explain how it has been arrived at.

Senator .RUSSELL (Victoria - Assistant Minister^ :[5.1<8]. - I can only say that after all it is necessary to adopt an approximate and average Tate.

Senator Bakhap:

– By whom is it fixed ?

Senator RUSSELL:

– This rate has been fixed by the State authorities. A similar clause is to be found in the different State Income Tax Acts. We have been guided by experience in the matter, and it is thought that it is reasonable to estimate the average profit at 5 per cent.

Senator GUY:
Tasmania

.- In perusing the Bill some time ago, I was struck by what has attracted the attention of Senator Bakhap. It appeared to me that to fix -5 per cent, as the average profit made by absentee traders was to fix a rate very much below the mark. I could refer to some who are not making 5, 10, or 15, but up to 25, per cent, profit and more. I think that 5 per cent, is a very low estimate. If the clause passes in its present form I think that our experience will indicate the necessity for increasing the rate. I should be pre- pared to support an amendment fixing; the rate of profit at 10 per cent.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [5.21].- Honorable senators have to bear in mind that in considering the< profit made on goods sent into this country the absentee traders have to take into account the cost of the administration of their business. Considerable expense is often necessarily involved in canvassing the country, in advertising, and in the upkeep’ of agencies. While I am not prepared to say that no more than 5 per cent, profit is. made in many instances, we> must. have, regard to the average profit made.. Many goods sent out do- not catch on with the public. They are found to be unsuitable, and a loss is made upon them. On another class, of goods a. profit of 10 or 15 per cent., may be made after paying all expenses. This has to go* to meet the loss on unsaleable lines, and so the- average profit is reduced. I suggest, that the Government might require the. agents of absentee traders to submit returns of their businesses, showing what expenses hav® been properly incurred’ in connexion therewith, and what profit has’ really been made,, and let that be the basis of taxation.. By that means, the difficulty which has been suggested could be overcome.

Senator Bakhap:

– I believe such a provision would lead to a, great, accession, of revenue.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I am aware; that a clause, similar to clause 15 is. to be.ound in theState Income Tax Acts.

Senator Russell:

– This rate is fixed, in accordance with the actual experience of years.

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

-Colonel. Sir ALBERT’ GOULD. - If the- Committee’ bo desired, they might adopt some- such provision, as I have suggested- in order to, make sure> that no one could, avoid the. taxation- he should rightly pay. I am disposed, to. think that over, the business* of the year, it, would be found that, the, averagerofit would not amount- to- more- than 5- per cent.

Clause agreed to..

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 -

Tin connexion, with income derived from, mining operations (other than, coal-mining) carried on in Australia, the following provisions, ,-, apply: - (a), the ……… required1 by this Act- to be made’ by the person deriving the- in come in the first place shall show the total income so derived- during the calendar year in respect of which the return is compiled;

the capital expended by the person carrying on the mining- operationsin, necessary plant and development of a. mining property from which income has been received (less the distributed” and undistributed income derived prior to the year 19M by that person ) shall be- divided by theestimated number- of years during which payable mining operationsmay be expected to. continue under normal conditions’, and’ the- quotient thus obtained shall, in addition toany other deductions allowed by this Act, be deducted from the income; to) where separate and distinct mining; operations, are carried on by the same person, either alone’ or in- association with any other- person, and) a profit is made on some, and a. loss, is made- on others, that person shall be entitled to deduct the sum of the losses from- the sum of the profits; and the balance of profits: (if any), shall-, be: included in the income of, that person..

Amendments; (by Senator Russell). agreed: to. -

That the word’ “ calendar,” line. 9, be- left out, with a view- to insert, in. lieu thereof- the word “ financial.”

That the word” “year,” line 1.7; be left out,, with a view to insert in lieu thereof theword’s “‘financial year beginning- the- first, day o* July.’.’*

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

l- Sir ALBERT G’OULD (New South Wales) [5.-.261].. - This clause refers- to the estimated number of years during which payable mining operations’ may be expected to continue under normal1 conditions. It- is- at very hard matter to foretell how long a mine will’ last. Is it not possible in anyway te- limit the term of years ? If wetake the case of the- Mount Morgan mine, honorable- senators may remember that ittook a new lease’ of life when it was discovered1 that it was a great copper- mine.

Senator- Russell. - Is- not the clausein accordance with actual practice ? Themining company will give its estimate, and the- Commissioner’ will’ give his. There may be arbitration’ to fix the lifeof a mine.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I still say that it is a very difficult matter- to estimate the life of a mine.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I should be only too, glad to accept the assistance of the honorable senator to make the clause more definite. For the information of honorable senators I may give a simple illustration. I take the case of a mining company with an income of £1,000 per year, capital expended on plant, £5,500, less profits distributed or otherwise, £500, leaving a total of £5,000. Years during which mine is estimated to be payable, say, ten years. Dividing the £5,000 by ten we get £500, the amount on which income tax is assessable.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– The only trustworthy means of determining the life of a mine is afforded by the extent of its ore reserves. The life of a mine can only be guessed if we attempt to estimate it beyond the life it may be expected to have judging by its ore reserves actually disclosed and tested. The language of the clause is rather vague. Unless the Department administering the Act is willing to accept the computations of responsible officers of mining companies, the vagueness of the language of this clause may give rise to a good deal of friction between the taxing department and mining companies.

Senator Russell:

– We must leave this to administration. We could not undertake to value mines here.

Senator BAKHAP:

– It is a very difficult matter to decide, and I would not lightly attempt to interfere with the language of the clause. Naturally the administration will wish to see the amount of capital which may be deducted within a given year reduced by the extension of the period for which it may be deducted. As one who has had some connexion with mining operations, a word of wisdom to the administration may be of some account. I believe that if the responsible officials of mining companies are confided in, and if their estimates of ore reserves and of the length of time during which their companies are likely to continue operations, be accepted, the clause will operate satisfactorily. But if, on the other hand, the Department raises unnecessary obstacles, a good deal of unpleasantness will be occasioned. I hope that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will he sensibly administered, and that no unnecessary irritation will be caused to mining companies.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 -

In calculating the taxable income of a taxpayer, the total income derived by the tax payer from all sources in Australia shall betaken as a basis, and from it there shall be deducted -

Such sum as the Commissioner thinks just and reasonable as representing the diminished value per centum of wear and tear, during the year in which the income was derived, of any machinery, implements, utensils, rolling-stock, and articles used by the taxpayer for the purpose of producing income. . . . (ft) Contributions exceeding £5 in the aggregate in respect of each object of contribution made during the continuance of the present war to any public fund established in any part of the King’s Dominions, or in any country in alliance with Great Britain for any purpose connected with the present war. . . .
Five per centum of the total amount paid in the year in which the income is derived in respect of calls on the shares of a company; and
sums set aside or paid by an employer of labour as or to a fund to provide individual personal benefits, pensions, or retiring allowances to employees :

Provided that the deduction shall not be allowed unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the fund has been established, or the payment made in such a manner that the rights of the employees to receive the benefits, pensions, or retiring allowances have been fully secured.

Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -

That the word “of,” line 3, of paragraph e, be left out, with a view to insert the word “by” in lieu thereof.

Amendment (by Senator Russell) proposed -

That before the word “ Contributions “ in paragraph h, the words Gifts exceeding twenty pounds each to public charitable institutions in Australia and “ be inserted.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [5.33].- This paragraph relates to a matter to which I alluded a little time ago, and I ask the Assistant Minister to agree to the retention of the provision in its present form. As a matter of fact, I would like to see an even lower amount fixed as the exemption in this connexion, but I recognise the difficulty to which the honorable gentleman has referred.

Senator Russell:

– Twenty pounds is the amount adopted in the State Income Tax Acts.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I recognise the difficulty that may be experienced in getting returns which will satisfy the Commissioner that the deductions are being honestly made. But I would suggest that the amount of £5 should be adhered bo, and that by regulation it should be declared that no such deduction will be allowed in the absence of receipts for the contributions which taxpayers claim to have made. That would overcome the difficulty which the Assistant Minister has stressed. I need scarcely point out that gifts of £5 in the aggregate may be made up of contributions of 10s. each, and that in such circumstances the task of verifying the claims will be just as difficult as it would be in the case of larger amounts.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– We all recognise that our charitable institutions must be supported. It is not the usual practice in connexion with contributions to these organizations to ask a taxpayer for receipts. People recognise that if they do not give up to a certain standard they will inevitably be taxed, because our charitable institutions must be maintained. The Government do not think that a man who is receiving more than £156 a year is particularly generous if he contributes £5 annually to these organizations, but when an individual gives something in excess of £20 - it may be a donation of £20,000, or even of £100,000 - it is only right that he should be allowed to deduct that amount from his taxable income. To my mind, the suggestion of Senator Gould is a little too small to bother about. If every taxpayer who claims the right to deduct from his taxable income the amount of his contributions to charitable institutions is obliged to produce receipts for those contributions, we shall require to employ a staff of clerks for the purpose of checking the receipts. In such circumstances we should collect a larger revenue by discarding the receipts and accepting all the statements contained in the schedules of taxpayers.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [5.40].- According to the Assistant Minister, if I choose to say that I have contributed during the year £5 in the aggregate to our war funds, I am to be permitted to deduct that amount from my taxable income. But there must surely be some check upon the statements of taxpayers.

Senator Russell:

– Read the proviso.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

.- It reads-

Provided that payments shall not be allowable as deductions under this paragraph unless verified to the satisfaction of the Commissioner.

But the Assistant Minister has himself pointed out that it will be difficult to obtain receipts. I contend that it will not. If, for example, a man contributes annually to the Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, he obtains a receipt for his donation. In addition, there is usually an acknowledgment made in the public press. This is a necessary check on the collector. I think it would be a fair thing to reduce the amount in respect of which a deduction is allowable to £5.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -

That the word “ and “ in paragraph i be left out.

Amendment (by Senator Russell) proposed -

That after paragraph i the following proviso be inserted : - “ Provided that the total amount of calls paid in the year in which the income, is derived shall be deducted in the case of calls on shares in a mining company; and”

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– Whilst I heartily approve of the amendment, may I ask the Assistant Minister why this privilege is not to be extended to calls made by all companies ?

Senator Russell:

– Suppose that a bank desired to strengthen its finances by making a call upon the unpaid capital ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– Would not that capital be available for the purpose of creating income which would be taxed under the provisions of this measure?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– It is generally assumed that mining calls are made either because the mine is not prospering or because a great deal of developmental work has to be done. If the latter, of course, a lucky find may be made. On the other hand, most banks have only half their capital called up.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– In the majority of them all the capital is called up.

Senator RUSSELL:

– It is putting it at a low figure to assume that the banks have at least 10 per cent of capital to call up, and at a time like the present they might think it desirable to call it up, not because they are not doing well, but because world conditions generally are not satisfactory. In a case of that kind! the. individual would be putting something into capital, and it would be fair to allow him to deduct only 5 per cent. Calls in a mining company are, generally speaking, a different proposition.

Amendment agreed to

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the following new proviso be added to paragraphj: - “ Provided also that if the Commissioner is satisfied that a sum has been so set aside or paid by any person to provide individual personal benefits, pensions, or retiring allowances to employees in any business, the person setting aside or paying the sum shall be entitled to deduct it.”

There are companies in Australia like the British and’ Australian Tobacco Company, which in respect of funds of that kind are practically “holding” companies. The proceeds of the funds are generously given: to the employees, and we think it desirable to exempt payments of that kind.

Senator Turley:

– That is, the amounts the firms pay in?

Senator RUSSELL:

– Yes.,

Amendment agreed, to.

Senator GRANT:
New South. Wales

– I desire to move the addition of a new proviso to the effect that such payments shall not be regarded, as a set off against any claims that may be made under any Employers’ Liability Act, Commonwealth or State. There are in the various States Employers.” Liability Acts under which employees may recover compensation for injuries received in working hours through the carelessness of the employer or of fellowemployees, and in order to circumvent the provisions of those Acts the employers have established funds to which they themselves contribute, and to which the employees are also invited to contribute, but the money is only recoverable by the employee conditionally on his agreeing not to proceed against the employer under the terms of the Employers’ Liability Act. The effect is to completely destroy the provisions of such Acts, contrary to the intention of Parliament.

– And discourage him from insuring his employees.

Senator GRANT:

– I know that Senator Bakhap is always anxious to assist the employers, but I am not desirous of doing anything o’f the kind, and I therefore move -

That the following words be added to paragraph j : - o “’ .’But :any .payments made out o’f such funds under the preceding section to an employee shall not invalidate any -claim that an employee may have under the provisions of .any Employers’ Liability Act:”

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Needham:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Looking at the .new proviso proposed to be inserted by Senator Grant, and comparing it with the Bill, in my opinion it is not relevant, and therefore T rule that it is not in order.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 -

In the case of a person (other than a company -or an absentee) there shall be deducted, in .addition to the sums set forth in the last preceding section, the followingsums : -
1. The sum of Thirteen pounds in respect of each child of .the taxpayer ‘under the age -.of -sixteen -years. . -.. .

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– I draw the Minister’s attention to the totally insufficient ‘sum to be deducted in respect of each child under the age of sixteen years. The settled policy of the Government is to encourage the .growth of population, and I understand that was the object of the £5 maternity bonus. I notice in this morning’s newspaper that a learned professor has stated that the maternity bonus probably has had someeffect in the desired direction; but I submit that a deduction of £13 is altogether insufficient. That deduction is made by some of the States, which, until recently, wore very much more in need of revenue than the Commonwealth, and if the Commonwealth has been in the habit of doing; things on a very much larger scale, because of its greater revenue, and because^ the destinies of the nation have been committed to its care, it would not be out of place to allow a much larger deduction than £13.

Senator Russell:

– Do you not think that, ‘before we ‘do so, wo ought !to increase the pensions in respect of a child under the War Pensions Act? This is the amount we allow under that Act.

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator KEATING:

– The honorable senator said, I think, that he voted for a pension of £13, feeling at the time that it was not adequate, and that now he wishes to adhere to that sum. But, as Senator Bakhap pointed out, the cases are entirely different. In one case we made provision for the widow and the children of a deceased soldier - not necessarily for their whole and sole maintenance. We do not expect that the widow and the children are to sit still, do nothing, and live on what the Commonwealth gives them. We did not profess for a moment that that amount was to defray the whole cost of their maintenance. What this amendment seeks to do is to make a reasonable reduction from a taxpayer’s income of the actual cost of maintaining his children. The cases are entirely different. Senator Bakhap has suggested that if the Assistant Minister were on a Bench to decide a maternity case, in all probability he would allow more than 5s. a week for the child. I also think that he would. But what would be the position in the case of a person who is bound by an order of the Court to pay a certain sum for the maintenance of an illegitimate child? If an order of 7s. 6d. per week is made against him, will he not be able to show that there is an actual payment out of his income in respect to which he is entitled to the deduction of that sum per week? The parent of a child born in wedlock will be entitled only to a deduction of £13. It seems: to me that the. father of an illegitimate child can put up a very good claim that he is entitled to deduct from his income more than that sum. Is that a desirable state of things to set up ? Is it not penalizing, so to speak legitimacy? I hope that the Minister will see the desirableness of having an exemption more in keeping with the situation, such as the £20 suggested by Senator Bakhap.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The suggestion to increase the amount of the exemption allowed in respect to children has come from a very strange political quarter., Nowadays I am prepared to hear of almost anything occurring; but; when we find the party which, in the past, did so much to saddle the burden of taxation on the. shoulders of those least able to bear it, striving to outrival the Labour party, we are justified in assuming that there is something more than a genuine desire behind this proposal. It has been suggested from time to time that this f orm of taxation is of a class character, and, therefore, must necessarily exempt some sections of society. In this measure we endeavoured to hold the scale evenly between those who can pay the tax and those who cannot. But now it is urged that we have not done the fair thing.

Senator Ready:

– Who said that?

Senator LYNCH:

– It has been implied very clearly in the suggestions which have been made during the last three or four minutes. In the circumstances, we are justified, I think, in believing that there is nothing genuine behind this attempt to force the Government to change their attitude, because we know from an experience extending over a. number of years that whenever an attempt was made to equalize the burden of taxation, it came rather from the Labour party than from its opponents. It is much too late in the day for our friends on the other side to talk as, they are now doing, because the conduct of their party is ample proof that, on the present occasion, they are not squaring the precepts of the present with the actions of the past. Before I am put: in a false light, sir, I repudiate the suggestions from honorable senators on your left, that I am less a sympathiser with those who cannot bear the burden of taxation than they are.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GO OLD (New South Wales) [8.18].- Like Senator Bakhap I resent the charges which have been made by Senator Lynch against the party to which I belong. If Senator Findley had proposed an exemption of £26 in the case of each child, and honorable senators upon this side of the chamber had opposed it, no man would have been louder in his denunciation of them than would Senator Lynch. The honorable senator gave his position entirely away when he said that he feared the Greeks: when they brought gifts, because that was an admission that he is prepared to judge this proposal, not upon its merits, but upon its source of origin. I would remind him that this is not the first occasion - apart from the example of Tasmania - upon which a similar provision has been inserted in an Income Tax Bill. In New South Wales a deduction of £50 is allowed in the case of each child.

Senator Lynch:

– That State followed the lead of Western Australia.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Yes. A smaller deduction is made in Western Australia. Yet the honorable senator has declared that this is the most liberal taxation measure that has ever been submitted to a British Parliament. In Western Australia the exemption allowed for every child is £10, and in New South Wales it is £50. Yet the honorable senator, because we think that a deduction of £13 for every child is utterly inadequate, and suggest that it should be increased to £20, holds up his hands in pious horror. I say that we should deal with this matter on its merits. I am content to stand by the amendment of Senator Bakhap. It is a much fairer proposal than is that of the Government, which will afford very little relief to the more wealthy classes of the community. On the other hand, we have to remember that to men with limited incomes the amount of the exemption is very important.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– Since Senator Keating spoke upon this question I have taken the trouble to make myself familiar with the position which obtains in certain of the States. I have learned that the honorable senator is either quite unacquainted with the facts, or that he has made statements which cannot bear scrutiny. The position in Tasmania is that a certain deduction is allowed for every child, but that deduction is rigidly limited to incomes of less than £150 of taxable value. In other words, any person with a taxable income in excess of that amount receives no allowance whatever for the children which he has to maintain. This clause, which proposes to authorize a deduction of £13 for every child under sixteen years of age, is the most liberal provision - with the exception of that operative in New South Wales - that has ever been brought before any Parliament. Evidently Senator Keating does not know the income tax law of his own State, otherwise he would scarcely have affirmed that it is a more liberal form of taxation-

Senator Keating:

– I said that the principle as introduced there was more liberal.

Senator LYNCH:

– I stand by my former statement that, excluding New South Wales, this Bill represents the most liberal form of income tax that has ever been brought before a British Parliament. The Tasmanian law is not nearly so liberal, for the reason that it makes no allowance for the children of taxpayers who have a taxable income in excess of £150 per annum.

Senator Findley:

– And that legislation was enacted in peace time, whereas we are living in a time of war.

Senator LYNCH:

Pensions Act we should allow the same amount in this Bill. He admitted that £13 was not adequate to pay for the sustenance of a child for a year, but, forsooth, because we have made a mistake in one measure we are to repeat it in another ! The two Bills are not so interrelated as to make that necessary. As Senator Bakhap pointed out, the putative father of an illegitimate child would probably be ordered by the Bench to pay, not 5s., but 7s. 6d. per week. In such a case he would be able to claim afterwards a greater deduction from his income than £13 per annum, whereas another man would get a reduction of only £13 for a legitimate- child.

Senator Russell:

– I never heard one Opposition voice- ask for more than £13: for the soldier’s child.

Senator KEATING:

– We all agree that that amount is. not adequate, but in passing the War Pensions Act Parliament did not purport to give to- the widow and children of a deceased soldier such a* sum as would enable them to do nothing for the rest of their lives. In this case we are purporting to tax the man s income, and in order to ascertain his net income we must ascertain what he has left after discharging certain obligations, one of which is the maintenance of Irischildren. We all agree that £13 is not enough to maintain a child for a year. Why, then, cannot we allow more, seeing that we want to arrive at the income which a man receives, less the deductableexpenses ? I should not have, spoken tonight but for Senator’s Lynch ‘s outburst. He said he would shed light on the situation, but a reference to Mr. Knibbs’ book goes to show that he was wrong in saying that this was the. first instance- of the introduction of a liberal measure comtaining a provision of this kind. His, own State has had a similar provision, and so have New South Wales and Tasmania, and I still think that Tasmania was the first to. give legislative recognition to the principle. Senator Bakhap; was interested in doing this. Then what is more natural than that he should seek to give effect to it in this atmosphere in the best possible way, if he could not induce the Tasmanian Parliament to do better than it did ? Why he in doing it, and I in supporting it, should be animadverted on as we have been by Senator Lynch, I am. at a loss- to know, if thisChamber is to retain its character as a deliberative assembly., One, would infer from what Senator Lynch said, that if anything is proposed_ from this side,. its merits will be absolutely ignored and only its origin taken into consideration. Apparently, men, and not measures or the merits of those measures, will determine the honorable senator’s attitude towards them.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– Not more than a week ago I said I would take my full share of responsibility for placing this Government measure on the statute-book, because I did not indulge in any lip-service when I’ said I. wanted to give the Government a full measure of loyal support. They have had it, but perhaps it has not been greatly valued because the numerical strength on this side is not great. They have had as much support as we have been able to accord them, but surely that support did not involve the abrogation of our right, to improve the details of any taxation measure and make it more equitable and suitable to the hard and hardening conditions of the people, particularly the married people of the community? In order to completely free myself from Senator Lynch’s imputation that I, or anybody associated with me, was seeking a superior electoral standing in the eyes of the citizens, I am prepared, if the Government will agree to increase this deduction.,, to vote to reduce the exemption for single persons from £156 to £125 per annum. In Tasmania there is a discrimination between married and unmarried persons. Incomes under £80 are exempt in the case of unmarried persons, or- of £100 in the case of married persons, widows-, and widowers maintaining at least one child’ under the age- of sixteen-. If the Government are afraid that this amendment will substantially reduce the amount returned! by the tax- to- thenational exchequer, I am prepared, inorder to show that I am not seeking votes, to vote- to reduce the- exemption for unmarried persons to- £125. Single persons receiving £126 and over are more fittedto pay some taxation at this juncturethan are married people- receiving incomes of £156 and over. If the Minister will not accept that challenge, let us hear no more of this charge of endeavouring to improve our standing with the electors, because we address ourselves, as is our duty, to the consideration, of the details of a measure which has already been adopted without division on its first and second readings.

Question - that the word proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 3

NOES: 23

Majority … … 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 -

Where a taxpayer, either alone or with other persons carries on or is interested as a partner in more than one business the income (if any) from which would be taxable, and makes a profit in one or more of such businesses, and a loss in another or others, the taxpayer shall he entitled to deduct the sum of the losses from the sum of the profits.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.50].- I would like to have some explanation from the Minister with regard to this clause. Suppose a taxpayer is in a partnership with two or three different people in different concerns, what will be the position ? For instance, “ A “ and “ B “ might be in one business, “ A “ and “ C “ in another, and “A” and “D” in another. If “ A “ made a loss in one partnership, would he be entitled to deduct that loss from the gains in the other two?

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 -

A company which has at any time before or after the commencement of this Act borrowed money on debentures, shall be deemed to be the agent for each debenture-holder, so far as may be necessary for the purposes of this Act.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.52].- When speaking on the second reading, I put a case that will be touched by this clause. Suppose a company has issued bearer debentures with coupons attached for the payment of interest - how will that work under a clause of this character? The company will not know who are the holders of these debentures, and will not know how to deduct any money they may have been paid. Again, it might so happen that a debenture-holder will have made a return, and paid his income tax in respect of the interest he had derived from the debentures, and the company that issued the debentures would have no way of ascertaining whether that had been done or not. Is it not possible to make some alteration in the clause to get over the difficulty ?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I am sorry that I cannot hold out very much hope to the honorable senator. We cannot accept the responsibility of telling private business people how they are to run their ownbusinesses.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– We are not asking that. We are asking you how you are to run your own ?

Senator RUSSELL:

– We say that the income derived from debentures shall be taxed like income derived from any other source, and we hold the company responsible as the agent of the debenture-holder. We shall probably collect it from the company, which, in turn, will have to make whatever business arrangements may be necessary in relation to the debentureholders.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.54].- I would suggest that a simple course would be to allow the company in every case to be responsible for income tax in respect of a debenture, and then to deduct what they had paid by way of income tax from the holder when the debenture became payable, if it could not be done earlier. It is almost impossible to deal with the clause on any equitable basis as it stands at present. There is another difficulty. Suppose the company has issued bearer debentures, and there is £5 payable on each debenture, how much will be deducted in respect of income tax on them ? At present the clause presents all sorts of difficulties.

Senator RUSSELL:
Victoria · ALP

.- The honorable senator must know that there are thousands of difficulties in connexion with an Income Tax Bill, but I have no doubt that the Commissioner will do all that is possible to facilitate its successful working, and overcome the difficulties that may arise from time to time.

Clause agreed to.

Clause25 -

Partners shall be assessed and liable in respect of the income derived by them as partners as if it had been derived by a single person, without regard to the respective interests therein or to any deductions to which any of them may be entitled under this Act, and without taking into account any income derived by any one of them separately or as partner with any other person.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.57].- In regard to this clause, which deals with the assessment of partners, some explanation is necessary. Take the case of a firm in which there are four partners, and assume that their earnings total £2,000 a year, so that each partner will be entitled to draw £500. Is it fair that each should be taxed as if he had received an income of £2,000 ? If we are going to say that the partnership firm is to be taxed as if there were just one income, we shall be outraging the ordinary principle of justice. I can conceive that when the clause was put into the Bill, in the first instance, attention had not been drawn to this aspect of the case; and 1 would point out now that it is not fair to place partners in that position. Something ought to be done to relieve them. I am quite sure that a clause could readily be obtained from one of the State Acts to get over the difficulty if it is desired to have a specific provision dealing with partners.

Senator RUSSELL:
Victoria · ALP

.- The honorable senator is quite mistaken as to the power of the clause dealing with partners. Partners will be taxed as individuals, in so far as the profits of the partnership are distributed, but they will be taxed collectively on the undistributed profit. That is to say, if a partnership business made £10,000 profits, and after dividing £5,000 amongst the partners, put the other £5,000 into the firm, they would pay collectively on the latter amount on the higher scale.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 -

In the assessment of any person (other than a company) who derives the income in the first place, there shall be deducted from the total tax assessable to that person so much of the total tax as bears to the total tax the proportion which that part (if any) of the whole income which is distributed to any other taxpayer, who is entitled to receive it as income, bears to the whole income.

Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -

That after the word “ company,” line 2, the words “ or a trustee “ be inserted.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the following new sub-clause be inserted: - “ (1a) In the assessment of a trustee, there shall be deducted from the tax assessable to him so much of the total tax as bears to the total tax the proportion which that part (if any) of the whole income, which is distributed to the beneficiaries, bears to the whole income.”

The object of this amendment is to meet a difficulty which Senator Millen has pointed out. It will enable an estate, instead of paying on a flat or high rate, to be taxed on the proportion of income received .

Amendment agreed to.

– That is so. I think that in this matter, as in others, a limitation should be provided. There are to-day men who pay more than double the amount of the tax for the mere filling up of the returns, and to make them liable to have their returns reviewed for a period of eight to ten years is, I think, going too far.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– Surely Senator Senior’s experience of a taxation department is that it does not send out a notice of re-assessment without giving definite information. It may be true that an odd individual receives an additional assessment note, who is not able to test the facts, but under this provision the Commissioner will not move unless he has definite proof of omission, and he will be able to supply the facts. It may be difficult, of course, for a man to prove a negative unless he knows the facts; but when he receives a notice in regard to the facts, and is allowed a reasonable time in which to send in an answer, surely it can be left to the judgment of the Commissioner to say whether the assessment in his case was correct or not. Honorable senators know that, of all the men who are easy-going as a rule it is a Government tax collector. I understand that the Commissioner, under the Land Tax Assessment Act, is likely to act under this measure, and, I have not known him to go round looking for the scalps of any persons. This provision will insure the collection of the income tax. We look upon a dodger of taxation in this country ‘ as rather a despicable individual. Honorable senators need not fear the occurrence of any tyranny under the provision. It should be remembered, too, that the income tax will be the first charge on a man’s income, and not the last.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 34-

The validity of any assessment shall not be affected by reason that any of the provisions of this Act have not been complied with.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– Perhaps the Minister will say whether this clause is put in for the protection or encouragement of the Commissioner or for the protection of the taxpayer.

SenatorRUSSELL (Victoria - Assistant Minister) [9.16]. - I should say that the object of the clause is to avoid disputes about technical matters of little consequence. If a big mistake is made the Commissioner will probably go over the whole ground again, hut it would never do to have appeals made to the Courts continually because of trumpery errors of little consequence.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 35 to 46 agreed to.

Clause 47 -

No statute of limitations at any time in force shall bar or affect any action or remedy for the recovery of income tax.

Clause 53 -

Every contract, agreement, or arrangement made or entered into, in writing or verbal, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall, so far as it has or purports to have the purpose or effect of in any way, directly or indirectly -

altering the incidence of any income tax; or

relieving any person from liability to pay any income tax or make any return ; or

defeating, evading, or avoiding any duty or liability imposed on any per- son by this Act; or

preventing the operation of this Act in any respect; be absolutely void, but without prejudice to its validity in any other respect or for any other purpose.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– This is a very drastic provision.

Senator Russell:

– If the honorable senator will read the last two lines of the clause he will find that it applies to income tax only.

Senator SENIOR:

– If a contract or arrangement made between two persons is held by the Commissioner to alter the incidence ofthe income tax, the contract will be voided.

Senator Russell:

– If two men conspire by a contract to escape payment of the income tax, surely the honorable senator would not permit them to do so.

Senator SENIOR:

– A person may have an agreement with an absentee. It may depend entirely on the party to the agreement who is resident in the Commonwealth what the absentee shall get. The agreement might be voided in order that a larger amount might be collected from the absentee, and in order to void it the Commissioner might claim that the contract altered the incidence of the tax.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

[9.281. - If the honorable senator will read the clause carefully he will find that a contract would not be voided except in so far as it affected the payment of income tax.

Senator Keating:

– It would be what is called voided pro tanto.

Senator RUSSELL:

– The object of the clause is to catch any one who desires to escape the payment of income tax, and a contract would, under this clause, continue in force for every other purpose.

Senator Keating:

– In all other respects its validity would rest upon its own merits.

Senator RUSSELL:

– Just so. The contract is not wholly voided, but only so far as it affects the payment of income tax.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 54 to 65 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 6760

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and (on motion by Senator Gardiner) Bill read a first time.

page 6760

INCOME TAX BILL

Second Reading

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– In moving -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

I need scarcely remind honorable senators that it has already been debated in conjunction with the Income Tax Assessment Bill. In submitting this motion I shall, therefore, content myself with reading the measure in order that its provisions and its schedules may be placed on record in Hansard. The measure is as follows: -

A Bill for

An Act

To impose a Progressive Tax upon Incomes.

BeitenactedbytheKing’sMostExcellent

Majesty, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows: -

This Act may be cited as the Income Tax Act 1915.
The Income Tax Assessment Act 1915 shall be incorporated and read as one with this Act.
Income tax is imposed at the rates declared in this Act. 4. - (1) The rate of the income tax in respect of income derived from personal exertion snail be as set out in the First Schedule to this Act.
1. The rate of the income tax in respect of income derived from property shall be as set out in the Second Schedule to this Act.
2. The rate of the income tax in respect of the income of a company shall be as set out in the Third Schedule to this Act.
Income tax shall be levied in and for the financial year beginning on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifteen.

page 6760

THE SCHEDULES

page 6760

FIRST SCHEDULE

Rate of Tax upon Income derived from Personal Exertion. for so much of the taxable income as does not exceed £7,600 the rate of tax per pound sterling shall be

Threepence and threeeight-hundredths of one penny where the taxable value is One pound sterling, and shall increase uniformly with each increase of One pound sterling of the taxable income by three eight-hundredths of one penny. For every pound sterling of taxable income in excess of £7,600 the rate of tax shall be sixty pence. The rate of tax for so much of the taxable income as does not exceed £7,600 may be calculated from the following formula : - {: .page-start } page 6761 {:#debate-24} ### SECOND SCHEDULE {:#subdebate-24-0} #### Rate of Taxupon Income Derivedfrom Property {: type="a" start="a"} 0. For income of a taxable value not exceeding £546 the rate of tax shall be calculated from the following formula {: type="a" start="b"} 0. For income of a taxable value exceeding £546 but notexceeding £2,000 the rate of tax shall be calculated in the following manner- The rate of the tax shall increase continuously with the increase of the taxable value of the income in a curve of the second degree in such a manner that the increment of tax per pound increase of taxable income shall be - {: type="a" start="c"} 0. For Income of a taxable value exceeding £2,000 the rate of tax shall be calculated in the following manner - >For so much of taxable value as does not exceed £6,500, the rate of tax shall increase continuously with the increase of the taxable value of the income in acurve of the third degree. in such a manner that the increment of tax per pound increase of taxable incomeshall be- {: .page-start } page 6761 {:#debate-25} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-25-0} #### THIRD SCHEDULE Rate of Tax on the Income of aCo mp any. For every pound sterling of the taxable income of acompany the rate of tax shall be one shilling and sixpence. {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING:
Tasmania -- I would like to ask the 'Assistant Minister how it comes about that the first and second schedules have been framed in the form in which they are now presented to us ? Is there any particular reason for departing from the system that has been made applicable to income taxes elsewhere, and for specifying the rate of the tax in connexion with varying incomes? It seems to me that these schedules are very complicated, and that they will not be easily grasped by members of the public. I imagine that, from a revenue stand-point, the same results would have been achieved if the schedules had been framed in a more intelligible fashion. Where is the need for the use of all these decimals ? It is almost necessary to employ the differential or integral calculus. It is much worse than the binomial theorem, while the interesting curves referred to convey no information to the public. The most intelligible portion of the Bill seems to be that printed sideways, giving practical examples of the tax on various incomes. The Government ought to issue ready-reckoners in connexion with the Bill, so that everybody, on ascertaining the amount of his taxable income, may ascertain at once how much tax he has to pay, and take the rest on trust, just as he does the mechanism of a motor car or locomotive when he starts on a journey. {: #subdebate-25-0-s1 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP [9.501. - The suggestions made by the honorable senator have already been practically adopted by the Government. A hand-book or readyreckoner will be prepared to give the public all the necessary information, and will be issued by the Government. One of the reasons why the system in the Bill has been adopted is that the Government must raise a certain amount of money, and fortunately it was found that most of the wealth and property in Australia is held by those in the middle sections of a straight line, and not at either extreme. We wanted to avoid the jumps, because the man under the ordinary system who pays 4d. up to £500, and 5d. or 6d. over that sum, is always trying to get into the lower assessment, and a great deal of dodging takes place. Our idea was to cover the great bulk of the incomes, and therefore the curve system was adopted, giving the steady increase" that we desire. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In Committee:* Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to. First Schedule (Rate of tax upon income derived from personal exertion). {: #subdebate-25-0-s2 .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR:
South Australia -- The Committee might request the Government to simplify the schedule so that the general public may understand it. Its appearance will cause mirth, although its operation will probably create sorrow, and the Government should append to the schedule such a clear definition as will be readily understood by those who have to pay the piper. It should be remembered that the law is made, not for scholars, but for the public as a whole, and should be put in language that the public can readily grasp. {: #subdebate-25-0-s3 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP -- The honorable senator would have found himself in much greater difficulties if he had run against the formulas of the two higher curves. Our object was to simplify the schedule, making the tax increase proportionately with each pound increase of income. The method is absolutely scientific. The personal exertion rate is simplicity itself. The other is much more complicated, but we have tried to reduce it to understandable language, and have given numerous examples running up to £6,000. Any man without working it out can estimate pretty closely the rate of tax on incomes between the examples given. We shall issue a ready-reckoner for public use, with the amounts worked out for each £1 increase of income. The Government did not make mathematics or create figures, and all we can say is that the tax is scientific, although the method of application may be difficult. If it is not easy to apprehend the method by which it has been worked, once it has been worked and the tax has been calculated everybody can rest assured that each man has paid his just share, and no more. Schedule agreed to. Second and third schedules agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without request; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 6762 {:#debate-26} ### CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL {:#subdebate-26-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP .- In moving - That this Bill be now read a second time. I want to say that although perhaps it is one of the most important Bills that we have had to deal with during the session, . I do not intend to delay honorable senators with anything like a detailed explanation of the measure, because in a few simple clauses the Bill speaks for itself. As honorable senators know, an order was given by **Mr Justice** Powers concerning the Australian Workers Union, the effect of which would have been to divide the union into a number of different sections instead of remaining as it is, one united organization. We have to recognise that it becomes the duty of Parliament, as well as the duty of an organization, to do all that we can reasonably do to maintain industrial peace. As far as the Australian Workers Union is concerned, it is the most powerful, and" I may say, the most peaceful organization in Australia. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- It is easily the most powerful organization. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- The union has never asked for favours from any one. Its early days were turbulent, and when this Parliament conferred upon the people of Australia the benefits - of an Arbitration Act, and allowed collective bargaining between employers on the one hand, and employees on the other, the Australian Workers Union took advantage of that peaceful method of settling disputes. By that means it got an award from the Court, and for ten years it kept the peace. I think that should stand to it for righteousness. I venture to say that there have been other decisions of the Court that have not been in accord -wilh the intentions of Parliament. In -such circumstances Parliament has gone nut of its way to alter the law and bring it into conformity with the intention of Parliament. We are even endeavouring to alter the Constitution itself, bo we are not giving to the Australian Workers Union any special favour that would not have been conferred upon any smaller body. The decision of the Court came as a surprise to many honorable senators and members of the other House, and there will be continual agitation until effect is given to the intention of Parliament. In this case an order was given by the Court that tho rules of the Australian Workers Union had tobe altered in certain directions, and the order has been carried out. But if the decision of the Court had been carried out in its entirety it would have meant the dismemberment of the Australian Workers Union. Tho organization prefers a peaceful settlement of its difficulties, and for many years there have been no grave troubles between this great union and the important industry which its members carry on. Their sole wish now is to maintain this peaceful method of settling their disputes. That peaceful method is provided in this Bill. At this late- hour I do not intend to present a lengthy statement of the case. The amendment of the law is necessary, and we ask honorable senators, in fairness to the union, to consider it in a reasonable spirit. I therefore leave the matter in the hands of honorable senators. **Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT** GOULD (New South Wales) [10.9].- I can quite understand the honorable gentleman asking the Senate to pass this Bill, but I cannot help asking myself if this is a free Parliament, or if Parliament is merely the tool of some great organization outside. We know perfectly well that it was not intended to submit this Bill before the contemplated adjournment last week, and that when the adjournment was spoken of last Thursday, the representatives of this organization - which always favours a peaceful settlement of troubles so long as they are in its favour - came down, and dealt with the Prime Minister. The position was well described in a caricature in one of the papers, which represented this powerful organization as a strong-bearded man, with a puppet - not unlike the Prime Minister of Australia - by his side, and, as the man pulled the strings, the puppet was represented as saying what the man intended he should say. What I do complain of is that this Parliament is not allowed to deal with this matter in a free and unfettered' manner. Will honorable senators opposite tell us how many awards have been given against this union which the Minister says is such a peaceful organization ? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- In almost every case brought before the Court, they did not get what they asked for. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- But they have gone a long way towards getting. what they wanted. There is every reason for the organization to be contented with the award given by Mr! Justice Heydon or **Mr. Justice** O'Connor. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- The rate in many cases was less than the men were earning at many stations. {: .speaker-K7L} ##### Senator Story: -- They preferred a reasonable compromise. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- Yes; their reasonable compromise was to ask for more than they were likely to get, and then when an award was made, to be content for the time being. {: .speaker-KNN} ##### Senator Guy: -- Is that the honorable senator's principle? {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- That is the principle of the Australian Workers Union. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator Needham: -- Is not that a reflection on the Judge of the Arbitration Court? {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- When this action was started in the Courts, the whole question of the constitution of the Australian Workers. Union was called into question, and **Mr. Justice** Powers' decision was to the effect that a certain amendment would have to be made. We know quite well that the union embraces men altogether outside the ranks of the workers connected with that particular industry - men who, no doubt, joined because they thought it would be to their advantage to do so - and the Australian Workers Union was prepared to take them because they were in that way adding to the strength of the organization. We cannot complain about that very much, but when the aid of the Court was invoked, the Court clearly indicated that the union had departed from its constitution. The Government now desire that this legislation shall be retrospective in its effect in order to overcome the decision of the Court. When we established these Arbitration Courts, and determined to allow people engaged in various occupations to form unions, and to make collective bargains with employers, it was never contemplated that one union should arrogate to itself the entire control of the working population of the community. Of course, the legislation was, to a certain extent, experimental, and necessarily it had to be seen in operation in order that defects might be remedied. Hitherto, we have passed no retrospective legislation concerning matters that were *sub judice,* as this matter is. {: .speaker-JXV} ##### Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable senator does not know that this Bill will do that. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- I know that it is designed to accomplish that very object. The Court has given this union an opportunity so to amend its regulations as to make them conform to the law. It has been found, however, that the union cannot do this, and, consequently, its chief officers have approached the Government, whom they hold in the hollow of their hands, and have said, " We want you to pass legislation which will enable us to win a law suitwhich otherwise we shall lose." This is not the first occasion upon which these gentlemen have adopted a similar line of action. They not only prevent men from exercising their unfettered judgment upon legislative matters, but they actually say to the Courts," Unless you hear our case within a limited time we shall go on strike." I hold in my hand an extract from the *Barrier Miner* of 23rd August last, which sets out certain resolutions passed by the miners of Broken Hill. The first resolution reads - >That the Mining Managers Associationbe communicated with to cite a case before the Federal Arbitration Court; also that the Fede ral Registrar he informed of the decision, and. unless we get a guarantee that the case will commence in Broken Hill within three weeks we cease work at 12 o'clock midnight next Saturday, the 28th August, 1915. A further resolution affirmed - >That the necessary powers be given to the executive to call the men out next Saturday, in accordance with the resolution, if the guarantee is not given, and steps be taken to carry out picketing work, and generally conduct the. strike for the time being. Is that- a right attitude for a body of workmen to take up? Is it proper for any man to say to the Court, " I have: a dispute with another man, and unless you consent to hear it immediately I will do something that is absolutely illegal?" {: .speaker-KNN} ##### Senator Guy: -- Is the union of which the honorable senator is speaking the Australian Workers Union? {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- Its members are members of. the Australian Workers Union. {: .speaker-KNN} ##### Senator Guy: -- Nothing of the kind. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- They can be made members of it under this Bill. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- Of course they can. Under this measure I might be made a member of the Australian Workers Union. I do not object to a body of men calling upon the manager of an association to bring a dispute before the Arbitration Court in order to secure a decision upon it. But) when they hold a threat over the Court it is time that we spoke out distinctly, and said plainly what we think of their action. Quite recently, although the Ministry had promised to deal only with certain legislation before Parliament adjourned, they were unable to live up totheir agreement. We understood that Parliament was to rise on Thursday last.. But certain members of the Australian Workers Union interviewed the Prime Minister, and practically said to him, Notwithstanding the promise which you have made to members of the Opposition you must pass this Bill." The result was that Ministers had to give way. They are merely puppets in the hands of outside organizations. Indeed, one of my chief complaints is that we are not getting government by the people, but by a section of the people, whose only desire is to conserve its own interests to the very fullest extent. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator Needham: -- The honorable senator should get back to the Bill. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- My honorable friends do not like to have these matters mentioned. {: .speaker-KNN} ##### Senator Guy: -- The honorable senator's voice is like 'that of one " crying in the wilderness." {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- Probably it is, and yet a voice ' crying in the wilderness" was the f oreru nner of great reforms in this world. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator Barnes: -- The honorable senator works well when the Employer's Federation cracks the whip over him. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: .- If the Australian Workers Union exercised no greater influence over the honorable senator than the Employers Federation exercises over me, he would enter this chamber with a more unfettered mind. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator Barnes: -- I will tell the honorable senator something about that presently. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- **Senator Barnes** will have an opportunity of expressing his views, but I doubt whether he will be able to free himself from the cloud which overshadows him. The Bill proposes to amend section 55 of the principal Act by adding at the end of paragraph *b* the following paragraph:- "and (c) Any association of not less than one hundred employees engaged in any industrial pursuit or pursuits whatever, together with such other persons, whether employees engaged in any industrial pursuit or pursuits or not, as have been appointed officers of the association and admitted as members thereof." Then clause 3 provides that - Every association - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. registered, before the commencement of this Act, as an organization under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, or under that Act as amended by any subsequent Act; and 1. constituted (either originally or by any change of constitution or alteration of rules) in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, or. of that Act as amended..... shall be deemed to have been validly constitutedas from the date of such registration, and the registration shall be deemed to have constituted the association an organization as effectively as if this Act had been in force at the date of such registration. That, I submit, is a direct attempt to get behind the law and to alter a decision that will be given by the Arbitration Court. {: .speaker-KNN} ##### Senator Guy: -- Is that statement correct? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator Senior: -- No. An interpretation has been put upon the law which Parliament never intended should be put upon it. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- Although the Bill may be framed in accordance with the views of honorable senators opposite as to what was the intention of the Legislature, I hold that they are creating a precedent which will recoil upon themselves. {: .speaker-K22} ##### Senator Blakey: -- Is it not wise to give legislative effect to the wishes of Parliament? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator Senior: -- What is the law? {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- The law, I take it, is expressed by the Court. If the judgment of **Mr. Justice** Powers be a wrongone, an appeal should have been made to the Full Court. It is true that we can enact retrospective legislation- {: .speaker-KAO} ##### Senator Watson: -- Which method would the honorable senator prefer to see adopted in order to settle a dispute - recourse to an amendment of the law or to a strike? {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- I know that honorable senators opposite thoroughly believe in unionism. I do not object to any body of men forming themselves into a union, but I do protest against their refusal to abide by the law. {: .speaker-KAO} ##### Senator Watson: -- But suppose that the law does not meet the case ? {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- In this instance it does not meet the case, because it does not conform to the wishes of the Australian Workers Union, which has been welcoming to its ranks men engaged in all classes of industry. {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator Grant: -- People cannot always secure employment at the same calling. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- Take the case of the great. Bricklayers Union. It does not admit carpenters to its ranks. Why should a. publican be entitled to be a member ofa great workers' union? What position does he occupy? {: .speaker-K22} ##### Senator Blakey: -- He is generally a shearer. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- The honorable senator is not far wrong. Many back-block publicans are very good shearers. As a rule, however, they are farmers or selectors. If this Bill had been introduced of the Government's own volition, it would be in quite a different category, provided that it did not interfere with any case which was *sub judice.* I quite recognise the truth of **Senator Guy's** interjection that my voice is like that of one " crying in the wilderness." As a matter of fact, I can count upon the fingers of my hand those honorable senators who will adopt a similar attitude to my own towards this Bill. I have spoken strongly upon it because I feel strongly. I have some consideration for honorable senators, and recognise that it is the general desire to secure an early adjournment. In the circumstances, I will content myself with the protest I have made against this legislation ; and if some honorable senators opposite would cross the chamber and vote with me *pro forma* I should be prepared to call for a division on the second reading of this Bill. {: #subdebate-26-0-s1 .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR:
South Australia -- I have had the greatest difficulty in convincing myself that **Senator Gould** was in earnest in the remarks he has made, because the arguments he attempted to put forward were the most fallacious I have ever heard from him. He has argued that the law should not be amended in the way now proposed at this particular juncture. I ask him to consider how many times we have, even in this session, considered amending Bills dealing with matters that were, to all intents and purposes, *sub judice.* In connexion, for instance, with the War Precautions Bill, we were sailing an uncharted sea, and found that there were difficulties which we did not anticipate. We immediately amended the law to meet those difficulties. Because in this case we seek to meet a difficulty, although the suggested amendment of the law is in harmony with the intention with which Parliament passed the original Act, **Senator Gould** objects. The interpretation put upon the existing Act by the Arbitration Court may be a legal interpretation, but it was certainly the intention of Parliament, in passing the Act, to give facilities to men to form themselves into industrial unions in order that the Arbitration Court might deal with them collectively. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- Hear, hoar ! We all agree with that. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- Then the honorable senator argued 'that because the Australian Workers Union is a powerful organization it should not be listened to. According to that argument, if it was a weak organization the honorable senator would be prepared to listen to it. For. ten years this organization obeyed the law as it was interpreted. But a new interpretation has been placed upon the law, which was not in the mind of Parliament when passing the Act; and because it is now proposed to alter the law to carry out the original intention of Parliament, we are informed by **Senator Gould** that this legislation is dictated by the Australian Workers Union. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- The honorable senator cannot overlook the fact that the adjournment would have taken place if it had not been for the action of the Australian Workers Union. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- It matters not to me whether the Senate adjourned this week, next week, or next month. We are assembled here to do the business of the country, and we have no right to say that we should postpone the consideration of necessary legislation to suit our own convenience. **Senator Gould** has told us a somewhat silly tale about a cartoon in which **Mr. Fisher** is represented as a little poodle standing beside a big working man. The honorable senator has attempted" to influence the Senate by a reference to this cartoon. May I inform him that I have in my possession a cartoon representing one of the Premiers of South Australia as a murderer holding in his mouth a knife dripping with blood. That cartoon was issued by a political union of which **Senator Gould** is proud to be a member. {: .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator Mullan: -- By the crowd that issued the circular about the breeding cows. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- Yes, by the same crowd. If I were to suggest that because of that cartoon the Liberal Union regard the working men of the Commonwealth as murderers, **Senator- Gould** would say that such a suggestion would be unworthy of my intelligence. In the same way, I regard the argument deduced by the honorable senator from the cartoon to which he has referred as unworthy of his intelligence. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- T am sorry that I did not bring it here. It is a very fine cartoon. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- I could produce the cartoon issued by the Liberal Union of South Australia representing the working man as a murderer. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- I know nothing of what was done in South Australia. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- The honorable senator is not aware of the doings of the union of which he is himself a member. However, we are not here to listen to such silly arguments, but to consider a question concerning the welfare of the nation. **Senator Gould** objects to the Australian Workers Union because it is a large organization, and includes persons other than shearers. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- I do not object to it because it is a powerful organization, but because the methods it adopts arc detrimental to the country and to the independence of the Government. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- The honorable senator is reasoning from his cartoon that the Government are influenced by this organization. The Australian Workers Union is objected to because it is a powerful organization, and includes persons working at different trades. I am proud to know members of the Australian Workers Union, who follow more than one calling during the year. Men may take short contracts on the roads at one time. They may be cutting telegraph poles a little later. They may be carting for a station-owner at another period of the year, and later they may be engaged in shearing. These men cannot belong to half-a-dozen different unions, as **Senator Gould** desires they should. The workmen in the Australian Workers Union are workers in cognate callings. The organization comprises a group of workers in one big union. **Senator Gould** objects to the methods of the Australian Workers Union; but he forgets that we are living in an age when old methods are every day giving place to new ones. During the last ten years of its existence the Australian Workers Union has been law-abiding. It has established indus trial peace, and has, perhaps, done more for the working men of Australia than has any of the other unions. Because it has achieved its purpose, **Senator Gould** objects to its methods. Why should not the working man be allowed to do as he pleases, so long as he remains a lawabiding citizen? If tho honorable senator had been able to prove that, by its operations, the Australian Workers Union had made men less law-abiding, he would have been on strong ground in objecting to it. He has not attempted to do anything of the kind, hut, instead of doing that, has introduced a story about a cartoon. I expected greater things from the honorable senator. I am sure that he would not dream, if he were in a Court of justice, of advancing a cartoon as a legal argument. Why should not the Australian Workers Union include all those who select it as the union to which they « desire to belong? {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Or any other union. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- Yes, or any other union. If I sought for a reason for the argument which **Senator Gould** has used, I think I might find it in the fact that he belongs to a union that will not admit persons who follow other callings. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- It will admit any one who qualifies himself to join it. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- The honorable senator reasons- that the Australian Workers Union should be equally exclusive. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- Does **Senator Senior** contend that a blacksmith should be admitted to the lawyers' union simply because he is a blacksmith? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- If the blacksmith could mend the arguments of some of the lawyers, he ought to be admitted to their union. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- The honorable senator would not patronize him if he was. He would prefer to employ the qualified man. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- As there are more blacksmiths than there are lawyers, it would probably be an advantage to the lawyers' union to admit them. **Senator Gould** has not pointed to any disadvantage that arises from the association of groups of cognate workers in the Australian Workers Union. I must strongly protest against the honorable senator's assertion that this is not a free Parliament. I question -whether 'there is any Parliament so free in any other part of the world. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- I would not protest too much about that. {: .speaker-JXV} ##### Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable senator should speak for himself. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- I allow **Senator Bakhap** to enjoy his own opinion on that point. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- The honorable . senator would not be discussing this Bill if he were free. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- **Senator Bakhap** is now making a statement which is contrary to fact. This Bill appeals to my sense of justice, and I am never afraid to raise my voice in support of an appeal to justice. This measure proposes to do justice to a big organization; but if it proposed to do justice to a small organization, I should still support it. **Senator Bakhap's** assertion is unworthy of him, and is not applicable to me. This Parliament has a right to mould its legislation according to what it believes to be right. If this legislation is interpreted by the Courts to mean something different from what Parliament intended, it has the right to amend that legislation to give effect to its intention. By doing so in this case, it will advance, not only the interests of the unions, but the best interests of the Commonwealth at the same time. {: #subdebate-26-0-s2 .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania -- I am opposed to this Bill, and to each of the two clauses of which it is principally composed. I am opposed to clause 2 because it defeats what I might call the common-sense view of arbitration and conciliation legislation. If honorable senators opposite are in favour of the indiscriminate inclusion of every one in one big union, all that I can say is that they commit themselves to oppose the principle of differentiation in regard to crafts and trades, and they must presently commit themselves to the indorsement of the principle that all persons embodied iu one big union shall be remunerated alike, irrespective of the services which they render to the community by virtue of their being industrials. That opens up a vista which I think not one of them would care to look down for a great length of time. It opens up at present quite undisclosed possibilities, and the whole of our system of society would need to be recast. I have no particular objection to any person exercising his or her right to join a union any more than I have to a person joining any church because my attitude towards political, industrial, and religious opinions is the same. I do not want to impede anybody in regard to the evidencing of their particular opinions or convictions. But we have to consider what the effect will, be upon the system of conciliation and arbitration in regard to industrial disputes which we have established. The very genius of the system on the statutebook is that persons connected with an organization shall be specialists in regard to the industry carried on by its1 members, and shall be competent to lay their case before the adjudicating authority in such a way that it can pronouncea decision. I am well aware of the fact,, as I have lived for a long time in country districts, that many persons desire toassociate themselves with, organizations, although they have no personal knowledge of the work carried on by their members-. Hotelkeepers desire to join a miners, union, and so on. {: .speaker-KTP} ##### Senator McKissock: -- Is that wrong?' {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP: -- It is wrong. Unless the hotelkeepers are specially employed in the industry, and have a special knowledge of the conditions as carried on, they are of no value to the adjudicating authority set up to bring- about industrial peace, because of the particular knowledge which it requires of the desires and rights of the litigant. {: .speaker-KAO} ##### Senator Watson: -- That is the old idea of craft unions. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP: -- It is common sense which runs right through the whole framework of our legislation. If my honorable friends wish to merge everything into one big union they will produce results which Chey at present do- not surmise as likely to evidence themselves, because I believe that they will be striking at the root of the very principle of conciliation and arbitration. I believe that they will take away from the Courts, if not designedly, at least actually, that power of discriminaton and that knowledge of special industries which must exist before a tribunal can satisfactorily put its powers of decision in motion. That is not my particular objection to- this Bill. My chief objection is to the dispensing power contained in clause 3. It was very reluctantly that we consented only a few days ago to make retrospective a provision in the War Precautions Act, which practically took away from the Court the power of doing something in relief of a litigant. We were constrained to do that only because of the peculiar war conditions in which the Commonwealth, as a unit of the Empire, finds itself at present. I venture to say that honorable senators on both sides acted as they did only because they thought that it was imperatively necessary in the interests of the very existence of the Empire. The Minister who introduced the amending Bill was careful to state, in reply to a question from me, that it would not interfere with the actual progress of the case then before the Court, and when he admitted that the Bill was introduced for the purpose of setting up a condition of things which would completely impair a verdict adverse to the Commonwealth, honorable senators were very reluctant in their support of it, and were careful to urge that whatever might be necessary in connexion with the safety of the Commonwealth it would be very unwise to so legislate as to prevent the High Court from handing down a decision on the appeal, a decision not modified by the passing of the Bill, but one based on the very merits of the appeal. I said that the community would want to hold itself on guard in regard to the situation set up, for there would presently be a lot of persons who would argue that what we did in connexion with a condition of war would be perfectly legitimate in regard to the ordinary operations of the law in time of peace. So soon is my prediction verified, and we have here a majority of the members of the Legislature asserting that it is right and proper to exercise a dispensing power in regard to a decision of the highest tribunal in the land. The decision was given in regard to a plaint lodged under conditions of peace. It is admitted that one of the intentions of the Bill is to set aside a verdict. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- No; you misunderstand the position altogether. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP: -- That is what is going to be the effect of the exercise of the dispensing power. We are gradually getting a system of conciliation and arbitration legislation which at least has this merit: That it has' passed through the fire of criticism and of litigation, and is proceeding along a well-ordered path of evolution. But will any industrial litigant who feels himself aggrieved because of the action of an organization take hia case to a Court in the future when he knows that this Parliament may be invoked in the event of his getting a favorable decision to immediately cancel the position which he by his action has disclosed ? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Both parties to the shearing business welcome legislation of this kind. No on© objects to it. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP: -- I do. I object) to an appeal to the Legislature to exercise a dispensing power in regard to a decision handed down by one of the highest tribunals in the country. Does the honorable senator think that any industrial organization will in future be challenged by a plaintiff who feels himself aggrieved when he knows that the Parliament may at once be set in motion at the instance of the defendant whom he has defeated before the Court to completely set aside the position and create a new one ? {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- On a technicality. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP: -- No. These very circumstances will cause our industrial legislation to be unchallenged. Flaws will not be disclosed. The lines of right evolution will not be shown. I predict that the effect of legislation like this will be something that the industrial organization does not suspect. I very much regret that so soon has my prediction been fulfilled. {: .speaker-KTP} ##### Senator McKissock: -- You are speaking in the interests of the unionists, are you? {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP: -- I am. I believe that legislation of this description, particularly such as is contained in the first of the operative clauses, will in the long run operate prejudicially to the .interests of Australia, and therefore to the interests of the organizations themselves. {: .speaker-KTP} ##### Senator McKissock: -- Do you not think that the unionists ought to be the best judges of that? {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP: -- No, for the simple reason that no man can be a just judge in his own cause. By passing this measure we shall set up a condition of things by which we make on each occasion a litigant the judge in his own cause, and if it is an organization which is sure of legislative support, it can ask this Legislature to abrogate the decision of the judicial tribunal. Such a condition of things will in the long run operate most inimically to our conciliation and arbitration law. It will excite the disgust of the community, and will certainly not show those flaws in our legislation which, disclosed from time to time, make for a well-ordered evolution of that scheme which we believe will assist us in settling industrial disputes. Why is this measure made retrospective?To annul a judicial decision is a most dangerous thing to do. We acknowledged that it was dangerous when we were dealing with the War Precautions Bill, and it is doubly dangerous when we allow an insidious innovation in regard to legislation dealing with an ordinary situation arising under peace conditions. I protest against the measure. Our forefathers protested against the dispensing power when it was exercised by invading and despotic kings, and I protest against it particularly when it is exercised in the sinister direction of annulling a judicial decision. I, like **Senator Gould,** have no desire to protract this sitting to too late an hour, and as the measure is only a short one, I content myself with making this protest, feeling that at this juncture other protest would be in vain. But I warn honorable senators opposite who were chuckling at and deriding **Senator Gould** when he was making his series of very sensible remarks that - >He that roars for liberty > >Faster binds the tyrant's power; > >But the tyrant's cruel glee > >Forces on the freer hour. I point out that all the electors are not embodied in industrial organizations which are prepared, not only to set aside a judicial decision, but to suggest the appointment of political judges. The present step is to get the Parliament to set aside a judicial decision, and if that is not absolutely satisfactory the next step will be to see that before a Judge is appointed he is the kind of man who will give the decision which is wanted. Nothing more is necessary to complete the circle of this viciously intended legislation. {: .speaker-JXV} ##### Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Are you suggesting that? {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP: -- I have heard it suggested. {: #subdebate-26-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The honorable senator has resumed his seat. {: #subdebate-26-0-s4 .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES:
Victoria -- I only desire to occupy the time of the Senate for about five minutes. I admired the simulated indignation of members of the Opposition in opposing this measure. The duty of this Parliament, I understand, is to legislate in a wise way in the interests of the people of this country. We have had the lawyers telling us, some on one side and some on the other, that this legislation is flouting the Courts of the country. If Parliament is satisfied that it is doing a good thing in the interests of the country, what is wrong with it? We are here to look after the interests of the people, irrespective of what Courts may do. Courts make mistakes at times, and I have read of a Judge saying that he was doing a certain thing because the law directed him to do it, clearly indicating that common sense was against that course. This organization has done something towards making Australian history. Even the opponents of this Bill admit that the Australian Workers Union has done a great deal of good, not only for its members, but for the country generally, because it was behind the agitation for a sensible means of settling industrial troubles. It advocated arbitration in substitution for the strike. Why, then, should they not get some benefit out of the arbitration law? From 1886 to 1904, when the Arbitration Act became law, there was continual turmoil in the pastoral industry, not because the men were looking for fight, but because they were forced into it. I remember when droves of police were sent out by a Liberal Government all over the back country to try to dragoon men into accepting conditions' that were absolutely hateful to them. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -It was stigmatized by some men as practically civil war. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES: -- Yes, not because the. men wanted it, but because the honorable senator's party spent about £50,000 of the money of the people ofNew South Wales to send the police all over the back country and along the rivers of that State. When there, they followed the instructions of a Liberal Government, and tried to bludgeon the men into accepting hateful conditions. That is why the men have spent their money in trying to send into Parliament somebody else to make laws for them, and one of the results of their efforts has been the arbitration laws. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- . Burning woolsheds and steamers! {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES: -- A lot of people burnt steamers which they had pretty well insured beforehand. This was very convenient when they could put the blame on the other fellow. **Senator Gould** said that the Government were acting under the lash of the Australian "Workers Union, but that organization obeyed the orders of the Court although its organized strength was so great that it could have won more by industrial strife since it has worked under awards in Australia than it has got from the Courts. There is a great deal more behind the opposition to this Bill than some honorable senators see. So far, the organization has fought successfully in the Courts only for a part of its membership. A great number of its members have not yet had any benefits from the Arbitration Act. It has had a plaint before the Court for two or three years, but has never been able to secure a hearing. If this Bill does not pass, the Australian "Workers Union will not be able to go on with that plaint, as is well known to the squatters, who are members of the Employers Federation, under whose direction the gentlemen opposite mostly act. The squatters have been trying to prevent a large number of people employed in the pastoral areas from getting a rise in wages by means of that plaint. If the Australian Workers Union is deregistered, it will take them another year to register again under the new conditions, and, in the meantime, the pastoral ists will save many thousands of pounds. In the circumstances, they do not mind spending a few hundreds in feeing lawyers to occupy the time of the Court, and postpone the inevitable day when the Court will compel them to do what they have never done yet - pay a fair wage to the people who do the great bulk of the work in our pastoral areas. Even if it were true that the members of this Parliament act at the bidding of this organization, it is a powerful body, and embraces quite a number of the best manhood of Australia. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- And, therefore, you glory in your shame ! {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES: -- There is no shame in any man acting in this Parliament in the interests of the people. There was a time when the moneyed interests found no difficulty in getting faithful service rendered in these halls by **Senator Gould** and his party. I can quite understand their feeling very sore now that somebody else has a say in the legislation of this country. The electors will not be blinded by what has been said, because they are quite satisfied that the labour organizations will do no harm to the interests of the people. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- Pull the strings and the puppet throws its arms about. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES: -- The honorable senator would make a good scarecrow, and if I had a garden I should not mind having him in it. The Australian Workers Union began many years ago as a craft organization. Subsequently it was seen that the amalgamation of a number of organizations could be worked much more cheaply and do more good for their members. Consequently, in 1894, the year when the Australian Workers Union took its present name, the organization was extended to embrace every kind of labour done in this country. The wisdom of getting together instead of being in little cliques, enabling the employers to set one lot fighting against the other, was recognised, and the result has more than justified expectations. It does not matter to the people if every class of labour is under the banner of one union, so long as the laws provide that its members must abide by the awards made by the Courts. All this Parliament has to do is to provide the organizations with the legal machinery for settling disputes. If that is done, and the awards are obeyed, it does not matter twopence to the Parliament or the people whether there is one union or five hundred. That is the object aimed at now. The Australian Workers Union is working to-day under five awards of various Courts, and it has been truly said that every award has been loyally obeyed by the members of the organization. We have never yet been hauled over the coals for a breach of any of our awards, which is sufficient evidence of the peacefulness of our members, although they are certainly not prepared to submit calmly to injustice. All this measure does is to give the Australian Workers Union, or any other organization, the opportunity to embrace as many industries as they like under one banner, get awards from the Courts, and bear the penalties for any breach of them. I am satisfied that a majority of the people, with the experience of the past to guide them, will be in favour of this legislation. Only a few years ago the wool clip of this country was carted to almost every port in the world and back again because there was no sale for it. It was so badly treated that the experts would not touch it. Our people do not want that kind of thing to happen. Our wool clip is an important asset and should be handled by the most expert workmen,so that it may command the best possible price in the world's markets, and this legislation will have a tendency to bring about that Result, in spite of **Senator Gould's** gibes. In reply to his statement that the Government are responding to the crack of the whip of the Australian Workers Union, it is fair to say thathe has always jumped very well at the crack of the whip of the Employers Federation. No labour organization that I know of has ever grumbled about the employers getting together into one federation, because they recognise the sensibleness of organization, and the greater facilities which it gives to those concerned to conduct their work. They have never grumbled about the existence of the Chamber of Commerce, which caters for the wants of people following commercial pursuits. We are endeavouring to do likewise in this instance. I want now to say, as my last word, that the pastoral employers are behind the opposition to this measure, because they expect that by fighting the men through the law Courts, and, perhaps, by de-registering the Australian Workers Union, they will be able to put off the day when station hands working in this country will get before the Court and be given an award which willmean decent wages and conditions of working. That will mean of course, many thousands of pounds to the pastoral industry; and it will likewise mean that many thousands of pounds will go into the homes of the workers. The pastoral employers, therefore, think, . no doubt, that it will be much easier and cheaper to fee the lawyers of this country and try to gerrymander the union through the Courts, than to allow the workers by any means to get to the Arbitration Court for an award. That is the whole secret of the opposition behind this Bill. {: #subdebate-26-0-s5 .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING:
Tasmania -- . **Senator Barnes** is to be congratulated for placing before the Senate clearly the real object of the measure. I think he did so much more frankly, and certainly more clearly, than did the Minister. I think, however, the principle underlying the Bill is reprehensible in the strongest degree. I wish now to review the position with regard to a case that is pending in the Courts, and the undesirable effect that this Bill will have upon that matter. It is most unusual to interfere with a pending case by legislation. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator Needham: -- We have already done that in the Wallach case. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- No, we did not. The Minister himself disavowed any intention of introducing the measure with that intention; but, to make assurance doubly sure, I indicated that an amendment might be added to the last clause, and the Minister promised that he would bring the matter before the AttorneyGeneral for consideration. In any event, that case has been argued before the High Court, and the Bill has not yet become law. Referring now to the Bill under consideration, I would point out that earlier this session we passed an amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the last section of which reads as follows: - >Section sixty of the Principal Act is amended - > >By inserting after sub-section (1) the following sub-section:- " (1a) Where the ground of the application is a defect in the rules of the organization, the Court may, if in its discretion it thinks fit, instead of ordering the registration of the organization to be cancelled in the first instance direct the organization within a specified time to alter its rules so as to bring them into conformity with the requirements of the Act; and if at the expiration of the time specified the rules have not been altered accordingly the Court may then order the registration of the organization to bo cancelled, and it shall be cancelled accordingly. There was a case actually pending in the Court, and this Parliament made that provision which established this discretion of the Court. An application for deregistration had been made, founded upon a defect in the rules; but Parliament said that if the rules were amended within a given time the application for deregistration might be defeated. Now what is the position ? Acting under that provision, application was made to the Court, and the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, granted to the Australian Workers Union a time within which it might amend its rules so as to escape de-registration. Be: fore that period elapsed, application was made to extend the time. This application was granted, and the time was extended' to 1st September. Now the 1st September has come and gone, and the necessary amendments ordered by the Court have not been made. So that on the law of the Commonwealth, as expressed by this Parliament in this session, the registration of the Australian Workers Union is cancellable. We are now, however, intervening with legislation to say that its original registration shall be valid. Is this in conformity with the practice of Parliament? Let us look back through the history of the British House of Commons - I am not referring to the Standing Orders, but to the established practice of that Parliament. With regard to O'Connell's case, in which Lord John Russell and **Sir Robert** Peel took an active . interest, we find the principle followed that a case pending in the Courts cannot be dealt with by Parliament: If we search the *Hansard* reports and the *House Documents* of the British House of Commons, we find that not even a question may be asked if it affects a decision on a case pending in the Courts, even though that case concerns a member of the House of Commons itself. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Is there a case pending in the Courts now? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- -Yes, there is. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- I do not think so. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- The case of the Australian Workers Union is pending. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I was astonished to read in the paper this morning that the Honorable the Attorney-General had said elsewhere that there was no case pending, so I telegraphed to Messrs. McLachlan and Murray, of Sydney, the solicitors in the case, as follows: - >Hughes informs Representatives Killen's case not now pending. Can you confirm or ; advise how matter now stands? I had a reply shortly afterwards to the following effect - >Matter is pending. Counsel has advised application to Court next week to cancel registration of union on ground non-compliance order of Court. It will be seen, therefore, that the proceedings are pending. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- That is something that has not been published before. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- But it is a fact. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- The honorable senator wired privately for information, and this is what he has received. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- These 'are the attorneys in this case on the records of the Court. {: .speaker-KTP} ##### Senator McKissock: -- Is that the firm that circularized the Liberal members to fight for the wool kings? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I do not know anything about that. I telegraphed to this firm because I know them to be the solicitors in this case, and I myself have been in conflict with them in a case in the High Court. Only last year, and during the current session, we gave the Arbitration Court discretionary power to grant this union a period of time within which to amend its rules. That* amendment was not made, though the time was extended, and the registration is now cancellable. By this measure we are taking away the whole effect of our pre-existing legislation, and the principle is entirely wrong. Upon the law as it stands, there can be no certainty for anybody in the community if a person invokes the aid of the Court. Is there to be no certainty that the Court will be guided by the law ? Is the law to be altered, and the Court's decision likewise- affected, just at the very moment when a decision is to be given ? I know, however, that we on this side are helpless in this matter. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- I do not know so much about that. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I want to emphasize that it is a very dangerous principle, and it may re-act with a boomeranglike effect some day. We cannot play with principles like this. I feel strongly on this principle, and I am speaking without knowing anything about the merits or demerits of the case. A principal feature of the British system of responsible government is the independence of the Judiciary and the Legislature. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- How is the independence of the Judiciary impaired by this action ? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- It is impaired if, when it is called upon to administer the law, and is about to give a judicial decision, the law is then altered. There can be -no certainty for anybody. **Senator Lynch** might himself be prejudiced in a similar manner. He might have a claim before the Court; say it is a *nisi* *prius* case; evidence might be given, and judgment might be reserved. Then, before judgment is given, Parliament might alter the law, and thus affect the decision of his case pending in the Courts. The honorable senator, in such circumstances, would feel that he was the victim of vicious legislation. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator Barnes: -- Supposing that all that the honorable senator says were true, would Parliament be acting wisely if it refused to amend existing legislation? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- This is not a matter which has escaped attention. Why "was an amendment of the principal Act introduced here only a few months ago ? On that occasion criticism was levelled at Parliament for interfering in a case which was pending. But at that time Parliament interfered only to the extent of authorizing the granting of time to one of the parties to a suit. The President of the Arbitration Court has granted that time. Indeed, he has extended it. Yet the party in question is still in default. Now the Government conic forward and say, in effect, " Notwithstanding that you are the party in default we are going to hold you free of all consequences." Surely there is already enough alleged uncertainty in the law. Do not let us actively assist in making it more uncertain. If we once generate in the minds of the people the idea that although the law may be so-and-so to-day, if the power of the Court be invoked it may be altered to-morrow, we shall create a distrust which will react upon our parliamentary institutions. Seeing that a case is pending in the Arbitration Court, this legislation ought not to have been introduced. {: .speaker-KNN} ##### Senator Guy: -- And the Australian Workers Union ought therefore to suffer." {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- It has not conformed to the law. To enter, into *n* discussion of the general question would occupy too much time at this juncture. I understand that the Australian Workers Union has departed from the spirit of our Arbitration Acts, which recognise that both employers and employees engaged in a particular industry are at liberty to band themselves together into organizations. But under this Bill, even employers in some callings, as well as clerks, accountants, hairdressers, barmen, jockeys, &c, will all be at liberty to join - as they have joined - the Australian Workers Union. This was one of the provisions of the constitution of that organization which the Court ordered it to amend. Yet without amending the law in that connexion we are proposing to validate its registration. {: .speaker-KTP} ##### Senator McKissock: -- Is it only squatters' money which is behind the employers in this case? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I know nothing about the merits of the case. I have not had time to interest myself in it. But on the general principle of amending the law in the manner that is proposed I think that we are pursuing a wrong course. I feel confident that if we persist in this action it will lead to still greater encroachments upon wellestablished principles of legislation, the results of which, though possibly they may not be appreciated immediately, will most assuredly be realized to a distressingly considerable extent in tho not distant future. I think that the provisions of the constitution of the Australian Workers Union to which exception has been taken as a matter of law, give effect to principles which should not commend themselves to us. Having heard what the Vice-President of the Executive Council has said - and also what **Senator Barnes** has said - and recognising that the object underlying this legislation is a desire to drag into that body as many persons as possible- {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator Barnes: -- We were registered under the best legal advice obtainable, and it now appears that that advice was not worth much. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I think that this Bill represents a great forward movement, deliberate or unconscious, towards Syndicalism. {: .speaker-KTP} ##### Senator McKissock: -- Why, Syndicalism uses its force against all law. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- But it is based upon the extent of its organization and upon its capacity for something in the nature of the national strike. The Bill is a material step in that direction. But my main objection to it is that it will interfere with proceedings that are pending in the Arbitration Court. I would condemn such a proposal, no matter from what source it emanated. It is highly reprehensible that legislation should be enacted which is designed to affect proceedings . that are pending in the constituted Courts of the country. - {: #subdebate-26-0-s6 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- I rise merely for the purpose of recalling to honorable senators who are opposed to this measure their statements to the effect that the action of the Government, in respect of this Bill, has been prompted by pressure from an outside organization. Whether that is so I do not know. But I would remind **Senator Gould** that previous Governments, controlled by the party to which he belongs, have not only had their actions dictated by outside organizations, but have actually had to conform to the advice which was tendered by them from time to time. You, sir, will recollect the occasion when banking legislation was enacted with such indecent haste in Queensland, at the behest of the moneyed section of the community, that the incident was remembered in that State for many years afterwards. I recollect action on somewhat similar lines having been taken in other States. I mention this matter for tho purpose of showing that previous Governments have introduced legislation at the direct dictation of the private interests concerned in it. Yet not a word has been said about it. On this occasion I do not say that the action of the Government has been prompted by outside influence. But it is clear that unless the lawbe altered in the direction that has been indicated by **Senator Barnes,** something very unpleasant may happen in the industrial life of the Commonwealth. To avoid that possibility this Bill has been introduced. **Senator Gould** must recognise that its provisions will not apply to the Australian Workers Union alone. There are other organizations to which they will apply in the fullest sense. In the Bill we are endeavouring to put into plain language the intention which Parliament failed to clearly express in previous legislation. When the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1912 was passed the words "groups of industry" were used for the purpose of covering the case of a body constituted like that of the Australian Workers Union and kindred organizations. The Court, however, has interpreted the intention of the Legislature in a way that was quite foreign to it. In such circumstances it is manifestly our duty to amend the law, and to make our intention so plain that it shall be unmistakable. Does **Senator Gould** suggest that we should tolerate the intention of this Parliament being thwarted? The Arbitration Court is now about to interpret the law in a way that will not give effect to our intention. In order to assert the supremacy of Parliament, and to give to the bodies concerned the protection which they should enjoy under the law, it is necessary to pass this legislation. This is not by any means the first time that honorable senators opposite have known Acts of Parliament to be amended as the result of flaws detected in them by Courts of justice. There is nothing more common in our experience than the frequent efforts of Parliament to amend the law to remedy some defect discovered by a Court of justice. In this case a defect of the law has been detected, and this legislation is introduced to prevent a miscarriage of justice which would otherwise follow an interpretation of the existing Act -not in accordance with the intention of Parliament. If this Parliament intends, as it does, that a body constituted as the Australian Workers Union is constituted shall continue to be registered, and a Justice of the High Court says that it should not be registered, it is the clear duty of this Parliament, no matter what the interpretation of the Court may be, to give effect to its intention, and see that this and similar organizations shall be registered, irrespective of what any Court may say. If **Senator Gould** desires to assert the supremacy of this Parliament, he should support this Bill. If Parliament is to justify its existence, it must see that its intention in passing legislation shall be given effect to, irrespective of the interpretation of any Court. {: #subdebate-26-0-s7 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP -- I shall not detain the Senate at any great length in replying to the debate; but the statement made by **Senator Keating** that this Bill has been introduced to deal with a case that is pending in the Courts cannot be allowed to go unquestioned. The proof which the honorable senator submitted in support of his statement was a telegram sent by him to a city firm of solicitors, and the reply of that firm to the telegram. In moving the second reading of the Bill, I stated in good faith the purpose for which it has been introduced. No one could have any knowledge of a case being prepared in a solicitor's office, and I certainly had no such knowledge. The fact that **Senator Keating** sent his telegram is a proof that he had no knowledge that a case was pending. How could I be expected to have any such knowledge when it was not possessed by **Senator Keating,** whose daily business is connected with the administration of the laws of the country?. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- Does the honorable senator mean to say that **Senator Keating** was in a better position to know that a case was pending than was the AttorneyGeneral ? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- The AttorneyGeneral takes up the same position as I do, and says that no case was pending. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- Then he evidently takes up a wrong position. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I say that if **Senator Keating** was not deliberately trying to misrepresent the position, that would certainly be the effect of his statement if it was allowed to go uncontradicted. We have to remember that there was a case before the Arbitration Court, and in that case a decision was given with which the union concerned complied, as far as it was possible for it to* do ; and it has been found necessary to introduce further legislation to prevent the dismemberment of that union. I rose to say that if **Senator Keating** did not deliberately intend to mislead the public, the effect of the telegram he has produced from a private firm of solicitors would be to mislead them on the question whether a case is pending. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- **Senator Keating** made his statement honestly and straightforwardly. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I consider that he showed a want of candour, inasmuch as if his statement were allowed to go unquestioned, it would convey a false impression to the general public as regards a case pending. A case may becontemplated by some private firm of solicitors; but, so far as I am concerned, I have no knowledge of any case pendingat the present time. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- Has the Australian Workers Union complied with the order of the Court, or is this legislation introduced to prevent the necessity of its full compliance with that order? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I have already stated that the Australian Workers Union, has complied with the order so far as it could do so, and that complete compliance with the order would involve the dismemberment of the union. I have said that under this Bill certain registrations will be continued, and that this will prevent the dismemberment of the Australian Workers Union. That has nothing to do with any case pending. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- The Australian Workers Union wasgiven an opportunity to make certain amendments to comply with the judicial' decision; but a complete compliancewith that decision would have resulted in the dismemberment of the union. TheGovernment now come forward with this legislation to prevent the necessity for a complete compliance with the existinglaw. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- No ; the order of the Court has been carried out by theAustralian Workers Union so far as it could have been carried out without thedismemberment of the union. Parliament is asked to pass this Bill to prevent that taking place. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould: -- It could not take place if, in the matter . of its registration, the Australian Workers Union had acted in conformity with the law. . {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- That has nothing to do with a case pending. The charge made by **Senator Keating** is a very serious one. He has said that there is a case pending, and that the Government are deliberately trying to interfere with that. I rose to contradict that statement. I could not permit it to go without question, seeing that it is not within the knowledge of the Government that there is any case pending. Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided. AYES: 19 NOES: 0 N oes . . . . 3 Majority . . . . 16 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment. {: .page-start } page 6777 {:#debate-27} ### REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL {: #debate-27-s0 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP -- In moving - >That this Bill be now read a second time, I need make no explanation, as it explains itself. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- It is a Bill in a hundred. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- It is a Bill so simple that no mistake can be made. It amends section 6a of the principal Act by omitting the words " eight weeks " and inserting in their stead the words " nine weeks," and also by omitting the words " one week " and inserting in their stead the words " two weeks." It really adds a week to the time-limit. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913 **-Colonel Sir Albert** Gould. - Let it go. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- As the measure is thoroughly understood by honorable senators, I beg to submit the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment. {: .page-start } page 6777 {:#debate-28} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-28-0} #### Panama Exposition Commission Motion (by **Senator Pearce)** proposed - >That the Senate do now adjourn, {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP -- Even at the risk of detaining honorable senators a little while I desire to read a letter to myself from the Minister of External Affairs. I promised **Senator de** Largie certain information with regard to the PanamaPacific Exposition Commission, and I think it is only fair to the Minister in the other place that I should read the letter which he sent along - {:#subdebate-28-1} #### Melbourne, 8th September, 1915 {:#subdebate-28-2} #### Dear Senator Gardiner, I have received your memorandum of the 3rd instant, drawing my attention to a debate in the Senate on the 1st instant respecting the Panama-Pacific Exposition Commission. During this debate a statement was made to the effect that **Mr. Edward,** the late Secretary to the Commission, had withheld from the Commission certain letters written by **Mr. Niel** Nielsen to **Mr. Deakin.** This statement is not correct. Apart from other evidence, the minute-book of the Commission shows that all letters and cables from **Mr. Nielsen** to the Commission were duly produced by **Mr. Edward** and considered by the Commission.. This applies specially to the cables and letters from **Mr. Nielsen** despatched immediately after the outbreak of the war, in which **Mr. Nielsen** urged withdrawal of Australia from the Exposition. **Mr. Edward,** being an officer of this Department and unable to engage in any pub- lic controversy, I am bound to ask you to be good enough to make it clear to your honorable House that no blame is properly attachable to him in this connexion. As you are aware, the Panama-Pacific Exposition Commission was the creation of the late Government. When we assumed office in September last, I found that the contract for the erection of the pavilion in San Francisco, as well as nearly all other operations for our representation there, had been suspended. At that time the press was almost unanimously urging that Australia should withdraw from the Exposition, a view largely supported by public opinion. In the circumstances, as we had only just been sworn in, I looked to the Commission and depended entirely on it for guidance and advice. The Commission's response was a memorandum, dated 21st September, in which, after "reciting the outlay already incurred and that to which we were committed, the advantages of proceeding with our representation were set out with great force and conviction. The Government was moved by the arguments thus advanced, and at once determined to complete the pavilion as well as other arrangements for the effective representation of Australia at the Exposition. This memorandum, which was, I understood, the joint production oF **Mr. Deakin** and **Mr. Edward,** made no mention of the cables and letters from **Mr. Nielsen** urging withdrawal on the ground that the war was likely to reduce the Exposition from the status of a gre.it international affair down to the dimensions of " an ordinary American show." I was left in ignorance of **Mr. Nielsen's** strong views until the 24th December, when they came under my notice by the merest accident. By this time **Mr. Edward** had reached San Francisco, and **Mr. Deakin** was preparing to follow him thither. This is doubtless the case of " suppression " which **Senator de** Largie had in mind during his speech in the debate before referred to. But there was no suppression of documents from tb e Commission itself. There may be some difference of opinion as to whether **Mr. Edward,** when submitting the memorandum of 21. st September, should not have directed my attention to **Mr. Nielsen's** warning. In ordinary circumstances, i»s an officer of the Department, bo would have been bound to do so. But at this time his connexion with the Department hnd* practically ceased, and lie had become almost wholly the servant of the Commission. The functions of this body had not been defined in any way bv the Government which created it. **Mr. Edward** may have thought that the Commission really had the right to ignore **Mr. Nielsen's** warning, and to proceed with or withdraw from the Exposition as it thought fit. I admit that this view conflicts with the submission of the memorandum of the 21st September, which, in itself, was a recognition that the Government and not the Commission was the authority to say the final word in the matter. But unless one holds an officer responsible for what is dictated to him by a superior, I am unable to see that **Mr. Edward** is censurable for the omission to disclose **Mr. Nielsen's** representations to me. He might fairly claim that ns an officer of the Commission, his duty ended in giving effect to the Commission's instructions to him. Moreover, responsibility for the memorandum in question - for what it omitted as well ns for what it contained - was accepted by the President of the Commission, whose signature is attached to it. Yours faithfully, {: type="A" start="H"} 0. Mahon. {: #subdebate-28-2-s0 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia .- I desire to make a few remarks on this rather contradictory letter, which starts by saying that my statement here was incorrect, and admits later on that there was a suppression. It says that the clerk, **Mr. Edward,** did not suppress or conceal anything from the Commissioner, **Mr. Deakin,** but later it states that there was a suppression, and that **Mr. Mahon,** the Minister, was kept from knowing certain things. It goes on to say that the clerk did not seem to understand that the Minister should have been informed. Contradictory statements of that kind need a great deal more explaining than is offered in the letter. Another thing to which I desire to draw attention is that, at the time **Mr. Mahon** found this out for himself by mere accident, **Mr. Edward** was no longer an official of the Department, but was employed by the Commission in San Francisco. There, again, there is a contradiction, because the Minister recalled the clerk from San Francisco to the office here, and **Mr. Edward** started in the office again, and is there still. I contend that he was never out of the employ of the Department. For 'the Minister to say that because **Mr. Edward** was in San Francisco on Government business he was no longer an official in the Department is a side-stepping of the whole question. I wish to point out something else. **Mr. Mahon** says that there was no suppression of documents from the Commissioner. That is to say that, so far as **Mr. Deakin** is concerned, nothing was suppressed from him. How does **Mr. Mahon** know that? In the letter he admits that certain information was withheld from himself, that is to say, the cablegrams and the letters sent by **Mr. Nielsen,** advising the Government not to send a Commissioner to the Exposition, as it was only going to be an ordinary American show. If that information was withheld from **Mr. Mahon,** how does he know that it was not also withheld from **Mr. Deakin** ? That is a question which I put to the Government, and one which has to be answered. The Minister admits that he only found this thing out by accident. How does he know that **Mr. Deakin** knew everything ? If the clerk was clever enough to keep information from the Minister of the Department of which he was1 an official, is it not quite possible that he also kept certain information from the Commissioner because the latter was no more to him than the former was ? The thing is far from being cleared up by the letter which has been read. All that it does is to state that **Mr. Deakin** was not kept in ignorance of **Mr. Nielsen's** advice, but that the Minister was not advised of the warning which **Mr. Nielsen** conveyed to Australia that the Exposition, instead of being a big international affair, was likely to be an ordin- ary show, and that it was not worth while for Australia to take part in it. **Mr. Mahon** admits that he was misled in that regard, but says that **Mr. Deakin** knew all about it. I should like to know a little more than the letter reveals, for it is obvious that there is a great deal left to be explained. **Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT** GOULD (New South Wales) [12.19 a.m.]. - Further investigation of this matter is undoubtedly required. When we committed ourselves to representation at the Exposition the thing should have been carried through without bickering or quarrel: The general public impression is that **Mr. Deakin** went there with certain authority, and while there lost an officer, and that another officer, not an official of the Department, was put in the place without **Mr. Deakin** being consulted. This raises the whole question of how far the Government are going to back up and look after their representatives on foreign missions. If **Mr. Deakin** was responsible he was entitled to every consideration in the matter of the officers under his control. If any officer under him there was wanted back here, **Mr. Deakin** should have been communicated with, and consulted as to the appointment of a successor. We have spent some thousands of pounds, and yet do not know what the report contains. Where is it? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- The Minister of External Affairs has not received it. {: .speaker-KLZ} ##### Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD: -- The papers say that the report was sent to the Prime Minister, and that **Mr. Mahon** declined to receive it unless **Mr. Deakin** sent it to him direct. If there had been no friction between him and **Mr. Deakin,** would he have taken that action ? The public have a right to know the effect of our representation there on our great primary industries, and no friction between the Minister and the Commissioner should be allowed to stand in the way. {: #subdebate-28-2-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr PRESIDENT: -- The reading of the letter and the discussion on it were entirely out of order under standing order 414, and I permitted them only because honorable senators are anticipating a very early adjournment, and perhaps would not have had another opportunity to discuss the matter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 12.25 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 September 1915, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1915/19150909_senate_6_78/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 9 September 1915

ASSENT TO BILLS

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF DR. CARTY SALMON

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator LONG:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Long:

CALL OF THE SENATE

Absence of Senator Bakhap

Senator BAKHAP:TASMANIA

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Senator DE LARGIE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator RUSSELL:

QUESTION

TREATMENT OF MEN ENLISTED

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator MILLEN:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

HAREFIELD HOSPITAL

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

RECALL OF MEDICAL OFFICERS

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator Keating:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

PATRIOTIC FUNDS

Senator O’KEEFE:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

LIVERPOOL CAMP

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

DISTRICT COMMANDS

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Pearce:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator Lynch:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

DECEASED SOLDIERS’ EFFECTS

Senator READY:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

TASMANIAN CAMPS

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

WAR CENSUS

Senator KEATING:

Senator RUSSELL:ALP

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

Senator Pearce:

PAPERS

QUESTION

LAUNCHING CEREMONIES

Senator WATSON:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:ALP

MILITARY ENCAMPMENT SITE, HAMILTON

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:

INCOME TAX BILL

Senate
9 September 1915

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator LONG:
TASMANIA

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator RUSSELL:
ALP

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

Senator WATSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western: Australia

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

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