Senate
14 May 1930

12th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 3 p.m. and read prayers.

page 1672

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE

Preference to Unionists

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

– Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell me if it is a fact, as reported in the press, that the Government has issued instructions for the preparation of a list showing the non-unionists in the Public Service with the object of debarring them from participating in. any benefits extended to the Public Service under public service arbitration awards, and of providing that they shall be the first to be dismissed?

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

– I know of no such instruction having been issued, but if the honorable senator will place his question on the notice-paper, I shall furnish him with a full answer to-morrow.

page 1672

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Canberra Cottages

Senator DOOLEY brought up the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, together with minutes of evidence, relating to the proposed erection of cottages at Canberra.

page 1672

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Audit Act - Transfers of amounts approved by the Governor-General in Council - Financial Year 1929-30- Dated 2nd May, 1930.

Judiciary Act and High Court. Procedure Act- Rule of Court- Dated 28th April, 1930.

Public Service Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 44.

Post and Telegraph Act- Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930. No. 41- No. 42.

Housing Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 40.

Land Tax Assessment Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 46.

page 1672

QUESTION

REMISSION OF CUSTOMS DUTY

Steel-work for Sydney Harbour Bridge- Machinery forwiluna Gold-Mine and Yallourn Power Plant.

Has any application been made to the Government for remission of duties on steel imported for the North Shore Bridge, Sydney?

What was the value of the steel imported for this bridge?

What was the amount of duty payable thereon ?

Was any remission of duty given, and, if so, what was the amount of such remission?

When was the application made?

When was the remission granted?

Senator DALY:
ALP

– The information is being obtained.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Has any request for a remission of customs duties payable on machinery imported, or to be imported, by the Wiluna Gold-mining Company of Western Australia, been received?
  2. If so. what was the date when such request was received ?
  3. Was any decision arrived at by the Government in respect to such request, and, if so, what was the decision?
  4. On what date was such decision made?
Senator DALY:

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

  1. Yes.
  2. 21st March.1 929, but sufficient particulars to enable the department to investigate the position in respect of local manufacture were not furnished by the company until March, 1930.
  3. Decision has not yet been arrived at.
  4. See reply to 3.
Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. In view of the necessity for assisting the gold-mining industry, will the new mining machinery being installed at Wiluna for the Wiluna gold-mines be admitted free of duty?
  2. If not. what relief will be given to this important enterprise in connexion with the importation of its large mining plant?
Senator DALY:

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

  1. Only such machinery as is shown by departmental investigation to be of a class or kind not commercially manufactured in Australia will be admitted underBy-law Item 174, free (United Kingdom preferential tariff) 10 per cent ad valorem (general tariff).
  2. It is not the practice to disclose the Government’s policy in reply to questions.
Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Were the plant and machinery required for the power plant at Yallourn, for the production of electric power for Melbourne from local coal, admitted free of duty?
  2. What was the value of the importations for this work?
  3. What was the amount of duty remitted?
  4. Will the Government similarly remit the whole of the duty on the plant and machinery required for the production from local coal of electric power for Collie for the benefit of a large number of primary producers?
  5. If not, why is the Western Australian power project subjected to differential treatment, as compared with that for Melbourne?
Senator DALY:

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

  1. No. Portion only of the plant and machinery was so admitted some years ago by a previous administration.
  2. £738,704.
  3. £134,819.
  4. The whole of the duty was not remitted.
  5. See reply to No. 4.
Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. What arc the quantities and values of the importations into Australia in connexion with the erection of the Sydney Harbour Bridge?
  2. What amount of duty has been remitted in connexion with this public work?
  3. Is it a fact that the whole of the great main arch of the bridge is constructed of British steel which has been imported free of duty for the purpose?
Senator DALY:

– The information is being obtained.

page 1673

QUESTION

TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION WITH TASMANIA

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. What is the position relative to the proposal to establish a telephonic service between Tasmania and other States?
  2. What is the cause of delay in connexion with this matter?
Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

– The PostmasterGeneral has furnished the following reply to the honorable senator’s questions : -

  1. and 2. Investigations are being continued into the technical merits of wireless and cable services, particularly in relation to the somewhat remarkable developments which have taken place in the manufacture of submarine cables for telephonic purposes. It has to be recognized, however, that in existing economic circumstances there is unfortunately no option but to defer the projected scheme, which is one of considerable magnitude, for the time being.

page 1673

TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT

Waterside Regulation : Motion for Disallowance of Statutory Rule No. 38

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.7]. - I move -

That Statutory Rules, 1930, No. 38, Transport Workers (Waterside) Regulations, be disallowed.

Before dealing particularly with the merits of this motionI wish to say that a leading member of the Opposition in the Federal Parliament has received an anonymous letter threatening him with physical violence and hinting at bombs being used if he takes any further action in regard to the waterside workers. That letter has been sent to the Commissioner of Police in the State from which it has been received, but it shows the psychology of certain persons interested in this matter. The members of the Opposition in the Federal Parliament will not be deterred by threats from doing what they regard as their public duty.

It is not possible to adequately estimate the importance of the motion I have submitted without a knowledge and review of the history of the waterside workers case. In December, 1927, the Waterside Workers Federation called a strike in the transport industry - it really followed a series of strikes in the maritime industry extending over a number of years. The Commonwealth Arbitration Court subsequently intervened and consented to adjudicate upon the dispute provided the union promised to obey the award when made. That promise was given by the union executive in writing, and an award was given by the court to come into operation on the 10th September, 1928. A conference of the Waterside Workers Federation, representing 36 branches, having been convened, it unanimously carried a resolution refusing to work under that award, despite the promise previously given in writing to obey the award when made. Another strike ensued. In a statement by Mr. Bruce, the then Prime Minister, in Parliament on the 11th September, 1928, the Government warned the union and appealed to its members to resume work. It also issued an appeal to the State Governments to do all they could to assist in maintaining sea transport. On 10th September, 1928, the award became law. The union defied the Government and the law, and called upon its members to strike and thus hold up sea transport all round the Australian coast with the exception of a few ports. The matter was again raised in Parliament and the Prime Ministersaid that trade must go on. He appealed to other persons to come in and carry on the work and promised that the men who worked under the award would receive protection. On 21st September, 1928, the then Government introduced the Transport Workers Bill givingpower to make regulations for licensing workers in the maritime industry. It is interesting to look back on some of the statements made at that time. I direct attention to a statement then made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) who said -

We are also informed that there will be no victimization of the men who offer their services at this juncture. I regret that the Prime Minister did not expand that theme. In what way does he propose to see that victimization does not occur? Who drop nonunionists as soon as industrial trouble is over? Why, the employers.

We shall see what we have always seen. We shall see what we saw as the result of the last maritime trouble in Australia when non-union bureaux were set up and preference was given to the members of non-union organizations . . . Labour members were appealed to by non-unionists who had been thrown out of work by the ship-owners and could not obtain employment. . . . Again in 1921-22, when I believe the Prime Minister was Treasurer, £4,446 was granted for the relief of non-unionists who had been thrown aside like a squeezed orange, that is tossed into the gutter. That has been the fate of those unfortunates who, through eceonomic pressure have gone to the aid of employers in an industrial trouble.

On the same occasion the present Minister for Health and Repatriation (Mr. Anstey) made thisstatement -

Whether the Government is capitalistic or communistic those services which are vital to the existence of the nation should be protected. It is imperative that the Government whether controlled by capitalists or communists should keep those essential services open.

Mr. Makin, the present Speaker in another place, also said -

The Leader of the Opposition and other hdnorable members on this side while having the greatest; contempt for the unmanly actions of such individuals recognize that those men who were deserted by their former employers may surely have expected greater loyalty. . . Is it reasonable to suppose that honorable members on this side would gloat over the misfortunes of men ? We abhor their reprehensible actions but never find delight in the adversity of even so unfaithful a person. . . . . Men who degrade their manhood by accepting employment during a strike are cast adrift when they have served the dirty purpose of their employers. The only sympathy these men receive comes from those whom theyhave injured by accepting work.

These references will be found in Hansard of the 21st September, 1928. The Transport Workers Bill came before the Senate and when introducing it I made this statement on behalf of the Government -

The Government intends that the protection which is now being offered under this bill to chose who will undertake to work under the terms of the award shall be of a permanent and not of a temporary nature. . . . but I wish to unhesitatingly make it clear that the protection that will be afforded will be ofa permanent nature.

When Mr. Scullin was speaking, the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) interjected -

Does not the honorable member (Mr. Scullin) believe in protecting volunteer labour?

Mr. Scullin replied

No policy that encourages a batch of men to “ scab “ on their follows is any good to industry. … I was anxious to hear from the Prime Minister how these licences protect the volunteers. I could understand his claim if the licences were issued only to volunteers and thus conferred a preference which is the only effective protection. . . . I am quite certain that as soon as ship-owners are ready to reinstate the unionists, who are the best workers, they will do so and the volunteers, despite their licences, will disappear from the scene as volunteers always have done in every dispute.

Later, Mr. Scullin said -

Those who go to the courts must accept awards and observe them until they are varied.

A conference was held between the shipowners and the members of the Waterside Workers Federation with respect to sharing the work between the volunteers and the members of the Waterside Workers Federation. At that conference, which was held on the 5th July, 1929, Mr. Turley, who was an official of the federation, said -

Of course we have been told at the previous conferences that you as employers are under certain obligations to volunteers. Well, we have admitted that at the conferences when we have met you in the past.. . If you people would get down to the original volunteers who did come along to your assistance during the crisis when our men refused to do the work we would not object.

Mr, Goddard, another official of the Waterside Federation, at the same conference stated - . . and I say that the least you should do is to lookafter the men who did come to your assistance in the first place, the original volunteers.

Mr. Turley then said

We say thatwe agree to the recognized first preference to the original volunteers excepting Southern Europeans.

Mr. Mather, who was also present, stated

You gave a promise to certain men - those are the men who came to your assistance. If we could get down to a basis whereby the original number of men could be determined we accept that principle and we acknowledge that they should be given preference. . . . We are prepared to recognize the original volunteers and if we could get down to the approximate number I say the question will settle itself.

Mr. Cranny, another official of the Waterside Workers Federation, said -

Now, as Mr. Turley has stressed, our men have realized their mistake. They are quite satisfied to let the original volunteers who came to your assistance to have first preference but they do think, and so do we, that our members should be entitled to second preference as against men who have come to your assistance since we decided to go back under the Beeby award.

The facts of the case are that not only did the Government promise to stand by the men who came to the assistance of the country, but the shipowners also gave that public undertaking, and as a result of the appeal made volunteer labour came forward and carried on the work. The Waterside Workers Federation subsequently met and carried a resolution to the effect that as the repudiation of the award had served its purpose for the time being the men should return to work. In some ports this advice was obeyed - Fremantle is a case in point - and in others it was disregarded. Other branches of the federation treated the advice with contempt. Then followed the general election for the House of Representatives, and a new Parliament met on 6th February, 1929. The Bruce-Page Government having been returned with a majority, an amending Transport Workers Bill giving statutory effect to the regulations - which was a pledge given on the hustings - was introduced on 13th February, 1929, and was subsequently passed. The Transport Workers Act was passed under our trade and commerce powers to supplement the Arbitration Court award, toprotect it and to enable effect to be given to its provisions. A large number of licences were taken out, and employment proceeded. The members’ of the federation at first refused to apply for licences, but later they took out the licences and a movement then began by intimidation to force licensed workers off the wharfs. Then followed a series of outrages, which, I venture to say, are the most disgraceful in the records of unionism in Australia. Attacks were made upon the police, whose only crime was that they were protecting life and property. There were bomb outrages in Melbourne, and personal assaults of a cruel and callous character were made upon volunteers, who were forced to the ground and kicked almost to death. “ Basher “ gangs followed the men as they left their employment, and meeting them in lonely streets chased them like hungry wolves. This was the kind of treatment meted out to men whose only crime was that they were working under an award of the court in accordance with the law, and that they had come to the assistance of their country in its time of need.

Since the Transport Workers Act was given effect, there has been a period of unexampled peace around the coast of Australia. Not for fifteen years has there been such a period of freedom from disturbance as has been experienced since the passing of that act. This Government prof esses anxiety because of the volume of unemployment in Australia, and I venture to say that, in the course of the debate on this motion, we shall have from the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) and his supporters expressions of concern about the number of persons unemployed in the waterside industry. But is it not a fact that a great deal of this unemployment is the direct result of this Government’s high tariff policy and its prohibition of imports, which has caused a big decline of shipping to Australia? The following report, published in the Canberra Times of the 13th instant, bears out what I am saying: -

DISTRESS.

On the Waterfront.

Due to Tariff.

Sydney, Monday.

According to Mr. W. J. Mills, vigilance officer of the Waterside Workers Federation, thousands of members of the federation are unable to get employment, owing to the protection policy of the Federal Government and the general depression.

Mr. Mills, in a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin), stated that the position was deplorable. Many members and their families were on the verge of starvation and evictions from houses had been threatened owing to the tenants’ inability to pay their rent.

Many overseas vessels for Sydney arrived practically empty, resulting in there being no work for many men who had been employed on the waterfront all their lives.

It should be noted that the strike on thewaterfront had not extended to Sydney, and to this day waterside workers at that port are not licensed. Since no volunteers have been working on the wharfs there, this attempt to make it appear that unemployment in the waterside industry is the result of the operation of the Transport Workers Act is completely disposed of.

Let us examine the position and ascertain why the Government has taken action to intervene and set aside a decision of the Arbitration Court. I propose to read first the judgment of Chief JudgeDethridge, delivered on 21st December, 1928, when dealing with the application by the Waterside Workers Federation for the variation of an award in respect of the places of engagement in the port of Melbourne. His Honour intimated that, in his opinion,continuance of different places for the engagement of the two classes of labour was desirable for the time being, and adjourned the application to permit of the intention of the State Government being ascertained. Later in the same day, his Honour delivered the following judgment: -

I have seen the Premier. He says that his proposition was that the Government would provide a pick-up place, with suitable accommodation, where the union members should be picked up; that he recognized that for some time to come the mixed pick-up place would probably lead to difficulty; but, at any rate, his idea was not in any way to do anything by which the ship-owners would be limited in their right and power of picking up volunteer labour wherever they wished. His idea was to provide a pick-up place for the union members where the ship-owners, if they wanted union members, would have to pick them up. I gather from him he is still prepared to provide a proper place for that purpose. That being so, I do not propose to grant this application. I think that the union should take advantage of that offer which the Premier has made on behalf of the State; and that although for some little time there will be some inconvenience, it will not be for very long, and the final outcome will be a much more satisfactory arrangement than we have had for many a year in regard to these pick-up places in the port of Melbourne.

This matter, it should be noted, was discussed recently at a conference of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions. In the report of that gathering is to be found the genesis of this move by the Government. The following recommendation, submitted to the Australasian Council of Trade Unions Conference by its arbitration committee, was adopted by the conference on 1st March, 1930: -

That the congress requests the Federal Government, acting in co-operation with the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, to repeal the Transport Workers Act at the earliest suitable date; pending the repeal of the act, the congress urges that the Government, by regulation or otherwise, shall exercise all its powers to restore complete preference of employment in the industry to members of the Waterside Workers Federation in all ports of the Commonwealth.

In the Melbourne Age of 3rd March, 1930, there appeared a report of the conference proceedings. I take the following extract from a speech delivered by Mr. Turley, the secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation: - . . Were it not for the fact that the act was in operation the ship-owners would still be recruiting volunteers on the water-front, because in October last the Federal Government was in a position to decree that no more volunteers should be recruited. In that respect the act had done the members of the federation some good. If the act were repealed it would not remove a volunteer or restore one member of the federation to employment. The federation had not asked the Federal Government to repeal the act because that might lead to the Government being challenged in Parliament. But they said that the act which had been used against them was the very measure that could remove the evils it had created. Certain negotiations were taking place between the federation and the authorities, and the federation was satisfied that the legislation could be used to remove the evils complained of. They felt that the people whom they were asking to assist them could and would do the job for the federation.

In the Melbourne Argus of the same date, Mr. Turley was reported to have said -

One of the planks of the Labour platform was preference to unionists, and how could his organization doubt that the Government would refuse to give effect to that policy? Of the men employed atVictoria Dock, 90 per cent. belonged to some industrial organization.

There is the direction to this Government. There is the source from which the instruction emanated.

I turn now to a speech delivered by the present Attorney-General (Mr.

Brennan) at Port Adelaide, and reported in the Adelaide Advertiser of 21st March, 1930-

page 1677

WATERSIDE WORKERS

Promised “ Fair Play

Mr. Brennan at Port Adelaide.

The Federal Government will see that the waterside workers got fair play. This promise was made yesterday by the Federal AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Brennan), whenhe addressed about 1,000 men, mostly waterside workers, at Port Adelaide.

Mr. Brennan said that alterations would soon be made to the Transport Workers Act, and it was the intention of the Federal Government to issue new regulations under the act “ to redress the wrongs suffered by the trade union movement, and to render poetic justice

Listen to this from a man whose duty it is to administer the Arbitration Act -

The loyalty of the watersiders to trade unionism had placed them in the position they were in. to-day, and the Government would do all they could to assist them. . . .

It was the disloyalty of the waterside workers to the arbitration law that placed them in the position in which they find themselves to-day.

It is interesting to remember that the Waterside Workers Federation had at this time applied to the court for an award giving absolute preference to unionists in employment on the waterfront. Apparently they had two strings to their bow, one to persuade the Court to give them preference, and, failing that, to induce the Government to give it to them. Theapplication for preference came before the Arbitration Court and Judge Beeby gave the following judgment upon it, as reported in the Argus of 6 th of this month -

Judge Beeby, in the Arbitration Court yesterday, refused an applicationby the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia for an order forpreference to unionists. He indicated that in refusing the application he was influenced by a judgment given by the late Mr. Justice Higgins in similar circumstances in 1918. Judge Beeby, in a considered judgment, said that in 1928 members of the federation, under the direction of its management committee, refused to offer for employment at several ports, including Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane. Ship-owners and stevedores thereupon notified the federation of their intention to engage non-union labour after a named day. In some ports federation labour persisted after that day in refusing to offer for employment, and volunteer labour was enrolled. When calling for labour employers gave undertakings that, subject to efficiency, volunteers would be given preference of employment over members of the federation, and that such preference would continue if and when the strike ended. Some time later the federation1 declared the strike off, and its members again attended the picking-np places in search of employment. Employers .honoured their promise made to volunteers, and, later on, an application was made by the federation for a variation of the award by inserting a clause to provide for complete preference to unionists. Following the course taken by Mr. Justice Higgins in a similar set of circumstances in 1918, continued Judge Beeby, I directed the registrar of the court to inquire and report upon the actual number of volunteers engaged before the strike was declared off. Counsel for the federation asked for an order for preference of employment which would, if granted, lead to the immediate dismissal of a/1 volunteers and the restoration of control of waterside labour by the federation. I anticipated that the federation would submit some reasonable proposal for the sharing of work, with the volunteers until, in the course of time, they had been absorbed by the federation, on an agreement somewhat similar to that which closed the history of the 1917 strike. But no suggestion of compromise, was made. I was asked to grant the union full preference without any alternative proposals. During the proceedings it was frequently suggested that the inability of many members of the federation to obtain employment on the waterfront was a continuation of punishment inflicted by the Court. This is an entirely erroneous statement of the position. >

The industrial history of the federation had made it impossible to legalize control by the federation of waterfront labour. The present situation is, therefore, entirely of the federation’s own creation, and is in no way a punishment inflicted by the Court. . . In his judgment Mr. Justice Higgins said, in effect, that the discrimination against the federation was to be limited to reputable men engaged as volunteers. I am forced to the same conclusion in this case; but as none of the parties asks mc to make any similar order 1 can only determine whether an order for absolute preference to members of “the” federation, in terms of section 40 of the act, should be made. I think Chat it should not, and the “ application is therefore dismissed.

One of the promises made -by the present Government “when appealing ,,to the country was that there would be no interference with awards of the Arbitration Court on the part .of the Government. We then heard a good deal about political interference with the court. The echoes are still reverberating about the charge ““of interference in the Tohh Brown case. This Government may urge as a justification for the action that it has taken to achieve by regulation what the union failed to obtain by applica- tion to the court, the fact that the Bruce-Page Government on two occasions moved in Parliament to set aside awards given by the Public Service Arbitrator. I anticipate that such an objection may be used, and point out that there is no analogy between the two cases, as the Public Service Arbitration Act specifically provides that Parliament shall have power to disallow awards. That is part of the machinery of the act itself, whereas no such provision obtains in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act: This Government claims that the late Government was making an attack upon arbitration - a claim which has no foundation - and that it has been returned to power specifically to uphold the principle of arbitration. Yet one of its first actions is a move to set aside a carefully considered judgment of the Federal Arbitration Court. The court was ‘ requested to change its decision in .regard to pick-up places, and to rule that there should be a common pickup place. Chief Justice Dethridge pointed out that such a procedure would lead to riots, violence, aud other breaches of the peace, and he refused to make the change. The Government, notwithstanding the knowledge that it must possess, and which is possessed by the arbitration judge, that such a course will lead to breaches of the peace, has deliberately taken action to over-ride the decision of the court that there shall be separate picking-up places, and to render futile the court’s determination, not to make an award to the disadvantage of the volunteers. The object of the Government’s interference is to give opportunities for intimidation of the volunteers, and thus to get rid of them, so obtaining by force what the court refused to grant - the control by the Waterside Workers Federation of the supply of waterside labour.

During the debate on the Transport Workers Bill in “1929, ‘Mr, Scullin, who was then Leader of the Opposition in another place, ‘ had this* to say, as reported at page 333 of Hansard -

The right honorable gentleman asked what the Labour party would have done in the circumstances that I have mentioned. . . . I have never hesitated to say that a blunder was made in carrying out the original 1 motion. As Leader of the Labour party I have spoken on this subject on two occasions in my place in this chamber, and on each occasion I hare had the full concurrence of my supporters when I declared that we stand for the upholding of constitutional authority and the observing of the law.

Mr. Scullin said that he had the full concurrence of his supporters. I have before me a report from the Melbourne Argus of the 2nd of this month, which reads -

page 1679

QUESTION

POLICE AND WHARF LABOUR

TradesHall Attacks Hogan Ministry.

Outspoken criticism of the State Labour Ministry in having provided police protection for the volunteers on the waterfront took place at a meeting of the Trades Hall Council last night. A proposal, of which notice had been given at the previous meeting by delegates representing the Waterside Workers Federation, was submitted to the meeting as follows : - “ That this council condemns the action of the Hogan Government, in having provided special trains and police protection for volunteer wharf workers, thus minimizing the efforts of the Federal Labour Government to provide preference for bonafide trade unionists on the waterfront, and demands that the money so spent be used in relieving distress and unemployment.” Mr. C. Crofts (Gas Employees Union) sought to have discussion on the proposal adjourned on the ground that the matter was’ to come before the Arbitration Court to-day.

Mr. P. Myers (Saddlers Union) proposed several addendums to the motion, with the object of condemning the State Ministry, but they were ruled out of order by the president (Mr. G. Hayes). A motion that the president’s ruling be disagreed with was agreed to. Mr. Myers then proposed as an addendum to the motion that the council had no confidence in the Hogan Government, and called upon it to resign.

Mr. N. Roberts (Amalgamated Engineering Union) moved that the discussion be adjourned, and that the executives of the Trades Hall Council and the Victorian Labour party confer on the question.

Several delegates contended that the workers were not receiving the treatment from the Hogan Ministry that they had a right to expect, and although the proposal for an adjournment was strongly opposed by some of the speakers, it was ultimately agreed to.

That is very ingenuous. In what way did the Hogan Government minimize the action of the Federal Labour Government when it provided police protection for the volunteers? Does it mean that the Federal Government intended to offer to the members of theWaterside Federation an opportunity to use physical force or intimidation? That seems to be the sinister suggestion. On the following day the same newspaper contained this report -

Complaints made by delegates at a meeting of the Trades Hall Council on Thursday night against the policy of the State Ministry led to a stormy conference between the executive of the council and the central executive of the Victorian Labour party at the Trades Hall last night. Delegates representing the Waterside Workers Federation had, at the council meeting, condemned the Hogan Government for having provided special trains and police protection for the volunteer . wharf workers, while other delegates had criticised the Ministry because they alleged it had disregarded the claims of the industrial movement, and because they had not received the treatment that they expected from a Labour Government. A vote of no-confidence in the Ministry was avoided only by supporters of the political wing inducing the council to agree as a compromise to a conference between the two executives.

Among those who attended the conference last night were the Premier (Mr. Hogan) and Messrs. Blackburn and Drakeford, M.L.A.’s, who are members of the executive. Two representatives of the waterside workers were also present by invitation. While Mr. Hogan was explaining the Ministry’s policy heated exchanges occurred between him and several of the delegates. It was strongly urged that the Government should exercise its powers to enforce preference to unionists. Complaints were made that large parties of police sent to “ pickups “ to protect volunteers had, by their presence, hindered unionists in obtaining engagement. It was asserted also that the State Ministry, by allowing the police to be used, had nullified the action of the Federal Government in abolishing the compound at Victoria dock.

Mr. Scullin may stand for constitutional government; but those of his supporters who attended those meetings certainly do not. They are even against the provision of police protection to prevent breaches of the peace.

To compel the shipping companies to pick up volunteers at the places prescribed in the old award wouldbe to do what the court on more than one occasion has refused to do. Speaking from the Bench, the Chief Judge of the Arbitration Court, said -

The ship-owners can pick up non-union labour in their own offices if they like; they have a free hand as far as picking-up nonunion labour is concerned. I have already said that, in my opinion, the right or power on the part of the owners to pick up volunteer labour should not be interfered with.

The shipping companies had already expressed to the Federal AttorneyGeneral their grave fears as to the serious rioting and disorder which would inevitably result were the volunteers in Melbourne and in Adelaide to be picked up at the same places as the members of theWatersideWorkers Federation. Many others have expressed the same fears. The Chief Judge of the Arbitration Court also said - . . One would be foolish not to recognize that to admit a number of men who are suffering from a sense of hardship at having lost their jobs would be to bring about the danger of violence and disorder. Apparently if your men were allowed into the pick-up places provided by the award there would be grave danger of rioting. We know perfectly well what would happen. If all the men in the federation at Brisbane -I am not singling them out as being different to the men in other ports - were all allowed in this pick-up place where volunteers are picked up and the chosen few federation men are picked up, there would be a riot in a couple of minutes after the pick-up was made, and you would have a score of men pitched into the water. That is what would happen. It is inevitable.

The action of the Government will make such things a certainty. They can be avoided only by having separate pickingup places.

I wish to anticipate some of the arguments which I know will be used, for they have been used before in this connexion. The question is sometimes asked whether the members of the “Waterside Workers Federation are to be punished for all time. I ask whether the volunteers are to be punished for all time. If the men who came forward to work under the award of the court, when the country was in dire need are to be displaced by men who rebelled against the award of the court, and flouted the law of the country, is not that victimization of the volunteers? That argument applies to both sides. The unemployment which exists among the waterside workers to-day is not solely due to the dispute on the waterfront. I point out also that members of the Waterside Workers Federation are getting a large share of the work on the waterfront around Australia. In Western Australian ports, for instance, they get all the work, because they did not go on strike. That is the position also in Sydney, Hobart and Geelong. Only in those ports, such as Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane, where the strikers went to such lengths as to refuse to take out licences, is there any sharing of the work. But even in the port of Melbourne, concerning which the newspapers stated that 2,000 men attended the pickup, and that only a small proportion of unionists were taken on, a large portion of the trade is still solely in the hands of the members of the Waterside Workers Federation. They have, for instance, a monopoly of the coal trade.

Another argument is that the giving of work to volunteers does an injustice to the members of the Waterside Workers Federation who are returned soldiers. It is said that by supporting volunteers, those who profess to stand for preference to returned soldiers are victimising them. That argument also cuts both ways. I know that there are more returned soldiers among the volunteer wharf labourers in the port of Melbourne than there are in the ranks of the Waterside Workers Federation there.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Another argument is that there are numbers of aliens among the volunteers. I believe that that is the case; but that state of affairs is not peculiar to the volunteers for the Waterside Workers Federation also includes a number of aliens in its ranks. There is a very natural reason for that. Those who work upon the waterfront are usually men who have previously followed maritime industries. There is a large number of aliens among the crews of ships that call at our ports, and consequently there is a greater percentage of aliens among the waterfront labourers than there is in the general community. Among the office-bearers of the Seamens Union are men whose names obviously show they are of foreign extraction. A little while ago the secretary of that union was obviously not of British nationality. I refer to Mr. Johannsen, who, I am just informed, still holds that office. That argument, therefore, as applied to the volunteers, does not cut much ice.

I have no desire to discuss the matter further. I submit that the Government has interfered with the law as expressed through the tribunal set up by this Parliament to deal with industrial matters; it has overridden a decision of the Arbitration Court, and has done so at the dictation and request of a body of men who, on their own admission, desire this action to be taken in order to give them an opportunity by intimidation, force and violence, to obtain that preference which the Arbitration Court has declared they are not fit to have. The Government has taken an action unparalleled in the history of governments iri Australia, an absolutely unjustifiable action which- 1 arn sure the people of this country, when they know the whole facts of the case, will not endorse.

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

– I regret that the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) should have introduced into his speech matters which were obviously intended to prejudice the fair trial of this particular issue. The disallowance of a regulation is a serious step which the Senate should not be prepared to take except upon some clear and well defined principle. Otherwise, it might be found disallowing regulations simply from caprice, or perhaps to humiliate the Government. I invite honorable senators to approach the question, not from the standpoint of whether the waterside-workers were right or wrong in striking when they did, or whether Parliament was right or wrong in passing the Transport “Workers Act, but on the assumption that the previous Government was absolutely justified in introducing that act, and to ask themselves whether the present Government, in making this regulation, has done anything contrary to the letter or spirit of that legislation which its critics have placed upon the statute-book.

In order to. bolster up his case against the Government, Senator Pearce quoted an anonymous letter. I have been in the Ministry for but a few months, but if I were to take notice of all the threats conveyed to me by anonymous correspondents, I should certainly have more grey hairs in my head than I have. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the Labour movement is just as sane to-day as it was when he was a member of it, and that threats of the nature of those he mentioned could not and have not emanated from the Labour party. If the right honorable senator has any fears as to the safety of the particular gentleman to whom the letter was addressed, or if that gentleman himself is anxious for an assurance from those of us who are sitting on this side of the chamber, I can give the assurance that we stand behind the Opposition in their statement that threats will not deter them from doing what they conceive to be their duty. That is the attitude of the Government. No threat by the Senate, nor any humiliation sought to be placed upon the Government by the Senate, will deter Ministers from doing what they conceive to be their obvious duty. Honorable senators must remember that although the numbers in the Senate may be against the Labour Government to-day, they may be in favour of the Government tomorrow. I ask honorable senators also to remember that Ministers have some feelings in the matter, so that when a regulation is issued, honorable senators ought not to rush off to try to ascertain what some person has said in some trades hall. They do not hear of honorable senators supporting the Government referring to the fact that a member of another place rushed into print with the declaration that the Senate would be instructed to take certain action. “Would any one suggest that it was possible for honorable senators of the Opposition to be instructed by Mr. Gullett or some one else as to what they should do ? It would be just as reasonable for me to suggest that Mr. Gullett has the power to instruct honorable senators as it is for suggestions to be made that the Government is bound by what some one has said in the Melbourne Trades Hall. I have asserted on several occasions, and I repeat, that the present Government owes allegiance to nobody outside Parliament except the people who placed it in power, and accepts no responsibility for statements made by unauthorized persons.

What principle has been infringed by the framing of this regulation? It has nothing whatever to do with the matters mentioned by Senator Pearce. It is not, as the honorable senator said it was, an attempt on the part of the Government to introduce preference to unionists. There is no mention of preference to unionists in the regulation itself and its observance by the employers would not bring us one step nearer to preference to unionists than was possible prior to its introduction. I challenge the honorable senator’s suggestion that the regulation has obviously overridden a decision of an arbitration tribunal. Senator Pearce did not show us in what respect an arbitration decision had been overridden. It is true that Chief Judge Dethridge, very early in this dispute, made certain statements regarding the psychology of the two contesting camps on the waterfront and said that because of the abnormality of the conditions prevailing in these two rival camps, it would be better to keep them apart. But those were the conditions applying months ago. They do not apply to-day. The best test to apply is to ascertain what has actually happened. Senator Pearce has referred to certain fears that were in the mind of Chief Judge Dethridge about men being thrown into the sea. I have not seen where any one has been thrown into the sea, although this regulation has been in operation for twentynine days.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– There are too many police to permit of that being done.

Senator DALY:

– There are no more police on the wharfs to-day than there were prior to the introduction of the regulation.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That does not apply to the pick-up place.

Senator DALY:

– There is no need for police protection at the pick-up place. There has never been the semblance of a riot. The feelings between the two camps are not what they were months ago.

Senator Ogden:

– What is the object of the regulation?

Senator DALY:

– It has been introduced so that the operations under the Transport Workers Act can be effectively policed; so that we can have a common pick-up place and so that we can see if it is not possible to engender in the hearts and minds of the two contesting factions the absolute necessity of seeing if they cannot come together and get rid of the existing trouble.

Senator Reid:

– That would not create more employment.

Senator DALY:

– At Port Adelaide, trade has been absolutely ruined because of the refusal of the ship-owners to give employment to the members of the Waterside Workers Federation, or, at any rate, because of the discrimination shown in giving employment. The same conditions apply at Port Melbourne, and it is absolutely essential in the interests, not only of the industry itself, but also of those who are dependent on it, that some way should be found out of the present difficulty. The Government has no desire to commit any breach of the law.

The position on the waterfront has given Ministers the gravest concern ever since they have been in office, and different avenues of settlement have been explored. We are really at our wits’ end. The difficulty is that we cannot get to the shipping lords in Great Britain. If the matter were left to the Australian shippers and stevedores the trouble could be settled within ten minutes.

Senator Ogden:

– What would be the nature of the settlement - the employment of none but unionists?

Senator DALY:

– That question does not apply, because I take it that the volunteers have their own trade union organization. The Waterside Workers Federation knows its limitations to-day. If honorable senators opposite were only in the same position as the Government is to see how near we are to a settlement of this trouble, instead of harassing Ministers by moving for the disallowance of regulations on no ground whatever, they would be assisting the Government by allowing the matter to stand.

Senator Reid:

– Can the Minister produce any evidence that the overseas shippingowners have interfered?

Senator DALY:

– I have not the records here, but I do not think there is very much doubt that no settlement of this trouble can be reached without reference to Great Britain. South Australian shippingagents can confer with South

Australian workers, but the result of their deliberations must be referred to a central shipping committee located, I believe, in Melbourne, and before there can be any final settlement the matter must be referred by the shippers to their Home offices.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The same thing applies to the union authorities ?

Senator DALY:

– I am not suggesting that the procedure is uncommon, but that it is unfortunate. The dispute has gone beyond Australia. That, however, does not affect this particular matter. I ask honorable senators opposite in what respect the regulation offends against the principles which should guide a government in the framing of regulations. Surely it is not going to be contended because the members of the present Opposition, when in power, were in favour of the Transport Workers Act and we, then in opposition, were opposed to it, that a regulation now made by us under it should be disallowed. I urge upon honorable senators the importance of this motion from the viewpoint of constitutional government. The Opposition majority in the Senate should not be used against the Government unless it has done something contrary to the principles of legislation. I ask honorable senators to calmly and dispassionately study the regulation in an endeavour to see what principle, if any, has been infringed. The regulation is strictly within the four corners of the act under which it has been framed. There has been no overriding of a decision of the Arbitration Court in the matter of preference. There is nothing in it to which exception can be taken.

Senator Chapman:

– Does it not override the decision of the court in regard to pick-up places?

Senator DALY:

– No.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– It fixes a pick-up place.

Senator DALY:

– Merely for the engagement of labour under the award. The volunteer workers are not engaged under an award of the court.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The judge refused to do what the Government has done and he gave his reasons.

Senator DALY:

– Early in the dispute, when feeling was running very high, there occurred many of those regrettable incidents to which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) referred. The judge refused an application of the Waterside Workers Federation to make the old pick-up place, which was .the federation’s rooms, the only pick-up place under the award. He refused the application and said that in view of the high feeling which existed between the two factions, the volunteers should have a separate pick-up, and so the practice continued. The court could not order a pick-up place for the volunteers.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Yes it could.

Senator DALY:

– It is idle for the right honorable senator to make that assertion. I think Senator McLachlan, as a lawyer, will support my statement, that the court cannot prescribe conditions of labour in respect of men who are not bound by the award.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It could provide for preference to unionists and then prescribe the place of pick-up.

Senator DALY:

– Then why not wait until the court has given preference ‘o unionists and provided for a pick-up place before moving to disallow the regulation. Even in that respect the emptiness of the argument is apparent. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) knows that the court will not give the preference to these unionists. As an application for preference has been rejected by the court, we can examine this subject on the assumption that preference has been denied by the court, and then determine whether the court has power to prescribe pick-up places. The Government has done something which the court has not the power to do - over which the court has no jurisdiction. The court has no power to prescribe pick-up places for volunteer workers, as the jurisdiction of the Court does not apply to men who are not members of a union. If some authority is necessary I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the recent American Drycleaners’ case, decided by the High Court, which clearly laid it down, following other decisions, that these conditions applied only to employees who were members of the claimant organization. The Commonwealth Arbitration Court could not prescribe pick-up places for employees w.ho were not members of the Waterside Workers Federation.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The Minister suggests the Government can.

Senator DALY:

– Yes; and by this regulation. I think Senator McLachlan will admit, quite apart from the merits of the case, that the volunteer workers could become parties to the award and make application to the court. I invite Senator McLachlan’s opinion concerning the charge that the Government is overriding the court. Such a charge is absolutely unfounded, because the court has not the power to do what the Government has done. The Government is not usurping a function of the court; but exercising a residual power left to this Parliament after it had delegated certain powers to the arbitral tribunal.

Senator Thompson:

– Why not leave well alone?

Senator DALY:

– That is what I am inviting the Senate to do. I am content to leave the regulation as it stands. The Leader of the Opposition has moved for its disallowance ; but I agree with Senator Thompson that we should leave well alone.

Senator Thompson:

– That is only a quibble.

Senator Ogden:

– The work is being done.

Senator DALY:

– I admit that work on the wharfs is being done, but I think the honorable senator will admit that there is not that peace on the waterfront which wc should all like to see.

Senator Ogden:

– I do not know. We have been doing very well lately.

Senator DALY:

– The honorable senator says he “does not know.” If the Government, with the knowledge that it possesses, takes certain action which it thinks right, surely members of the Opposition will not prevent it from doing that which the law permits it to do.

Senator McLachlan:

– What is the real objective of the regulation?

Senator DALY:

– The real objective is to get the parties themselves to do what we have been prevented from doing. We all know that, under abnormal conditions, certain things are likely to happen, but bat with a return to normality the position is different. During the heat of an election campaign, for instance, candidates say all sorts of things; but, after the election is over and they have come to know each other, they become quite friendly. That is common in almost every walk of life. The abnormal feeling which existed on the waterfront a few months ago is not present to-day.

Senator Reid:

– Does this apply only to Melbourne?

Senator DALY:

– Yes.

Senator Reid:

– Why?

Senator DALY:

– The Government believes in doing its best in every instance, and by this means it sees a possibility of bringing about industrial peace on the waterfront in a gradual way. If there’ is any abuse of the regulation it can he cancelled, or an amending regulation promulgated. I admit this is a piece of experimental legislation introduced by the Government for the specific purpose of bringing about 100 per cent, peace on the waterfront.

Senator Chapman:

– We have it now.

Senator DALY:

Senator Chapman, who says that we now have peace on the waterfront, has visited Port Adelaide when the men are not at work. But if he were to accompany me to that port during working hours, he would see numbers of our own men walking the streets because they cannot obtain a job. I think if he examines the position more’ carefully he will agree that a better system than is now operating at Port Adelaide should be introduced.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– A larger number of men could not be employed on the wharfs.

Senator DALY:

– No; but wc are endeavouring to bring about a better system of rationing the work.

Senator Chapman:

– Instead of men striking the work is going on. That is the difference.

Senator DALY:

– I do not know if Senator Chapman has convinced himself that the Transport Workers Act has brought about peace on the waterfront.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Certainly it has.

Senator DALY:

– I do not admit that. Those honorable senators who suggest that men do not strike on the waterfront to-day because of the Transport Workers Act cannot be serious. Wre know that men do not strike in times of depression any more than employers lockout their employees in times of prosperity. Human nature is human nature, and despite the existence of the Transport Workers Act I supposewe shall have strikes again. No legislation can effectively prevent strikes - it can only reduce their number and minimize their effects. I suggest to the Senate that if any industrial legislation which this Government brings down is to be treated as this matter has been by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), who simply gave us a historical survey of the facts leading up to the passing of the Transport Workers Act under which this regulation was framed, and read statements of events which happened months ago, but did not give any principle upon which, in his opinion, the Senate should disallow the regulation, we shall never make any progress. The members of the Opposition owe a duty to the country and should realize that the Government has tabled a regulation under an act which this Parliament deliberately passed andwhich should not be disallowed by this chamber unless it offends some principle of legislation.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW (Queensland) [4.18]. - The Leader of the Government in this chamber (Senator Daly) appealed to honorable senators on this side not to humiliate the Government but to study the motion of the Leader of the Opposition in a calm and dispassionate manner with a view to ascertaining whether the facts of the case had been properly presented by the right honorable gentleman. It is unnecessary for the Minister to instruct honorable senators on this side of the chamber as to what course they should follow. I remind the Minister that since the present Government has been in office honorable senators on this side have reviewed the legislation introduced by it with due regard to its merits and without endeavouring improperly to exercise the strength of the Opposition.

Senator Daly:

– Why not continue that policy?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.Although we have a large majority we have always endeavoured to assist the Government in passing legislation. The Minister said that unless this regulation infringed some principle of legislation honorablesenators should not support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) for itsdisallowance. The Commonwealth Arbitration Court was created by this Parliament for the purpose of adjusting wages and conditions of labour in the various industries of the Commonwealth. Any awardmade by the court should have the force of law. The court did make an award providing for certain conditions to govern the work on the waterfront, andit refused an application by the Waterside Workers Federation for one pick-up place at principal ports.

Senator Daly:

– The court refused an applicationfor a particular pick-up place.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.Although the court refused to fix one pick-up place, this Government has done so, the object being to enable the Waterside Workers Federation to secure preference over volunteers offering for employment on the waterfront. There is no doubt that its action is an infringement of an award of the court. That is why we are objecting to it.

I remind the Senate of the condition’s that existed around the coast of Australia for about ten years prior to the passing of the Transport Workers Act. No one can doubt that members of the Waterside Workers Federation had enjoyed great benefits under arbitration. Because of the casual nature of their employment, waterside workers were awarded higher rates of pay than those paid to workers in any other industry.

Senator Rae:

– They earned it.

Senator Thompson:

– Many of them did not.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– Unquestionably waterside workers enjoyed privileges which were not extended to any other section of workers, and it was not long before the officials of the federation, confident in the strength of their organization, converted those privileges into licence. Honorable senators are well aware of the state of affairs that existed at practically all ports. In Queensland, ship-owners, producers and the general public were harassed unmercifully for ten years, because of the way in which the Waterside Workers Federation abused its strength. On one occasion there was trouble between two rival sections of the federation at Cairns - the Dillon faction and the Brophy faction. These rival organizations were continually at war. For some considerable time they held up all shipping at Cairns, not because of any trouble concerning an Arbitration Court award or because of any action on the part of ship-owners or others, but because each was seeking to secure control of the industrial organization at that port. So serious did the position become that finally farmers and timber-getters, as well as dairymen from the Atherton tableland, and sugar-growers from the surrounding district, had to organize and carry out the work at the port in order to get their produce away. It was only after this demonstration of strength that the rival factions of the Waterside Workers Federation decided to go back to work. In 1926 they refused to handle sugar from the port of Cairns, and again the farmers had to work the ships themselves. Serious trouble occurred at Gladstone and once more the farmers were obliged to organize to do the work of the port, because the waterside workers refused to keep the refrigerating machinery in overseas ships operating, thus endangering important shipments of beef intended for the London market. The position at Bowen in 1925 was particularly difficult. All shipping at that port was held up and again the farmers had to come into town to load the vessels. Because the Fruitgrowers Association placed its office and telephone at the disposal of the farmers when they were working the ships, the waterside workers subsequently declared the Fruitgrowers Association and all its officials “black,” .and from 1925 to 1928 they refused to handle any inward or outward cargo for any member of the association or its officials. These are the people who now talk about victimization when an industrial trouble is over! For three years they victimized the unfortunate fruit-growers in the Bowen district simply because they made their office and telephone available to the sugar-growers. The following letter, written by the secretary of the Bowen Fruit Export Cooperative Association Limited, and dated the 17th March, 1930, sets out the position : -

This association has 240 shareholders and transports fruit and supplies requisites to those in addition to about 75 non-shareholders.

For the past nine years this association has handled 1,525,973 packages of fruit, which has realized about £583,720 on the southern markets. Up to 1925 this produce was principally consigned by steamer, but during that season the local watersiders refused to load sugar under the existing award and it was necessary for the Proserpine and Home Hill cane-growers to come to Bowen and load their sugar. These men were allowed the use of the association office and telephone, but none of the local shareholders took any active part in the loading of sugar or coal. After the departure of the sugar-growers the local watersiders blackened the association, and refused to handle fruit or goods of any sort in or out consigned to or by the association, its manager, or any member of his family. Consignments of fruit sent to the wharf had to be brought back- and sent on by train. The handling of seed potatoes from Devonport was refused by the local watersiders, and they wore carried to Townsville and brought back 120 miles by rail at great cost and inconvenience to growers. Nails and other goods were also overcarried and returned from Townsville by rail. During the development of the dispute fruit actually placed on the steamer arrived in Sydney showing that it had been deliberately injured by cargo hooks or other implements being drawn along the ventilation spaces, injuring practically all the fruit in two individual consignments.

This state of affairs continued for three years, and if at any time my son or myself appeared on shipboard or in the jetty shed all work ceased until we left.

On 7th September, 1928, I made . a sworn statement, covering eight pages of foolscap, setting out these facts, and I understand a copy of this statement can be seen at the Attorney-General’s Office; but if it is not available and you think the matter is important, T hold a copy.

At that time the watersiders practically had control of the port and rejected or received cargo at their own whim. No relief could be got until the Transport Workers Act came into force, when the most of the business and plOfessional men in town, and all the able-bodied young farmers took out licences and carried on the work on the wharf. Since its introduction this association has had no cause for complaint; all cargo offered has been promptly and carefully handled, and all inward cargo being delivered promptly and in good order.

The smooth and expeditious loading and discharge of all cargo at Bowen, including fruit, sugar, and coal, is well known to all in the district, and there is a general wish that we shall never again experience the position of affairs that existed in 1925-28.

Senator Barnes:

– What has all this to do with the regulations made under the act?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.The new regulation contravenes an award of the Arbitration Court, and will make it possible for the Waterside Workers

Federation again to secure control at all ports. That clearly is the intention of the Government.

Senator Barnes:

– How could it do that?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– It hopes to make that possible by providing for one pick-up place at our principal ports - a course which the Arbitration Court declined to follow.

Senator Barnes:

– The Government considers that one pick-up place is more convenient for the men.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.And more convenient for the organization in its attempt to again control all work on the waterfront. That isthe beginning and the end of this proposal. We know only too well what happened prior to the passing of the Transport Workers Act. Since it has been in operation there has been absolute peace on the waterfront. Ships have been able to run to schedule time, cargo has been loaded and unloaded expeditiously and economically, and the amount of pilfering, which was outrageous on the waterfront, has decreased tremendously. This changed condition of affairs is the outcome of the enactment of the Transport Workers Act, which this Government is now attempting to destroy.

Senator Rae:

– Are the regulations made under the act the work of Parliament?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– The regulations were laid on the table in both branches of the legislature, and have all the force of law. It is for the Senate to say whether the regulations’ promulgated by this Government shall be allowed or disallowed.

Senator Barnes:

– The Opposition must show good reason why the motion should be carried. The honorable senator is only stirring up mischief now.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– There is good reason why this regulation should be disallowed. What action did the honorable senator take when mischief was brewing just prior to 1928? He failed on that occasion to raise his voice to bring about peace on the waterfront.

Senator Barnes:

– I should have raised my voice if it had been my job; but it was not.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

-It was the honorable senator’s job as a member of this chamber.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Mr. Brennan, the Attorney-General, said at Port Adelaide that this action was being taken by the Government to bring about preference to unionists-

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– And to give poetic justice.

Senator Barnes:

– What is wrong with poetic justice?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– It would be well for the Government to leave the act alone, and to allow awards made by a judge of the Arbitration Court to operate without interference.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I should give the members of the Opposition all credit for exercising the power they are entitled to use in this chamber, provided that they were able to advance a sound reason for their action. But in this case they have not been able to do so. Senator Pearce gave a detailed history of the trouble on the waterfront, and even introduced extraneous troubles, but he did not during his narrative tell the Senate why he thought the regulation introduced by the Government would intensify the trouble or stultify efforts to bring about peace on the waterfront. Had he been able to advance sound reasons for that belief, I should have admitted that there was legitimate ground for the disallowance of this regulation. Just as the Bruce-Page Government claimed that it was endeavouring to bring about peace on the waterfront, so the present Administration, in framing this regulation, is actuated by the same motive, and surely it should have a reasonable opportunity to achieve its purpose. Neither Senator Pearce nor Senator Glasgow has proved that the operation of this regulation will be dangerous in its effect. The Government would not think of introducing such a regulation if it were not sure that it would go a long way towards smoothing over the existing soreness and bitterness, and towards obviating the danger that, is ever present, because of the prevailing ill feeling.

Senator Reid:

– Where is that danger?

Senator BARNES:

– The honorable senator knows that, under existing conditions, it is ever-present on our waterfront. It is said that there are sone 700 returned soldiers working on our wharfs as volunteers. I do not dispute that statement, but I believe there aru a similar number of returned soldiers in the Waterside Workers Federation, and am told that the volunteers are getting most of the work, while the unionists are given the “ tough stuff.” I am not familiar with the working conditions obtaining on the wharfs; but I believe that to be true. Do honorable senators seriously contend that we arc not on the edge of a volcano when some 1,000 <v 1,500 men, who could earn a reasonable existence if the work were properly distributed, have to suffer unemployment and see their wives and children practically starving because of the existing conditions ?

Senator Reid:

– The work is not there to occupy all of those who apply for it.

Senator BARNES:

– I am nor, in a position to say how far the work would go if properly distributed ; but some members of the Government are thoroughly conversant with waterside conditions, and it is their belief that matters can be remedied. The purpose of this regulation i3 to avoid the danger that I have described. It should b-2 patent to all that the danger is a grave one. I admit that there is a likelihood of the same thing in other industries.

Senator HERBERT Hays:

– How does the honorable senator propose to ration the work that is available?

Senator BARNES:

– I do not know; I am not familiar with the conditions of the industry; but the people concerned with the rationing will do that duty if given the opportunity. The operation of the regulation would bring the two opposing factions together, a course which would have a tendency to remove the prevailing bitterness and suspicion. The Opposition has not shown that the regulation will do anything that is detrimental to the waterside worker, and in no other circumstances dare honorable senators opposite disallow it. On the other hand, the Government has indicated that the operation of the regulation will go a tremendously long way towards carrying on waterside work harmoniously; further, it will enable quite a number of people who are at present almost starving to earn a decent living on the waterfront. Honorable senators opposite know the desperate straits in which tens of thousands of our workers now find themselves, a position of affairs that is absorbing the attention of every one who is desirous of protecting the welfare of the community. I am confident that no one desires to see men, women and children hungry and workless when that could be avoided. The object of this regulation is to avoid that kind of thing, so far as it is possible to do so.

It has been contended that the regulation flouts n judgment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. The Government never for one moment intended to tinker with or flout a judgment of any court in this country. We have to live amicably under the laws of the country and, though we may at times disagree with what is done in the name of the law, we at no time flout it or belittle it any more than can be helped. In framing this regulation the Government had no desire to injure the dignity of the court or to interfere with its functions in any way. At the same time there are occasions when even so august a body as a court needs correcting. Its members, after all, are only human, and so are just as liable to make grievous mistakes as are members of Parliament or anybody else in the community. The judges are placed on a pedestal and it is not permissible to criticize them; but no one wants to go out of his road to throw mud at the courts. They were established by the people and by Parliament, and they should be respected. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Daly) has explained, the Arbitration Court has ho jurisdiction in this matter, whereas this Government has jurisdiction and has exercised it in what it believes to be the interests of the community. That is its justification for tabling this regulation, and I urge honorable senators to give it. the most serious thought before voting on the motion now before the Senate. The Government believes that its action will in no way intensify the prevailing trouble, but, on the contrary, will go a long way towards introducing that harmony which is now non-existent on the waterfront. If honorable senators opposite exercise their power in the way indicated by the motion they will do a very unwise and unpatriotic thing.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

. -We have had the views of the two Ministers representing the Government in the Senate on this motion to disallow a statutory regulation relating to pick-up places on the waterfront. Senator Daly complained somewhat bitterly of the action of Senator Pearce in tracing in his opening remarks the history of the trouble on the waterfront, and the reasons which prompted the Bruce-Page Government to introduce the TransportWorkers Act, under which this regulation has been promulgated. I fail to see any justification for his complaint. It is not my intention to repeat what was so ably stated by Senator Pearce. Every honorable senator knows the trouble that has existed on the waterfront for a very considerable number of years. It can be traced right back to the war period.

Senator O’Halloran:

– Even back to the time of Noah, who had some water trouble !

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– I remind the honorable senator that this is too serious a matter to be treated as a joke. I also remind Senator Daly and his supporters of the attitude that they took in connexion with an industrial dispute into which they entered, althoughit did not concern the people of Australia. I refer to the British seamen’s strike. Senator Barnes stated that the Opposition is endeavouring to. keep the contending parties apart. What action did he take during the trouble to which I have referred? Did he urge the Waterside Workers Federation to observe the award of the Arbitration Court? He did not. He failed to denounce the men who refused to work under an award of the court, and whose action precipitated the introduction of the Transport Workers Bill.

Senator Barnes:

– I and my comrades took the platform and deprecated the action of the Bruce-Page Government in giving away the ships of the Commonwealth.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– That is quite apart from the subject that we are debating. Whatever the Government may say concerning this legislation and the regulations thereunder, it is undeniable that since the passing of the Transport Workers Act there has been greater peace on the waterfront, and greater continuity of service in shipping generally, than at any time during the last ten or fifteen years. I was disappointed with the speech of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly). He did not set out the Government’s intention in framing this regulation. I listened to him carefully, but I am still at a loss to understand what lies behind it.

Senator Daly:

– Can the honorable senator see any harm in it?

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– The Minister should have set out clearly the purpose of the regulation. We must accept his assurance that it has not been introduced to evade a decision of the Arbitration Court; but the fact remains that the regulation does provide a means of disregarding the court’s decision. The Minister said that this regulation will not mean the granting of preference to unionists. He also said that the provision of only one picking-up place would not result in disorder or rioting. The point is that there is no good reason for disturbing the peace which has existed on the waterfront since the Transport Workers Act has been in operation. The Minister said that the regulation would ensure peace and provide employment. How can it provide employment on the wharfs in Sydney or Hobart where the supply of labour is greatly in excess of the demand? Why has the Government not already taken steps to ration the work in those ports as is proposed under this regulation ?

Senator Daly:

– There is a rationing system in New South Wales.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– This bill has no bearing on that question. The provision of only one picking-up place will not improve matters. There is just as much distress on the waterfront in those ports in which the Transport Workers Act has not been put into operation as there is in Melbourne or Brisbane.

The Government has not shown any justification for the regulation. While I accept the Minister’s assurance that it is not intended to override a decision of the court, I fear that the regulation will make that possible, and, therefore, I shall support the motion.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

– The Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) asks what principle underlies the opposition to this regulation. Surely it is that honorable senators on this side desire to uphold the law. Senator Daly said that the effort to preserve peace on the waterfront was causing him a great deal of anxiety. I remind him that it is the function of the Arbitration Court to maintain peace and to settle industrial disputes; I suggest that he hand over the matter to the Arbitration Court and tell the men to obey its award. Whatever the object of the regulation, its effect will be to get something by regulation which cannot be obtained under the law as it now exists. I shall, therefore, vote for the motion. I represent. a State which is dependent on sea transport for communication with the rest of the world - a State, moreover, which depends largely on the tourist traffic for its income. I assure honorable senators that a strike, or even the fear of a strike, does incalculable harm to Tasmania. I have known people to be stranded in Tasmania, without funds, and forced to sleep in the parks, who have had to apply to the Government of Tasmania for assistance to enable them’ to reach their homes, all because of a hold-up of shipping through a strike. I have known farmers who have worked hard al! ‘the year to lose the reward of their labour because a number of men went on strike, and their produce could not be marketed. The late Government introduced the Transport Workers Act to meet a desperate situation. Since it has been in operation, there has been peace on the waterfront, and an unprecedented continuity of water carriage. There has been no strike or even the rumour of a strike. This regulation, if allowed, will change that happy state of affairs. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) ad- vised us to leave well alone. Why did not the Government do so? This is not the time to interfere with things that are going along well. Australia has never been in a worse ‘ position than she is in to-day. Unemployment exists on every hand; low prices for wool have almost ruined many of our wool-growers; drought and low prices have so seriously affected our wheat-growers that they do not know which way to turn. When things are going well, especially, they should not be interfered with by regulations. This regulation seeks to override the Arbitration Court.

Senator Daly:

– The judgment of the court did not touch the point covered by the regulation.

Senator J B HAYES:

– The judge would not give any decision on that matter. I advise the Senate to allow things to remain as they are by supporting the motion for disallowance of the regulation.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [5.01 . - I shall be brief in discussing this matter. I compliment the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) on the really splendid defence he made of an utterly impossible position. Tn the course of his legal career the honorable gentleman has probably been called upon to defend a murderer caught in the act, or a chicken thief still covered with feathers ; but I doubt if he has ever felt himself in such a difficult and embarrassing position as when called upon to defend this regulation. He invited the Senate to consider it on principle. I propose to do so. If we ask ourselves under what constitutional power of the Parliament this regulation has been framed, the answer can be only that it has been framed under the trade and commerce power. It could not have been framed under the industrial power. The matter, if industrial, is one capable of settlement only by the Arbitration Court. I am not now concerned to defend the Transport Workers Act. Indeed, I should, probably, be prepared to find fault with that legislation for the same reason that I object to this regulation. But it must be admitted that it is a monstrous abuse of the trade and commerce power to frame a regulation dealing with picking-up places on the wharfs. That does not pretend to be other than a matter coming under the industrial power. It is certainly not a proper exercise of the trade and commerce power.

Senator Rae:

– The whole act is the same.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– I am not “defending the act. The select committee on Senate standing committees, whose report is still under consideration by the Senate, was at some pains to collect, not only from the highest constitutional authorities in Australia, but also from other sources, suggestions as to the principles that ought to guide governments in the making of regulations, and this chamber in disallowing them. One of those principles was that regulations should not unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties. This regulation tramples personal rights and liberties into the dust. It says to employers and employees who are working harmoniously, that they shall no longer be allowed to conduct their business along the lines previously followed by them; that employers shall not be allowed to pick up their labour in a way which has proved satisfactory to both employers and employees ; that another method, which they do not like, will be substituted. Why is this done? It is done simply because the different method is favoured by thar section of the workers which happens to support the Government. The Government could not go further than that in trampling on individual rights and liberties. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) said that this is a portion of the experimental legislation to be introduced by the Government. Is it too late to suggest that the Government should hold its hand in the matter, of experimental legislation and give the industries of this country a chance to put themselves right? I ask honorable senators to note the term “ experimental legislation,” used by the Leader of the Government. Is legislation the mere executive act of a government in introducing a regulation? If we are to have experimental legislation - and I counsel both the Government and the Senate to recognize the danger of experiments in a time like this - let it be legislation, not regulation. This Government made the most extraordinary experiment ever tried by any government when it prohibited certain imports. That was done, not by legislation, but by regulation, and Parliament has had no voice in the matter. For that reason alone,

I shall vote for the motion. If it is part of further experimental government by regulation, then the sooner we turn it down the better. We should intimate to the Government that if it has any experimental notions to put into force it must first bring them before Parliament and commend them to Parliament, and must not try to bring about experimental legislation merely by the introduction of regulations. It seems clear to me that this regulation cannot possibly bring about that good understanding which the Minister desires between the two sections of workers on the waterfront.

Senator McLachlan:

– Is it not likely to bring about the very opposite result?

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– It must have the contrary effect. I hope this experience will suggest to the Senate the danger of passing legislation which gives to the Government too wide and too unrestricted power in the ‘matter of making regulations. All governments are apt to do this. A government thinks that it is making wise regulations; but along comes some other administration which takes the opposite view. Let us consider what might happen if the regulationmaking power were given in too wide terms. It would be quite competent for a government to promulgate a regulation in the closing days of a session. The statutory period within which it must be laid upon the table of Parliament might not lapse before Parliament rose, and as there might be no further sitting for three or four months, all the harm that could possibly be done under the regulation could be accomplished before Parliament would have an opportunity to disallow it. I trust that this discussion will have the effect of suggesting to Parliament the need for some such step as was recommended the other day by the select committee on the standing committee system, so that the regulation-making power should not be entirely outside the control of Parliament. Personally, I prefer that it should be confined, as it is confined in all the legislation of Great Britain, to specific sections of an act, so that Parliament would always know that it could not be used except for administrative purposes or in particular directions. So far as this particular regulation is concerned, there is not the slightest doubt that it is a monstrous abuse of the trade and commerce power of this Parliament, and likewise a monstrous invasion of the rights and liberties of individual citizens.

Senator LAWSON:
Victoria

– I cannot claim the close acquaintance with the history of waterside troubles possessed by Senator Pearce and Senator Glasgow, through their association with waterfront work as Ministers in the previous Government; nor can I claim the same intimate knowledge of the detailed history of this particular matter that is necessarily possessed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I have, therefore, endeavoured to approach the consideration of the motion without any preconceived ideas, and with an unbiased mind, so that I might determine my attitude upon the merits of the regulation and the principles involved in its promulgation. To that end I have listened with interest to the speeches which have been delivered. I realize that Senator Pearce has made a very formidable indictment of the regulation. Prom the picture he has drawn of then and now it is evident that prior to the enactment of the Transport Workers Act, which may have many of the objections to which Senator Colebatch has alluded, there was incessant turmoil and strife on the waterfront, trade and commerce were impeded, and peace and good order were interfered with. In a few words, there was almost a state of riot and commotion on the waterfront. Since that time, whatever magic the act and the regulations promulgated by the previous Government may have possessed, we are assured there has been a period of comparative peace and quietude on the Waterfront. I know that certain people have had to suffer, and those of us with humanitarian feelings would be glad to see such a happy solution of these feuds and troubles as would provide a fair amount of work for all under proper conditions. But the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Sir George Pearce) has indicated that certain definite assurances and promises were given to individuals who, rightly or wrongly, came forward in a period of crisis to carry on the essential services which this country demanded; and it is beside the issue to say that they came forward as volunteers and are nonunionists. Promises given in good faith to men who were asked to respond to the country’s call must be honoured. The principle is the same as that which is applied to the promises given to exsoldiers. We promised our soldiers preference in employment, and when there was an attempt to evade the fulfilment of that promise the voice of this country made itself sufficiently strong to ensure that the promise should be honoured.

Senator O’Halloran:

– What is the position of the returned soldier members of the Waterside Workers Federation?

Senator LAWSON:

– It is possible that returned soldiers, by their own foolish conduct, may have disentitled themselves to certain benefits; but we have to look at the larger issue. Although a returned soldier might act foolishly or wrongly, I should still have a kindly feeling towards him because of the service he has rendered to his country. I should look upon anything he had done not with stern reprobation, but with a desire to find a way of helping him. The fact, therefore, that there may be unionist returned soldiers suffering on the waterfront inclines me rather tq the view that I should endeavour to find some means of giving them help consistently with the obligations to others entered into, not only by the employers of the waterside workers, but also by the late Government acting on behalf, of the people of Australia.

I think all honorable senators have been impressed from time to time by the very excellent way in which the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Daly) has presented the case for the Government and handled the matters which fell to hi3 onerous lot to present. But I listened to him to-day in vain to find out what virtue there was in this regulation. At the start it seems to me to discriminate unfairly. Why is Port Melbourne selected for this favour at the hands of the Government? Why not Port Adelaide and other ports? Why is this sledge hammer of the Government’s regulation needed to determine that at Hogan’s Flat from 8.30 to 11 a.m. men must assemble in order to be picked up for work on the waterfront? Despite the dexterity with which

Senator Daly handled this question and his assurance that it is a perfectly innocuous and innocent regulation, I fail to grasp the object of the Government. Is there some ulterior motive behind it all? Surely Senator Daly does not expect this chamber to accept his “dictum that the purpose of the regulation is to bring about “On earth peace; goodwill toward men “ - that under its operation the waterside workers who go to Hogan’s Flat will develop such a sense of goodwill and comradeship that all past fueds differences and disturbances will be forgotten, and that unionists and volunteers will embrace one another in a fine spirit of fraternity and all will be well. Does Senator Daly really ask honorable senators to believe that the object of the regulation’ is to bring about that very desirable result? To make use of one of the favorite ejaculations of the late Hon. Duncan Gillies, a famous leader in Victorian politics, when Ministers were trying to “ put something across,” the statement is “ too thin.”

I also listened to the effervescent utterances of the Assistant Minister (Senator Barnes). We. are always delighted to hear the honorable senator, because the thought that is uppermost in his mind comes out bright and sparkling. He is always so frank and candid; so genuine and so sincere, that he impresses his personality upon the chamber and our hearts go out to him with feelings of warm affection and regard. But while a speaker may rouse a kindly feeling of fellowship in the hearts of others his words must also carry conviction. I regret that I could find’ neither substance, nor logic, nor force in the statements made by the Assistant Minister to justify this regulation.

Now, as to the merits of the motion, not having a close acquaintance with the subject I may not be absolutely accurate in the story I relate, but I have noted in Victorian newspapers that since the promulgation of this regulation there has been a feeling of tension, a kind of fear. People’s eyes have been turned to Hogan’s Plat with a kind of nervous apprehension. People have been asking : “ What is going to happen; is there going to be a clash?”. And apparently those who are charged with the responsibility of maintaining order are like-minded; they are apprehensive as to whether the gathering of these two classes of men at one particular time at the 3pot mentioned may not have a result quite contrary to that which the Minister says is the object of the regulation. Instead of making for comradeship and fraternity, it may make for turmoil and trouble. The people say “It is all right so far, but that is because there are squads of police on duty.” Senator Daly says that a certain number of police are always required on the waterfront to guard the wharfs, but if I have not misread the newspapers more precautions in this regard have been taken since the promulgation of this regulation. It has been said by those who declare that they are in a position to know, that it is only the presence of the police that has ensured absolute order. It is also said that the leaders of the waterside workers, with all the emphasis at their command, have enjoined moderation, toleration and good behaviour upon their members when they assemble on this gathering ground. But the regulation will not have the effect of protecting the interests of the community or of preserving law and order, particularly if persons holding diverging views and whose feelings have been temporarily submerged will be brought into close contact by reason of it. Why should the Government interfere in a matter which is surely within the competence of the Arbitration Court to determine.

Senator Daly:

– It is not, so far as nonunionists are concerned. The Arbitration Court cannot prescribe pick-up places for volunteers.

Senator McLachlan:

– Are they not unionists?

Senator Daly:

– They are not members of an organization registered in the court.

Senator LAWSON:

– The Arbitration Court could if it desired prescribe pick-up places.

Senator Daly:

– For members of the Waterside Workers Federation.

Senator LAWSON:

– For the members of the claimant organization, and also for members of the respondent- organization.

Senator Daly:

– Only for members of the Waterside Workers Federation, which is an organization registered in the Arbitration Court.

Senator LAWSON:

– The Court could prescribe a pick-up place which would be observed by the men. As stated by the Leader of the Opposition, Chief Judge Dethridge intimated that he regarded it as impolitic, aud even dangerous, to do what is now being done.

Senator Daly:

– That was many months ago.

Senator LAWSON:

– Yes ; when feeling was running high. Conditions may have changed, but there may still be some need to exercise discretion.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It was only three or four months ago.

Senator LAWSON:

– It is quite possible that hidden bitterness may suddenly develop. I am endeavouring to consider this subject from a judicial viewpoint, and having heard the indictment and the reply I consider that, on the merits of the case, the Senate should disallow this regulation. Why should not the authority of the Senate be exercised if the occasion should demand it ? The Leader of the Government in the Sen.ate (Senator Daly) seems to think that the Leader of the Opposition has submitted this motion to humiliate the Government.

Senator Rae:

– It looks very much like it.

Senator LAWSON:

– Honorable senators who are in a majority in this chamber do not wish to exercise their power in a tyrannical manner, but we should be recreant to our trust if we did not exercise that power which has been deliberately placed in our hands to keep a check on the executive acts of the Government.

Senator Daly:

– I admit that.

Senator LAWSON:

– That is why some contend that this regulation should be disallowed. Senator Colebatch dealt with the matter, not on its merits, but on the principle on which regulations should be promulgated. This formed the subject of an exhaustive inquiry by a select committee ‘of this chamber the report of which ‘was submitted to the Senate a week or so ago, when a debate ensued on the advisability of appointing a standing committee to closely examine regulations. That report set out the principles which should guide the work of such a committee, and recommended that regulations should be considered outside the realm of party politics. That is the manner in which this matter should be studied. The Senate is a chamber of review and should study legislation in a calm and dispassionate manner to decide whether it it based upon sound principles.

I crave the indulgence of the Senate to quote some of the recommendations of the select committee with respect to regulations. It recommended that a standing committee be appointed to scrutinize regulations to ascertain - (1.) That they are in accordance with the statute.

I presume the Transport Workers Act is only a means of giving the Government power to make regulations. Paragraph 2 reads -

That they do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties.

I think that is the ground upon which Senator Colebatch said that this regulation should be impugned. Paragraph 3 reads -

That they do not unduly make the rights and liberties of citizens dependent upon administrative and not upon judicial decisions.

We could get a judicial decision, perhaps not in the terms expressed in this regulation, but which would achieve the same purpose.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– We could get the same effect.

Senator LAWSON:

– Yes. The determination of such matters should be left to an unfettered arbitration authority. It is not right for the Executive to promulgate a regulation which circumvents judicial authority, and removes from the ken of that authority the settlement of matters which it should determine. The members of the select committee considered this aspect of the matter and decided that a standing committee should be appointed to scrutinize all regulations because of the ever-growing danger of the encroachment by the Executive on “the powers of the judiciary or of the legislature.

Senator Hoare:

– Who were the members of the committee?

Senator LAWSON:

– The committee, which comprised Senators R. D. Elliott - the chairman - Colebatch, Foll, Herbert Hays, Lawson, Lynch and Rae, submitted a unanimous report. I cannot support this regulation on its merits, and, in my opinion, it is also a breach of the principle upon which regulations should be framed.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– After listening with attention to the speeches delivered on the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) I have come to the conclusion that regulation No. 38 under the Transport Workers Act constitutes an attempt on the part of the Government to evade an award of the Arbitration Court. I am surprised that the Government has seen fit to interfere with an industry which, during the past 20 months, has been carried on “in a manner satisfactory to both employers and employees. Although this regulation relates only to the port of Melbourne, it will, if allowed, be followed doubtless by further regulations providing similar conditions for other Australian ports. It is unfortunate that a Minister of the Crown, whose remarks were quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, should be the means of creating unrest in an industry which has been satisfactorily conducted for some time. The Government does not seem to realize that it is its duty to protect the interests of the whole community rather than those of only one section of the people. In 1926 the members of the Waterside .Workers Federation defied the Arbitration Court, and a strike ensued, causing a great deal of trouble to ship-owners, primary producers and the community generally. When ship-owners endeavoured to “work cargo with free labour, unionists, unfortunately for the good name of Australia, resorted to acts of violence. At the ports of Bowen and Gladstone the farmers of the surrounding districts were organized for the purpose of loading produce for export, and unloading cargoes for delivery at those ports. When the waterside workers realized that they were definitely defeated, they made application for work, on the understanding that there should be no victimization. Shortly afterwards the volunteer workers were dismissed and members of the Waterside Workers Federation, who had been the cause of all the trouble, were re-engaged. Senator Sir William Glasgow has already mentioned the hardships endured by the fruitgrowers and the small- farmer of the

Bowen district, through the dislocation of work on the waterfront. After working for a few months waterside workers once more went on strike and caused heavy losses to primary producers, and when this dispute was settled they were again reemployed without victimization. It seems to me that they were beginning to think that whenever they wanted a fortnight or a month’s holiday, all they had to do was to hold up shipping, regardless of the hardships and losses inflicted on all concerned. The position became very acute in 1928, because of the demands made by the waterside workers, who deliberately flouted the Arbitration Court and once more went on strike. It is laid down by the Arbitration Court that, in the event of an industrial dispute, work in the industry concerned shall continue without interruption, pending the hearing of the claim. The- waterside workers disregarded this sound principle, and as a result, work at a considerable number of our seaports was seriously dislocated. These frequent interruptions were seriously jeopardizing Australian trade, and impairing our national credit. Primary producers were being involved in enormous losses and the commercial community was being seriously harassed. In 1928 the trouble occurred at the peak of the Queensland shearing season. Wool which had been sent down to the -various seaports for shipment to southern markets, was held up and wool sales in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney had to be postponed. The strike in that year not only prevented considerable sums of money, the receipts from wool sales, from coming into the States, but it also seriously embarrassed wool-growers, who had to bear the expense of carrying on the industry and pay a high rate of interest on overdrafts through their wool being held up from sale. I happened to be in Bowen in September of that year and I saw on a wharf there hundreds of cases of tomatoes which waterside workers refused to handle. This produce became unfit for human consumption, and the growers suffered heavy losses. Senator Barnes mentioned, in the course of his speech this afternoon, that, because of the difficulty in securing employment, hundreds of men, women and children were starving. All honorable senators, . am sure, deeply deplore the present economic condition of Australia. But r remind the Minister that when the waterside workers refused to handle produce at Queensland ports in 1928, they paid no regard to the hardship which their action was imposing upon a large number of small farmers in that State. The majority of those farmers, as well as all the members of their families, had to work long hours to produce crops which rotted on the wharfs because waterside workers refused to work.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Many people were ruined in that year through the waterside workers’ strike.

Senator COOPER:

– I know that many people in the Bowen district were ruined, and several of the farmers were obliged to take work on the wharfs in order to provide sustenance for themselves and their families.

To prevent a recurrence of the trouble the Bruce-Page Government decided to invite volunteer labour to do the work on the waterfront and legislation to that end was passed. No difficulty was experienced in getting a sufficient number of men to do the work, and although it has been stated that volunteer labour is not so efficient as that of the experienced waterside workers, the evidence is to the contrary and pillaging, which was bringing the name of Australia into bad repute, has practically ceased. To illustrate the efficiency of volunteer labour on the waterfront, I may state that at Townsville the cost of discharging general cargo in 1927 was 13s. 8d. per ton. In 1928, after the volunteer system had been in operation for only a few months, the cost per ton was 13s. - a reduction of 8d. per ton - and in 1929, when the full benefit of the Transport Workers Act was being felt, the cost per ton came down to lis. Id. At Bowen in 1927 the cost of loading sugar was Ss. 2d. per ton: In 1928 it was 5s. 2d. and in 1929 only 2s. 5-Jd. per ton. I cannot say definitely if the port of Bowen is being worked wholly by volunteer labour, but I know there is a big percentage of volunteers there. The cost of loading meat in 1928 was 18s. Id. per ton and in 1929 10s. 6d. per ton. The loading cost of general merchandise, tallow, hides, &c, in 1928 was 12s. 8d. per ton, and last year it was down to 4s. 5d. These figures are convincing evidence of the efficiency of the volunteer labour at Queensland ports. This reduction in the cost of handling produce benefits not only the shipper but also the importer and the people generally. It lowers the costs of production of both exports and imports, and proves that chat can be done without reducing wages, as those men are being paid as much if not more than the wages that obtained prior to 1928. During the whole of the interim work on the waterfront has proceeded uninterruptedly, and our products have been exported to the four corners of the world without hindrance.

Senator Rae:

– The disallowance of this regulation will not maintain those conditions permanently.

Senator COOPER:

– Those conditions have operated because of the introduction of the Transport Workers Act. I believe that this regulation is only the beginning of -many other interfering actions that will hamper an industry that is at present working peacefully, and should be allowed to continue so.

Prior to the introduction of the Transport Workers Bill in 1928, the waterside work of the Queensland ports was practically at the mercy of extremists in the unions. As was illustrated by Senator Sir William Glasgow, the militant body of waterside workers at Bowen actually dictated the policy to be followed at it and other ports in the north of Queensland. I was very pleased when the farmers came into Bowen in a body in 1928 and chased the extremist element out of the town.

Senator McLachlan:

– A similar thing will occur at Hogan’s Elat very soon.

Senator COOPER:

– Since this Government came into office, steps have been taken by the Waterside Workers Federation to manipulate matters to its own advantage and to secure a monopoly of work for its members. An application was made to the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration for the recognition of and preference to members of the Waterside Workers Federation. The case was heard by Judge Beeby, and the application refused. The position in which members of the federation now find themselves was proved to be entirely of their own making. I believe that the introduction of this regulation is an endeavour by the Government to override the decision of the Arbitration Court. If it is allowed by Parliament the decisions of that court will be indirectly flouted. Senator Daly stated that that is not the intention of the Government, but an examination of the regulation, and of the attitude of the federation to the decision of the court, compels one to conclude that it is an attempt to override the court. It would be more courageous for the Government to abolish the Arbitration Court rather than to endeavour to stultify its actions by this backdoor method. The people would then know how to act. The waterside workers’ industry is at present proceeding peacefully, the men are satisfied with their employment, and the shipping companies are able to obtain what labour they need and arc satisfied with the efficiency of the men and the present system. There is, therefore, no justification for the action of the Government.

An endeavour has been made by a Minister of the Crown to justify the Government’s interference by claiming that the “Waterside Workers Federation is losing its members. To-day we have an admission from Senator Daly that the volunteer workers are members of a waterside workers’ union of their own. Evidently a new union better suited for the purpose has sprung up. It guards the interests of the community and brings about efficient results. It was only because of its bad example and leadership that the old federation lost its predominance on the waterfront. The blame cannot be placed against the court or the shipping companies. The action of the Government in bringing down this regulation will undoubtedly injure the men who are now working ‘ satisfactorily under an award of the Arbitration Court. Its enforcement will strike a serious blow at the arbitration system throughout the Commonwealth. I am certain that all honorable senators of ‘the Opposition desire to assist the Government in every way in its endeavour to unravel the tangled skein of which Australian industry is now representative; but they cannot support such an action as this, which appears to be a direct flouting of the arbitration laws of the Commonwealth. I believe that they will be helping the community and doing their duty if they disallow the regulation.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I was relieved to have the daily assurance that emanates from the Leader . of the Government in the Senate to the effect that the Government is not bound by outside influences, nor was it listening to the voice of somebody to whom it is responsible when it introduced the regulation to which Senator Sir George Pearce has taken exception. It is probably necessary for Senator Daly to reiterate that assurance because of the arrogance of the statements made by people who, I really think, believe that they are the government of the country, and who set themselves up as the controllers of the party that is now in office.

I suggest to Senator Daly that if it were the wish of the Opposition, or of those who think as I do in regard to this regulation, to humiliate the Government, no better piece of machinery could be made available to us than this regulation, if we were to allow it to pass. Notwithstanding the assurances of the Minister, Hogan’s Flat would be the scene of a battle within a few weeks if the regulation were to be allowed. And then of what avail would be the efforts of the Government to maintain peace in the community ? It is because the Opposition has a sense of duty to the country, dictated by the history of the past, that it is impelled, in what it believes to be in the interests of the peace of Australia, to move for the disallowance of the regulation.

Senator Barnes spoke of the danger of having members of the Waterside Workers Federation and volunteer workers operating side by side. Senator Lawson pointed out that it is merely intensifying that danger to insist upon having only one pick-up place for both parties. What is more likely to create a disturbance than having members of the two bodies picked up at the one place ? Senator Barnes also claimed that to-day a different atmosphere prevails from that which existed in the past, that the waterside workers would not engage in any trouble or fisticuffs with the volunteers. It is difficult for any impartial tribunal to accept that assurance, or even to bc- guided by conduct which is dictated by the knowledge that there is a chance of getting out of this regulation something for members of the federation. This very organization which Senator Barnes is hopeful of conciliating by placing its members in the same picking-up place as the volunteers at Hogan’s Elat, gave the following undertaking to the Arbitration Court in 1927, before the hearing of its plaint was embarked upon : -

That the committee of management of the Waterside Workers Federation hereby undertakes to advise its members to carry out the existing awards and agreements covering the work of our members. It also undertakes to exercise all the powers conferred upon it, the federal council of the union to enforce strict compliance on the part of members with any future award made by the court and/or any agreements arrived at from time to time.

Immediately after Judge Beeby’s award was announced, members of the federation referred to it as pernicious and vicious, and struck against it. As Senator Sir George Pearce pointed out, they have been an absolutely uncontrollable body from an arbitral point of view, and I refuse to accept as genuine their penitence to-day. I did so in 1927, when I happened to be charged with the duty of trying to bring about a cessation of the strife that was then prevailing on the waterfront in Melbourne and elsewhere in Australia. I was impressed with that assurance. But what happened in 1928? There was a repetition of the turmoil and disorder of previous years. It may be true, as the Minister said, that on the authority of the Dry Cleaning case the Waterside Workers Federation is alone bound by the award of the court. Nevertheless, they made an application to the court, which was refused. By indulging in some special pleading the Minister has endeavoured to divert us from the track; but the fact remains that this regulation will apply to both the volunteers and the waterside workers. It means that both bodies of men will be compelled to attend at one picking-up place to obtain employment. To-day, they meet separately. In order to prevent friction, and possibly violence, a considerable body of police is held in reserve in Victoria. It was never intended that Parliament should be . confined to disallowing regulations only when they infringed some principle;, but even if that were a con- dition of disallowance, it would not apply in this instance, because this regulation does infringe a principle. It does violence to a policy in which we all profess to believe in connexion with the administration of our arbitration, laws. The difficulties of the situation - already great enough - have been accentuated by the action of a member of the present Government. When in Port Adelaide recently, the Attorney-General (Mr. Brennan) indicated that the Government would amend the Transport Workers Act to give preference to unionists, and so mete out poetic justice to the volunteers. When the question of volunteer labour was before Parliament the present Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) said that the shipping companies would not act loyally towards those who came to their rescue; but his prediction has not been fulfilled. In order to protect both themselves and the volunteers, the employers in Adelaide converted the volunteer workers from casual labourers to permanent employees. Mr. Brennan’s remarks precipitated that action. This regulation is directed at those volunteers who came to the aid of their country in its time of need. Seeing that there is not sufficient work on the waterfront for all the men offering, what inference can we draw from the argument of the Assistant Minister (Senator Barnes) that the members of the Waterside Workers Federation are short of work? In my opinion the volunteers are entitled to the first call, having regard to all the circumstances. So far, there has been no discrimination between the volunteers and the members of the Waterside Workers Federation. When men are wanted to fill vacancies, they are obtained from the ranks of the waterside workers. Is the Minister serious in saying that by bringing the two bodies of men together at a time when it is impossible to find work for them all, we shall preserve peace on the waterfront? In the light of the history of the Waterside Workers Federation, the nature’ of reports on the departmental files and the acts of violence in Melbourne when the volunteer system was inaugurated, it is foolish to expect that the bringing of these men together at one picking-up place will promote a better understanding between them.

The late Government was often accused by the Labour party of introducing provocative legislation. This regulation is more than provocative; it is inflammatory. I realize that the regulations now under discussion have been in operation for some weeks, and that no clash has occurred between the members of the Waterside Workers Federation and the volunteers. That is not a matter for surprise. These union secretaries are as astute as are some honorable senators regarding the tactics to be adopted in political affairs. They can see the wisdom of remaining quiet for a time. They are prepared to wait patiently until the time for the disallowance of this regulation has passed. It will not be long thereafter that we shall see on the waterfront that turmoil which Senator Barnes so much deprecates. Instead of peace, there will be war at Hogan’s Flat. At present the waterfront is quiet; but it must be remembered that there is a big body of police on duty. It may or may not be that their presence ensures peace. It has been said that the presence of the police has prevented members of the Waterside Workers Federation from obtaining employment. In the practice of my profession I have heard of some good examples of special pleading; but I have never before heard that a body of police had prevented men from obtaining employment.Apparently Hogan’s Flat is a very small place.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– In regard to the suggestion that the presence of the police at the pick-up place hindered certain persons from obtaining employment, according to the Melbourne Argus of the 3rd instant, Mr. Hogan, the Premier of Victoria, attended a conference at the Melbourne Trades Hall and explained that for reasons which he gave - they may have been his real reasons or he may have been actuated by the good sense which should characterize every public man - he did not intend to withdraw the police from the waterfront. The Argus report continues -

After a bitter discussion, which occupied three hours, it was agreed that a subcommittee be appointed to devise means of meeting the situation and of assisting the unionist waterside workers to obtain a larger share of the work. One suggestion made was that the Labour mayor of Port Melbourne should be permitted to use the powers vested in him of appointing special police to control the waterfront. If this were done it was claimed that sympathisers with waterside workers could be appointed to those positions. Other steps were suggested, however, in an endeavour to reduce the number of police sent to Port Melbourne.

The conclusion I draw from that paragraph is that the sinister suggestion was that the special constabulary to be appointed by the mayor of Port Melbourne should be of a political colour that would allow free play to the desires of certain people so that there would be no interference with their obtaining employment. I think the Government should be really thankful to the Opposition for taking up an attitude that will prevent fighting at Hogan’s Flat. The name does not suggest harmony and peace; it reminds one too much of Bull Bun orsomething of that sort. I can see.no reference to it in the regulation, but Senator Lawson has mentioned it, and my opinion is that if this regulation is allowed to stand, Hogan’s Flat may become a classic in the annals of Australia. Altogether apart from the fact that it seeks to superimpose on an award of the Arbitration Court something which the judge of the court refused to put in it, the public are not so blind as not to realize the danger and difficulty in what the Government proposes. The Melbourne Herald in its issue of the 17th April last, summarizes the position in powerful language as follows : -

page 1699

QUESTION

SQUEEZING OUT THE VOLUNTEER

Wharf Union’s Arrogance

A specially keen public interest centres in the waterfront. The community is anxious to see whether the influence of the Federal Labour Government will effectively favour those who defied the arbitration law at the expense of those who observed it. If our federal lawgivers persevere in that direction, all their amendments to the Arbitration Act, and their proposals to transfer industrial powers to the Commonwealth, will be a mockery, for at any time a Government may take sides with those who spurn its laws and defy its administration.

During the third quarter of 1923 a conference of waterside workers ordered members of the union to repudiate an award of the Arbitration Court made by Judge Beeby in respect to places for “ picking up “ labour. The union took up the stand that the law must not be obeyed unless it suited unionist opinions. There was a strike, and an almost ruinous dislocation of sea-borne trade. Great numbers of workers in other trades dependent upon the maintenance of coastal and ‘oversea communications were thrown out of work and there were grievous losses to many Australian interests. The community was faced with the duty of deciding whether defiance of the law by the waterside unions was to be allowed to cause ruin and privation unchecked, or whether an effort was to be made to keep industry going.

There was no doubt about the public will. Men who were willing to obey the law were invited to enlist for waterfront service and there was an immediate response. These volunteers were guaranteed a permanent preference for waterside work and that obligation has to be honorably fulfilled. The union strikers were beaten.

At the chief ports some of the union strikers resorted to violence. They defied the men to obey the labour law at the risk of life and limb. There were riots, bomb outrages, brutal assaults, and an almost general terrorism. In order to try and secure a peaceful settlement the Federal Government passed the Transport Workers Act, which enabled both unionists and volunteers to take out licences as waterside workers. The unionists at first refused to become licensed - in certain cases. against the advice of their own leaders. Since then work on the waterfront has proceeded satisfactorily and, it is claimed, with more regular efficiency.

The election of a Federal Labour Government filled the defeated strikers with now hope. They looked to the Government to take up their cause - to make industrial regulation the political interests of the party that happened to be in power. Evidently Labour Ministers realized the difficulties and dangers of interference, but after hesitation they went as far as to order an arrangement of picking-up places that was likely to pacify the unionists. Unionists and volunteers were to be “ picked up “ under a system that permitted of no distinction. Clearly the object was to squeeze out the volunteers who had obeyed the law and kept industry going in favour of those who had defied the law and thus caused extensive loss and unemployment.

The ship-owners, who arc bound in honour to fulfil their pledges to the volunteers, have given those mcn the promised preference. Unionists have raised another outcry, and there is a suggestion that again there may be riotous conduct. Meantime the public is waiting to see whether the Federal Government will itself become victim to the intimidation, and interfere mischievously for the sake of those who flouted the law in arrogant scorn of the community’s well-being.

This regulation will have the effect of bringing two elements into conflict. It is not a political matter. In the ranks of the volunteers there are unionists. I am assured that the members of the volunteer organization at Port Adelaide are members of a trade union; they have subscribed their union fees and have their union registration. But between the two (bodies of waterside workers there is an- agonism, a and this country is asked to choose between the two. On the one hand we have the members of the Waterside Workers Federation, who for years kept the waterfront of Australia in a state of perpetual turmoil and strife; and on the other hand, volunteers, who for almost two years now have carried out their duties with satisfaction to the shipowners, and with freedom from stoppages and trouble. Through their efforts the sea carriage of goods on our coast has been allowed to proceed without interruption and with a particular freedom from pillaging. I am afraid that if we have these two elements picked up indiscriminately at this wonderfully interesting place called Hogan’s Flat it will immediately lead to civil strife, a condition of affairs which the Minister has assured us he deplores.

Senator Daly ought to be thankful that the Leader of the Opposition has moved his motion. At Port Adelaide, on the 21st March last, on the eve of a State election, Mr. Brennan, the Attorney-General, talked about administering “ poetic justice “ to the volunteers by an alteration of the law and by dealing with the Transport Workers Act through Parliament, apparently indicating that he proposed to pass an act or promulgate a regulation which would place the volunteers in an invidious position. Mr. Brennan could not have paused to think what he was doing, when he allowed this regulation tq go. He is the chief upholder of the law! Are these volunteers to be bludgeoned by superior numbers into complying with the policy of the Waterside Workers Federation? Or are they to be deprived of that preference that they have at the hands of the ship-owners? Are men who have given loyal service to the people of Australia to be placed at the mercy of the overwhelming numbers of the waterside workers, particularly in Melbourne ? We know something of history. The future is not likely to be filled with peace if these two sections are brought together. The volunteers are fully aware of the position. They will take means to protect themselves from personal violence should any clash unhappily occur; but, apparently, so far, the good sense of Mr. Hogan has prevailed. He is keeping the police on the spot to sec that no violence occurs. As a matter of fact, I should not have anticipated the possibility of violence until the regulation was considered by Parliament. But let it become the law of the land and we shall see a state of turmoil at Port Melbourne. We had evidence in South Australia of the lengths to which members of the Waterside Workers Federation are prepared to go. I was absent overseas at the time, but I ‘understand that because the volunteers were hounded from pillar to post, and, at times, tossed off the ships into the river, and subjected to all kinds of violence, a special constabulary, armed by the State authorities with assistance from the federal authorities, had to be enrolled to restore order. It is quite easy to see what is likely to happen if this regulation should come into play. I have no doubt other honorable senators have had addressed to them a summary of the position as it appears to’ the men in Port Adelaide. It is contained in a letter dated 24th April, which reads as follows: -

The regulations proposed to be made by the Commonwealth Government under the Transport Workers Act are, I know, a matter of deep concern to you. They are of vital concern to the body of men known as volunteers, who are now. giving honest and honorable service to the community on the wharfs. It is at the request of and on behalf of those men in South Australia that I am’ taking the liberty of writing to you as a member of the Senate, a body in whose power it lies to prevent a very grievous wrong to a body of men whose only offence is the desire to work in accordance with the award of the Arbitration Court.

I pause here to ‘say that the award may or may not be binding on these men, but they have lived up to it; they have accepted the conditions under ‘it; they have complied with the law of the land as it stands to-day. The letter continues -

I desire first of all to recall to your mind briefly the- history of what led up to the coming into existence in South Australia of this body of volunteer wharf labourers. You will recollect that trouble upon the waterfront - which had been simmering for a long time - came to a head over what is now known as the Beeby award. Whether one agreed with the terms of that award or not, the fact remains that it stood as the law of the land, proscribing conditions binding both upon those interested in the engagement of labour upon the waterfront and those desirous of doing that labour. As s result of that award the members of the Waterside Workers Federation in Port Adelaide - as in other parts of Australia- went out on strike, paralyzing the shipping and commerce oi Australia. In other words, these men, because they disagreed with the decision of the body created by the people of Australia to decide wages conditions of work, &c, defied the law of the land, and in effect said : “ We do not like this law and so we refuse to obey it.” The ship-owners thereupon issued a plain warning to the waterside workers that if they persisted in their attempt to coerce Australia, volunteers would be called for, who were willing to abide by the award of the court. In spite of this warning the members of the Waterside Workers Federation continued to defy the award. The ship-owners then carried their threat into effect and called for volunteers, accompanying that call with the promise thai men volunteering would be given preference of work on the wharfs, even if and when the waterside workers desired to return to work. This promise was approved publicly by the Commonwealth and State Governments of the day, and, I venture to say, by every rightthinking and law-respecting citizen in Australia. The volunteers were also guaranteed adequate protection by the government of the day. In response to the ship-owners’ call hundreds of men volunteered - volunteered to work, it will be noted, not under conditions prescribed by the ship-owners, but under conditions laid down by the law of the land, the Arbitration’ Court. The waterside workers made no move to recognize their mistake or to return to work, but on the contrary disgraced Australia in general, and South Australia in particular by organized violence against the nien who had thus volunteered to obey the award of the court. It is unnecessary to remind you of the doings of that day when waterside workers, out-numbering the volunteers three or four to one- not even with the elemental spark of decency required to fight man- to man - violently drove the volunteers from their work. Protection was soon forthcoming from the citizens of South Australia in overwhelming numbers and the volunteers returned, to work. Only then did the waterside workers realize that they were beaten and asked for terms. They were informed that they could return to work under the Beeby Award, but that the promise of preference made to the volunteers would be honoured. Even then they quibbled about the terms of work, but ultimately gave in. Since then the ship-owners have abided by their promise and given the volunteers preference and the waterside workers the balance df work available. The best proof of the desire of the ship-owners in South Australia to give work’ to the members of the Waterside Workers Federation whilst honoring their promise to the volunteers is provided by the attached summary of proposals made to the Waterside Workers Federation by the ship-owners. Those proposals were absolutely rejected by the Waterside Workers Federation. One result of the employment of these volunteers has been a period of industrial peace upon the waterfront at Port Adelaide, which has not been equalled for many years. Occasional incidents, however, showed that there was, as was inevitable, a strong undercurrent of feeling against the volunteers, and ithas been abundantly clear ever since the strike, which brought them as a body into being, that they were marked men throughout Australia in trade union circles. The proof of this is in the fact that an industrial newspaper widely circulated in South Australia published the names of every volunteer under the heading : “ Look, Read and Remember.” The volunteers immediately formed a union of their own and have been, since the end of 1928, registered as a trade union in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court as a branch of the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union of Australia. They are thus in every sense of the word unionists.

It is now proposed by regulations under the Transport Workers Act to wipe out their preference and do to them what the Federal AttorneyGeneral, in an address at Port Adelaide recently described as “ poetic justice “ - the “justice “ part of which can well be imagined. The idea apparently of the Federal Government - incredible as it seems in a responsible government - is to penalize the men who obeyed the law in order to reward those who defied the law. The Argus newspaper, in a leading article on 22nd instant, under the heading of “ Preference to Lawbreakers,” summarizes the proposed action of the Commonwealth Government in a manner that is surely expressing only the bare truth and facts of the position. The ship-owners of South Australia, having carefully considered the attitude of the Commonwealth Government, decided, so that they might keep the promises made to the volunteers, to engage them as permanent hands and this was carried into effect on 16th April, 1930, by a written contract of service with each volunteer.

Apart from the aspect of the personal injustice which will be meted out to the individual if the Commonwealth Government achieves its purpose, I would draw your attention to another serious aspect of the position. The history of the industrial position on the waterfront during the last few years is not such as to encourage the belief that smooth working will result if the waterside workers again have a monopoly. It is not a fanciful prophecy to suggest that if the volunteers are driven off the wharf, the troubles which in the past have so seriously handicapped Australian industry will revive within a very short time. It will not be easy, however, to again get good volunteers to work on the wharf if a strike occurs. It can scarcely be expected that men will again volunteer, whatever promises are made to them, if government legislation and interference are to be permitted to nullify those promises.

So far as the volunteers themselves are concerned, any fair inquiry or examination will prove conclusively that as a body they are a very hard-working and competent body of men. Many of them are returned soldiers, and in very many cases they are married men with children. The allegations that there are a preponderance of Italians and Southern Europeans amongst them is absolutely untrue. I have examined very thoroughly the names, nationalities, &c, of the volunteers in South Australia and can definitely assure you that only 12 per cent. of them are Italians or Southern Europeans.

In conclusion, therefore, on behalf of these volunteers, I appeal to you, as a representative of the people of Australia, as a guardian of the liberties of the people, and as a believer in justice and right, to use all the influence in your power to disallow any regulations under the Transport Workers Act which are designed or may be used prejudicially to the volunteers. The only crime those men have committed is to work in accordance with the law of the land, to come to the help of the country when a small section of the community had defied constituted authority and law and order and to give a fair and full day’s work for a day’s pay.

It will, as I feel sure you will agree, be a sorry day in the public life of Australia if these men are now to be punished by having their livelihood - and their only livelihood, for they are marked men - taken away.

I make no apology for the length of this letter. The importance of the subject matter is its justification and with confidence I leave the fate of these men in your hands.

That communication is signed by Mr. Arthur S. Blackburn, V.C., who, I believe, organized the special constabulary in South Australia. The important points in the communication cannot be ignored.

Senator McLACHLAN:

-Not at all. The facts are clearly set out, and cannot be disputed. The policy of the Government in this connexion appears to be to interfere with a decision of a judge of the Arbitration Court, who refused to grant the concession now sought to be conferred by this regulation. I deprecate the suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition has submitted this motion with the intention of humiliating the Government. In supporting the motion I have no desire to in any way embarrass the Government. An easier way in which to do so would be to allow the regulation to become effective. When such regulations are placed before the members of this chamber, and of another place, it is sometimes necessary to express our opinions upon them, and, if we so desire, to move for their disallowance. If the matter had been brought forward in the form of a bill, as was the original intention according to the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Brennan), it would have been dealt with in practically the same manner. If we do not believe in the principle embodied in a regulation, we must voice our protest and oppose it. Having regard to the law in this respect, the Government has no. reason to take exception to the course adopted by the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– In speaking to the motion moved by the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) for the disallowance of Statutory Rule No. 38, fixing certain pick-up places for persons engaged on the waterfront in Melbourne, I wish to refer to some facts which apparently have been overlooked. Mention has been made of the merits of the dispute which led to the passing of the legislation under which this regulation has been promulgated, and there have been references - humorous, satirical, and serious - to Hogan’s Flat, volunteers, and Mr. Arthur S. Blackburn. Those supporting the motion have, however, failed to give the reasons which actuated the Government in framing the regulation which, we have been informed, is contrary to the spirit of the act, and to the sentiment of the Australian people. Let us briefly examine the position and see whether the. information given by honorable senators opposite is in accordance with fact. The Leader of the Opposition referred to. an anonymous letter received by a prominent member of his party in another place threatening him with violence. The inference is that a member of the Waterside Workers Federation sent that communication; but honorable senators on this side of the chamber are as strongly opposed to violence as are honorable senators opposite. In spite of the charges that have been levelled against them, not only in this chamber in the debate on this motion, but also on other occasions, it has not yet been proved that the waterside workers were responsible for any of the crimes of violence levelled against them.

Senator Chapman:

– They were guilty of acts of violence in Port Adelaide.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I shall deal with the incidents referred to by the honorable senator before I resume my seat. T wish first to clear- up the charge that waterside workers were identified with the bombing outrages and other alleged crimes in Melbourne. If honorable sena tors opposite had followed the proceedings of the Police Department in Melbourne during the last two or three months, they would know that inquiries are being made to-day concerning the bona fides of a number of witnesses upon whose evidence the persons charged with complicity in the bombing outrages were convicted and sentenced. Very considerable doubt has been cast upon some of the evidence given and statutory declarations made to this effect. .It would, therefore, be wise to wait until that matter has been entirely cleared up before we charge the waterside workers of Melbourne “with those offences.

With regard to the letter quoted by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Sir George Pearce) I suggest that nothing would be easier for any person ‘who desired to harm the cause of the waterside workers than to put his pen to paper and indite the letter referred to. This is not the kind of argument which honorable senators opposite should use in support of the motion to disallow the regulation.

Senator Chapman has referred to the supposed crimes of violence that took place on the wharfs of Port Adelaide during the dispute on the waterfront. The honorable senator was absent from Australia at the time, so his information is, ,at best, second-hand. The reports that were furnished to the public at that time could only be described as the product of a fertile imagination.

Senator Sir John Newlands:

– What nonsense !

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– News concerning the alleged outrages was released three times a day - in the morning and afternoon press, and by wireless. I was iti one of the quietest and most law-abiding country towns of South Australia at the time, and when listening-in one day I heard a report of extraordinary doings in Port Adelaide. It was alleged that, in the rioting which took place, many people had’ been injured and two persons had been killed. Fearing that there might be some truth in what otherwise I would regard as the wildest figment ‘ of the imagination, I telephoned to a friend in Port Adelaide, telling him where I was and what I had heard. In reply he said - “ You can tell the good folk of your town that Port Adelaide to-day is as quiet as their own main street.” This, then, was the kind of information that was being released daily during the dispute at Port Adelaide, clearly with the object of harming the Waterside Workers Federation and, at the same time, enhancing the political prospects of the party whose representatives in this chamber are now endeavouring to defeat this statutory rule. An election campaign was proceeding in South Australia at that time, so news concerning the dispute on the waterside was regarded as good election propaganda. Naturally, supporters of the party opposite opposed to Labour made full use of it.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– If the honorable senator was not in Port Adelaide, how can he say that the reports were exaggerated ?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I was in the State, and I was closely identified with political affairs, so I knew what was happening from day ‘ to day. Senator McLachlan also mentioned the organization by Mr. Arthur Blackburn, of volunteers at the request of the State Premier. That move was a purely political stunt.

Senator Reid:

– It was a move to preserve peace.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– The police in Adelaide and Port Adelaide were quite competent to deal with the situation and maintain peace on the waterfront during the worst days of the dispute before the volunteers were organized. As the result of this move to organize volunteers, the people of Adelaide and Port Adelaide were treated to an extraordinary spectacle, which became so Gilbertian that those responsible for it, realizing it was reacting to the detriment of their political party, caused the volunteer force to be disbanded. During the brief period that this organization was in existence, Adelaide and Port Adelaide were like besieged cities. Armed men were standing on guard at the Adelaide railway station, seven or eight miles from the scene of hostilities ! Unsuspecting passengers alighting from country trains wondered what had happened since last they had read the latest city newspapers. Railway motor lorries were to be seen moving through the streets of one of the most peaceful cities of Australia, with five men armed with rifles and fixed bayonets escorting a couple of hundred loaves of bread destined for the railway refreshment department! There were barbed wire entanglements across certain streets and the Port Adelaide railway station was fitted up as an auxiliary hospital with the red cross flag flying over it ! Never was the red cross flag desecrated to to such an extent as it was when it was used for that purpose. In No. 1 road at the Adelaide railway station there was a hospital train with the engine under steam and the train crew standing by for 24 hours a day to rush doctors and nurses to .the scene of battle! But, as I have stated, the situation became so Gilbertian and the comments of all sensible and reasonable people so pointed and severe,, that all evidence of this extraordinary activity vanished almost overnight. Peace, of course, was maintained on the water front just as effectively as it had been maintained before this organization was created.

A few minutes ago. I indicated what was the real reason for this legislation. Its enactment was, in the main, a political move, and for the same reason honorable senators opposite are now asking the Seriate to disallow the regulation promulgated by this Government.

Let us examine the history of the dispute. We have been told by honorable senators opposite that waterside workers are violent and dangerous individuals. Senator McLachlan said that the management committee of the Waterside Workers Federation in 1927 gave a solemn assurance that its workers would obey the award of the court but they failed to do so and proved themselves to be an absolutely uncontrollable body. I propose to quote the opinion of a gentleman in South Australia, for whom I have a great deal of regard, although he is as violently opposed to me in politics as is any honorable senator opposite. I refer to the Honorable Sir David Gordon, the Leader of the Nationalist party in the Legislative Council of that State. If, as has been alleged, the waterside workers were the violent individuals which honorable senators opposite have endeavoured to persuade us they are, would Sir David

Gordon speak well of them, and commend them to the members of the Legislative Council in South Australia? The quotation which I propose to read is taken from the speech delivered by Sir David Gordon not some years before the dispute took place on the water front, but six months afterwards. On the 21st May, 1929, Sir David Gordon said -

As a journalist I was very closely associated with the work on the waterfront for a number of years, and one of the greatest compliments ever paid me was the fact that although I represented a paper, not always too friendly, as it were, with the employees’ side of the case, I always had access to the meetings of thePort Adelaide Working Men’s Association. . . .

That is the name given to the Port Adelaide branch of the Waterside Workers Federation by the men who established the first waterfront organization in Port Adelaide. The association, I may add, has had a long and honorable career, and from its ranks have come men whohave graced the Parliament of South Australia and both chambers of this legislature. Sir David Gordon went on to say -

I always had access to the meetings of the Port Adelaide Working Men’s Association, because they knew I would treat their confidences in the proper way. I had opportunities for knowing that the stevedores at Port Adelaide are unequalled anywhere in Australia for the quality of their work and their capacity for work.

That is the opinion of a man who in the Legislative Council of South Australia leads the party represented by honorable senators opposite.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Nobody disputes what he said.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– Could any one bear higher testimony to members of the Port Adelaide Working Men’s Association than is to be found in the remarks of Sir David Gordon? Although he represented a newspaper that was not friendly in its attitude towards the association, he personally had the most congenial association with the members of that body.

Senator Crawford:

– Can the honorable senator tell the Senate how long it is since Sir David Gordon was on the press, and attended those meetings?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– It is some years ago, but this statement was made on the 21st May, 1929, six months after all these alleged acts of violence, six months after this mock army was created to restore order, on the waterfront ; six months after the occurrence of the incidents referred to this afternoon to the detriment of members of the South Australian branch of the federation. Had he changed his opinion on the subject, he would have expressed it when ho made that statement on the 21st May, 1929.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Is it a fact that Sir David Gordon was an honorary minister in the government that made those “ warlike “ preparations ?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– No, he was not in the Butler ministry. Here again honorable senators opposite display their ignorance of the position. It is seriously suggested by the right honorable Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) that Sir David Gordon was a member of the Butler Government that made those preparations. That ministry was not blessed with an honorary minister, but had six ministers with portfolios. This afternoon we were asked to believe that the waterside workers all over Austarlia repudiated the promise given by their committee of management in 1927, and that, because of that action, their federation became unworthy of the trust of this Parliament or of the people of Australia. Honorable senators know very well that of the 48 branches of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia who were bound by the Beeby award, 36 branches accepted it, continued to work under it, and are working under it to-day.

Senator Crawford:

– Many of the branches resumed work after the Transport Workers Act was passed.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I am glad to hear that interjection. The men at Port Adelaide had decided to resume work before the Transport Workers Act was proclaimed, but they were told that they would have to wait until the licensing officer was appointed, and then apply for their licences and take their chance of employment with the others. Although prepared to work, they were prevented from doing so, and that accentuated the feeling that existed in that centre. That is the federation which honorable senators opposite would like to see smashed, because they say that it is a lawless organization. The great majority of its branches and members accepted the Beeby award and loyally observed it, both in letter and in spirit !

During the past week or so, we have heard a good deal about preference to returned soldiers. It has been mentioned during the course of this debate. “We were told by Senator Lawson that returned soldier watersiders may render themselves not entitled to preference. Is it the general opinion of honorable senators opposite that if returned soldiers take certain industrial action, they render themselves not entitled to preference?

Senator Herbert Hays:

– That is an unfair interpretation. Senator Lawson said more than that.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– Is Senator Hays prepared to subscribe to the belief that a returned soldier, because he takes certain industrial action, may render himself not entitled to preference?

Senator Herbert Hays:

– I said nothing of the kind.

Senator Carroll:

– The honorable senator is attributing to Senator Lawson something he did not say.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I shall leave it to honorable senators who heard the remark to judge as to the accuracy of my interpretation.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator Lawson intimated that returned soldiers, as such, are not entitled to preference under the award.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– He went on to refer in general terms to returned soldiers. The honorable senator was quite right, returned soldiers, as such, have not preference under the award. Honorable senators opposite have made it impossible not only for returned soldiers to obtain preference, but to get any employment at all. They passed a law and drafted regulations which permits unnaturalized foreigners to work on the wharfs at Port Adelaide while returned soldier members of the “Waterside “Workers Federation are tramping the streets, unemployed. Even at this late stage no repentence is shown for that action.

Senator Ogden:

– The honorable senator had better leave the subject alone.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I know this is unpalatable to the honorable senator. I point out that 350 members of the Port Adelaide Waterside Workers organization enlisted for active service. In addition quite a number of members’ sons enlisted. At the time that this dispute took place, there were approximately 300 returned soldier members ‘ of the organization, while to-day it has something like 280 returned soldier members. There are also 750 returned soldier members of the Melbourne branch of the Waterside Workers Federation.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– Who told the honorable senator that ?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I have that information from the secretary of the organization, who should be in a position to know.

Senator Reid:

– If the honorable senator will ask the returned soldiers organization for a return on the subject he will find that those figures are not correct.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I am prepared to accept the statement of the secretary of the State organization, who is in a better position to judge than the honorable senator. The returned soldier watersider, in the view of the Opposition, is not entitled to any consideration. He is a criminal in their eyes. But if he will leave his home town and his waterfront occupation and seek a joh in the country on some Commonwealth public works, then he becomes entitled to preference.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I rise to a point of order. I do not think that any honorable senator has a right to say that the returned soldier, in my eyes or in the eyes of any other honorable senator, is a criminal. I refute the insinuation, and ask that it be withdrawn.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I have no desire to hurt the feeling of any honorable senator, and I am prepared to withdraw the remark. I shall substitute for it the remark that in the eyes of honorable senators opposite, returned soldiers who are members of the Waterside Workers Federation, are not entitled to preference while they remain on the waterfront, desirous of earning a living in their home town, desirous of keeping their homes together, of supporting their wives and families in the locality where they have always lived, and of following the occupation which their early training has fitted them to follow. But the moment that they leave their occupation and search for employment on Commonwealth public work in the highways and by-ways of Australia, they become entitled to preference. That is an inconsistent attitude, and proves that the desire of honorable senators opposite is not so much to protect the interests of returned soldiers as to protect the interests of employers of waterside labour. “We are told that the men who volunteered at a time when the employer was in trouble, are entitled to preference over returned soldiers.

Senator Colebatch expressed the view that this statutory regulation was, to put it in my own language, constitutionally wrong. If that is so the fault lies a(T the door of the Bruce-Page Government, which was responsible for placing on the statute-book the legislation under which the regulation was made. When, under section 24 of the act, it gave the Governor-General in Council power to make regulations to carry out the intention’ of the act, it must have ‘visualized the type of regulation that might be passed from time to time.

Having dealt briefly with the historical side of the subject, let me examine some of the arguments that have been advanced against the regulation. We have been told that it is contrary to the spirit of the award of the Arbitration Court. It was also stated that the Waterside Workers Federation applied to the court to have the picking-up places fixed. That federation made no such application. The picking-up places were fixed in the original award, and those fixed in this regulation are identical with those fixed by Judge Beeby. So that in that respect the Government has not departed from the award one iota. The waterside workers applied for one pick-up per day, which is an entirely different thing. It was that application that the court rejected.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The honorable .senator is wrong. They did apply for one picking-up place, but their application was refused.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– This regulation provides for the picking-up place originally incorporated in the Beeby award. Even admitting, for the sake of argument, that the ship-owners have the right to give preference to those who came to their assistance, surely those who are licensed to work on the waterfront should have equal rights with others to seek employment. Why should there be one centre at which volunteer labour may be picked up, and another centre some distance away for’ the picking up of union labour? The provision of two picking-up places enables employers who desire to do so to treat the members of the Waterside Workers Federation unfairly. That has been done repeatedly at Port Adelaide. Even Mr. Butler, the late Premier of South Australia, was so convinced of the injustice of the practice that he instituted negotiations between the Waterside Federation and the employers with the object of securing a fairer distribution of work. He was convinced that unfair preference was given to the volunteer workers. He knew that there were occasions on which employers, having taken all the volunteers available, deferred further calls for labour until some of the volunteers were again available, rather than go to the pick-up place for the waterside workers and offer work to some of the men there who were anxious and willing to work at award rates, but unable to obtain it. No doubt that practice still continues. That is a sound reason why there should be only one picking-up place. There should be no preference in the right to offer for work, whatever preference might be given by employers in actually engaging labour.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Will the regulation alter the position in South Australia ?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– Bad as is the position in South Australia, it is better than it is in Victoria. The Government now seeks to remedy conditions in Victoria. Later it will seek to improve the position elsewhere.

We hear a great deal about the unreasonableness of unorganized labour. Honorable senators on this side could, if they desired, speak just as fluently, and more truthfully. of the unreasonableness of organized employers. Bad employers of the past created that psychology which resulted in the establishment of arbitration courts and other means of settling industrial disputes. The same spirit is manifested by the employers on the waterfront to-day. By voting for the motion 10 disallow this regulation, honorable senators will be associating themselves with that spirit. Even supposing that the waterside workers did make a mistake, should they for ever he denied the right to pursue that avocation which, according to Sir David Gordon, they have followed honorably and peacefully for many years? Are they and their families to be driven out- of their home towns? Is the whole nature of those waterside towns to be changed? Are the business people who have invested their all in business there in the reasonable expectation that work on the waterfront would be distributed among those who live on the waterfront to be sacrificed, because the waterside workers made a mistake?

Senator Thompson:

– The Government would sacrifice -the men who came to the rescue of the country.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– Most of them were single, and many were unnaturalized aliens. According to Senator McLachlan, the proportion of unnaturalized aliens among the volunteers in South Australia is 12-J per cent. - one in every eight. These men do not live in the waterfront towns. They live most frugally elsewhere, and send most of their earnings to the countries from which they came. We do not blame them for doing so; but we do blame the Government for giving them preference over Australians, who would spend their money in Australia. Large numbers of single, unemployed men rushed to the waterfront at the prospect of earning good money. The money they receive is not spent in the waterside towns, the result being that business people there suffer. We should also consider those other persons who have invested money in establishing homes for waterside workers. The action of the Government will deny to them any return for their investment. They, too, are to be ruined because the waterside workers made one mistake. That is not the spirit that makes for industrial peace, or for a better understanding between employer and employee. Nor is it the spirit which should characterize honorable senators.. Instead of moving to disallow this regulation, honorable senators of the Opposition should welcome the Government’s attempt to bring about a more fraternal spirit between these twowarring sections of industrialists, and to create a better understanding between, employer and employee. They are, however, pursuing a policy of retaliation, and continuing the punishment long after thesin has been atoned for. The worst criminals in the land, having served the sentence imposed on them, are allowed to taketheir place in society again; but thewaterside workers, because of one industrial offence, are to be ostracized for ever.. Upon them and their wives and children is to be visited the worst punishment possible - starvation, misery and degradation. Even if they have done wrong, there should be some forgiveness. Instead of hampering the Government in its desire to improve conditions on the waterfront, honorable senators should assist it in its attempt to bring about industrial’ peace.

Senator OGDEN:
I compliment the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly · Tasmania [9.12].

on the moderate tone he adopted in his speech in opposition to the motion for the disallowance of this regulation. That he had not a strong case to present is more apparent now that Senator O’Halloran has spoken. Until the regulation was promulgated, shipowners could engage volunteer labour in their own offices, or elsewhere, but if they desired to engage members of the Waterside Workers Federation, they had to attend at certain picking-up places to do so. This regulation provides that a person shall not engage or pick up a transport worker at the port of Melbourne, nor shall transport workers there assemble for the purpose of being engaged or picked up, at any times or places other than those specified in the regulation. That is a distinct interference with the liberty of the subject - an attempt to force all persons seeking work on the waterfront to assemble at one place. These two bodies of workers do not love one another. While it might be said that dic volunteer worker loves the unionist, it certainly cannot be said that the unionist loves the volunteer. , He does not. Indeed, he would pursue the volunteer to the brink of the grave. Surely the Assistant Minister (Senator Barnes), who is always desirous of doing his best, does not really believe that peace will be obtained by bringing these two contending sections of workers to the one pick-up place.

The Minister says that there is no principle involved in this question. If that be the case, why has the regulation been promulgated ? Asa matter of fact, there are three serious principles involved in it - preference to unionists, the violation of an arbitration award and a proposal to give all the work on the waterfront to the members of the Waterside Workers Federation. I have always been opposed to preference to unionists.

Senator HOARE:

– When the honorable senator was a member of the Labour party was he opposed to preference to unionists?

Senator OGDEN:

– Yes, always when I was a member of a union. I believe that no attempt should be made to compel workers to join unions. Surely the benefits of unionism are sufficiently attractive to induce workers to become members of trade unions. When I was Minister in a Labour Government of Tasmania, the unions asked for preference to unionists. At that time, the late Senator Earle was Premier. Mr. Lyons, now the PostmasterGeneral in the Commonwealth Government, was Treasurer, and I was Chief Secretary and Minister for Labour. We were all opposed to giving preference to unionists, and probably Mr. Lyons opposed the request of the unions more vigorously than did any other Minister. At any rate, we unanimously decided not to grant preference. I have always been opposed to the principle.

Senator Rae:

– How does the regulation ask for a monopoly for the Waterside Workers Federation?

Senator OGDEN:

– Its objective is to give then an absolute preference to the work on the waterfront. I have no desire to harass the Government unduly. I hope that honorable senators of the Opposition will use their majority mercifully. The other day we did so when v<; withdrew a motion to disallow another regulation. ‘But although we are merciful, we cannot allow a regulation of this sort to go by default when we are honestly convinced that it is not in the interests of the general community. ‘

Statements are made that very few unionists are employed on the waterfront in Melbourne, but according to the Melbourne Argus of the 3rd May, Mr. Adams, speaking for the ship-owners in an application submitted to Judge Beeby in the Arbitration Court for preference, to unionists on the waterfront, which was turned down, I am glad to say, said -

The employers were not acting with any vindictiveness, but were carrying out pledges given to the volunteers. In Melbourne members of the federation were given all the work on the Holyman steamers, the Patrick, the Broken Hill Proprietary, the Union Company’s New Zealand steamers, the Tasmanian vessels, and other small vessels.

Senator Rae:

– Evidently the volunteers get the pick of the ships.

Senator OGDEN:

– I do not know about that, but the lines I have mentioned give preference to members of the Waterside Workers Federation. Mr. Adams went on to say : -

They were working the whole of the phosphate vessels. They got a considerable portion of the discharging of timber cargoes. From March 1, 1929, to April 23, 1930, the work had been apportioned as follows: - Volunteers, 05.10, federation members 34.83.

After all, there is not such a bitter discrimination exercised against the unionists and in favour of volunteers who delivered this country from those unjust and unjustifiable strikes which took place at frequent intervals for years. Mr. Adams went on to say: -

The employers, in seeking the aid of volunteers, had not sought to diminish wages or to increase hours. They had given a promise that the award would be observed, and that pledge had been honoured. If necessary, he would ask for an adjournment with a view to placing on affidavit some of the actions of which he complained.

Clearly, more unionists are employed than we are led to believe from the ministerial benches. A return prepared by Mr. Murray Stewart, Registrar of the Arbitration Court, is exceedingly interesting and is worth placing on record. It is as follows :-

Mr. Murray Stewart, the registrar, pursuant to a direction of the Court, made a report upon the number of volunteers employed.

In Brisbane, 1,073 volunteers were working, and of that number, 1,066 were enrolled before October 21, 1928. In Melbourne there were 2,227 volunteers following the occupation, and of that number, 2,068 were enrolled as volunteers and worked on the waterfront before the date, named. Following was a summary: - Adelaide, 506 enrolled before the date, and 79 others; Brisbane, 1,066 before the date, and 7 others; Melbourne 2,068 before the date and 159 others.

As Senator Pearce has already pointed out, in addition to the unionists working at the ports mentioned where the TransportWorkers Act applies, members of the Waterside Workers Federation only are employed in the ports of Tasmania, New South Wales and Western Australia. After all is said and done, waterside workers who have done considerable injury to the general community by a series of useless and unprovoked strikes against constituted law and authority have been very leniently treated.

Honorable senators of the Opposition are opposed to the principle of preference to unionists because it is dangerous at all times to give a monopoly of work to any one section of the community. It is well known that the Waterside Workers Federation is one of the closest corporations that exist in Australia. It has a restricted membership, it does not allow more than a certain number of persons to join. It charges a prohibitive initiation fee - I think it is £10 or £12 - and even then it refuses to allow men to join.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It closes its books.

Senator OGDEN:

– Yes. Why should this one small section of workers have a right to all the work offering on the public wharfs? The wharfs and the produce that is loaded on the ships belong to the general community, and it is important and urgent that operations on the waterfront should continue without interruption. It would therefore be criminal for this Parliament to allow one section of workers to be in a position to dictate terms, as it did for years, to say what ships should sail and when they should sail and what the charges should be. I trust that I am a good trade unionist. I have fought trade union battles and I would fight them again to-morrow, but I think the first principle to be observed in this country is the right of every man to earn a living for himself and family. Are those who came to the assistance of the country less reputable, less desirable citizens, than many of the men now in the Waterside Workers Federation? If the Assistant Minister (Senator Barnes) will look through the files in the Department of the Attorney-General, as I have done, he will find statements by reputable leaders of the Waterside Workers Federation showing that there is a distinctly undesirable element in the union. One man says in the report that the better-class members would be glad to get rid of probably 25 per cent. of the Waterside Workers Federation, the percentage that makes all the trouble. We are aware that there is an undesirable section in the ranks of the waterside workers, just as we are all aware that there are many fine citizens among them.

We are a peace-loving community in Tasmania, but many strange things have happened there. The Waterside Workers Federation closes its books. During the apple season there is plenty of work, and good money is earned by the wharf labourers, but unless local workers, who are not members of the federation, have its kind permission, they cannot work on the waterfront during that busy season. Bather than allow the local worker who is not a member of the union to get some of the work that is offering, members of the union from Victoria and New South Wales are encouraged to come to Hobart and work in the holds of the ships.

Senator Thompson:

– I suppose they work a good deal of overtime.

Senator OGDEN:

– As much as they can get. They also exercise job control. A few weeks ago, three members of the Waterside Workers Federation were fined for having disobeyed an instruction of an officer given in accordance with the award of the Arbitration Court. I quote the following from a mainland paper

Hobart, April 10

Proceedings were taken in the Hobart Police Court to-day by the Tasmanian Stevedoring Co., Ltd., against three members of the Hobart branch of the Waterside Workers’ Federation who on March 10 left their work of trucking cargo from the Port Caroline when instructed to stack cargo in the wharf shed. On completion of the emptying of the hold they were engaged on, the men were willing to continue working, but were threatened with a fine of £1 ‘by their branch secretary. The Police Magistrate (Mr. H. B. White), in imposing fines, ‘which with costs amounted to £ii 17s. 6d. for each man, said that they, were apparently between two fires. If they disobeyed their union secretary, they would be lined by him. If they broke the law by breach of the award, the court fined them. They had been misled in this instance by men who on the showing of the evidence were not fit to be their leaders.

That is the report of a case brought before the court a few weeks ago, in which men, on account of the influence exercised by the trades union leader, were prevented from working. They were instructed by the union representative that if they returned to work they would be fined.

Senator OGDEN:

– Yes, a well-paid servant. Trades union organizations throughout Australia collect about £3,000,000 from the workers, and I do not suppose that any union in Australia has a shilling to its credit. Senator O’Halloran, who said that the Transport Workers Act was brought into operation in the interests of the employers, apparently thinks that there are only two parties to a dispute - the employers and the employees. I should like to ask that honorable senator where he thinks the general community should come in. When the waterside workers go on strike and produce is held up on the wharfs, not only the waterside workers and the shipowners suffer, but also trades unionists and others in every part of Australia experience greater hardships than those directly engaged in the conflict. I wish to put in a plea for “John Citizen” whose interests are frequently overlooked. No government would be worth its salt if its legislation and administrative acts were in the interests of only one section. This question, involving as it does the serious and vital principle of restoring, to put the position bluntly, a licence to waterside workers to go on strike when they so desire, and thus control work on the waterfront, is opposed to all the principles of justice and fair play. Senator Hoare laughs, but I have as much regard for the good citizen who is not a trades unionist as the man who uses his trade union ticket to obtain preference. Those who are outside the ranks of trades unions are as much entitled to consideration as are the members of unions. The trades unionist is not the only’ pebble on the beach; others have to be considered. The exAttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham), warned the waterside workers that if they did not obey the award of the Arbitration Court action would be taken; but they refused to observe the award of the court and deliberately continued to disregard the advice then given, when a call was made for volunteers. If the members of the party on this side of the chamber, the ship-owners, and employers generally refused to honour their pledge to protect the volunteers, they would not be fulfilling their duty to the community. One would imagine from the remarks of Senator O’Halloran that the volunteers were foreigners; but, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, there are probably more foreigners in the ranks of the trades union movement than among the volunteers.

Senator McLachlan:

– They are naturalized Britishers, and are entitled to protection.

Senator Hoare:

– Who said that they were naturalized ?

Senator OGDEN:

– Many of them are.

Senator Hoare:

– And there are many who are not.

Senator OGDEN:

– They have been admitted as citizens of this country, and are entitled to protection. I have no sympathy with the members of the Waterside Workers Federation in connexion with this matter, because they refused employment when it was offered to them. If I were one of them, I would say that I got what I deserved. What is the use of their squealing. Senator O’Halloran further said that these men had been sufficiently punished, and were entitled to consideration ; but what guarantee have we that if they were allowed to work under the old conditions they would not commit similar offences and hold up the whole trade and commerce of the country? As I am not prepared to take that risk, I intend to support the motion for the disallowance of the regulation, and also to oppose to the utmost of my ability any other scheme submitted by this Government to introduce the vicious principle which is the basis of this proposal.

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

– I have followed this debate with a good deal of attention, because the dispute to which frequent reference has been made is one with which I have been personally associated, and has affected the State which I represent. I have always claimed that an award of the Arbitration Court should be observed by both parties, otherwise our arbitration system would be ineffective. But on the other hand we should admit that every man is liable to make a mistake. There was only one man perfect, and He was crucified. The person who does not make a mistake is incapable of making anything.

Senator Ogden:

– But he should not repeat his mistakes.

Senator HOARE:

Senator Ogden has repeated some of his mistakes. Members of the Waterside Workers Federation who have admitted that they were in error have been severely punished for any wrong they may have committed. I disagree with the view of the Leader of the Opposition who, in effect, said that they should not be pardoned. I wish to read the following paragraph which appeared in the South Australian Register of the 5th November, 1928:-

The Premier stated -on Thursday afternoon that he was quite sure that he echoed the opinions of every one when lie said how exceedingly pleased he was that the trouble on the waterfront had been settled. Although the waterside workers had agreed to return to work unconditionally, which was in effect an admission that the strike was a grave mistake on their part, it was certainly not the time to talk about victory. To admit a mistake always deserved commendation, and he felt sure that there was no desire on the part of the public to humiliate the men who had after duc delay done the right thing.

On 2nd October the following paragraph appeared in the same paper: -

At 1 o’clock this morning the following statement was issued by the State committee of employers: “The ship-owners express pleasure that the waterside workers have agreed to register under the Transport Workers Act, and to resume work under the

Beeby award. As has been previously stated the volunteer workers who had been enrolled prior to Thursda’y last, and who have been registered under the Transport Workers Act, will be given preference in employment, but it has been agreed that no further Volunteers will be engaged

The waterside workers in Port Adelaide returned to work feeling that the promise which had been given to them would be honoured; but it has been totally disregarded, as” additional volunteers have since been engaged. That has been the cause of most of the dissatisfaction in South Australia.

Senator Thompson:

– I should like to hear what the employers have to say on that point.

Senator HOARE:

– The paragraph which I have quoted appeared in the South Australian Register, which does not support the Labour party.

Senator Ogden:

– Did not the honorable senator lead the strikers along the wharf ?

Senator HOARE:

– What I shall have to say in that regard will not reflect much credit upon the police force in South Australia. I remember the incident to which the honorable senator refers, when the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin), who now occupies the position of Speaker in another place, and I led a procession of men and women through the streets of Port Adelaide. Although we tried to persuade those who took part in the procession not to go in the direction of the wharf but to avoid trouble and. return to the hall where we had addressed them, they proceeded to the wharf. What happened there was a disgrace to the police force. Mounted members of that force rode on to the footpaths and used their batons on the people without the slightest justification. A child had an arm broken and a woman had her teeth knocked out. A man who was chased by the police up to the point where I was standing said to the policeman “ What are you chasing me for ? ‘ The policeman replied “ Were you not one of the men who would not move on ?” When the man said he was not the policeman told him that he should be more careful in the future. That treatment would incite the people. Certainly it would not promote peace among those whose passions were inflamed as they were on that occasion. Honorable senators opposite know very well that this Government went to the country on the policy of arbitration. They are aware also that arbitration, if it is to be effective, implies preference to unionists. Without this principle arbitration must fail. Labour fought the election on this issue and people who supported it fully expected this Government to give effect to some form of preference to trade unionists as far as possible.

Senator Reid:

– Is it not possible to have arbitration without preference to unionists ?

Senator HOARE:

– It may be possible, but Labour’s policy is preference to unionists. I assume that this was a plank of the platform when the honorable member was a member of the party.

Senator Reid:

– Never !

Senator HOARE:

– Probably the honorable senator left the party before this principle was enunciated as a plank in its platform.

Senator Ogden:

– It is a new policy.

Senator HOARE:

– It was the policy of the party during the regime of the Fisher Government in 1910. An election was fought on this issue. All we are now asking is, that there shall be a more equal distribution of work on the waterfront.

Senator Crawford:

– The Government wishes to secure a greater distribution of work .among unionists, but non-unionists may starve.

Senator HOARE:

– The honorable senator no doubt has volunteer workers in mind. I suppose they are unionists, too.

Senator Crawford:

– I believe they are.

Senator HOARE:

– We are seeking to bring about a more equal distribution of work on the waterfront as was promised at the conference between wateraide workers and ship-owners.

Senator Thompson:

– What distribution does the honorable senator suggest - fifty-fifty?

Senator HOARE:

– That would be much better than the present arrangement. Senator Colebatch, I understand, said that the regulation which we are now discussing would, if allowed to stand, be

[66]

equivalent to trampling people in the dust. The regulations made by the previous Government have injured a considerable number of innocent people in Port Adelaide. I refer particularly to the business people in that city, who are suffering severely because the regular waterside workers are being shut out from employment on the wharfs. Very many women and children also are enduring privations for the same reason. Senator Pearce said that the position of the volunteers also should be considered. I should like to emphasize that the waterside workers who are now denied employment at their calling have lived in Port Adelaide all their’ lives and spend all their earnings with the business people in that city, whereas the volunteers now working on the wharfs there, are scat’tered all over the metropolitan area. Very few of them live in Port Adelaide.

Senator Thompson:

– The same amount of money is being distributed in wages.

Senator HOARE:

– If Senator Thompson had a business in Port Adelaide he would be singing an entirely different tune. He would be a strong advocate of a more equal distribution of work on the wharfs, as promised at the conference to which I have referred.

Senator Thompson:

– I know the reason for the present arrangement.

Senator HOARE:

- Senator Cooper spoke of the trouble that had occurred at certain Queensland ports a few years ago and endeavoured to persuade the Senate that the extremists who were responsible for the dislocation of shipping were a predominating factor in the policy of the Waterside Workers Federation. Actually they constitute a very small percentage of the members of that body. It is as unfair to charge the federation with all the trouble which they caused as it would be for me to hold the Employers Federation responsible for the misdeeds of unscrupulous employers. Honorable senators opposite are here to legislate for the people who support them. They must obey or out they go.

Senator Sir JOHN Newlands:

– The honorable senator is wrong again.

Senator HOARE:

– We all know what happened to Mr. Hughes and .Mr. Marks because they would not obey when the Nationalist party whip was cracked over their heads.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Order.! The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the subject-matter of the motion.

Senator HOARE:

Senator Ogden made some reference to the “ dagoes “. I believe he described them as a fine type of men.

Senator Thompson:

– He did not use the term “dago “.

Senator HOARE:

– Well, I do. I am not going to whitewash any individual member of this Parliament or the late Government which was responsible for the presence in this country of foreigners who compete with Australians for any employment that is offering. Last week I endeavoured to point out that the Labour party had made a mistake in withdrawing to some extent the principle .. of preference in government employment to returned soldiers. I do not forget the number of “ dagoes “ who have- taken the places’ of our returned soldiers.

Senator Thompson:

– They were civilized when- we were savages. . Does not the honorable senator know that?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator HOARE:

– It would have been more to the credit of Senator Ogden if he urged his loader (Senator Pearce) “to take a stand against, these unnaturalized foreigners who are securing- employment while Australians are unable to get work.

The PRESIDENT:

–Does the honorable senator intend to disobey my ruling? If so I shall have to take further action. I have asked him to endeavour to adhere to the subject, of the motion, which asks the - Senate to disallow the regulation.

Senator HOARE:

– Do you rule, Mr. President, : that I may not refer to foreigners? I was simply replying f-o interjections.’ .

The PRESIDENT:

– There is <no necessity to reply to interjections.

Senator HOARE:

– Will. I be in order in referring to foreigners who are ‘ in employment while our own men are out of work?

The PRESIDENT:

– In connexion with these regulations, yes.

Senator HOARE:

– Very well. These foreigners are working on our wharfs, and their presence is detrimental to the interests of Australians. Senator McLachlan, I understand, said that foreigners working on the waterfront represented about 12^ per cent, of the total number of employees. That, I suggest, is a serious situation, especially as a considerable percentage of the men are unnaturalized British subjects. It is the duty of the Opposition to urge that licences’ under the Transport Workers Act should not be issued to unnaturalized aliens. Senator McLachlan endeavoured to persuade the Senate that the volunteers working at the various seaports were rendering good service. Their employment has proved very costly to some ship-owners, who have had to pay a great deal more for labour because volunteers cannot load or unload a vessel as expeditiously as the regular waterside workers. In some instances waterside ‘workers have been employed to reload vessels that have been loaded by volunteers because the work has been done so badly’ that the owners’ representatives refused’ to allow the vessels to proceed to sea. I should mention also that the men who were chiefly responsible for the trouble at Port Adelaide, the men who kicked the ballot box to pieces so as to prevent’ a ballot from being taken, were -among the first to join the volunteers and secure employment. . Actually the men who were responsible for the trouble were rewarded by the ship-owners. They scabbed on their fellow-unionists and since then have been -.working fairly regularly. They taught the volunteers how to do the work. I am, aware, pf course, that a considerable number’ of the volunteers were in .’a serious position and were, glad of the work offering, but -it is a fact, nevertheless; that many men who have lived… on unionism and t scabbed on the movement “ when ‘ the trouble occurred at- Port Adelaide got all the pickings. These men attended ‘ the . annual conferences regularly, and when’’ the trouble occurred they “became virtually bosses of the volunteers for the ship-owners. They let their maces down in their time of need. I remember the genesis of the trouble at Port Adelaide; how a meeting was arranged by Mr. Blackburn, seemingly on a sudden impulse, to see how a certain number ofmen could be got together to protect the volunteers. The meetingtook place at the Stock Exchange, and. it was necessary to get those people drunk before they would go down to the port.

Senator Chapman:

– That is not correct.

Senator HOARE:

– It is, and it cannot be denied. I have in my hand a press cutting of recent date which may interest honorable senators. It reads -

The Chief Commissioner of Police (General Blarney) has appealed to men on the waterfront, and the public, to assist the police in detecting the bombers. He says waterside workers are just as eager to get rid of criminals in their ranks as anybody else.

That goes to prove what I previously stated, that the men who made the disturbance, the extremist element, represent only a small percentage of the unionists. General Blarney paid a well-deserved tribute to the Melbourne watersiders.

Senator Rae:

– The extremist is not necessarily a criminal.

Senator HOARE:

– I do not contend that he is. He merely views the world through differently tinted spectacles from mine. I well remember that in the early days of the Labour movement I and others were classedas extremists, agitators, and so on. The same thing was said of Senator Sir George Pearce, Senator SirJohn Newlands and others, then prominent members of the Labour party. Similar rash statements are still made. The only difference in the party is the change of personnel.

It is but fair to. expect those in authority at Port Adelaide to honour their promise and to give a more equal distribution of work. I am hoping that something will be done in that direction. I fail to see what Senator Sir George Pearce can hope to accomplish by the disallowance of this regulation. I do not believe that it will benefit anybody. The best thing that could be done would be to bring about the intermingling of these two sections, as is the case at Port Adelaide.

Senator Chapman:

– They are still separated there.

Senator HOARE:

– They would not be so if the rule regarding one picking-up place were observed. Sooner or later the two factions must mix, one with the other.

Senator Reid:

– Why did not, the Government include the port of Adelaide in this regulation?

Senator HOARE:

– That is best known to the Ministry. The Government has expressed the desire to give the scheme a try-out in Melbourne.

Senator Daly:

– It has been successful so far.

Senator HOARE:

– Yes, it has operated successfully. No one has been arrested on the waterfrontsince the idea was put into effect. Why not give it a proper try-out? If it did not work satisfactorily Senator Pearce would then be justified in moving for its disallowance. In the meantime I urge that it shall be given a fair trial.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chapman) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 10.7 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 May 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1930/19300514_senate_12_124/>.