Senate
28 May 1930

12^th Parliament · 1^st Session

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION BILLS
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN DISABILITIES
QUESTION
- SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE
QUESTION
- AVIATION SUBSIDIES
QUESTION
- SUBMAKINES OTWAY AND OXLEY
QUESTION
- WIRELESS PROGRAMMES
PAPERS
COTTON INDUSTRIES BOUNTY BILL
NATIONALITY BILL
- Second Reading
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRIAL POWERS)
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- REVELATIONS REPUBLISHED BY THE MORNING POST
QUESTION
- A UNION COSTS TOO MUCH
HOUR OF MEETING
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE)
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (POWER OF AMENDMENT)
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRIAL POWERS)
- Second Reading
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE)
ADJOURNMENT

The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2134

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION BILLS

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

– It is customary for announcements of Government policy to be made first in another place by the Prime Minister and simultaneously, or later, in this chamber. That other place does not meet until this afternoon.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Will the honorable senator make a statement later in the day?

Senator DALY:

– I shall inquire into the matter raised by the right honorable senator, and, possibly, make an announcement on the motion for adjournment.

page 2134

QUESTION

TASMANIAN DISABILITIES

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Leader of the Senate whether the view expressed by Mr. Wickens, the Commonwealth Statistician, when giving evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, that Tasmania should be attached to Victoria, is shared by the Government, or was put forward with ministerial authority?

Senator DALY:
ALP

– Mr. Wickens, as a witness before the Public Accounts Committee, expressed his own opinions. His suggestion regarding the desirability of attaching Tasmania to Victoria is not endorsed by the Government, or any memberof it.

page 2134

QUESTION

SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE

Senator DALY:
ALP

– On the 14th May, Senator E. B. Johnston asked the following questions, upon notice -

What are the quantities and values of the importations into Australia in connexion with the erection of the Sydney harbour bridge?
What amount of duty has been remitted in connexion with this public work?
Is it a fact that thewhole of the great main arch of the bridge is constructed of British steel, which has been imported free of duty for the purpose?

I am now able to furnish the honorable senator with the following information : -

It has been ascertained that approximately 35,349 tons of steel, valued at £512,940, and machinery and plant valued at £395,813 have been imported in connexion with the erection of the Sydney harbour bridge.
The duty remitted in regard to the importation of material and machinery in con,nexion with the bridge amounted to £223,609. These remissions were made before the present Government took office, but the governing principle in connexion with such remissions was that the material and machinery were not obtainable in Australia.
It is not a fact that the whole of the great main arch of the bridge is constructed of British steel, as inquiries show that 8,000 tons of Australian steel are included in the main arch.

Senator DALY:

– On the 14th May, Senator Sir GeorgePearce asked the following questions, upon notice -

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?

I am now able to furnish the honorable senatorwith the following information : -

Numerous applications have been made.
£512,949.
£93,271.
The duty remitted has amounted to £91,824.
Applications for remissions of duty have been made at intervals ever since March, 1922. After consultation with local steel manufacturers, steel not commercially manufactured in Australia has been admitted free of duty under Tariff Item 404 (United Kingdom rates). In some instances the steel concerned was already permanently in the by-law, and, therefore, admissible free of duty from the United Kingdom. In the latter cases the steel would necessarily beof a kind not made in Australia, or it would not be in the by-law. The contractors, in accordance with their contr act, have used Australian steel to the utmost extent possible. They state that the amount expended on the contract in Australia to date is approximately £2,500,000.
Remissions have been granted from time to time since 1922. All of the remissions to date were granted before the present Government took office.

page 2135

QUESTION

AVIATION SUBSIDIES

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

– On the 23rd May, Senator Cooper asked the following questions : -

Are any of the aerial transportation companies or aircraft manufacturing companies in receipt of Government subsidy.
If so -
1. what are the names of the companies ;
2. what is the amount of subsidy paid to each company; and
3. on what basis are the subsidies paid?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable senator as follows: -

Yes.

2 -

page 2135

QUESTION

SUBMAKINES OTWAY AND OXLEY

Senator DUNN:
through Senator O’Halloran

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence -

Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to statements appearing in the press to the effect that the submarines Otway and Oxley are to proceed to the British China Naval Station to be attached to the British Naval Squadron there, and that the cost of upkeep of these submarines is to be borne by the Australian Government?
Are these statements correct?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are: - 1 and 2. The Government has not made any such arrangement.

page 2135

QUESTION

WIRELESS PROGRAMMES

Senator OGDEN:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General -

Does power exist in the agreement between the Broadcasting Company and the Government to require satisfactory programmes for subscribers?
If so, will the Government take the necessary action to enforce an improvement in the present unsatisfactory services?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

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

The contract provides that the Company shall satisfy the Postmaster-General.
Whenever it appears that there is justification for complaint in regard to the programmes, the fullest representations are made to the Company and a co-operative effort is put forward to improve the position. If the honorable senator cares to bring under the notice of the Postmaster-General any specific direction in which the programme is unsatisfactory, a special investigation will be made.

page 2136

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Defence Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 49- No. 50.

Quarantine Act-Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 52.

High Commissioner for the Commonwealth in the United Kingdom - Report for 1929.

Scat of Government Acceptance and Seat of Government ( Administration ) Act - Liquor Ordinance - Regulations.

page 2136

COTTON INDUSTRIES BOUNTY BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Daly) read a first time.

page 2136

NATIONALITY BILL

Second Reading

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

.- I move-

That the bill now be read a second time.

This measure deals specifically with section 32 of the Nationality Aor, sub-section 2 of which provides that a person to whom n certificate of naturalization is granted shall not bt< liable to any ‘fee or charge- in respect thereof. The Government considers that, in view of the advantages accruing from naturalization, it is but fair that a charge should be levied. The fee proposed to be prescribed is £3-

Senator MCLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– A uniform fee of £3?

Senator DALY:

– Yes. Great Britain charges a fee of £10 for naturalization; New Zealand, £2 ; Canada, five dollars ; and the United States of America, twenty dollars. The inquiries and reports necessary to determine whether an applicant is entitled to the privileges given by naturalization involve the Commonwealth in considerable expense, and there is, further, a contingent liability, as naturalized persons are eligible for old-age and invalid pensions. Naturalization gives those material advantages, together with the privilege of Australian citizenship. That aliens residing in Australia are, to a greater degree, seeking to be naturalized, is evident from the fact that last year 1,732 naturalization certificates were issued, and only 909 in 1925. I understand that the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition regards the bill as a non-contentious measure.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [11.17]. - My only comment on the hill is that I am astonished at the moderation of the Government in regard to the proposed fee for naturalization, which, I am of opinion, might very well have been made higher. This is a step that should have been taken long ago. I am heartily in accord with the object of the bill.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western ‘ Australia) [11.18]. - I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate why the amount of the fee is not stated in the bill. Why is it “ to be prescribed “ ? It is conceivable that some future government might take advantage of this provision to prescribe a prohibitive fee as an obstacle to naturalization.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– Whether the amount of the fee should.be stated in the bill or left, to be prescribed is, I think, a matter to be discussed in committee. The work involved in dealing .with the applications for naturalization varies greatly. As a Minister, it has been my misfortune on one or two occasions to have to sign some hundreds of letters of naturalization, and I know from the documents which thus came before me that while, in some cases, the procedure is perfectly simple, in others the amount of work involved is considerable. Therefore, I think it is better to provide that the fee shall be prescribed. The Government may find it necessary to vary the charge in some circumstances. A government must be allowed a certain amount of discretion administratively. That is the only reason that I can suggest to Senator Colebatch for the fact that the amount has not been specifically stated in the bill. I speak out of a personal experience of the difficulties that are encountered in such matters.

Senator Daly:

– I shall reply to Senator Colebatch in committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Fees for certificates) .

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

– The reason that the Government has not stated in the bill the fee that is to be charged for certificates is that which was given by Senator Mclachlan on the second reading of the bill. Until the present time a fee has not been charged. While it is the intention of the Government to charge a uniform fee, circumstances may arise necessitating a departure from that practice. The Government is anxious not to make this a revenue-producing measure, but simply to prescribe a fee that will recoup the Treasury the expense incurred in prosecuting necessary inquiries.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [11.23]. - Although the explanation is a satisfactory one, it would have been better had a maximum amount been stated in the bill. I admit that a government must be trusted not to use improperly a power of this kind; but it is obvious that it could be used to increase the difficulties of persons, who legitimately desire to take out naturalization papers.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 2137

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRIAL POWERS)

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23rd May (vide page 2106) on motion by Senator Daly -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- In view of the semi-official statement that lias appeared in the press with respect to the Constitution alteration proposals of the Government I should not have been surprised had this and the other two measures been withdrawn. It appears, however, that the debate upon them must proceed to its conclusion, and that early next year they will again be introduced.

The statement to which I have referred accused the Senate of having delayed these measures. That was an unwarranted accusation. The speeches that had been made upon them had not been lengthy, nor had there been stone-walling of any kind. It was rather cowardly of the Government to blame the Senate for the trouble in which it find3 itself.

On Friday I began a reply to the contention of Senator Barnes that the industrial machinery of Australia had nor. functioned properly. The honorable senator app’eared to be anxious for enlightenment as to the cause of its failure to accomplish what was expected of it. He has a considerable knowledge of that machinery, because out of this chamber he has had a long experience of its working. During 1928 and 1929 the party that he is supposed to represent in this Parliament revolted against the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and all its awards. I shall quote the opinions of some of those whom I shall term the engineers who have been in attendance upon this machinery. The first gentleman whom I shall call to testify regarding the curse that arbitration has been to the workers is my friend Senator Ra°. who in the Pan-Pacific Worker published the following statement : -

It is impossible to estimate the moral harm which has been done to the Australian working class by this hasty and ill-considered acceptance of arbitration as a solution of labour’s problems.

My next quotation is from a speech by Mr. J. S. Garden, better known as “Jock” Garden. He said-

The class significance of the Arbitration Court is gradually being realized by workers, and they arc gradually throwing off the stultifying and doping effects of the court.

The Australian Council of Railway Unions has expressed its opinion in the following terms: -

That the perpetuation of arbitration is to the detriment of the working classes of the Commonwealth and the Australian Railways Union in particular. With a view to uniform propaganda in opposition to the chloroforming effects of arbitration court and other wage fixing tribunals, a committee should be appointed to prepare and disseminate propaganda.

In July, 1928, the Trade Union Congress carried the following resolution : -

That unions should take a vote as to whether they should stay in the Federal Arbitration Court or not.

These are the statements of men whom the Arbitration Court has lifted into comfortable positions. In a report to the Metropolitan Labour Conference held in Sydney in February, 1929, the Hon. A. C. Willis, M.L.C., said-

When you went to the Arbitration Court you knew what you were doing. You put your heads into the arbitration machine and now you are squealing because you are being crushed. The machine is attempting to crush the whole movement.

The opinion of Mr. Kilburn, of the Bricklayers Union, is contained in the following statement: -

They had realized that the Arbitration Court was not all that it had been claimed to be. The poor were getting poorer and the rich and lazy richer and lazier with the aid of the Court- while, according to Mr. A. Fitzgerald, of the Timber “Workers Union, and a Minister in the Lang Government -

There is no justice in the Court. We are getting the best assistance from the communists.

Mr. C. Crofts, Secretary of the Australasian Trade Union Congress, Melbourne, stated -

The executive has passed a resolution to the effect that all unions should immediately withdraw.

At that congress, Mr. C. O’Neill, of the Seamens Union, gave notice that he would move -

That until the Arbitration Act is repealed, this Congress should recommend to the workers that they should carry on unremitting and intense fight against the employers responsible for the introduction of such legislation.

It was immaterial to Mr. O’Neill that that legislation was introduced by the Labour party. Another member of the Timber Workers Union, Mr.C. Bodsworth, said that justice was out of the question in the Arbitration Court. Mr. H. Carrington, from Queensland, moved -

That this Congress recommends to all unions their simultaneous withdrawal from the Court. He said it would bo very dangerous if th’ey remained in the Court.

The Pan-Pacific Worker of the 2nd April, 1928, contained the following statement attributed to Mr. C. Crofts, Secretary of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions : -

That instead of increasing the relative return to Labour of productive increment, the arbitration system tends to stabilize arbitrary standards of subsistence - that the Arbitration Court can be advantageously displaced by the Industrial Peace Act.

The same publication in its issue of the 1st July, 1928, contained a contribution by Mr. S. Carpenter, under the heading “Industrial Peace” -

We must not forget that as long as the Arbitration Court exists it will always be and always has been used by the exploiters to paralyze any show of militancy on the part of the workers.

That is the voice of the proletariat as expressed in the Pan-Pacific Worker. The same journal stated on the 15th February, 1929-

The Arbitration Court to-day is the successful weapon of attack of working conditions. Although in the past trades unions were rather generous in the passing of resolutions against compulsory arbitration, nothing was done to give effect to these resolutions. The Australasian Council of Trade Unions found it necessary to adopt a decision recommending all unions to boycott the Arbitration Court as the tool of the bosses, from which the workers can expect nothing but reduced wages and the lowering of the standard of living. This decision will, we hope, help to disillusion the workers in regard to Arbitration.

Those are extracts from speeches, statements and resolutions by the representatives of the workers.

Senator Barnes:

– Does the honorable senator propose to make any quotations to the same effect from associations of employers?

SenatorREID. - I admit that many employers have spoken in a similar strain, but as their remarks have been quoted in the Senate previously, I shall not repeat them now. I admit also that many trade unions are strongly in favour of the Arbitration Court, and have always spoken in support of it. Those unions have obeyed its awards, as have also many employers. But the “die-hard” employer, and those who have been hurt by the dual system of control, have not a good word to say for the Arbitration Court. I cannot understand why the Government should profess to uphold the Arbitration Court when the engineers who control the machine - their own followers - condemn it. All the powers which the Constitution could vest in a government would not satisfy men who have opposed awards which were against them, notwithstanding that these awards were based on economic facts. Only when the Bruce-Page Government sought to amend the act in 1928-29, in the interests of peace in industry, did these people revolt.

I was pleased to hear that the Government has decided to withdraw the referendum proposals for further consideration. They certainly require more careful examination. To-day, the men in the Labour movement who have condemned the arbitration machine are silent, because they expect the present Government to introduce class legislation which will enable them to exercise more tyrannical powers than in the past. No reform of the Arbitration Court or of arbitration laws can alter economic facts, or satisfy people who are opposed to arbitration. The duty of the Government in this time of depression is to find work for the unemployed rather than to improve still further the position of men who, while enjoying the privileges which arbitration has brought, condemn the system. Senators Barnes and Hae are as well acquainted as I am with the conditions in industry which resulted in a demand for arbitration. They know also what arbitration has achieved for the workers.

When I was a member of the Labour movement I thought that by nationalizing our industries we should assist the workers and place industry on a proper basis. Experiments in that direction were made in Queensland; but, although many thousands of pounds were spent on big “ schemes, not one of them proved successful, notwithstanding that the workers were paid high wages and given good conditions. For instance, two coal mines in which the men worked under the best conditions possible were opened. The men- employed there caused such trouble that, although the Minister in charge was a big-hearted man who wished to help them all he could, he was finally compelled to close down the enterprise in order to avoid further loss to the Government and to the people. Nationalization of the coal industry has already been attempted, and the attempt has been de feated by the workers themselves. A recent example of the refusal of Labour leaders to face economic facts was furnished during the negotiations between Mr. Cleary, Commissioner of Railways in New South Wales, and the railway employees. The Railway Department in New South Wales was losing heavily, as, indeed, are the railway services of all the States. Mr. Cleary asked the men to meet him in conference to arrange some method of stopping the drift in the department’s finances without inflicting undue hardship upon themselves. All his efforts to arrive at a settlement were opposed by Mr. Jock Garden and other extremists, who tried to stir up trouble among the employees in the workshops, and on the permanent way. Mr. Cleary was unable to achieve anything until he negotiated with the men themselves. He put the position before the men and they, with their natural commonsense, recognized that something would have to be done. A settlement was reached under which the men were required to work longer hours, but that was better than the prospect of starvation which otherwise faced thousands of employees. It may be said that the settlement involved an increase in working hours and a reduction in wages for the railway workers, but no fair-minded person can deny that, in the circumstances, Mr. Cleary did the best thing for the public and the men themselves. I do not propose to debate the matter further because, after all, the issue is no longer a live one ; but, in conclusion, I propose to quote an extract from an address delivered a long time ago by the Greek philosopher, Pythagoras, who was one of the outstanding products of a civilization which has never quite been equalled. This is what he said -

Listen, my children, to what the State should he to the good citizen. It is more than father or mother, it is more than husband and wife, it is more than child or friend. The State is the father and mother of all, is the wife of the husband, and the husband of the wife. The family is good, and good is the joy of the man in wife and in son. But greater is the State, which is the protector of all, without which the home would be ravaged and destroyed. Dear to the good man is the honour of the woman who bore him, dear the honour of the wife, whose children cling to his knee; but dearer should be the honour of the State, that keeps safe the wife and the child. It is the State from which comes all that makes you prosperous, and gives you beautyand safety. Within the State are built up the arts, which make the difference between the barbarian and the man. If the brave man dies gladly for the hearthstone, far more gladly should he die for the State.

If that spirit prevailed at the present time, not only among political parties, but also among workers and employers, if all classes worked together in a spirit of sacrifice, placing Australia’s welfare before their own, our troubles would be swept away, and the State and its inhabitants would become prosperous again. 1 shall vote against the bill.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– The honorable senator who has just resumed his seat referred to the proposal of the Government as being no longer a live issue, but the Government will probably find, as other Governments have found before, that ghosts of t his kind can cause much uneasiness. When considering proposals of this kind one should try to remember the object which the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they introduced into the Constitution even those limited Commonwealth powers which it is now the wish of the Government to have extended. There is no doubt that when the Constition was framed most of the statesmen responsible forit had in mind the great industrial troubles of the ‘nineties, and were determined that the Commonwealth Parliament should be empowered to function in respect of what they regarded as Australian-wide industrial matters. The great objective of arbitration, whether compulsory or voluntary, has always been industrial peace. The framers of the Constitution recognized, as we recognize now. the need for obtaining and maintaining industrial peace, and avoiding the wastefulness of industrial strife. Honorable senators supporting this measure may have read the observations of the President of the American Federation of Labour, who said -

Labour does not want to waste its energies and resources by engaging in industrial conflints. Iam confident that we can minimize industrial controversy through a proper regard and recognition of the rights of both employers and employees. The right of the employer to manage his industry, to control it, and to receive a fair profit upon his investment should he maintained and recognized. The right of the employees to organize, to bargain collectively, to be represented in conference with employers through their chosen representatives, is a right which should be readily accorded and completely recognized. Supplementing the recognition of these simple rights must come understanding, co-operation, and the manifestation of a mutuality of interests in the management and conduct of industry.

The President of the United States of America, Mr. Hoover, in dealing with the same subject, stated -

The high standards of living enjoyed by the American people are the result of steadily mounting per capita productivity.

The American Federation of Labour has declared that the standard of living depends upon productivity, and of that contention I think there is a general recognition. A paragraph recently appeared in a leading Australian journal to this effect, “There is in our midst the will to industrial peace; the problem is how to make that will prevail.” I do not entirely agree with the conclusions reached by that journal, but I submit that an overwhelming majority of honorable senators believe that there is in our midst a will to secure industrial peace, and are endeavouring to make that will prevail. In furtherance of the great objective which the framers of the Constitution had in view, the Government has suggested an amendment of the Constitution to extend the power of this Parliament to enable it to makelaws to ensure the industrial peace of this country. The limited industrial powers granted to the Federal Parliament under the Constitution have been interpreted in various ways; but I direct the attention of honorable senators to some observations made by the framers of the Constitution when undertaking their important task. Their desire was, not to set up a huge legal system with which would necessarily be associated many entanglements, but to provide a simple method of settling disputes between employers and employees. They were anxious to devise a means that would be acceptable to both parties, and in which both sides would have confidence. The late Mr. Justice Higgins, who, at the Federal Convention, was the sponsor of this proposal, said that there was a desire that the Federal Parliament should be empowered to establish such industrial courts as it thought fit. He did not ask the convention to say that arbitration should be compulsory, or” that steps should be taken to secure the settlement of industrial disputes. He only wished the Federal Parliament to be given power to legislate on the subject of the establishment of industrial courts. In that contention he was supported by Sir Isaac Isaacs, the present Chief Justice of Australia, who said that if the Federal Parliament, in attempting to legislate satisfactorily, did not do so effectively, the Parliament would be able to repeal its enactments. I direct the attention of honorable senators to one or two observations of gentlemen of that time who were not so sanguine as to the success of an Australian-wide arbitration system as was the late Mr. Justice “Higgins, and some associates of mine. The opponents of the system urged that it was a dangerous power, and that to pass legislation of the nature suggested was in itself - I am now using the language of the late Sir John Downer - to extend the area of quarrels. One can realize in the light of subsequent happenings how prophetic were those words. The late Mr. Alfred Deakin dealt with the. intricacies of the problem, and the late Sir Edmund Barton strongly opposed the inclusion of the power and expressed his agreement with Sir Josiah Symon, who said -

If you ure going to introduce such a thing om this, you will introduce the greatest complication and intensify the feeling - [ am afraid those words were only too true.

Instead of building to secure industrial pence: and bring employer and employee together, working in harmony for the benefit of the body politic, we have created an atmosphere that will breed antagonism between master and nian.

Senator Barnes:

– If the honorable senator compared industrial condition’s during the past twenty years with those of the preceding twenty years, he would find that that is not so.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– If conditions have improved to a marked degree during the past twenty years there should be no necessity to amend the legislation in the direction proposed. The submission of this proposal, is a recognition by the Government and by the employers and employees that industrial harmony does not prevail in this country. However honorable senators may view these proposals, they must admit that we would be in a much better position industrially if we had some method of settling disputes other than by recourse to the courts. The present procedure usually results in a battle of wits between “the experts employed by the parties to a dispute. The limited industrial powers granted to the Federal Parliament were inserted in the Constitution only on ;i narrow majority, and under these powers various arbitration acts have been passed by this Parliament from time to time.. The present proposal is to extend thi.1 powers of the Commonwealth Parliament to a marked degree, but even if adopted by the Parliament and the people, will not give the Commonwealth Parliament exclusive power to legislate in that regard. As the Leader of the Government (Senator Daly) indicated, the whole field of industrial legislation may be covered, except in one particular to which I shall later direct particular attention. I do not think any honorable senator ha3 any objection to industrial disputes being settled ; any opposition raised is based on the method by which they are to be settled. It is the difficulties of dealing with the problems arising under our present system that cause so much trouble. The thing is complex, though it should be simple, and full of entangling legalisms though it should be direct. Men who do npt understand the intricacies of different industries are obliged to deal with them. It is on these grounds that exception has been taken to the Arbitration Court system by employers and some trade unionists.

The question is, where should the power rest in order to get the best results? Is it desirable that it should rest with the Commonwealth authority or with the States? We have heard numerous speeches in this chamber about the difficulties that are caused by the dual” control of industry, but the policy which the Government is now advancing will not lead to the abolition of duality in control. It was the duty of the Government to have advised honorable senators in unambiguous terms of the policy that it intended to adopt if the people grant the extended power it desires, but it has not done so. Some little time ago I coined a happy phrase when I referred to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as an “ industrial bigamist “. Evidently he still desires the parties in industry to have the right to take advantage of whichever industrial authority they please* at any given time. Under the present system the workers may take advantage of the State authorities if they desire, but unions which have brancb.es in more than one State may easily bring themselves within the federal jurisdiction. It is this fact that has led to chaos in the management of industrial affairs.

Unfortunately, the policy of the Government is obscure, though it should have been stated clearly. “We have been left to draw conclusions from stray phrases in the speeches delivered by Government supporters upon this measure. I desire to know definitely whether the policy of the Government is conciliation, or control by some judicial system, or some system of committees, such as prevails in Queensland. I also wish to know whether the penalties provided in the Arbitration Act, are to be abolished. During the regime of the previous Government an effort was made to ascertain the opinion of the leaders of the industrial movement on this subject. The Australasian Council of Trade Unions was asked by letter whether it desired the penalties to be abolished. It seems to me that if we are to retain the rule of law, the penalties should remain, but should be made effective. If, on the other hand, we are to adopt a system of conciliation with the object of promoting harmony and good-will, though that will be difficult to achieve, the penalties should be abolished. But if that is done, I suggest that we shall get back to the rule of tooth and claw visualized, a few days ago, by the Assistant Minister (Senator Barnes).

So far, the only thing that has been compulsory about our arbitration system has been the arbitration part of it. There has been no effective power to compel either party to abide by the awards of the court. We are faced with a particularly difficult problem. In 1927 the previous Government consulted both the employers and the trade union leaders freely with the object of ascertaining exactly what they wanted in regard to the retention of penalties against strikes and lockouts, and neither side was agreeable to the complete abolition of penalties. When the Australasian Council of Trade Unions was asked whether it was in favour of the penalties, it delayed replying for a considerable time, and then wrote to the effect that the different unions would have to be approached specifically on the subject. All further attempts to obtain a definite answer from it were abortive.

The Senate is surely entitled to some information as to the policy the Government will adopt if extended industrial power is given to this Parliament. This is particularly necessary in view of the failure of the previous Administration to get any definite information from either side in industry as to the kind of machine it desired to be established for the settlement of industrial troubles. We are all familiar with the difficulties of the present situation. It is manifestly impossible for an arbitration judge to settle effectively the disputes that occur in intricate industries. I saw one judgment of an Arbitration Court judge which ran into 123 foolscap pages. Many judgments fill more than 60 pages of typewritten manuscript. In one case I remember a judge was required to fix the price of hundreds of different garments. It takes the employers and employees in that industry many years to qualify themselves to determine these matters, and it is impossible for a judge to do it in a few weeks. It is equally impossible for us who wear the long robe to deal effectively with these subjects. When one comes to consider the enormous scope of industry one must realize that it is beyond the mental or physical capacity of one human being to speak with authority on the whole subject.

In the few years which preceded the last election, the previous Government endeavoured to formulate some acceptable alternative method of controlling industries. The subject was discussed also on the hustings a few months ago. It has been truly said during this debate that the result of the election seemed to indicate that the people desire a continuance of the system of dual control, although it is impossible to say whether that was the real issue on which the election turned. All sorts of cross currents intruded themselves during the campaign and obscured the issue, which shows- that the introduction of politics into industry has been a curse. It has been suggested that certain industries have become federalized; but there is not much in that contention, for, as I have said, unions that have branches in more than one State can place themselves within the federal jurisdiction without any difficulty whatever.No government can. say authoritatively that the people desire complete industrial authority to be vested in the Commonwealth Parliament. This is particularly so in view of the fact that in July or August of last year there . were 420,000 employees in Australia working under Commonwealth awards and more than 600,000 working under State awards. That seems to show that the employees favour the State tribunals more than the Commonwealth Court, The statements of certain alleged industrial leaders, quoted by Senator Reid this morning, were made for the deliberate purpose of reflecting upon the system of arbitration with a view to its ultimate destruction. Labour has consistently failed in its attitude towards arbitration, particularly at critical junctures in the industrial history of this country. Whatever may be the decision of the arbitration tribunal, I conceive it to be the duty of the political leaders of all parties and of this Parliament to support its awards. This support has not always been forthcoming. When we see a distinguished representative of the Labour party, a gentleman now occupying a position on the treasury bench, conveying resolutions of congratulation to the rank and file of the coal-miners and to the timber-workers on their splendid stand against what was described as a general attack on wages and hours of working in that industry, we can readily understand how, in its attitude towards arbitration, the political Labour party is influenced by considerations of party strategy. One prominent representative of the Labour movement declared that he endorsed heartily the action of the timber workers in striking against an award of the court. “I believe in arbitration,” said this gentleman, “but not arbitration as administered by a prejudiced court.”

Senator Rae:

– Hear, hear!

Senator McLACHLAN:

– This is the sentiment that commands the plaudits of certain sections in the Labour movement. Apparently every award that does not give one side what it wants is prejudiced. These gentlemen, who rank high in the counsels of the Labour party, are now supporting this movement to amend the Constitution in the direction of giving this Parliament extended powers with regard to arbitration. And what of the trade unionists themselves? I have here a list of at least 70 trade unions the members of which agreed to a levy to support the timber-workers in their fight against an award of the Arbitration Court. Even that great organization which hitherto had won the respect of the people forits obedience to the court - I refer to the Australian Workers Union - made a levy of 5s. on its 160,000 members for the purpose of supporting those who were without employment, as a result of the timber workers’ strike against the courts’ award. Do they really want arbitration as we understand it, or do they want to have it in their own hands to say what the awards of that tribunal shall be ? Obviously they cannot have it both ways. If they stand for arbitration they must abide by the awards of the court. I have heard of organizations and individuals submitting disputes to arbitration with an umpire, but firmly believing that the function of the arbitrator was to support their claim. This is an entire misconception of the functions of an arbitrator. His duty is to make awards according to the evidence placed before him and according to what he thinks to be right in the circumstances.

Senator Reid referred to the misrepresentations indulged in during the last election campaign by responsible, or perhaps I should say, irresponsible, industrial leaders with regard to arbitration. Apparently, they were prepared then to do everything in their power to injure the system, and, in fact, to abolish it altogether. It is unfortunate that the responsible members of the party now in office did not, at the time, take these industrial leaders to task. These people, it seems now, support theGovernment in asking for this extension of power to legislate with reference to wages and conditions of labour in industry. But this amendment will not mean peace in industry. The time of the industrial leaders would be better occupied in endeavouring to localize disputes and to bring about a better feeling between employers and employees. I am aware, of course, that there are those in the community who do not want to see a better feeling between the two sections in industry. The Bruce-Page Government endeavoured to constitute a Peace conference, but for political considerations the representatives of one section withdrew from that gathering, and the efforts of the Government to ensure peace in industry proved unavailing. The statements quoted by Senator Reid this morning indicate clearly how the system of arbitration is viewed by certain sections of trade unionists. In 1926 the BrucePage Government asked for extended power to make it possible for the Arbitration Court to function more efficiently. I ilo not propose to delay the Senate by emphasizing the difference between the proposals then made and those now before this chamber. This has been done by the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce). I have always regarded the intrusion of political considerations into the industrial affairs of this country as one of our chief curses. Industry should not become the plaything of any political party. When the welfare’ of the nation is obscured by party considerations it is impossible for our arbitration machinery to work efficiently. Senator Barnes has assured us that he and all the members of this Government arc anxious to perfect the existing machinery. I am afraid that our difficulties will be added to by the Constitutional amendments contemplated in this proposal and that we shall have a further intrusion of political considerations into the industrial arena. When statements detrimental to the principle of arbitration were being made prominent members of the party opposite had not the courage to denounce those industrial leaders who were responsible for them. On the contrary, some Labour candidates endorsed them because of the political value to them of that section which was in revolt against the law. It is a highly undesirable state of affairs, but still it exists. There is no getting away from the fact that these things have happened, and I suggest to the Government that the position will become worse if, by any unhappy chance, these powers that, are sought by the Government; are granted to it. One outstanding feature in connexion with the bril is an omission from it. There is in it no proposal to ask for power to control trade unions. It is essential that where the industrial power lies there shall also lie the power to control the trade unions of this country. The great industrial organizations to which Senator Reid has referred are the bodies that approach the Arbitration Court for awards, and I suggest that there should not only be judicial control’ over them while they are before the court, but that their internal affairs, sUCh as finance, forms of rules and secret ballots should be regulated, and we should have power to prevent the tyranny -which is now exercised by certain union leaders over their own members. The regulation of the unions in that way would give the rank and file a proper say in the control of. their organizations. That, in many respects is not the case to-day, and 1 suggest that something in the nature of a secret ballot should be prescribed. The position of Australia to-day in regard totrade union control is the most lamentable in the world. The control of trade unions in Great Britain is placed in the hands of the Registrar-General of friendly societies. From an examination of the affairs of trade unions in the interests of the trade union movement itself, emerged a number of things which are summarized in an article which appeared in the Quarterly Review of October, 1926. The article, although somewhat florid in places, gives the pith of the inquiry. It reads -

There is a flutter in the dovecotes of trade union officialism. Well-paid prosperous gentlemen who have done very well out of the contributions of the rank and file, are much perturbed because certain members of Parliament, by asking the Minister of Labour pertinent questions relating to trade union funds and their disbursement, have turned the glaring light of publicity on the extremely heavy working expenses of some of the most important organizations. It is all very well for Labour M.P.’s, themselves well-paid union officials, to say that the information could easily have been obtained from the annua? returns of the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies. No doubt the questioners were well aware of that - probably they had already read those returns - and did not need the information for themselves, the object being to give the matter the widest possible publicity.

The whole position is summarized as follows : -

The great scandal of trade union funds is. however, the excessive number of highly paid officials and the payments for delegation fees, travelling and hotel expenses. The newspaper already referred to is strangely silent on these “ excellent “ ways of incurring working expenses from moneys provided” by the hardearned pence of the rank and file. The figures fur the six most important unions, as published by the Registrar-General and enumerated in the White Paper recently issued, are as follows: -

– If the honorable senator will bear with me, I shall give him a few extracts from the contributions some Australian trade union leaders have made to one another in this particular regard. I remind him that it is not long since Mr. Buckland, of the Australian Workers Union, was inquiring from Mr. Garden, a Labour leader in Sydney, about the disappearance of a little item of £3,000. I regard the trade union movement of Australia as a social movement which should be regulated, just as friendly societies are regulated. I venture to say that the information which is available in regard to the trade union position in Great Britain is not available in regard to the trade union position in Australia. I quote again from the Quarterly Review -

Apart from the fact that business men would probably effect economies which would adequately compensate for the supposedly increased salary, the argument is scarcely consistent with the repeated statements of the officials that business people are parasites overpaid.

This was in respect to the argument that the salaries of union officials should be kept up -

Moreover, they appear to lose sight of the fact that trade unions were formed to safeguard the interests of the membership, not to provide inflated salaries and lucrative careers for officials, and the funds are provided by the hard-earned pence of the members. It is hardly decent of them, therefore, to declare that they are working solely for the “ down-trodden “ worker. Another form of undue expenditure is that incurred by over-staffing on the clerical side, and in furnishing luxurious offices.

The article then deals with the officers and continues -

Trade unionism appears to have produced a new class in society - an official class - and during the past twenty years this class has grown enormously.

I take the following case as an illustration, not necessarily because it is typical : -

There is one general secretary in receipt of £1,000 per annum salary, whose parliamentary and other public duties prevent his giving much time to his secretarial duties. Fortunately, a large staff, supervised by a competent private secretary, are able to do all the work with some degree of efficiency. He is by no means the only general secretary getting £1,000 a year. During the war the salary of another secretary - which varied with the fluctuations of the members’ wages - rose to more than £3,000 per annum. This official also has large interests in a flourishing business.

There are many others whose salary approximates £1,000. Just prior to the recent general strike, the general secretary of one of the big unskilled unions, already receiving £750 per annum, applied to his executive for an increase to £1,000, which would probably have been granted had the strike not then happened. After a ten days’ strike, this union found itself unable, through lack of funds, to meet its obligations to its members. The salaries of the officials were, however, continued.

Senator Daly:

– Is that in the country where all this regulation exists?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Yes, but there is no arbitration there, nor have they power that we would take in Australia. The article continues -

Whenever the rank and file venture to criticize the big salaries paid to the officials, they are invariably told that a man is worthy of his hire, that the officials are clever men - little short of super-men, in fact- and that were the members of the union to employ business men to do the work, they would require considerably larger salaries.

In 1925 an examination of trade union finances was made by the Morning Post and the result was published in an article headed -

page 2146

QUESTION

REVELATIONS REPUBLISHED BY THE MORNING POST

Intolerable Scandal of the Political Levy.

How MoneyGoes and Membership Declines. trade union finances.

The purpose of the article, when first published, was to assist in the control and management of trade unions, and when certain gentlemen met in the south of England and endeavoured to insist on a “ back to the union” movement, which utterly failed, and furthermore, almost endeavoured to justify peculation it was republished. The Morning Post prefaced its article with the following table: -

In the short period of three years the trade union funds were thus reduced by about £6,200,000, and there was a drop in membership of 2,600,000. With the aid of the balance-sheets submitted to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, the Morning Post attempted to ascertain where the money had gone. Attention was first directed to the matter in British trade union circles in 1921, but. when the dwindling membership and finances and the higher ratio of managerial expenses were brought to the attention of the unions the latter made no attempt to furnish an explanation. The Morning Post accused them of extravagance. Still no reply was forthcoming.

At this stage I should liketo draw attention to the figures taken from the preliminary report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies for 1923 published in November, 1924, showing in round figures the growth and decline of trade union membership from 1912 to 1923 inclusive, and the marked increase in the proportion of management expenses. A whole series of unions is taken and the figures are very illuminating. In 1922 the number of agricultural workers in the unions was 90,643 and their income was £37,287 ; managerial expenses amounted to £37,556. In 1923 the membership had dropped to 79,707 but the income had increased to £38,549 ; the managerial expenses were £22,276. In the papermaking and printing trade in 1922the membership was 129,580; the income £472,745, and the managerial expenses £104,815. In 1923 the membership was 130,515, the income £434,211, and the managerial expenses £101,501. The cost of administration in both years was nearly 25 per cent. of the total income. The mining and quarrying unions had in1922, 759,286 members and their income was £1,921,235. In 1923 the membership had increased to 822,913, and the income had dropped to £1,713,385. In the former year the managerial expenses were £414,869 and in 1923, £404,528. The transport unions show a shocking disproportion of managerial expenses to subscriptions. In 1922 the membership was 562,947, the income £1,020,600, and the managerial expenses £574,966. The figures in 1923 were: membership, 600,533 ; income, £927,242 ; and expenses, £503,243. In both years the expenses of management were more than 50 per cent. of the total income. It is obvious from these figures that there is a tremendous wastage in connection with trade union management in the Old Country.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Lawyers very rarely default; when they do the barrister’s board or Law Institute has an effective way of dealing with them.

The publication from which I am quoting remarks -

Many unions still fail to take the precaution of obtaining adequate security from officers in receipt or charge of money. In some instances suggestions from this office have resulted in security being obtained or the amount of the guarantee being increased.

How wise it is to make these union officials give security or a guarantee in respect of the funds they control.

Sitting suspended from 1.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Proceeding with my remarks with regard to the growth of managerial expenses, in the trade union movement in England, I quote the following from the same article : -

In 1918 management expenses had increased to £2,100,000. Assume, if you will, that that is a fair figure. Very well. But what about 1923, when the membership had decreased by roughly 20 per cent., income from members had increased by more than 25 per cent., and management expenses had increased by more than 50 per cent? Or, to make it clearer still, the affairs of 5,250,000 trade unionists cost, in 1918, £2,100,000 to manage, while in 1923 the affairs of 4,360,000 members involved management expenses of £3,200,000.

In other words, the approximate cost of management per member for the year 1918 was 8s., but in 1923 14s.10d.

There is rather a good illustration of what happened in regard to the managerial expenses of the Public Administrative Union. [Extension of time granted.] I am obliged to honorable senators for their consideration, and am sorry that I have taken up so much of their time. However, this is a matter to which I have given much time and thought, not with any desire to hurt trade unionism, but in order to throw some light on the subject which might even help the Government to solve the difficult problem that confronts it in this matter. The paragraph dealing with the expenses of the union, read -

Of £110,367 received from the members of these unions in 1922, £71,276 went on management expenses. In 1923 the executives obtained £107,286, and spent £76,903 on expenses of management. There is, as we have said, a grim irony about this section of the trade unions’ accounts. The taxpayer will perceive it at once.

I now turn to the paragraph dealing with the defalcations of trade unions. This is a very difficult problem with which the unions have to grapple. If the eye of the public, in the form of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies or a similar official, were granted sufficiently wide powers to deal with the matter it would be better for the trade union movement and for the rank and file of the unions. This is an extract from the report of the Registrar - “ In some instances suggestions from this office have resulted in security being obtained or the amount of the guarantee being increased. “ Defalcations involving heavy losses, however, are still brought to light. The union referred to in the 1921 report as showing deficencies amounting to £2,063 wrote off a further sum at £1,650, in 1922. “ In another case the treasurer, who had given no security, misappropriated £108, and was subsequently sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. A branch secretary in another union who misappropriated £121 was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. In another case £120 was stolen from the house of a branch treasurer, and as the culprit could not bo found the amount had to be written off. “The number of auditors’ special reports was comparatively small. Where, however, a special report was made, it was usually by a professional accountant, and of an exhaustive character. The following is a summary of two of the more important: -

– (1) No real attempt has been made to keep the books properly posted up.

That sort of thing is probably occurring in this country -

We have not been assisted by the assistant general secretary who, when asked about various matters, replied: “You are the auditors, it’s your business to find out.”

An attitude which, I suggest, would be adopted by some gentlemen in this country

Some sixty receipts are not available. An investigation made by officials appointed by the council of the union as a result of this report showed that a sum of £100 12s. 9d. was not accounted for, and the union decided to terminate the services of its assistant general secretary.
1. – (1) Certain items of cash treated as paid into bank were not credited by the bankers for some time after they were shown in the cash book as paid in. (2) Relief sheets not signed by recipients of the relief. (3) Assets omitted from previous balance sheet. (4) Vouchers missing. In this case the auditor stated that the recommendations contained in his previous reports had been generally adopted and had tended considerably towards increased efficiency.

There is evidence, at all events, of the benefit that trade unions would get if such an examination were carried out by the Chief Registrar. When these disclosures were originally made the unions took considerable umbrage at their nature, and a conference was called somewhere in the South of England by the union leaders to debate the subject. It was attended by some men whose names are well known in this country. A curious attitude was taken by some of the delegates, one of whom declared that the attacks “ are quite beside the mark,” that the “ benefits were, after all, an exceptional thing - valuable but incidental, and a trade union could exist without anything but a strike fund.” Another advocated that the trade unions give point blank refusals to supply tho figures to the Registrar, and let the Government do its worst. That seems to me to be the policy adopted in this country. So far as I can see there is no attempt at compliance with the trade union law. If there were it would be ineffectual and would give this Parliament no power in the matter at all. At that conference it was suggested that the whole attack was inspired, but the facts remain and the occurrence has been repeated. It was found necessary to embark on a “ back to the union “ movement, as the trade union movement in Great Britain suffered to the extent of 1,000,000 members in a very short time. That effort was not satisfactory and endeavours were made in some quarters, I do not say by the high officials, to justify the managerial expenditure to which I have referred, and also certain other losses to which I have made reference.

– That was only a breach of contract. To get closer home, Mr. Rigby, I do not know what official office he holds in the Seamens Union, made some very pertinent observations, which are recorded in The Registrar of the 22nd March, 1928. I quote the following extracts : -

Subsequent to the appointment of this committee of inquiry the balance-sheets of the Sydney branch, as well as those of the other branches of the organization, and of the head office also, show heavy expenses, which could have been saved if the proper constitutional inquiry procedure had been adopted. The com mittee of inquiry has this little list of disbursements to its credit -

Mr. Jacob Johnson Wages,? 178 15s. ; awayfromhome expense, ?23 5s.; travelling fares, ?3516s. 8d.; total, ?237 16s. 8d.

Mr. W. Clarke Wages, ?102 18s. 4d.; awayfromhome expenses, ?27 15s. travelling and fares, ?17 0s. 2d.; total, ?14713s.6d.

Mr. J. McCorry Wages, ?81 5s.; awayfromhome expenses, ?9 15s.; travelling and fares, ?31 9s.6d.; total, ?122 9s.6d.

Other outlays bring the total for the Sydney branch to ?694 18s. 7d. The other branches of the union show in their balancesheets the following disbursements : - South Australian branch, ?247; Victorian, ?338 8s. 3d.; Western Australian, ?247; Newcastle, ?208 14s. 4d.; Queensland, ?230. Thus the grand total for all branches is ?1,9491s. 2d.

But this does not by any means exhaust the disbursements on account of this question. Since June, 1920, there have been three meetings of the committee of management, each of which cost, at the very least, ?700, which, added to the above, makes ?4,0491s. 2d.

Again, I take the following extract from The Age of the 23rd February, 1928 : -

page 2149

QUESTION

A UNION COSTS TOO MUCH

Stormy Meeting of Sydney Wharf Labourers

Sydney, Wednesday

The wharf labourers held a stormy meeting to-day. A section bitterly attacked the president, Mr. W. Mills. This section also seeks to remove other officials from their positions.

It was alleged at the meeting that it was costing too much to run the union, as out of an income of ?2,232 over ?1,400 had been paid out in fees to officials, while ?1,000 had been paid by the union in fees and expenses for the Melbourne conference during the overtime strike in November. The union ballot cost ?200. The credit account in June was ?4,386, but at the end of December it was only ?1,986.

Those are only three of a number of complaints made in union circles regarding the expenditure of funds.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– If so, they must be bad. I am not blaming the rank and file of the trade union movement, who have little to say in this matter. Take the two cases, which must be fresh in honorable senator’s minds, having been reported in the press this week, showing the absolute tyranny of these official aristocrats of trade unionism. It was reported in the press yesterday that, at Hobart, two men, employed under the terms of an award had done something in the nature of not working after their ordinary hours of employment had terminated. They refused to do so, and were brought before the court. Their defence was that if they had gone on, the union threatened to fine them ?3; but they were fined by the court for not obeying its direction to continue work. The threat by the union was made in flagrant defiance of the terms of an award. It was a case similar to one mentioned in the House of Representatives last week, in which an employee of the taxpayers of this country was threatened by his union with a fine unless he divulged information which it was his duty not to give, unless with the consent of the head of his department. I am glad to know that certain action is to be taken with regard to this position. Rules such as these are bringing the trade unions into bad odour with the community. We are allowing a tyranny, such as the world has never known, to be built up by these petty men, who, after all, are put into their positions by the rank and file of the great trade union movement. In Sydney, recently, there was an incident somewhat similar to that in Hobart, and I understand that the men have been punished by the union. There was a shortage of labour on a vessel, and the workmen concerned went out on the ship. For doing this each of them has been debarred by the union from earning his living for a period of six months. Union officials responsible for actions of that kind are the autocrats that we desire to control, and, if such control could be exercised, there would be less internal strife in Australia than there is to-day.

Reviewing for a moment the present operation of compulsory arbitration, in regard to those who, unfortunately, owing to economic conditions, are unable to obtain employment, it is obvious that the Government must seriously consider whether some measure of relief cannot be given. The present legislation is preventing a free flow of charity in many cases in which work could otherwise be given. I venture to say that it is better to provide a man with work of some kind than to hand him a dole. Employment enables him to maintain a certain degree of self-respect that he cannot have if payment is made to him by way of charity. Arbitration awards have operated in such a way in Queensland that, in order to get over the unemployment difficulty, some of the awards have had to be suspended, and I understand that one of them was the rural workers’ award. There is no such provision under federal legislation, and I do not think that it would be welcomed by some of those who stand for arbitration. I myself have stood for arbitration for many years, and

I know the great difficulties experienced in putting it into operation. The system is not elastic enough to deal with problems such as those with which we are now faced. The Assistant Minister (Senator Barnes) has said that it would be absurd to suggest that Parliament should deal with wages and hours of employment, and in that view I entirely agree with him. But in his next breath, he said that he would not give the judiciary power to determine wages and hours of employment. He said that the fate of the country would be in the hands of the judges and that they were not to be entrusted with those powers. If Parliament is not to exercise them, and the judiciary is not to do it, are we to have a goasyouplease system? I can only conceive that what the Minister has in his mind is some system of committees, and I venture to suggest that this Parliament will find it rather difficult, from a constitutional point of view, to legislate in that way. The machine that the Minister desires to build will be found very difficult to construct, and if he succeeded in establishing it, I think that the court itself would have trouble in carrying on its operations within its constitutional limitations.

I had intended to say something about certain aspects of the industrial legislation of this country. Without reflecting on any government, either that with which I was recently associated or the Ministry now in power, I put it broadly that, if we are to have a rule of law, let us have it ; and the only effective rule of law that I know to have been enacted in this country in regard to industrial arbitration is the Transport Workers Act. Rigid, as my friends may think it to be - its administration, after all, can make it or mar it - the fact remains that, it has proved an effective piece of industrial legislation. I grant that it may be attended with certain cruel results, but, if we fall short of a rule of law, we shall have conciliation pure and simple, and no penalties. Then we shall be forced back to the system of tooth and claw, to which the Minister referred the other evening. After all, I do deplore the fact that these referendum proposals have been brought forward. I indicated to the Government and to the Leader of the House, when I was speaking on the Power of Amendment Bill, that I think that this is no time to introduce these measures. The nation is passing through a period of stress, and the people will be divided on the questions to be submitted to them. There is conflict even in the ranks of the supporters of the Government, and there is a division of opinion between those two conflicting elements and the Opposition in regard to what’ should be done. If any good is to be secured by arbitration, it will be brought about only by some of the industrial leaders on each side, guided, it may be, by Ministers and members of the Opposition, sitting round a table and evolving a system giving us a permanent working scheme that will secure industrial peace for Australia. This result can never be achieved by means of measures that are forced through Parliament, such as those providing for the powers for which Ministers now ask. For the reasons that other honorable senators have advanced, and for the other reasons that I have given, I shall vote against the second reading of this bill.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– I have listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) ‘ and other honorable senators. It has been suggested that if the power sought under the bill is given to the Government, Australia will enter an era of chaos and tyranny. But the trade unions of this country are a solid force of over 600,000 members, many of whom are working under federal arbitration awards, and I claim that they are as law-abiding as any other section of the community.

Senator Payne:

– They want to be, but they are not permitted to be.

Senator DUNN:

– Yes, they are. It so happens that while this bill is’ under consideration in the National Parliament, a convention is being held in Canberra, attended by representatives of the Australian Labour party throughout the Commonwealth. These delegates, men and women, have been sent here to represent various sections of the Labour movement. In this connexion, let me refer to the official report of the eleventh Commonwealth conference of the Australian ‘ Labour party, held at the

Secretariat Buildings, Canberra, on the 11th May, 1927, and following days. In the fighting platform of the party, paragraph No. 5 reads -

Arbitration Act amendment to include (a) the establishment of a maximum 44-hour week throughout Australia, with special provisions where health is menaced, and for women workers. (6) Standard of living not inferior to the basis of the Piddington .Basic Wage Commission finding.

Every honorable senator, and particularly those opposite, know that the Piddington finding was on the basis of £5 16s. per week, as a sufficient wage to keep in general comfort the average Australian worker with a wife and one or two children. Surely honorable senators opposite are not prepared to have it recorded in Hansard that they are opposed to the Piddington finding, in which the standard of living was fixed by a learned judge. On page 33 of the report of the conference the following appears : -

On resuming meeting on June 22nd, the Constitution Alteration Proposals were further discussed, and on the next day, the following decision was agreed to, by 8 votes to 4: - “As the Industry and Commerce proposals of the Bruce Government, whilst giving additional power in certain directions to the Federal Parliament, do not provide powers as effective as requested by the Australian Labour party, and, further, as there is room for a legitimate difference of opinion regarding the effect of the proposed amendments, if carried, this Federal Executive resolves that each member of the Australian Labour party shall be entitled to exercise his or her discretion in the campaign, or when voting in connexion with the proposals.”

Throughout New South Wales the Labour party strenuously opposed the referendum proposals of the Bruce-Page Government - a government which forfeited the confidence of the people about eight months ago. That Government proposed to constitute a tribunal comprising three gentlemen - no doubt friends of Ministers - to whom industrialists would have had to go, cap in hand, with their claims. When the people of New South Wales and, indeed, of Australia generally, saw those proposals in their true light, they defeated them utterly. The report goes on to say -

The two following resolutions were unanimously agreed to: - “ That, in view of the statements made in the public press, the President of this Executive inform the press that the

Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party conferred with the Prime Minister at the unanimous request of this Executive, and that a sitting of such Executive was adjourned in order that Mr. Charlton might endeavour to influence Mr. Bruce in the direction of Labour’s Industrial Proposals.”

At the request of the highest tribunal of Labour outside Parliament and with the full consent of the Parliamentary Labour party, Mr. Charlton interviewed the then Prime Minister. Mr. Bruce, in his offhanded manner, said that his government would go right ahead with its proposal; that it was not prepared to concede one point to the Opposition; and that it would allow no dictation from outside sources. The attitude of Mr. Bruce on that occasion was typical of the man.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– What was the date of that interview?

Senator DUNN:

– I am reading from the official report of the Eleventh Commonwealth Conference of the Labour party, dated 11th May, 1927. The second resolution reads - “ That the best thanks of this Executive be conveyed to the Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party (Mr. Charlton) for the able and conscientious manner in which he conducted negotiations with the Prime Minister, and with him (Mr. Charlton) regret thathe was not able to secure from the Bruce Government, proposals which would have been acceptable to the whole Labour movement.”

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– What proposals were submitted to the people after that date?

Senator DUNN:

– I remind the honorable senator that interjections are disorderly. If I attempted to answer his interjection I might come into conflict with the Chair. The right honorable Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) quoted a number of extracts from the report of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions. No doubt he quoted from newspaper . reports of the proceedings. I have here the official report of the congress, a congress representing over 600,000 Australian trade unionists, which was held in Melbourne, in February last. The report is signed by A. S. Drakeford, W. H. Seale. A. S. Evernden, H. Carter, A. E. Turley, H. C. Gibson, and E. C.

McGrath. A special committee set up to deal with arbitration reported -

Your committee, having carefully perused and considered all the suggestions submitted to congress for the better carrying into effect of the conciliation and arbitration principle adopted by the Labour Movement, are of the opinion that, under the limited constitutional powers at present possessed by the Commonwealth Parliament, a complete realization of our ideals in this direction is impracticable and impossible, and therefore strongly urge that the Commonwealth Ministry immediately submit a measure for the alteration of the Australian Constitution.
Recognizing however, that some time must necessarily elapse before this recommendation can be given effect to, and also the highly unsatisfactory nature of the present act and its administration, your committee recommends that, pending the acquirement by the Commonwealth Parliament of full and untrammelled legislative power and to give speedy relief from the many disabilities at present existing, the Federal Labour Government be requested to introduce legislation early in the forthcoming session on the lines submitted herewith, which we believe can be made consistently with the powers of the present Constitution.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Scull in) in his election speech promised that, if elected, the Labour party would propose amendments of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. We quote the text ofhis promise - “ The Arbitration Act to be revised to provide for. a system of sound businesslike arbitration, free from the entangling legalisms of the Law Court - a system framed on the lines of the Industrial Peace Act, to be handled by men of industrial experience, to ensure equitable, expeditious and less costly methods of dealing with industrial matters.”

Paragraph 11a of the report stated - 11a. Lawyers. - In furtherance of the desire to free the system from legalisms and technicality, we recommend that lawyers should not appear before the court, or the Conciliation Committee, or the Industrial Magistrate.

In the days of Henry VI., Dick the Butcher led a revolt of the people against the king. After the king had fled, the populace turned to the butcher to inquire what was the first thing they should do. Their leader replied, “ The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” The legal entanglements and technicalities which confront us on every side make us regret sometimes that that advice was not taken. Further recommendations of the committee were -

Your committee has carefully considered the present system with the object of recommending such alterations as would most effectively assist the Government to perform its promise.
Your committee believes that conciliation or arbitration, when administered by judges with no training in industry and no experience in negotiating indisputes between employer and employee, is unsatisfactory, provokes litigation, and is not conducive to the preservation of industrial peace, and for such reason it declares against a Court of Conciliation and Arbitration composed, as the existing court is, of judges, and in favour of the appointment of a court comprised of a president who shall be a judge (to meet the requirements of the Constitution) and such a number of conciliation commissioners as will enable the affairs of each industry to be equitably and expeditiously dealt with, such commissioners to be as nearly as possible men drawn from industry with capacity and experience in the work which they are to undertake.

I have a real respect for the judiciary, but in some instances arbitration judges, although highly trained in the law, have, in the absence of an intimate knowledge of the industry concerned, given a wrong decision. In this connexion I recall the timber-workers’ strike, in which approximately 12,000 men were engaged and which ultimately resulted in considerable hardship upon not only the members of the timber-workers union, but also the women and children dependent upon them. During industrial troubles people have sometimes said to me, “ Why are your people on strike again, Dunn ?” I always ask such persons if they haveconsidered why the men are on strike. Do they think that the 12,000 timber-workers went on strike merely for the sake of striking? During industrial disturbances of that kind the men are not only without wages, but they are dependent upon their fellow trades unionists for food and clothing. I deny most emphatically the suggestion that mengo out on strike merely because they do not wish to work or because they have a petty grievance. Prior to the timber-workers’ dispute the men were enjoying a 44-hour week; but as the result of a variation of an arbitration court award their hours were increased from 44 to 48 a week and their wages reduced by 18s. a week. Will anyone say thatthose men were not justified in ceasing work? During that long strike I went on the platform night after night for many weeks, to advocate the claims of those men and I am not in the least ashamed of the action which I took dur ing that terrific struggle. Men possessing courage and determination and with a knowledge of what is fair should not have been asked to submit to such an award. As mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Lang, when Premier of New South Wales, appointed three conciliation commissioners and six industrial inspectors. I was one of the industrial inspectors appointed at that time; but in consequence of the swing of the political pendulum Mr. Bavin came into power and I was given five minutes to get off the premises and a fortnight’s pay in lieu of notice. The sixth recommendation of the congress reads - ‘

We recommend that the actual work of conciliation and arbitration should be done by conciliaton committees representing employers and employees under the chairmanship of the conciliation commissioner.

Effect was given to that recommendation by Mr. Lang when Premier of New South Wales, and the committee worked satisfactorily. The Leader of the Opposition quoted a number of the recommendations of congress as they appeared in the newspapers, but I am quoting them from the official report of the congress so that they may be accurately recorded in the official report of the proceedings in this chamber -

By this change we hope that more emphasis will be placed upon conciliation than upon arbitration, but we stress the point that whether a dispute is to be settled by conciliation or by arbitration the settlement and the award should be the work of men who understand one another, know the problems of their industry and realize the immense importance to their industry and the community of the work which they are doing.

Each conciliation committee to have full and free power to call witnesses and collect evidence and generally to regulate its own procedure.

Transcript notes of all proceedings to be available to each side without charge.
The chairman of a Conciliation Committee shall endeavour to bring parties to agreement; failing agreement he shall have the right to vote.
1. Rules and practices of the court to be framed from time to time by the president of and Conciliation Commissioners, sitting together. Majority vote to decide all questions. Any one member of the court to have the right to call a meeting of the court.
No appeal from the decision of the Conciliation Committee. 11a. Lawyers. - In furtherance of the desire to free the system from legalisms and technicality, we recommend that lawyers should not appear before the court, or the Conciliation Committee, or the Industrial Magistrate.
President. - We recommend that the conciliatory and arbitral powers should not be exercised by judges, but we realize that there are essentially legal questions which must be decided if a legally valid award is to be made. We propose that there shall be a president who shall have life tenure, and shall be a High Court judge. We propose that he shall have the function of deciding whether a dispute exists.
We also propose that he shall have the power of deciding whether a proposed term of a proposed award is legally possible.
We think that he should not have power to correct the award but merely to remit the matter to the Conciliation Committee for action by it in view of his decision upon the legal point.
We think that he should have jurisdiction to decide points of interpretation, and later in this report it will be seen that we propose to make him the sole court of appeal from the magistrates who will be charged with the duty of enforcing awards.
Prescribed Conditions. - In view of comparatively recent decisions of the High Court we understand that the arbitral power may be given conditionally that, if exercised, it must be exercised in conformity with the provisions made by Parliament. We recommend that the following conditions, among others, should be laid down by the Act: -
1. No award to prescribe hours exceeding a weekly maximum of 44 hours. (b)No award to prescribe a basic wage which (subject to improvement on principles later to be considered) will not maintain at least the basic wage standard obtaining at 1928. (This list is not intended to be exclusive of other conditions.)
Preference of Employment. - We suggest that the act itself should direct an employer to give absolute preference to members of that registered organization which is covered by the award. The position of non-registered- unions we propose to safeguard by making it a defence (a ) that there is no award and (b) that the persons employed are members of a body recognized by the appropriate Trades and Labour Council as a bona fide trade union.
Strikes and Lockouts and Penalties. - We propose to abolish the penalties upon strikes and lockouts, retaining for the court the power to intervene in any dispute with a view to its settlement by concilation and arbitration.
We propose also to repeal all clauses which make awards enforceable by prosecution.
Awards should be enforceable by civil proceeding, and we suggest that sums should be fixed by law, or by the award, as damages for breacheswhich should be recovered in full by the organization as the representative of the party effected.
Industrial Magistrates. - We recommend that in the capitals and other large centres there should be appointed industrial magistrates to hear claims for wages and damages. These should have exclusive jurisdiction subject to appeal to the president only. The magistrate should have the right to refer to the president for his decision on difficult points of interpretation. In small centres State magistrates should be given the same jurisdiction on the same terms.
Department of Labour. - We recommend that there should be a Commonwealth Department of Labour with a commissioner and a deputy for each State. He should collect labour statistics and returns, conduct economic inquiries, and generally assist in policing the awards. In legal proceedings any report by him upon the matters in dispute should be prima facie evidence and the fact that proceedings were taken with his approval should place the burden of proof upon the defendant. He would, moreover, be essential to the effective working of the recommendations subsequently made in paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, and 33
Registries. - Each State and other appropriate areas (such as Newcastle and Broken Hill ) to have a deputy registrar and a registry efficiently equipped.
Common Rule. - At this point we report that we have considered whether, under the present constitution an award could be made a common rule. We think that, directly, this cannot be done, but in the following paragraphs 25 to 31 we suggest means of extending the scope of an award by use of existing powers.
Service of Logs, &c. - In order to reduce the labour of service, we recommend that no individual employer should be able to approach (as a plaintiff or claimant) the court, the conciliation committee, or the industrial magistrate, and we also propose that a member of an organization against whom an award has been made may not by resignation during the life of the award escape its obligation. Those proposals, we think, will reduce the tremendous difficulty and expense of serving a log.
Bounty and Preference. - We recommend that it shall be a condition of payment of any bounty on production or export that the payee proves to the Commissioner that in respect of all his employees he gives preference to unionists and complies with the award.
Contracts. - We recommend that no person shall receive a Commonwealth Government contract unless :
1. he proves to the Commisioner that in respect of all his employees he is giving preference and complying with the award.
2. he gives a bond to the Commissioner that he himself and his subcontractors will in respect of all employees give preference and comply with the award.
We recommend that it shall be a condition of an increase in customs protection or a reduction of excise duty that the employers to be benefited shall give bonds to the Commissioner binding them in respect of all employees to give preference and comply with the award.
Basis of Interstate Trading. - We recommend that the following shouldbe done under the Trade and Commerce powers (section 51):-
1. no person should be employed in overseas or interstate trade and commerce except at award conditions.
2. no person shall export from one State to another, goods which, owing to the industrial conditions under which they are produced, unfairly compete with the product of the State into which they are sent.
We suggest that compliance with the award and preference provisions shall be a defence, and that the Commissioner’s certificate shall be prima facie evidence that there is or is not such compliance.
Aliens. - Under the power over aliens (section 51, xix. ) and persons of any race for whom special laws are deemed necessary, the following should be enacted : -
1. 1 ) No alien to be employed except on award conditions.
2. Every alien employed to be entitled to claim award wages and conditions.
3. No person to be concerned in engaging an alien to work at less than the award rates and conditions.
Statistics. - Every employer who in any way comes under the award or the act to be compelled under the “ Incidental “ power (section 51, xxxix. ) and the “Statistics” power (section 51, xi.) -
1. to keep and produce for inspection books showing names of employees, wages paid to each employee, hours worked by each employee, and other matters deemed necessary by the Commissioner.
2. to file sworn returns at such times and to such effect as may be required.

Both book and sworn returns should be available for union inspection, and may be used in evidence.

The definition of industrial matters to be amended in accordance with the suggestion made by the High Court in the clothing trades ease, the following being suggested: -
1. In the definition of “industrial matters “ section 4, line 13, after “ employees “ insert - “ and any claim or demand by any organization or by the members thereof that persons employed in the industry concerned whether members or not members of such organization shall be entitled to the same pay, wages, reward, hours, privileges and rights.”
2. The foregoing sub-section to be deemed to have commenced upon the date of the commencement of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1920.
Union officials to have under reasonable restrictions right of entry of places of employment for the purpose of inspection.
Existing awards to continue until awards are made under the new act.
Boards of Reference. - The existing power to appoint boards of reference (section 40a) and local boards (section 36) should be transferred from the judge of the conciliation committees.
Committee. - The above matters, where adopted, together with such other matters as may be adopted by congress bearing on conciliation and arbitration, will necessitate considerable alteration to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. New features will require to be introduced, deletions, additions and consequential alterations made. To enable these things to be done your committee recommends congress to appoint a committee which will be empowered to undertake the work immediately for submission to the Federal Government; and further such committee shall be empowered under tho auspices of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions to meet and confer with the Federal Government or its representatives on all necessary occasions.
State Instrumentalities. - That any alteration of the industrial power, which may be proposed to the people should in unmistakable terms provide that State employees of any class shall have access to the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That statement is the same as the one which I read.

Senator DUNN:

– I considered it advisable to place it on record, because the right honorable gentleman read only certain extracts from it.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– I read all that was relevant to this bill.

Senator DUNN:

– Honorable senators opposite have been endeavouring to persuade the people that the Australasian Council of Trade Unions does not enjoy the confidence of trade unionists. On that point all I need say is that it represents 600,000 trade unionists, who have sufficient intelligence and political strength to influence the representation in this Parliament in the interests of good government and law and order.

It has been stated by Senator Pearce that the newly formed Australian party is the pilot fish of the Labour party. I happened to meet a prominent member of the Australian party in Sydney a few days ago. In conversation he told me that he had visited Canberra recently, and was in the Senate when the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition was discussing this proposal. Commenting upon the suggestion that the Australian party was the pilot fish to the Labour party, he said that the

Nationalist party might be regarded as the “ crab “ party, because it was always crawling to the Country party.

We believe that the time is rotten ripe for an alteration of the Constitution. Honorable senators opposite appear to be surprised at the language which I am employing. It is all right. And it is true that the time is ripe for an alteration of the Constitution. I believe also that when these proposals are placed before the people, the Leader of the Opposition and those who think with him on this issue, will find themselves in the same position as they were in after the last election, because the electors now realize that there is in power a government that is prepared to give effect to its policy. The Premier of New South Wales (Mr. Bavin), when speaking at Gordon recently, is reported to have said -

I said in my policy speech, and I now repeat most definitely, that if a National Government comes into power as n result of this election, there will not he any interference by us with the 4.4-hour system, as established by the Labour Government. I cannot say anything more, nor can I say it more definitely.

The Premier of New South Wales was anxious to impress the electors with the sincerity of his Government in its desire to retain the 44-hour week in industry. Mr. Bavin, who is one of the political giants of the Nationalist party in the mother State, went on to say that when he had given a pledge neither Mr. Lang nor anybody else could call him a liar.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) . - Order ! I am afraid the discussion is becoming somewhat irrelevant.

Senator DUNN:

– I shall, of course, pay heed to your warning, Mr. President, but I thought I would be in order in quoting statements made by a State legislator. Other honorable senators made reference to the remarks of Mr. Bavin, so naturally I concluded I would be in order in doing so also. In New South Wales the award of the Arbitration Court with regard to the 44-hour week is being repudiated. I should like the 44-hours principle observed universally throughout the Commonwealth. Senator McLachlan also made made some caustic comments upon the Labour movement in the Mother Country. I was astonished that, in Great Britain, where the Mother of Parliaments sits, where law and order is observed, and where the first gentleman of the British Empire resides, these “ ruffians,” these agitators and Bolsheviks, as described by Senator McLachlan, should be allowed to rear their heads! I was shocked at the thought that the seed of destruction had-been sown in political soil in the Motherland! I do not know what Senator Rae thinks about it, but I feel sure he also will be pained! Senator Sir Hal Colebatch spoke of the system that was in vogue in medieval times in Venice. The honorable senator told us that, if a citizen had a set against any other person, he would write his complaint on a piece of paper and drop it in the “Mouth of the Lion.” I am afraid that if the practice were in vogue to-day it would take all the lions in the African jungle, with their mouths wide open, to swallow the complaints I could commit to writing about some of Australia’s political giants. Senator Ogden referred to the United States of America, and the trade unions there. ‘ I remind the honorable senator that Mr. Nash, the chairman of directors of the Nash Clothing Company, the operations of which extend from Philadelphia through Baltimore, New York, Boston, and Halifax to Montreal, and the capital of which amounts to millions of pounds, requires every employee to be a member of a trade union. Mr. Henry Ford and other leaders of industry in the Englishspeaking world also require this of their employees.

In the course of his remarks Senator Pearce referred to the nationalization of coal-mines. I ask him now if he believes in the nationalization of the coal-mines in our country.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– No.

Senator DUNN:

– On 23rd May, 1901, speaking in this chamber, Senator Pearce said -

There is one method of raising revenue which has not been touched upon, and which is, perhaps, not within the region of practical politics yet, and that is that the Government instead of allowing the ownership and production to bo in private hands, should become owner and producer of some of the industries which in Australia and other countries are practically monopolies.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– My word, I was’ a novice then.

Senator DUNN:

– Well, listen to this -

Let them become owners, for instance, of some of our coal-mines, and owners of the liquor traffic, and in this way confer a benefit on the nation.

Commonwealth tribunal. The late Government did not, as some suggest, introduce a proposal similar to that embodied in this bill.

Senator Rae:

– It was not half as good ; it was not worth twopence.

Senator PAYNE:

– The supporters of this measure have ignored the fact that, although a previous Government introduced industrial proposals, provision was made for the establishment of authorities with such powers as Parliament conferred upon them with respect to industry; but no such proposal is embodied in this measure.

We cannot very well debate this proposal without reference to the Constitution Alteration Power of Amendment Bill, which has not yet been disposed of, under which power is sought to set up a political autocracy which could so entrench itself that there would be no possibility of depriving it of its powers, unless from within. The first proposal is to confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to amend the Constitution without reference to the people. Is it not a fact that at the Labour conference which has been sitting at Canberra during the last few days, one of the principal topics discussed is the abolition of the Senate? If the Government had the power, and this chamber were abolished, the Government could then introduce a bill to appoint members of another place for life. Nothing could prevent that course being followed. I recall what occurred in Queensland a good many years ago when, in defiance of the will of the people, the Labour party abolished the Upper Chamber in that State. The Labour party then gerrymandered the electorates and commenced public works in Nationalist electorates so that additional Labour votes could be secured to ensure the return of Labour candidates. Although a majority of the electors supported the Nationalist policy, there was no power to check the Government. Nothing could be done until opposition came from within, and that is what eventually happened.

Senator Thompson:

– Their own people became disgusted with them.

Senator PAYNE:

– Yes; that was the only source from which the power could come. If this Government obtained the powers it is seeking it could adopt a similar course and democratic government would be impossible. If these proposals of the Government are defeated in this chamber, they can still be submitted to the people, but I trust that- the electors will be so educated by the public men of Australia that they will meet the fate they so richly deserve. I oppose the second reading of the bill.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– This measure, like the Constitution Alteration, Power of Amendment, Bill, which has already been discussed, might rightly be entitled “ The great delusion “. Australia, before any other country, has ever cherished the delusion that for every ill there is a political remedy, and we have been prone to act on those lines. I do not propose to deal at length with the vexed question of industrial legislation. At the recent federal elections, the main issue was the distribution of industrial powers between the Commonwealth and the States, but, as Senator Colebatch has so ably pointed out, 101 issues were dragged in at that election in order to obscure the main issue. As the late Government’s proposals were rejected, it is useless to dwell upon them at great length, but a great deal of confusion appeared to exist, particularly in connexion with arbitration as a principle and the Federal Arbitration Court. For instance, the proposals of the late Government were not based on any idea of abolishing arbitration, as was so persistently asserted by Labour candidates on the hustings, but simply provided for the withdrawal of the Commonwealth from the sphere of non-maritime industries, which we’re to be dealt with by the States under their arbitration or other industrial legislation. Although those proposals were rejected, I am still of the opinion that they are sound, and that Australia will eventually come to our way of thinking. The States should, I contend, be permitted to control conditions of employment in the industries within the States without interference by the central Government.

I should like to read the majority recommendation from the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution in relation to the vexed question of industrial powers. On page 248 of that report, I find the following: -

We do hot recommend that the Commonwealth Parliament be empowered’ to legislate with respect to industrial matters generally.

In our opinion, the reasons which may be urged against the abolition of the federal and the establishment of a unitary system of government in Australia may be urged against the transfer of this power to the Commonwealth. In our opinion, industrial legislation should be regarded as a function of the States. In many matters industrial legislation is experimental, and each State should decide for itself whether it is prepared to test the value of proposed legislation of this character and to accept the responsibility for its consequences. We also think that industrial legislation peculiarly requires local supervision, and should be in the hands of the authority which is responsible for the maintenance of law and for the good order of the community. We think, further, that the general power to legislate with respect to industrial matters should be in the hands of the legislature which has the general power to deal with health, trade and commerce, mines, lands, public works, and the development of a State. We do not think that it Would be for the good of Australia that the Commonwealth Parliament should be occupied with industrial questions or that the federal elections should turn on industrial issues.

We can imagine circumstances in which a federal election turned on an industrial issue, and the overbidding for votes. The last election was bad enough, but it would be almost impossible to conceive the preposterous outbidding and outpromising that would arise if this Parliament had power to deal with the rates of pay, hours and conditions of labour in industry. We should have the candidates representing one party promising a working week of 44 hours and the representatives of another party advocating 40 hours. The thing is perfectly preposterous and unsound. Frankly I have no faith or belief in compulsory arbitration, just as I do not believe in compulsory voting, because the objective is impossible of attainment. It may be possible by law to compel a man to go to the poll just as it is possible to compel a horse to go to water; but it is as impossible to make a man vote as it is to compel a horse to drink.

Compulsory arbitration has been tried in only two countries - Australia and New Zealand - and in my considered judgment the experiment has proved most disastrous for both the worker and the general community. Compulsory arbitration and compulsory voting are equally repugnant to me because of my inherent belief in the absolute freedom of the individual. Many years ago compulsory arbitration was described by one of its judicial administrators as a Serbonian bog. I have not had much personal knowledge of bogs, but I can well imagine that to be in a Serbonian bog would be a particularly terrifying experience. In those far away days no competent critic would quarrel with His Honour’s definition, because its essential truth was obvious. To-day the industrial position of the Commonwealth is far worse. It may be described as a bottomless pit. Our arbitration system was devised and the court established to make for peace in industry in Australia and to facilitate the industrial and economic expansion of the nation. But what has happened? In its legal sense arbitration court proceedings have become a vast quicksand in which industries are being suffocated; in its social sense it is a manufacturer of industrial war and social discontent, and in its economic sense it has proved to be the emasculator of the working capital of the community. It produces endless solemn judicial awards which are either habitually and contemptuously violated or simply ignored by many sections of the community. Many of these solemn judgments and determinations are rendered futile by the resistless and inexorable operation of natural economic laws. We may provide legislatively for industrial arbitration regardless of economic effects of judicial awards, but these age-old economic laws are inescapable.

We poor, deluded and benighted Australians maintain this absurd system, with all the mischief it has caused and is causing, simply because it is a pawn in the game of party politics. Look where we will we cannot find any friends of the Federal Arbitration Court. All its former lovers have jilted it. Now it is distrusted, despised and detested and its awards flouted and abused. It is spuriously represented as a great humanizing, philanthropic machine; whereas in truth it has been an unmitigated curse to this country. It has had a very grave demoralizing influence on our people. As a demoralizing agency it has exceeded, in its proven potency, any legislative experiment that has ever been carried out in any country or time. It has succeeded in infecting a great mass of our working population with a mental and social disease which may bring Australia to destruction. By this I mean the manifesta tion which expresses itself in massed lawlessness, the violation of all legal contracts which the mob thinks irksome, and a contemptuous refusal to obey the laws of the land.

If this proposed amendment is accepted by the people, Parliament will itself become an industrial tribunal; but if supporters of the bill believe that this will mean peace in industry they are making a grievous and terrible mistake. I tremble to think what sort of place this Parliament will become under those conditions. Compulsory arbitration has had a long and very fair trial. It has abolished industrial peace and sanity from the land, and in its place has put a bludgeon in the hands of unscrupulous people. Now it is proposed to appeal to the country for an extension of the powers of this industrial plague. Nothing short of its total abolition can cure the ills with which the system of compulsory arbitration has saddled this country. It is time, and high time, that we had done with it before it saps the vitality and independence of the rising as it has impaired the independence of the present generation. But its end is not yet. Even now legislation is contemplated to bolster it up. I believe, however, that the people of Australia are beginning to realize that economic laws cannot be flouted with impunity; that they are far stronger than any legislation ever placed on the statute-book. As a nation we have endeavoured for years to ignore these truths, and because of .a series of good seasons and high prices for our products, apparently for a time we were able to “ get away “ with it. But the inevitable day of reckoning is dawning at long last, and it is not made the pleasanter because of its long postponement. The maintenance of high wages is an ideal devoutly to be wished, but the very highest wages ever fixed by the Arbitration Court mean nothing, if there is no work available for the people engaged in the industries concerned. After having given the industrial situation in Australia the most earnest thought, I have been forced to the conclusion that our system of compulsory arbitration has been .a most potent influence in causing a great deal of the unemployment from which this country is suffering to-day. The Commonwealth

Parliament should not be occupied with the discussion of industrial matters. It is not the job of this Parliament. As suggested by the majority report of the Constitution Commission the control of industrial matters should be absolutely the function of State Governments. For this reason I am opposed to the bill.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– This bill may be regarded as one of the hardy annuals that crop up in this Parliament. No other proposed alteration of the Constitution has been placed ‘before the people on so many occasions as this suggested amendment to . extend the industrial powers of this Parliament and none has been rejected so consistently by the electors. Nevertheless there is something in the contention of the Government and its supporters that since it was elected on its industrial policy, it should seek to give effect to it. Section 51 of the Constitution provides that the Parliament shall have power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth in respect of, among other things, “ conciliation and arbitration.” At this critical stage in the history of the Commonwealth, the Government would be ill-advised to submit to the people contentious measures of this nature. The Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) at the opening of this Parliament appealed to all sections of the people and all parties in Parliament to come together, practically as an economic council, to devise ways and means of placing Australia in a better position than she is in to-day. In the light of that appeal the submission of this proposed amendment is extremely unwise, because undoubtedly it will divide the people of Australia into two opposing camps, and dissipate the energy and the ability so urgently required to improve the economic and financial position of this country.

It is true that the former administration in 1926 submitted a proposal for an amendment of the industrial power. According to Senator Barnes, the proposal now before us is practically identical with that put before the people in 1926. But it takes very little consideration to come to the conclusion that there is a considerable difference be tween the two. I supported the measure brought forward by the Bruce-Page Government solely because it sought to do away with the dual control of industry, which I regard as one of the most fruitful sources of industrial trouble in Australia. That proposal, however, was not accepted by the people, and it is known, of course, that the late Government went to the country last year with a somewhat similar scheme for the single control of industry. It is claimed by the opponents of the late Government, that is to say, by the present Government, that the people at the last elections declared solidly against the proposal of the late Government, but with all due respect to the people, I very much dispute the statement that that was the issue upon which the election was decided. There were so many other issues of great importance and so many others magnified to first-class importance by persons interested in getting the election to swing in a certain direction, that many voters lost sight of the real issue, while the great majority of those who had their minds focussed on the real issue, had a wrong conception of what was meant by the late Government’s proposal. It was said by the opponents of that Government to be an attack upon the arbitration system of Australia, whereas it was merely an honest effort to bring that system within workable limits.

If this debate has done nothing else, it has brought forward some of the most remarkable arguments I have ever heard and also a new word, or at any rate, a word new to the debates in this chamber. Senator Barnes spoke of the “ regimentation “ of men in industry. We have heard of “ nationalization “ and “ socialization.”

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– And “ co-ordination.”

Senator CARROLL:

– Yes, also “coordination.” They are all “ blessed words.” “ Gilead “ is not in it when it comes to a matter of balm. If those words had in them all the balm that we are led to believe they have, all our troubles would now be ended.

With regard to this “ regimentation,” which means the destruction of all initiative, I have one or two quotations to read particularly for the benefit of

Ministers. One is from a speech by Lord Rhondda, Food Controller in Great Britain during the latter part of the war. If it can be said of any man in these latter days on earth, it may be said of him that he performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes in England during that period. He said -

Hu was persuaded that no theory of socialism could be put into successful practice without involving the loss of personal freedom and without individualism there could be no initiative, no audacity and no creative energy in the development of an industry.

Lord Inverforth, Minister for Transport and Supplies in Great Britain during the same period, said -

All the fallacy and wild theories of revolutionary minds break ultimately on the rock of industrial fact. The more freely nations trade together, the more clearly will it be seen that humanity must work out its salvation within the limits of economic law; and the way to the smooth working out of that salvation is by recognizing the moral law. We are men before we are merchants. There is no reason why mistrusts should exist between management and labour. The economic law by no means excludes, but demands humaneness. I believe that a system of profit-sharing can bo devised which will bring management and labour into a sensible partnership. Selfishness on the part of capital is as bad. as selfishness on the part of labour. Both must be unselfish; both must think of the general community and both must work hard. The two chief enemies of mankind are moral slackness and physical slackness.

There is a note struck there that I have not heard during this debate. “We have heard a great deal about the wickedness of employers and the sufferings of workers, and we have heard some honorable senators defend the breaking of the laws of this country in defiance of arbitration awards, but we have not heard one word about the suffering imposed on the general community. It is almost regarded as an axiom that there are two parties to every dispute, but as a matter of fact, it requires very little thought to see that there are three parties, the two actually engaged in the dispute and those who suffer by reason of its occurrence.

– There is an extraordinarily strong spirit of every kind in Western Australia or the State would have been crushed beneath the burden of federation and all it has implied. The people of the State, however, are prepared to rise superior to all that has been heaped upon them. Something has been said about prejudiced courts. The late W. S. Gilbert must have looked forward to generations yet unborn with a prophetic eye and seen the conditions in connexion with arbitration in Australia to-day when he wrote -

And when amid the plaintiff’s shrieks,

The ruffianly defendant speaks -

Upon the other side;

What he may say you needn’t mind -

From bias free of every kind,

This trial must be tried!

In the view of some people a court is prejudiced when its award is not in their favour. I agree most heartily with Senator Colebatch that there has been far too much Government interference in industry in Australia. That applies not only to the Commonwealth but also to the States. It has done more to sap initiative than anything else. When people do not know what Government interference will be brought to bear on the industry in which they are engaged, it prevents not only initiative, but also expansion, and hampers and cripples the efforts of those who are engaged in an attempt to develop Australian trade and commerce. There are functions which the Government alone can perform, but those engaged in the ordinary trade and commerce of the country should within reasonable limits be allowed to carry on free from interference. I think the people of Australia have become heartily tired of this restrictive business. The ten commandments have not more “Thou shalt not’s” in them than have the laws of Australia. Men can be prosecuted for working but no man is ever prosecuted for not working, and it seems to me that the sooner we get out of that position, the better.

If there is any doubt about the meaning of the proposed alteration to the Constitution, I think the statement made by Mr. Brennan, the Attorney-General, at a conference held here last night, clearly sets out the intentions of the Government. He is reported to have said, in an impassioned appeal, that the Government would stand four-square for unification, and that it would carry these three proposed amendments to the country. There is no doubt in the mind of Mr. Brennan that those proposals mean unification, and nothing else. I say, without hesitation, that those who believe in unification should support them, but all who have the least doubt on the point should take the safe course and vote against them.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) was reported, in the press, to have said some thing rather severe about the Senate having delayed these measures. If the right honorable gentleman was correctly reported, he was very unfair. As Senator Reid pointed out this morning, the Senate has not unduly delayed the passage of these three bills. Only two honorable senators have been granted an extension of time when speaking on them, and I believe that in each case the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Daly) moved that the extension should be granted. On every occasion on which there has been an adjournment of the debate, the desire for it emanated from the Government side of the chamber. It is grossly unfair and uncalled for to imply that the Senate has unduly prolonged the passing of these measures. Now that the matter has been made public in the press, I shall venture to prophesy that these bills will be delayed by the Government, and that the referendum will not be submitted to the people until after the New South Wales State election takes place - for very obvious reasons. My attitude towards this bill is the same as it was in regard to that dealing with the power of amendment bill. When the time comes, my advice to the people of my State will be to take the safe road and not to surrender to the Commonwealth any more power than it now possesses.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW (Queensland) [5.3]. - Senator Hoare referred to the fact that New Zealand pioneered the establishment of an industrial arbitration court. .1 point out that Australia is the only other country that has experimented with arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes. The fact that no other country has attempted to regulate industrial conditions in this way indicates that the experiment has not been regarded with any favour by the rest of the world as a solution of the problem with which, it attempts to deal.

Some honorable senators have said that the present proposals of the Government in regard to arbitration are similar to those advanced by the Bruce-Page Government in 1926. I submit that they differ absolutely in nature. The 1926 proposals set out to establish authorities to regulate wages, hours of labour, and conditions of employment in industry. The idea was to take to the Commonwealth absolute power under those proposals. That would have meant a federal authority which would regulate wages, hours, and conditions of labour, and the abolition of dual control. Senator O’Halloran has very clearly stated that if the proposals of this Government are agreed to the industrial powers taken over by the Commonwealth will be as complete as human genius could devise. In addition to dealing with wages, hours, and conditions of labour, the Commonwealth would have power to legislate over the whole of the industrial field, including such matters as. i.workers’ compensation and shop and factories administration. The last two activities have been very efficiently carried on by the States, and it is obvious that decentralization in those matters is likely to give greater satisfaction than a centralized authority. I am confident that no honorable senator would seriously suggest that the Commonwealth should take over workers’ compensation and shop and factories legislation, and am, therefore, opposed to this proposal to legislate over the whole industrial field.

Senator Daly suggested that the approval of this bill would bring about uniform conditions throughout the Commonwealth. Why this insistence upon uniformity? It is impracticable for all States to be placed on the same basis. For instance, Queensland might be able to grant wages and conditions that could not obtain in Tasmania, due to the relative lack of resources in the latter State. Again, have the unions always sought uniformity ? I recall that in the pastoral industry, the employees of which are mostly members of the Australian Workers Union, if it was thought more advantageous to apply to the State Arbitration Court that would be done. Later on the opposite step might be taken, and an appeal made to the Federal Court. The advantages accruing governed the action of the union.

No one would suggest that arbitration has been the unqualified success that was hoped for by its sponsors. The reason for that is the dual control that exists, with its attendant disadvantages, such as conflicting awards, multiplicity of awards, and “ rival shop.” New Zealand, with its one authority to deal with industrial arbitration, has had much more beneficial results than Australia. I am confident that, instead of ushering in peace in industry, arbitration has introduced industrial unrest, and frequently has brought about chaos in industry. Australia is at present going through a very difficult time, but these proposals cannot lessen its difficulties.

I was rather interested in an extract read by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Daly) from Mr. George Anderson’s work, Fixation of Wages in Australia, to this effect - ‘

Time is no denying that we have a conglomeration of industrial legislation existing in the various States and the Commonwealth, and different parties are enacting alleged solutions each year. One State is vieing with the other to place more advanced views on the statute-book. While some of the legislation may be perfectly safe to apply to certain industries, it may be dangerous to others; nevertheless, once the legislation is there, employers bow to it, and the result is seen in the lack of harmony existing. The question is whether legislation is able to deal with such a complex matter, to provide for the minute details to cover practically every movement of a man, and to limit the capacity to which he can be subjected. In attempting to carry out these things, I believe we are usurping the functions of mutual goodwill by a method of compulsion which is inimical to the spirit of co-operation. It is only with the aid of this spirit of goodwill that benefits can be obtained from industry.

I emphasize the last two sentences. The point should be patent to everybody.

High wages and as good conditions as it is possible for industry to provide can only be achieved by co-operation, and the existence of goodwill between employer and employee. Our existing dual system of arbitration has prevented the inauguration of that happy state of affairs and these proposals will not bring the desired goal any nearer.

I was very interested in a statement that appeared in yesterday’s Melbourne Herald. It was made by a well-known Labour leader, Mr. W. M. Citrine, the General Secretary of the British Trade Union Congress, and reads -

Far-sighted leaders of both capital and labour in the United Kingdom were doing their utmost to foster the closest co-operation between capital and labour. He preferred disputes to strikes.

Speaking of the collective-bargaining movement, Mr. Citrine said that both parties under this system arrived at agreements to last for a specific period. Although signed by both parties these agreements were not legally binding, but were honorably upheld.

If we could get something like that in this country; if the responsible leadersof labour were to meet the leaders of the employers and discuss the conditions of industry, there would be more likelihood of a reasonable agreement being arrived at than when they meet in the atmosphere of a court. This bill will not rid us of dual control, nor will it bring about that co-ordination and uniformity of which honorable senators have spoken. During the last election campaign the present Acting Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr.Forde), when addressing a meeting of railway men at Rockhampton, said that he believed in the two systems of arbitration, for it meant that when the workers could not get all they desired from one they could go to the other. How can there be peace in industry when a responsible Minister speaks in that strain? I shall vote against the measure, and should the proposal it contains reach the people, I shall do my utmost to defeat it.

SenatorRAE (New South Wales) [5.17]. - Fortunately, I have been blessed with a fairly robust constitution; otherwise the reactionary speeches to which I have listened would tend to make me ill. We have heard from honorable senators opposite a most melancholy description of the crimes and sins of trades unionists, both in Great Britain and in this country, as well as various arguments connected with the principle of arbitration. My reading of this proposal is that it goes very much further than the mere regulation of industrial laws. It deals with -

Industrial matters, including -

a ) labour ;

employment and unemployment;

terms and conditions of labour and employment in any trade, industry, profession, occupation or calling;

the rights and obligations of employers and employees;

strikes and lock-outs;

the maintenance of industrial peace; and

the settlement of industrial disputes.

In addition to arbitration, it also includes other matters which should not be embodied in an arbitration measure. There has been considerable discussion as to the effect which this measure, if passed, would have on the arbitration laws of this country. Various opinions, both for and against arbitration, have been quoted. At the beginning of this session the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Sir George Pearce) said that the Opposition recognized that the election had, above all things, hinged on arbitration, and that the electors had given the new Government a mandate to amend the arbitration laws. He said that, so far as arbitration and kindred subjects were concerned, the Government could expect the hearty co-operation of the Opposition, which recognized that in submitting amendments to the arbitration laws the Government would be doing only what it was returned to do. I am not one of those who argue that arbitration was the only issue before the country. At every general election voters are influenced by all sorts of considerations, many of them outside the policy speech of the party which is returned to power. Nevertheless, we hear from time to time that the Labour party, while professingto favour arbitration, has broken away from it, and has condoned the actions of those who have kicked over the traces when unable to get favorable awards. Senator Carroll said that Senator Dunn had stated that men had a right to break away from an award when it was not favorable. Senator Dunn ‘made no statement capable of that construction being placed upon it. What he did say was that, in the case of the timber workers’ award, the lengthening of hours and the heavy reduction in wages made the award so iniquitous that there was every reasonable excuse for men breaking it. He did not say that men should break every award which is unfavorable; but he did say that when an award is actually wicked and atrocious, men are justified in not complying with it. I agree with Senator Dunn in that attitude. Indeed, I go further, and say that I honour them for doing so. I came to this place on the day that I heard the news regarding the stand of the timberworkers. Being unable to call in person to offer my congratulations, I sent a telegram to the timber-workers, congratulating them on having had sufficient manliness to flout such an obviously infamous award, and offering to levy myself to the extent of £1 per week to assist them. Whether they emerged from the struggle victorious or not, I say without fear of refutation, that the magnificent fight they put up, followed by the strong defence of the miners against infamous attempts to oust them from their position, prevented further attacks by other sections of employers.

When ex-Labour men like Senator Pearce and Senator Reid come here with their crying tales regarding the economic position of the country, and demand that men shall accept lower wages, I say tha U the economic position of the country would be greatly improved if every one whose wages have been menaced took the bull by the horns and not only refused a reduction of wages, but demanded even better conditions. The progress of a country depends on the amount of militancy among the workers and the extent to which they are resolved to fight against attempted reductions of wages or the worsening of their conditions. We shall never improve the economic conditions of a country by a cowardly surrender to reductions when they are threatened. Such surrender can only intensify the existing evils. Honorable senators must be aware that a reduction of wages and an increase in unemployment mean a reduced purchasing power for the community as a whole, and that any further reduction of wages or employment necessarily means a widening of the circle of destitution and impoverishment. The country will indeed go to the dogs unless this dry rot of surrender to the attacks of employers is met by firm resistance on the part of the workers.

Senator Reid quoted from an article of mine which appeared in the Pan-Pacific Worker. I stand by every word that I wrote, and point out that those who are most opposed to the constitution of the PanPacific Secretariat, which issues that journal, are only too glad to read the publication in order to try to find something with which to attack their onetime colleagues.

Senator Reid:

– The honorable senator is too obstinate to back down.

Senator RAE:

– My attitude as set out in that article, is consistent with my present attitude towards arbitration. When Mr. Bruce attempted to introduce proposals which would have resulted in the overthrow of federal arbitration, and left the workers in the hands of State courts, I opposed him, not because I believed that, in essence, arbitration was the hest means of settling conflicts between capital and labour, but because 1 looked upon arbitration as a temporary pair of crutches which the then Prims Minister was attempting to knock from under those who had been maimed in the conflict. If ever the Labour party decides to abolish arbitration it will not be at the behest of our capitalistic opponents, but because we have found’ a better way of furthering the interests of the class we specially represent.

I desire to refer briefly to a matter mentioned incidentally by Senator Dunn when he quoted a statement made by the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) in 1901. When Senator Dunn quoted the right honorable gentleman’s remarks, Senator Pearce interjected that he must have been a novice indeed at that time. Apparently, the right honorable gentleman is ashamed of the opinions he then held. But what will he say regarding his remarks eleven years later when, with sufficient experience surely to more than complete his novitiate, he took part in a May Day celebration? Can honorable senators imagine the right honorable gentleman taking part in such a revolutionary function as a May Day celebration? I ask them to mark that it was not an ordinary holiday like Good Friday, or Easter Monday, but May Day - the international working-class day. The Melbourne Argus, which is sometimes facetiously described as a Labour journal, in its issue of 6th May, 1912, contained a report of a May Day speech by Senator Pearce, who was then a member of the Fisher Ministry. At that time I was a humble follower of that Ministry, sitting, metaphorically, at his feet. Senator Pearce expressed pleasure in being able to take part in the celebration. Befor.3 reading the motion submitted by him, I desire to read a resolution previously carried. If the right honorable senator had objected to the first resolution, he could have said so when rising to submit his motion. As he did not do so, I assume that he believed in both of them. The first motion agreed to was -

That this mass meeting of workers send fraternal greeting to all workers throughout the world, declares its determination to abolish capitalism and wage slavery, to promote peace and the settlement of international and all other disputes by arbitration; and in conjunction with the world’s workers pledges itself to hasten the establishment of the International Co-operative Commonwealth in which the land and all the instruments of industry shall be owned and controlled by and for the people, and equal opportunity to develop mentally and physically shall be assured to all.

Those are noble sentiments, with which Senator Sir George Pearce was then in complete accord. The right honorable senator was pleased to take part in that celebration. He must have been regarded as one of the “ big guns “ at that gathering as he was entrusted to move the second resolution, which was as follows : -

That this meeting declares in favour of the legislation of a normal maximum working day sufficient to absorb all willing workers; the provision of employment by the State for the unemployed; Commonwealth and State departments of labour, a Commonwealth Bank of issue and deposit, the initiative and referendum, the abolition of the Legislative Council, a Workmen’s Compensation Act, the nationalization of monopolies,

When Senator Dunn accused Senator Pearce of favoring the nationalization of monopolies in 1901, the right honorable senator declared shamefacedly, “I must, indeed, have been a novice then.” But eleven years later he still believed in the nationalization of monopolies.

Senator E B Johnston:

– That is very stale ; it is eighteen years old.

Senator RAE:

– Surely the honorable senator will agree that while a young man may have crude ideas and may allow impulses to control his judgment, after eleven years in the service of this august assembly, experience as a Cabinet Minister, and with the benefits to be gained by reading and travel, he should have fixed convictions that no lapse of time should change unless he is swayed by selfinterest. The resolution continues - the prohibition of child labour under the age of sixteen; free secondary and university education, with free requisites and meals for primary school children, with systematical medical inspection; the abolition of all election deposits, and advocates all legislation that will ameliorate the conditions of the workers, pending the reign of justice.

This was followed by a further resolution, which read -

That in view of antagonism of interests between employer and employed, and the use made by the capitalist class of the machinery of government, this meeting is of opinion, that strenuous efforts should be put forth in order to secure the election of workers to all representative bodies, and to give effect to these resolutions by every legitimate means, including the establishment of a Labour daily newspaper.

I mention this matter for the reason that we have been told that honorable senators leave one political party to join another, because the party to which they originally belonged having ceased to adhere to its original principles, it is necessary for them to seek some new alliance. But I challenge any one to prove that there has been an essential alteration in the Labour platform of those days as compared with what it is to-day. It is true that, as certain proposals have materialized and have become embodied in statuses they have automatically been deleted from the platform, but the Labour movement is still bound by the principles embodied in such statutes. As new problems arise, additional planks of our platform, designed to meet them, but embodying essentially the same principles, are framed. Therefore, honorable senators who have leftthe Labour party have discarded those principles which they once so strongly supported. It is possible, of course, that different courses may be followed by different people, in endeavouring to give effect to the same principles, and in doing so, some may be charged with superficial inconsistency. In referring to some of the criticisms levelled against this proposal, I have already quoted a statement, by Senator Sir George Pearce, at the opening of this session in which, on behalf of the Opposition, he virtually promised to support any arbitration legislation in the direction now proposed. Senator Hoare expressed amazement that extremists in the Labour movement and in the employing class should meet on common ground in opposition to arbitration. There need be no amazement; the opposition of these two sections is not animated by the same motive. Those who believe that arbitration is not the best way for Labour to attain its ideals do so for two reasons. The first is because, they disapprove of the entagled mass of legalisms involved in arbitration and their objection to the idea that anything that comes within the law, although bad in principle, must, more or less, be reverenced because it is the law. The most tyrannical or vicious legal enactment must be reverenced and obeyed because it is the law. It is said that many weakly organized bodies of employees, or those which were so unorganized before arbitration was introduced, would, if the prop of arbitration were removed, fall to the ground. It is urged also that without some system of arbitration the conditions of the workers would be most deplorable, and that during periods of depression, when there is considerable unemployment, the employers would offer a mere pittance to their employees, who would be absolutely at their mercy. That is correct, and it would be most inopportune to remove something which has assisted the working class. It would he a dastardly act todeprive the workers of any protection which they are receiving under an award of the Arbitration Court or any such tribunal; but my contention’ is that if we had never had arbitration the fighting and militant spirit of the workers would have been maintained, they would have been compelled to increase their strength, to resist aggression under a policy of no surrender, and so become a strong fighting force in the industrial arena. They would have gained such supreme power that instead of being condemned to economic servitude, they would have demanded a complete change in our social and economic system. I believe that despite any sufferings and hardships they might have experienced, they would have gained strength, and have been able to demand the wages and conditions to which they are justly entitled. Under the arbitration system they can retain only what they now possess, as awards of the Arbitration Court are based on the cost of living. Under this system the workers receive a fixed wage based on the price of certain commodities necessary for the sustenance of life. If prices increase, wages are also increased proportionately, and if they decline they are proportionately reduced. It was recently announced that wages of workers operating under federal awards were to be reduced from 2s. to 4s. 6d. a week. This means that under our present arbitration law the working class will never be any better off than it is to-day. It is a cumbersome system, and one which is likely to lead to increased militancy and the development of the fighting spirit. Is it not reasonable to suggest that the workers should have some prospect of improving their position in life, and that their wages should not be on a fixed basis for all time?. I have never heard employers oppose the basis upon which a living wage is fixed on these grounds. They oppose the system, because it involves a certain amount of trouble and sometimes compels them to pay that which they would in other circumstances willingly filch from the workers. To that extent our present arbitration system does afford some protection. I am not one of those who believe that pictures can be painted only in black and white, and I admit that arbitration has done some good; it has given some benefit to the weak and to an inadequately organized section of the community.

SenatorReid. - The honorable senator knows that it has done more than that.

SenatorRAE. - I disagree with the honorable senator. While it has been of some slight service in the direction that

I have indicated, it is detrimental inasmuch as workers are compelled to accept awards, which result in reduced earnings. Some years ago when the Australian Workers Union obtained an award in a State court, it was said that an attempt would be made to defeat the award on technical grounds. The then secretary of the Australian Workers Union issued a manifesto stat-ing in no uncertain terms that if the pastoralists dared to raise the question of jurisdiction in order to prevent the union from approaching the court, the members of that organization would make the demands in their own way and without appealing to the court. The spirit of determination which at that time animated members of the Australian Workers Union was so widespread that if the organization had taken the course indicated, its members would have secured far greater concessions than they obtained subsequently from the Arbitration Court.

Senator Reid:

– But they would have paid a great deal for those concessions by strife and loss of time.

Senator RAE:

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– I ask honorable senators to allow the honorable senator to explain his views inpeace.

Senator RAE:

– I am convinced there is nothing to be gained by honorable senators opposite in opposing this suggested alteration of the Constitution, although I do not regard it as a panacea for the ills from which this country is suffering. All parties have agreed that in certain directions this Parliament should have extended industrial powers. It is no argument against this proposal to say that similar suggested amendments have been rejected on other occasions. The majority againstthe proposed alterations was reduced on each occasion, indicating that the more people knew about them the greater support were they accorded.

Honorable senators opposite have also been complaining that, if this amendment were made, the time of this Parliament would be taken up with the discussion of industrial matters. Surely nothing is more important to the members of any parliament than the industrial conditions under which the workers of a country are employed. The time has gone by when members of Parliament should look with disdain upon the discussion of industrial questions, because they affect so vitally the well-being of the community.

Senator Payne:

– Who has suggested that members of this Parliament look with disdain upon any proposal to discuss industrial questions?

Senator RAE:

– It has been urged by some honorable senators opposite that the time of this Parliament should not be taken up with the discussion of industrial matters. This suggests that they consider the industrial conditions of the workers are not so important as other high matters of State, such as, for example, the passing of an Insurance Bill or the price of wheat.

Senator Thompson:

– All we are contending is that this Parliament should not have the details of industrial matters forced on it.

Senator RAE:

– So far as I am able to judge, the details of industrial troubles will not be forced upon this Parliament if this amendment is accepted by the people. There is nothing in the referendum proposal to prevent the Government from adopting the course suggested by the Bruce-Page Administration, and authorizing a tribunal to deal with the details. The amendment submitted by the BrucePage Administration differed from the proposal now under consideration in this way. The former Government really contemplated fettering Parliament instead of extending its powers, because it proposed to establish a tribunal to deal with industrial matters, and Parliament would have had no control over that authority. The fact that this opinion was held by the people was one reason for the defeat of that referendum.

– No; but it can delay matters. Honorable senators have been talking all the time about their sincere belief in consulting the people in what they term a democratic fashion, yet as a party they are animated by purely party motives. They have adduced no argument on its merits against the present proposal. There has been- a lot of irrelevant talk on their part about how wicked trade unionists are, and how many idle there are who do not want work. All the old “ furphies “ exploded a generation or so ago have been repeated.

Senator RAE:

– Certainly the worker is punished. Quite recently mine-owners who engaged in a lock-out were not punished, but fines were imposed upon timber-workers and those who supported them, Mr. Holloway among others. However, I am strongly of the belief that some good, at least some measure of finality in regard to the conflict between the rival powers of the Commonwealth and the States, should be effectively achieved by the adoption of the proposal now before the Senate, and I think it is nothing but party spirit that prevents honorable senators opposite from joining with us in sending this measure to the people for their final word upon it.

Sitting suspended from 6.16 to 8 p.m.

Senator DOOLEY:
New South Wales

– When dealing with the Power of Amendment Bill I stated that I should be surprised if honorable senators opposite opposed the submission of a proposal such as that now before the chamber to the people.

Most of the arguments levelled against the previous bill were not so much in opposition to the submission of matters to the people for their consideration, but rather against taking away from the people their right to determine what powers should be granted to this Parliament. This is a proposal to submit a specific issue to the electors, one upon which they are justly entitled to vote. Senator Pearce stated that there was an endeavour to turn Parliament into an auction room for industrial gain. I assume that he meant that people who sought election to this Parliament would promise all sorts of things that would benefit the people industrially if carried. One party might promise the electors a 30-hour or 40-hour working week, or an increase in wages. But that sort of thing has already been indulged in by this Parliament. Senator Rae dealtvery trenchantly with the whole matter, and I shall not traverse the ground covered by previous speakers. During the last general election I observed that the secretary of the Nationalist party submitted to the people a proposal, endorsed by honorable senators opposite, which was distinctly in the nature of political bargaining. I recall that the Bruce-Page Government promised, if returned, to find £20,000,000 for the purpose of building homes for the people. Surely that was political bargaining. That Government knew it had no more hope of honoring its promise than of inaugurating a 30-hour week. It. has long been the custom to convert this chamber into a political auction mart. I agree that Parliament was not intended for the purpose, but unfortunately the custom has been established.

The issue dealt with in this bill was submitted to the people at the last general election. The then Prime Minister, when opening his election campaign, declared that the people had to decide the election on a simple issue, that of the retention or abolition of dual control of arbitration.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– That is not so.

Senator DOOLEY:

– Honorable senators opposite stated that the issue confronting the people was that of arbitration.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Is it the policy of the present Government to continue the existing dual control of arbitration ?

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator DOOLEY:

– I am afraid that the promises of quite a number of honorable senators opposite will not stand investigation. Aspirants for political honours, particularly when they are members of the party opposite, frequently make promises that cannot be fulfilled. Honorable senators opposite claim to be the saviours of the workers. Their method of salvation is a peculiar one : that of reducing wages and increasing hours of employment. Throughout the recent general election, the slogan of that party was “ Increase production “. One honorable senator opposite recently intimated that conditions obtaining in the United States of America, in regard to wages and conditions of labour, were the best in the world, simply because that country was speeding up production.

According to a leading article that I read in a recent issue of the Evening News, headed “Back to Facts”, the United States of America is losing export trade to the extent of £240,000,000 per annum, and that country has 5,000,000 unemployed.

How can we solve our unemployment problem and stimulate industry if we cannot find a market for our produce?

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– Does the honorable senator think that the people have too much?

Senator DOOLEY:

– Unfortunately, there are thousands of people in this country who have nothing at all. They ask, not for charity, but for the right to work. We shall not relieve the present situation by increasing production by means of imported machinery. Many honorable senators know the conditions which existed in industry before the introduction of arbitration legislation. They remember the old contract days when men were paid by results. In the days of individual bargaining numbers of contractors engaged on road construction treated their employees shamefully. They would engage men at 5s. a day, but would pay them only half that amount. There are numerous instances of contractors who, having completed their work and received payment for it, left their employees without any payment whatever. No honorable senator would like to see that state of affairs return.

But Ave are heading in that direction. If we abolish the arbitration system the workers will be left without protection. Among present-day employers there are men just as unscrupulous as were the employers of the past. Against such men the workers must be protected.

I do not agree with all that has been said by extremists; but, after all, a man who is able and willing to work, but cannot obtain it, has some excuse for being somewhat extreme in his views. The only means of protecting the workers is by retaining the arbitration system. The great majority of the workers to-day do not desire to cause trouble in industry. The awards of the court should, however, be reasonable. That means that they should provide reasonable living conditions. Honorable senators will accept the late Mr. Justice Higgins as an authority on arbitration. His idea of arbitration was that an award of the court should provide for a wage sufficient to feed and clothe the worker and his family decently. In his book, The New Province of Law and Order, he stated -

One cannot conceive of industrial peace unless the employee has secured to him wages sufficient for the essentials of human existence.

No reasonable person would object to that standard. He went on to say -

The basic wage must secure to the employee enough wherewith to renew his strength and to maintain his home from day to day.

Surely it is in the interest of the employer that his employees should be sufficiently fed to enable them to do their work efficiently. No sane employer would allow his horse to starve. Should a human being be less favorably treated than a horse? Mr. Justice Higgins proceeded -

The wages cannot be allowed to depend on the profits made by the individual employer, but the profits of which the industry is capable may be taken into account. If the industry is novel, and those who undertake it have to proceed economically, there may be a good case for keeping down wages, hut not below the basic wage, which must he sacrosanct. Above the basic wage, bargaining of the skilled employee may, with caution, be allowed to operate.

Every honorable senator will subscribe to that view. Whether conditions be good or bad, whether there be depression or prosperity, surely a human being is entitled to sustenance from day to day. That is all the Arbitration Court has stood for. Mr. Justice Higgins said that the court would not discriminate in wages between the several States, so as to interfere with the freedom of trade between the States, provided by the Constitution. All that the Government is asking for in this bill is the power to legislate as between States. Until the act was amended by the Bruce-Page Government, the court was empowered to deal only with disputes of an interstate character. Although every dispute of any magnitude affects the whole of Australia, it has been found difficult, in practice, to prove the existence of an interstate dispute. Mr. Justice Higgins also said -

The court will not prescribe extra wages to compensate for unnecessary risks to the life or health of the employee, or unnecessary dirt. No employer is entitled to purchase by wages the right to endanger life or to treat men as pigs.

Motion (by Senator Daly) agreed to-

That the Senate at its rising adjourn till to-morrow at 10 a.m.

page 2181

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE)

Second Reading

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

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

I regret that this bill is apparently destined to share a. similar fate to that which has been promised the two constitutional measures that have already been discussed in this chamber.

Senator Sampson:

– How does the Minister know that.

Senator DALY:

– I realize that I have a following in the vicinity of twelve short of a majority in this chamber, and as fourteen of those who spoke on the Constitution Alteration Power of Amendment Bill said that it would be in the best interests of the country if the three constitutional measures were defeated, my pessimism is justified. I sincerely trust that my forecast on this occasion will be incorrect, and that, at any rate, in that spirit of compromise for which this chamber is noted, one of the three proposals may meet with the approval of the majority of honorable senators. In introducing this measure, I desire to direct attention to the fact that the powers of the Commonwealth in respect of trade and commerce are conferred in a manner entirely different from any other grant of power. The grant is extraordinarily composite in its nature. It is a general power over interstate and foreign commerce, including navigation, and there are various specific unlimited powers in relation to such matters as banking, insurance, weights and measures, bills of exchange, copyrights, patents and trade marks, certain corporations and bankruptcy. There is also an auxiliary power in regard to customs and bounties. As the Senate has adopted the policy of expedition in dealing with these constitutional proposals, I do not purpose wearying honorable senators with a dessertation concerning the present powers of the Parliament. I refer them to a very fine digest of its existing powers contained in the report of the Constitution Commission, which was referred to in the course of the other debates. In pages 141 to 159 they will find a complete summary of the position which confronts the Commonwealth Parliament from the point of view of the powers which it possesses and the powers which this Government believes should he conferred on it. If honorable senators will read and study that summary they will be forced to the conclusion that the grant of power was badly conceived and bears all the appearance of a muddle.

Our constitutional difficulties are accentuated by a further provision which deprives the States of full control over powers which remain with them under section 92, which enacts that trade, commerce and intercourse between the States shall be absolutely free. Admittedly that would be a wise provision if the Commonwealth had sole power. In existing circumstances it is mischievous.

This Government is accused of attempting to violate the Constitution, because it is endeavouring to provide the remedy. It is charged with attempting to take from the people certain rights which they already possess. Again I remind honorable senators that the Government has no desire to take anything away from the people. Unfortunately in regard to trade and commerce, the people have no power to legislate. Their right or so-called right is simply the right to delegate to this Parliament the power to legislate. Until they exercise that power of delegation, the so-called right remains dormant, so that actually all that they have is the right to prohibit this Parliament from legislating. If it does not legislate, the mischievous state of affairs to which I have alluded continues, and the people are powerless. If, during the regime of the Bruce-Page Administration, the Labour party had been able to give effect to one plank in its platform - the initiative, referendum and recall - one could have understood the contention that these grants of power, which the Government is seeking would, if approved by the people, be equivalent to taking from them some rights which they at present possessed. But this bill exposes the fallacy of that contention. As I have explained, the Commonwealth is endowed with certain powers and the States with the residue, and because the State power is inoperative, the people are impotent. They could return a State Government to power, but it would be powerless to legislate in regard to trade and commerce. This Parliament also is unable to do anything. It will be seen, therefore that the Government does not propose to take from the people the right to regulate trade and commerce. All that it asks is that they shall extend to the

Parliament the right to legislate, in regard to trade and commerce, along the only lines possible.

I remind honorable senators that those who charge this Government with attempting to violate the Constitution represent a political party which presumably has always been the champion of State rights, and would at all times urge the people to rebel against any attempt to violate the Constitution. I ask them to bear in mind the cases which I mentioned when moving the second reading of the proposal to ask the people to give this Parliament power to amend the Constitution, and to remember that no protest was made against the Wheat Acquisition Act or against any other actions which led up to the litigation to which I alluded. There was no objection in regard to those matters, because every one realized that it was desirable to obtain from the people the right to legislate to remedy the chaotic state of affairs which obtained. Has the voice of any honorable senator been raised against the violation of the spirit of section 92 by States which have exercised the power of eminent domain in order to prevent the operation of that section? I do not imply that such action has been taken in any wanton spirit, but I wish to show that the division of powers is fundamentally wrong.

In the very statement that trade and commerce among the States shall be free, it is implicit that commercial horizons extend beyond State boundaries, and that commerce is not of a domestic nature controllable in a domestic manner. The general power given to the Commonwealth has been used in late years in connexion with the organization of certain rural industries. As with the State in organizing a local industry, so with the Commonwealth in organizing a national industry - a lack of necessary power is immediately evident. In these national marketing schemes resort has to be had to a clumsy expedient. Bodies representative of the particular industry submit their scheme to the Commonwealth Parliament and their respective State Parliaments to take the necessary legislative steps. It might be necessary for four separate Parliaments to pass acts to put a single scheme into operation. Briefly we employ four machines to do the work of one. The customs’ power is not merely a means of raising revenue.

We are using that power and the bounty power to establish manufactures in Australia in order that our wealth may increase and unemployment decrease. Having established an industry in Australia by means of our tariff, and perhaps fostered it by a bounty, are we to be left without further powers in regard to it? Do we not hear to-day complaints as to profiteering under the shelter of the tariff wall recently created? To destroy the wall is a counsel of desperation. It is merely to retreat to the evils we have striven to shut out. It is inequitable, for both the scrupulous and the unscrupulous are penalized. We are compelled to rely on public opinion to do what we should have power to do. I invite those honorable senators who allege that the Government has raised the tariff wall and done nothing to protect the consumer, to pay due regard to the limited powers at the disposal of the Government. If they appreciate its difficulties, they should be prepared to support it in asking for this grant of power to pass the necessary legislation to protect trade and commerce in all its ramifications.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) has threatened to make public the names of traders who exploit the people, hoping that the people will defend themselves. Was ever a National Parliament so naked and defenceless as to be compelled to say to the people: “We cannot help you ; look to yourself for protection.” We desire that this Parliament shall have the right to give ample protection to trade and commerce and not to be hampered, as at present, by constitutional limitations. In view of the fact that dual jurisdiction does not arise -

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

-batch. - It will arise in regard to intra-state commerce.

Senator DALY:

– No. During the debate on the other constitutional bills, I wondered at times whether I was sitting in a National Parliament and listening to debates on national proposals. Honorable senators opposite should give the Government credit for acting in the best interests of the nation. It matters not whether we are representatives of the Nationalist or Labour interests; the objective of both parties is the betterment of Australia. We differ only as regards the means to that end.

Senator Ogden:

– That being so, the Minister should not object to criticism.

Senator DALY:

– I do not object to criticism. On the contrary, I invite it. The point I was leading up to was this: While it is possible, even under this power, to have dual jurisdiction, the National Parliament, vested with full power over trade and commerce, would analyse the position in the light of public opinion, and in giving effect to its policy with regard to trade and commerce, it would leave to the States the powers necessary for the efficient working of the State machinery. This proposal will not create conflicting jurisdictions as between the Commonwealth and the States. It is designed to give to the Commonwealth Parliament the right to legislate in relation to trade and commerce on lines which will enable such power to play its part in the national life of this community. Whatever the Senate may think of the other two proposals it should, in view of the opinions expressed by honorable senators from time to time, be unanimous that the Commonwealth should be given the legislative powers asked for in this instance.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [9.1]. - I do not ask for the adjournment of the debate because I appreciate the desire of the Government to push on with business, and I do not know that we need further time to consider this measure. I want, however, to take exception to some statements appearing in the press about the progress that has been made in the Senate on these constitution alteration proposals. I notice that the Prime Minister is reported to have said that these measures were introduced in the Senate many weeks ago, the suggestion being that there has been undue delay in dealing with them here. The facts are that the messages from the House of Representatives transmitting the bills were received on the 10th April, just six weeks ago, and the Leader of the Government in this chamber (Senator Daly) did not move the second reading of two of them until the 30th April, just four weeks ago. Surely it cannot be said that this is an undue length of time. Neither can it be said that the Senate has shown a disposition to block the passage of the bills or delay them.

Senator Daly:

– Hear, hear !

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The speeches that have been delivered have been to the point, and there has been nothing in the nature of a stone-wall. I can understand, however, that it seems a long time to the Prime Minister. His position reminds me of the man who remarked to his wife that they had been married for a long time, and when she replied,” Why it is only a few years “, said, “ Well, it seems a long time “. I can understand that four weeks of the life the Prime Minister has been living recently may seem a long time.

Senator Daly:

– It seems an age.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.In the circumstances, I do not propose to attach too much importance to what the Prime Minister said.

This bill is of great importance. Its effect, if carried, would be as far-reaching as that of the bill to take full legislative power to alter the Constitution. If we were to pass it and the people agreed to it, this Parliament would be clothed with power, not to alter the Constitution as it pleased, but to effect something which would have the same result. Unification would be an accomplished fact. The. report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution contains the following : -

Trade and commerce with other countries and among the States. - Wo do not recommend that an unlimited power with respect to trade and commerce should he conferred on the Commonwealth Parliament.

It continues -

The terms “ trade and commerce “ have a very wide connotation, and if the power to legislate with respect to trade and commerce were transferred to the Commonwealth Parliament, we think that it would be difficult to say what powers were left to a State, or what acts of a State Parliament might not be overridden by federal laws. We do not think that the same reasons against limiting the federal power to trade and commerce with other countries and among the States exist in Australia, as might be urged with regard to the Constitution of the United States of America. In Australia, where the States are relatively few and large, where the population is concentrated in a few cities and each capital is on or adjacent to the coast, it is much easier for the States to control commercial activities and to deal with any abuses that may arise, than it would be if the States were small and approximately equalin size. In our opinion a wise course was followed in the 1891 draft and in the Constitution itself when, instead of a complete power to legislate with respect to trade and commerce being conferred, certain elements of that power were mentioned separately and such powers were conferred on the Commonwealth Parliament as it was thought could conveniently be exercised by a central legislature.

The point is put so well there that I do not propose to elaborate it. The term, “ trade and commerce “ is exceedingly wide. It covers a multitude of subjects - not merely the carriage of goods and passengers, but also the buying, exchange and selling of goods, and legislation governing those activities. It covers fully 75 per cent. of the activities of the States. If this bill were approved by Parliament and accepted by the people, the Commonwealth could strip the States of all their powers in regard to trade and commerce. It would have unlimited power over an enormous field.

Senator Daly has mentioned one case in which he claims this power is needed. He says that the Commonwealth has no power to protect consumers from the profiteering that has already taken place under the high tariff and tariff embargoes imposed by the present Government, although the Prime Minister and the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs have been trying to make the people believe that the Government has the necessary power, but cannot exercise it. The only effective way of preventing the profiteer from taking advantage of a high tariff is to deprive him of the duties under the shelter of which he is profiteering; but, of course, objection may be raised to that because its effect is to punish the innocent as well as the guilty. The power the Prime Minister wants is that which every State Parliament has to-day : the power to fix prices.

Senator Daly:

– Would the honorable senator object to the Commonwealth having that power?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I object to it because it is an entirely domestic matter for the States and not the Commonwealth to handle.

Senator O’Halloran:

– That means six tribunals and six sets of prices.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.That may be so, but it is entirely a matter for the people of the respective States to determine for themselves. Many people who have had a little experience of price-fixing have come to the conclusion that it is far better to leave it alone.

Senator O’Halloran:

– Why did not the Government of which the right honorable senator was a member leave it alone during the war?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I was just about to tell the Senate of the experience we had of price-fixing during the war. Under the War Precautions Act the Commonwealth Parliament had unlimited power - as much power as it would have if this alteration of the Constitution were made. When it was alleged that there was profiteering in the sale of meat, the Government set out to fix the retail price of meat. Our experience reminded us of one of Gilbert and Sullivan’s operas. When we fixed the retail price we found that it did not “ do the job.” We, therefore, went beyond the retailer to the wholesale man, but when we got to him we found that it did not “ do the job “ - that there was some one else behind him. And so we went on chasing these various people until we had a whole network of war precautions regulations, only to find that as fast as we extended the net in one direction, the fish were slipping through in some other direction. Finally, in despair, we abandoned the whole thing. The price-fixing of meat broke down under its own weight. I thank Senator O’Halloran for refreshing my memory of that striking example of the futility of Parliament endeavouring in this way to interfere with the natural laws of supply and demand, which have a nasty knack of slipping through any legal nets that may be spread. The experience the present Government has already encountered in its endeavour to interfere with some of these natural laws will make it very much wiser before twelve months are over. Many of the States have endeavoured to fix prices ; but can any honorable senator point to any State attempt in that respect that has been successful? Fair rents courts have been set up to fix rents, with the unfortunate result that in the cities where the rents are fixed by law the tenants pay higher rents than are paid in the cities where fair rents courts have noi been set up.

Senator Dunn:

– That is not so in New South Wales.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.New South Wales is the horrible example I have in mind, because rents in Sydney are the highest in the Commonwealth.

The proposal before us is a most peculiar one. It seems as if the Government at first determined to “go the whole hog” and that later the hearts of Ministers failed them, and a proviso was inserted The proposal is to alter the Constitution to give the Commonwealth full power over trade and commerce, with this proviso -

Provided that -the alteration of this paragraph . . . shall not be construed to empower the Parliaments to make laws with ‘respect to the control or management of railways, the property of a State, or the rates or fares on such railways.

In Victoria, there are railways and tramways the property of the State, and tramways the property of private companies. By this proviso the Commonwealth Parliament would have power in respect of any private railways in Victoria or tramways, the property of the State or the property of a private company, but no power in respect to railways, the property of the State. It would have power to regulate motor traffic. Can we imagine this Parliament taking power to solve the problem of the ‘buses? This Parliament - which Senator Daly is so fond of reminding us is a National Parliament - is to amend the Constitution so that we can tell the people of the States how to run their motor ‘buses. Many State Premiers have become prematurely grey over the problem of motor ‘buses; but we are to show them how to solve it !

The previous bill sought power for the Federal Government to fix wages, salaries, hours and conditions of labour. This Government has no compunction in regard to that. It will cheerfully determine salaries, wages, and the hours to be worked on the State railways; but the fixing of fares and freights, from which the States derive the revenue with which to pay those wages and salaries, is magnanimously left to the States. An embarrassing power, indeed, in the circumstances ! Frequently, in times of depression, the States find it necessary to increase fares and freights, so that, under” this provision, the privilege of doing the unpleasant things will be left to the State governments, while the Federal Parliament will have a monopoly of the things that are pleasant. This Parliament is to be a sort of Father Christmas, distributing gifts in the form of higher rates of pay and shorter hours to the State railway employees, and leaving to the unfortunate States the task of finding the necessary funds. The Federal Government also seeks power to take control of intra-state navigation. There may be something to be said for that; but is the Commonwealth to control navigation on the river Murray, or the sending of barges down the river Darling and internal navigation generally? The States evidently are thought to be incompetent to control that sort of thing, so this Government must take it over !

Senator Hoare:

– What about the Swan River?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Swan River is at least a navigable water-way, whereas some of the alleged rivers of the eastern States are incapable of floating anything.

Why could not the Government have brought forward a proposal to enable the passing of a uniform company law for Australia? It could have asked for a limited power to enable that to be done. That would be something useful - something that would commend itself to the people of Australia - a project that would be approved by a tremendous majority.

Senator Daly:

– And I suppose that it would put about 50,000 more people into employment !

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I dare say that it would put some people out of employment. When companies are registered under six separate company laws the procedure must make for a lot more employment, but employment that is useless and uneconomical. A uniform company law would be of some service to the Commonwealth. Then there is the control of aviation. To-day the Federal Parliament can control interstate aviation ; but the power of regulation generally in regard to aviation remains with the States. I believe that four out of the six States agreed to vest full control with this Parliament. Several practical schemes such as these might have been properly considered by the Government. Instead we are asked to approve of a comprehensive power such as this, which will emasculate the States and destroy their powers. If granted this power the Federal Parliament could practically strip the States of their -authority.

. - In view of the intimation that I made in connexion with another bill, I ask leave to continue at a later hour my remarks in reply to the debate.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

page 2187

QUESTION

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (POWER OF AMENDMENT)

SecondReading.

Debate resumed from 22nd May (vide page 2003) on motion by Senator Daly -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator DALY:

– I believe that the intention of “Western Australia is to get a fair deal for “Western Australia. ‘ But this Parliament is entrusted with the duty of giving a fair deal to the whole Commonwealth.

The right honorable the Leader of the Opposition said that under the powers which this bill would confer on the Federal Parliament, the Commonwealth could take over State railways and tramways. The present Government has no desire to do that. Indeed, it has no desire to assume control of any activities which properly belong to the States. If it obtains the power it seeks, it will exercise that power along national lines. In dealing with national questions, it desires that it shall not be circumscribed by constitutional limitations. I want to make it clear that this proposal has not arisen from any conflict of opinion expressed by judges, as has been suggested. I merely quoted that conflict as an example of what any parliament might expect when certain powers are enumerated. One of the maxims of the law is that there should be an end to litigation. In framing its’ laws, every Parliament should strive to end litigation. One of the reasons why the Government asks for general powers, as” opposed to specific powers, is that they might obviate the necessity for a third body being required to interpret the power of Parliament. It desires that the Federal Parliament shall be untrammelled by constitutional limitations, and that a governmentshall be able to carry into effect every promise that it makes to the people on the hustings.

Senator Thompson:

– That would be dangerous.

Senator DALY:

– On the contrary, it would tend to make parties careful what promises they made to the electors. Honorable senators say that the party to which they belong stands for the people. In that case, would they not expect a government which had the power to do so, to carry out those things that the electors returned them to carry out?

Senator Ogden:

– Such as a promise to pay 6s. 6d. a bushel for wheat.

Senator DALY:

– The Government did not promise that. It has been said that although the Government professes to be desirous of abolishing dual control, its proposals mean the perpetuation of dual control. It is difficult for me to understand that argument, because the Opposition has complained that the Government’s second proposal does not go far enough. When we submit a proposal under which the Commonwealth Parliament would have very extensive powers we are told that we are going too far. This Government, which is honest in its desire to terminate dual industrial control, supported the contention of the late Government that the only way in which to end dual control was to place the power in the hands of one authority, but we suggested that that should be the federal authority which should establish State tribunals to deal with purely domestic problems. Under such a scheme we should be able to secure a greater measure of industrial peace than is possible to-day. While the Government pays every regard to the opinions expressed by organizations of employers or employees and is prepared to listen to any arguments they advance, in the final analysis its actions are governed by the policy of the party which elected it to power.

Senator McLachlan made certain references to trade union organizations and to the action of the Labour party in declining to stand behind the Government of which he was a member in its endeavour to secure control of the ballots taken by trade union organizations. The real objection of the Labour party to that proposal was because one particular section of the community, whose liberties were to be seriously curtailed, were singled out for special treatment. Surely the morale of the Australian people has not fallen to such an extent that an organization cannot be trusted to take a ballot of its members? We were strongly opposed to placing any stigma upon the members of trade union organizations, or acting in such a way as to make it appear that they were so corrupt that they could not be allowed to control their own ballots. We simply said to the Government of the day, “Keep your hands off organizations which are quite capable of looking after themselves “. Surely it is not suggested that this Government would abuse the powers which it is seeking to obtain in. the way the past Government endeavoured to abuse its power some months ago? It was also suggested that we should allow matters to remain as they are, and that we might even dispense with arbitration and get back to the old system of bargaining.

Senator Carroll:

– The honorable senator would he pleased if Parliament could be relieved of the responsibility of arbitration.

Senator DALY:

– Nothing was further from my mind than to suggest that Parliament should be relieved of that responsibility.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Arbitration will be the means of getting rid of the Minister and his followers in the long run.

Senator DALY:

– If a majority in this chamber forces us to leave arbitration where it is to-day we may be submerged in the flood of public opinion that will rise against us. We are anxious to place arbitration on such a safe basis that the people will have faith in the system and’ will be able to appreciate its merits. It would, however, be a calamity if the present Government were removed from the treasury bench before it has placed Australia on a sound economic foundation.

An adverse vote in . this chamber on these measures cannot prevent their submission to the people who possess the real power of delegation. The people will be consulted, and time alone will show whether the forecast of honorable senators opposite or the prophecy of those on this side of the chamber is correct. In the interests of the Commonwealth I sincerely trust that the people will be behind the Government and will grant it the extended industrial powers it is seeking to enable it to put into operation the policy upon which its supporters were elected.

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

Constitution Bills - Attitude of Senate - Movement fob Secession in Western Australia.

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

.- I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I promised the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) that, on the motion for adjournment, I would refer to comments which appeared in 8 section of the press regarding the alleged delay of the Senate in dealing with the constitutional measures on which we have just divided. I assure honorable senators that I was not in any way responsible for the statements referred to and that if an impression has been created in the minds of any one that honorable senators opposite have not treated Government measures with courtesy, I hope it will now be removed. I do not subscribe to the press statements referred to. As honorable senators will remember, on Fridaylast I thanked the right honorable the” Leader of the Opposition and other honj orable senators opposite for the courteous manner in which they had dealt with Government proposals.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– I direct the attention of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) to the following report which appeared in a Sydney newspaper on the 26th instant : -

SECESSION.

Enthusiastic Meeting at Perth.

Perth, Sunday.

A campaign for the secession of Western Australia from the Commonwealth was initiated before a packed and enthusiastic audience in the Burt Memorial Hall on Friday night.

At the conclusion of a lecture by Mr. A. Lovekin,M.L.C, the following resolution was moved by Mr. R.S. Sampson, M.L.A., arid seconded by Mr. H. A. Griffiths, M.L.A. : - “This public meeting of citizens of Western Australia pledges itself to support a movement for the creation of a dominion of Western Australia, and urges the Government to give the people an opportunity of deciding the issue by referendum”

Owing to a clause prohibiting political meetings in the terms uponwhich the hall had been leased, the resolution could not be put, but the temperof the audience, which applauded every mention of secession, made it clear that it would have been carried by a large majority.

The Premier (Sir James Mitchell) was in the chair, and other Ministers, and the Lord Mayor (Alderman A. T. Franklin), Senator Lynch, and other Parliamentarians were on the platform.

The Premier said that federation was costing the State not less than £8,000,000 annually, which was a tremendous burden for 400,000 people.

Mr. Lovekin outlined objections to federation, such as the extravagance of the Federal Government, the unfair incidence of the tariff on primary producing States, and duplication of services and officials. He declared that secession could be accomplished legally and constitutionally, and explained how, in his opinion, this could be done.

I now invite honorable senators to read the covering provisions of the Constitution Act -

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth, under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established.

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian colonics and possessions of the Queen;

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: -

Section 3 reads -

It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

We now have evidence of a movement in Western Australia having for its object the secession of that State from the Commonwealth.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– What does the honorable senator propose to do about it?

Senator DUNN:

– I have reminded the Leader of the Opposition on other occasions that interjections are disorderly. When I was elected to the Senate a little over eight months ago, I took the following oath of allegiance to His Majesty, King George V, before the late Chief Justice of the Commonwealth, (Sir Adrian Knox) and Sir Isaac Isaacs: -

I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty, King George the Fifth, his heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.

If the people of Western Australia seriously cut the painter they will be guilty of an act of treason in every sense of the word.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– The honorable gentleman, I think, will realize that what he proposes to discuss is at present outside any phase of federal politics. -Senator DUNN. - I could not let pass this opportunity to bring the movement in Western Australia under the notice of the Leader of the Senate. I shall be brief. In view of the fact that. Western Australia is part and parcel of the Commonwealth and in view also of the fact that its representatives in this chamber and in another place have sworn an oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King, do they intend to take an active part in this movement to secede? If so, is it not about time they did the decent thing and resigned ?

Senator DALY:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

– All I can promise the honorable senator is that when Senator Lynch returns I shall endeavour to persuade him to see the error of his ways. In the meantime, I express the hope that other honorable senators from Western Australia will take heed of the advice so generously given by the Government Whip and refrain from taking part in the movement referred to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 May 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1930/19300528_senate_12_124/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate28 May 1930

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION BILLS

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

Senator DALY:

QUESTION

TASMANIAN DISABILITIES

Senator OGDEN:TASMANIA

Senator DALY:ALP

QUESTION

SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE

Senator DALY:ALP

Senator DALY:

QUESTION

AVIATION SUBSIDIES

Senator BARNES:Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

SUBMAKINES OTWAY AND OXLEY

Senator DUNN:through Senator O’Halloran

Senator BARNES:ALP

QUESTION

WIRELESS PROGRAMMES

Senator OGDEN:

Senator BARNES:ALP

PAPERS

COTTON INDUSTRIES BOUNTY BILL

NATIONALITY BILL

Second Reading

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

Senator MCLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DALY:

Senator MCLACHLAN:South Australia

Senator Daly:

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

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRIAL POWERS)

Second Reading

Senator REID:Queensland

Senator Barnes:

Senator McLACHLAN:South Australia

Senator Barnes:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Rae:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Rae:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Daly:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Hoare:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Rae:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Daly:

Senator McLACHLAN:

QUESTION

REVELATIONS REPUBLISHED BY THE MORNING POST

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Rae:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Daly:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Daly:

Senator McLACHLAN:

QUESTION

A UNION COSTS TOO MUCH

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator DUNN:New South Wales

Senator Payne:

Senator DUNN:

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

Senator DUNN:

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

Senator DUNN:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DUNN:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DUNN:

Senator DUNN:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senate
28 May 1930

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

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator DUNN:
through Senator O’Halloran

Senator BARNES:
ALP

Senator BARNES:
ALP

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

Senator MCLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

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

Senator REID:
Queensland

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia