Senate
26 March 1931

12th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 626

QUESTION

KEROSENE IMPORTS

Senator BARNES:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · ALP

– On the 20th

March Senator Dunn asked the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. Is it a fact that 2,000,000 gallons of kerosene were imported into Sydney during the months of January and February of this year?
  2. If so, is it also a fact that 95 per cent. of the 2,000,000 gallons was imported in bulk steamers ?
  3. If the replies to the above questionsare in the affirmative, which firms imported the 2,000,000 gallons?

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

  1. The actual quantity was 1,832,588 (pilous.
  2. Sixty-four per cent. was imported in bulk steamers.
  3. The department cannot disclose information obtained from customs entries, which are confidential as between the importers and the department.

page 626

QUESTION

SYDNEY-HOBART SEA ROUTE

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– On the 20th March Senator Dunn asked the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. Is it a fact that in one of the most dangerous parts of navigable waters between Sydney and Hobart there is a large area of islands adjacent to the Tasmanian coast in Bass Straits, which constitutes a menace and a danger to shipping?
  2. Will the Minister call for a statement with a view to erecting a non-attended lighthouse on Babel Island or Cape Barren?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable senator that a report has been obtained from the technical officers of the Marine branch of the department who advise that theFurneaux Group, the large area of islands referred to, lie too far to the westward of the shipping track to constitute a menace to vessels travelling between Sydney and Hobart. Babel Island is about 40 miles and Cape Barren about 30 miles distant from the track. On account of the distance a light on either Babel Island or Cape Barren would not be of any service to vessels traversing the usual track between Hobart and Sydney.

page 627

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Navigation Act - Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1931, No. 20- No. 24.

Papua Act - Ordinance No. 3 of 1930 - Police Offences.

Public Service Act - Regulations amended -Statutory Rules 1931, No. 29.

Service and Execution of Process Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1931, No. 27.

Conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, held at Canberra, February, 1931, and Melbourne, February, 1931 - Proceedings and decisions of Conference, together with appendices.

Memorandum, by A. C. D. Rivett, M.A., D.Sc, on the present position of investigations on the Production of Fuel Oils from Coal.

Naval Defence Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1931, No. 22- No. 26.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act. - Public Health OrdinanceRegulations -

Boarding-houses.

Eating-houses.

Ice-cream Vendors.

Sugar Inquiry Committee -

Majority Report, signed by Messrs A. R. Townsend, W.J. Short, F. C. Curlewis, W. Young and C. G. Fallon.

Minority Report, signed by Mr. J. Gunn, Mrs.E. E. Morgan, and Sir. F. A. L. Dutton.

Statements in respect of the subjects on which the Committee has reached unanimous conclusions.

page 627

QUESTION

TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT

regulations:formalmotionof Adjournment.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I have received a communication from Senator Pearce intimating thathe intends to move the adjournment of the Senate to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely “ The action of the Government in gazetting new regulations under the Transport Workers Act.” Is the motion supported ?

Four honorable senators having risen intheir places,

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.7]. - In accordance with the letter which I have forwarded to the President, I move -

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

My object in bringing this motion for ward isnot so much to discuss the regu lations themselves, as the action of the Government in flouting the Senate by bringing forward practically the same regulations that the Senate recently disallowed. Each chamber of the legislature has been endowed with statutory power to disallow regulations. That power the Government should recognize. I shall read the new regulations in order to show that, with very slight variations, they are those which the Senate recently disallowed -

page 627

REGULATIONS UNDER THE TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT 1928-1929

I, the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, hereby make the following Regulations under the Transport Workers Act 1928-1929, to come into operation forthwith.

Dated this twentiethday of March, 1931.

Governor-General

ByHis Excellency’s Command,

Minister of State for Transport

Transport Workers (Watersideworkers) Regulations.

  1. These Regulations may be cited as the Transport Workers (Waterside Workers) Regulations.
  2. – (1.) In the employment, engagement or picking up transport workers (being waterside workers) for work in or in connexion with the provisions of services in the transport of goods the subject of trade or commerce by sea with other countries or among the States, at ports in the Commonwealth to which Part III. of the Transport Workers Act 1928- 1929 applies, priority shall be given to those of such workers available for employment, engagement or picking-up at those ports, who are members of the Waterside Workers’ Federation of Australia, an organization which is bound by an existing award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration applicable to such employment:

Provided that nothing in this regulation shall operate to prevent the employment, engagement or picking-up of returned soldiers or returned sailors, as defined in section eightyone a of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1930, who were, at any time during the first six months of the year 1930, the holders of licences under PartIII. of the Transport Workers Act 1928-1929, in respect of any ports to which that Act applied at any time during that year. (2.) Any person who employs, engages or picks up a transport worker (being a waterside worker) in contravention of the last preceding sub-regulation shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Ten pounds or imprisonment for one month.

I take this opportunity of very briefly, but emphatically, registering my protest against the action of the Government in flouting the Senate by almost immediately after certain regulations havebeen disallowed, re-imposing those regulations.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I move-

That the document quoted by Senator Sir George Pearce during his speech be laid upon the table.

I take this action in accordance with Standing Order No. 364, which reads -

A document quoted from by a Senator not a Minister of the Crown may be ordered by the Senate to be laid upon the table; such order may be made without notice immediately upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator who has quoted therefrom.

I take it that my action is in order.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– The honorable senator is in order. Is the motion seconded?

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– I second it.

Senator Daly:

– I rise to a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must first put the question. The question is that the document be laid on the table. Senator Daly may now speak to a point of order if he so desires.

Senator Daly:

– I desire to ask you, Mr. President, whether the document quoted by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) is a document within the meaning of Standing Order No. 364.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not think that there is any doubt that the document quoted from comes within the meaning of that standing order.

Senator BARNES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP

– It might save time if I inform the Senate of an opinion which I have received from the law officers of the Crown regarding this matter. It is as follows : -

I am asked to advise whether, when a Regulation has been made and gazetted, but not yet laid upon the Table by a Minister in accordance with the statute (the fifteen sitting days specified in the statute not having elapsed) -

it is in order for a Senator not a Minister of the Crown to move, under Standing Order 364, that the Regulation be laid upon the Table; (2) a resolution of the Senate (of which notice has been given or which has been passed before the regulations have been laid before the Senate pursuant to the statute) disallow ing the regulations, would be effective to cause the regulations to cease to have effect.

I will deal first with the second question. Section 10 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1930 imposes a duty upon Ministers to lay a regulation before each House within the specified time; and-

Senator McLachlan:

– I rise to a point of order. I understand that the question before the Senate is the motion moved by Senator Greene, and that debate on anything extraneous to that question is out of order at this stage.

The PRESIDENT:

– The remarks of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Barnes), in my opinion, have no bearing on the question of the laying on the table of the document from which the Leader of the Opposition quoted. The opinion which the Minister desires to read can be taken into consideration at a later stage.

Senator Barnes:

– If I were permitted to quote the opinion of the Crown Law authorities it might clarify the position.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister will have an opportunity later.

Question - that the document quoted by Senator Sir George Pearce be laid upon the table - put. The Senate divided. (The President: Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 7

Majority . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Statutory Rules 1931, No. 34, Transport Workers (Waterside Workers’) Regulations

The PRESIDENT:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) having laid the document upon the table it is now available for the inspection of honorable senators.

Original question resolved in the negative.

page 629

TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT

Regulations: Motion to Disallow

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [4.20]. - Under Standing Order 448, I move -

That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the moving of a motion for the disallowance of the statutory rule laid upon the table with respect to the Transport Workers Regulations.

The PRESIDENT:

– Standing Order 448 reads -

In cases of urgent necessity, any standing or sessional order or orders of the Senate may be suspended on motion duly made and seconded without notice -

The motion is in order, the only proviso to the Standing Order being -

Provided that such motion is carried by an absolute majority of the whole number of senators.

Senator Daly:

– I rise to a point of order. I ask, sir, if your attention has been drawn to section 10 of the Acts Interpretation Act. The point I take is that the motion proposed to be submitted by Senator Pearce cannot be moved without notice. Section 10 of the Acts Interpretation Act specifically provides that -

Where an act confers power to make regulations, all regulations made accordingly shall, unless the contrary intention appears -

  1. ) take effect from the date of notifica tion, or from a latter date specified in the regulations;

But if either House of the Parliament passes a resolution of which notice has been given at any time within fifteen sitting days after such regulations have been laid before such House disallowing any regulation such regulation shall thereupon cease to have effect.

The act provides that notice shall be given. I have yet to learn that we can overcome the express will of the legislature by a suspension of the Standing Orders.

The PRESIDENT:

– So far as the Standing Orders relate to this case I think the procedure is entirely in order. The legal aspect of the matter is one to be adjudicated upon, not by me, but by the Crown Law authorities, who no doubt will be consulted. My ruling is that the Standing Orders so far have been complied with.

Senator Barnes:

– I give notice in writing, Mr. President, that I dissent from your ruling. I move -

That the ruling of the President be dissented from on the ground that it is contrary to the practice of the Senate.

Senator Dooley:

– I second the motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– The practice is to adjourn the debate on a motion of dissent until the next sitting day unless the Senate decides on motion, without debate, that the question requires immediate determination.

Motion (by Senator Payne) agreed to-

That the question of dissent requires immediate determination.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question, “ That the ruling of Mr. President be dissented from on the ground that it is contrary to the practice of the Senate,” must now be put.

Question (dissent) put. The Senate divided. (The President: Senator the Hon.. W. Kingsmill.)

AYES: 7

NOES: 22

Majority . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Original question - That the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders be agreed to - put. The Senate divided. (President - Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill).

AYES: 22

NOES: 7

Majority . . 15

AYES

NOES

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) proposed -

That Statutory Rules 1931, No. 34, Transport Workers (Waterside Workers) Regulations, laid upon the table of the Senate this day, be disallowed:

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– I ask the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) whether the document from which he quoted was a copy of the Transport Workers Regulations to which he referred?

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Yes, and I read them in order to place the Senate in possession of their actual wording. They are the regulations which I have moved to disallow.

Senator Daly:

– I take the further point of order that the document must speak for itself. With great respect to you, Mr. President, I submit that it is not for Senator Pearce to say what this particular document is. In support of my point of order, I wish to point out that the Rules

Publication Act, by which no doubt the Senate will abide, makes copies of regulations evidence in a court only and not in Parliament. The Acts Interpretation Act requires regulations to be laid before Parliament, and my contention is that there is no evidence before us that the document laid before the Senate today, is a regulation. Until you, Mr. President, are satisfied that you have before you a regulation properly made, I submit that you cannot accept a motion for its disallowance.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is raising a point of law as against a point of procedure. As I have already reminded honorable senators, it is not for me to adjudicate upon points of law. The contention of the honorable senator who has raised this point, may be effective in a court of law, but I simply have to satisfy myself by the only means at my disposal - those means being the identification of this document by the Clerk of the Senate, and by the Leader of the Opposition - that it is the document which was laid on the table, and is now sought to be disallowed. In those circumstances, I do not think there can be any question as to the right of the Leader of the Opposition to move his motion.

Senator Daly:

– I take a further point or order. You say, sir, that a document has been laid on the table, and that there is a motion before the Senate to disallow that document. I take no exception to that, but the motion is for the disallowance of certain regulations, and my point is that no such regulations have been laid on the table.

The PRESIDENT:

– The document which has been laid on the table is -

Statutory Rules, 1931, No. 34. Transport Workers (Waterside Workers) Regulations

That is the document, the contents of which are sought to be disallowed by the motion submitted by the Leader of the Opposition. There is no doubt in my mind that that is the document which has been laid on the table. Nor have I any doubt as to the regulations having been made under the act which they purport to have been made under and, therefore, the motion is certainly in order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Tha t is my opinion. No further amplification of the matter can take place in this chamber. I am perfectly satisfied as to the identity of the document, and that is the main thing from my point of view. It is not for me to say whether the document is effective or not.

Senator BARNES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP

– I take it that no purpose will be served by the motion submitted by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce). It may give opportunity for talk, but nothing can result from it. A document to be properly before the Senate must be laid on the table at the discretion of the Minister within the period required by the Acts Interpretation Act for the laying of it on the table. Any other method is absolutely ineffective. I shall read now the opinion I was proceeding to quote when I was interrupted

The PRESIDENT:

– It was irrelevant on that occasion ; it is quite relevant now.

Senator BARNES:

– Then I shall read it now. It is as follows: -

Opinion.

Section 10 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1030 provides that -

Where an Act confers power to make Regulations, all Reputations made accordingly shall, unless the contrary intention appears -

be notified in the Gazette;

take effect from the date of notifi cation, or from a later date specified in the Regulations; (c)be laid before each House of the Parliament within fifteen sitting days of that House after the making of the Regulations.

But if either House of the Parliament passes a resolution of which notice has been given at any time within fifteen sitting days after such regulations have been laid before such House disallowing any regulation such regulation shall thereupon cease to have effect.

The following are extracts from the Standing Orders of the Senate, in Chapter XXIX. headed “ Accounts, Papers, and Returns “ : - 358. Accounts and papers may be ordered to be laid upon the table . . 361. Other papers (namely, papers other than certain papers not material to the present question, which are obtained by an address presented to the GovernorGeneral) may be presented pursuant to Statute, by the President, or by Command of His Excellency the GovernorGeneral. 862. All Papers and Documents laid upon the Table of the Senate shall be considered public. 363. A document relating to public affairs quoted from by a Minister of the Crown, unless stated to bo of a confidential nature, or such as should more properly be obtained by Address, may be called for and made a public Document. 364. A Document quoted from by a Senator not a Minister of the Crown may be ordered by the Senate to be laid upon the Table; such Order may be made without Notice immediately upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator who has quoted therefrom.

I am asked to advise whether, when a Regulation has been made and gazetted, but not yet laid upon the Table by a Minister in accordance with the statute (the fifteen sitting days specified in the statute not having elapsed) -

1 ) it is in order for a Senator not a Minister of the Crown to move, under Standing Order 364, that the Regulation be laid upon the Table;

a resolution of the Senate (ofwhich noticehas been given or which has been passed before the regulations have been laid before the Senate pursuant to the Statute) disallowing the regulations, would be effective to cause the regulations to cease to have effect.

will deal first with the second question. Section 10 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1930 imposes a duty upon Ministers to lay a regulation before each House within the specified time; and also gives Ministers an absolute discretion as to the particular time, within the specified time, that duty shall be performed.

In my opinion the words “ laid before such House “, in the concluding paragraph of section 10. have reference to the laying of the Regulation before the House pursuant to the preceding provisions of the section - i.e., to the laying of theRegulations before the House by a Minister in pursuance of his statutory duty. In my opinion, therefore, a disallowing resolution, passed by the Senate before the Regulation has been laid before the Senate by a Minister in pursuance of the Statute, or of which notice has been given before the regulation has been so laid before the House, is not within the terms of the statute and is inoperative. My answer to the second question is therefore “ No “.

On this construction of the Statute, it becomes unnecessary to answer the first question. I would point out, however, that Standing Orders 363 and 364 are rules of debate. Standing Order 363 is based upon a rule of the British Parliament cited in May (13th Ed. ), page 328, that a Minister is not at liberty to quote from a state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table. Standing Order 364 is an extension of this rule to documents quoted by private members.

The purpose of the Rules is to prevent a document from being quoted in debate without giving members an opportunity to see the whole document. They do not contemplate the laying on the Table by a private member of a document which will in the ordinary course be laid on the table pursuant to Statute by a Minister.

I therefore think that there is strong ground for contending that Standing Order 304 does not apply to such a case as this.

  1. B. Garran

Solicitor-General. 26th March, 1931

In face of that clear opinion, it seems to me that it is merely a waste of time for the Senate to debate this motion. It can achieve no object.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– The suggestion that honorable senators are wasting time on this matter is unworthy of the Government or of any person holding executive office. The miserable tactics in which the Government is now engaging constitute one of the most deplorable instances in the history of the Commonwealth Parliament. They are a travesty of constitutional and parliamentary government, and I hurl the suggestion back in the teeth of the Leader of the Senate that the action of the Opposition is merely a waste of time. The Opposition is attempting to protect m;en who are guilty of nothing except loyalty to the awards of the Arbitration Court, which was properly constituted by this Parliament. Loyalty is a virtue that is probably unknown to some honorable senators opposite. The Opposition is using every means in its power, and will continue to do so, to bring relief to those oppressed loyalists by repealing the iniquitous regulations which the Government seeks to perpetuate. Recently, the Leader of the Government, with the petulance of a perturbed parrot, suggested that the Government would re-enact these regulations from day to day, if necessary. I contend that that is flouting parliamentary government, that it is subversive of constitutional principles, and will bring upon Parliament the contempt that it would so richly deserve if such a course were persisted in. Not only is it contrary to all authority, but to the very provisions of the statute under which the regulations were made. Although in the hurly-burly and heat of the war period certain decisions were given by an eminent predecessor of yours, Mr. President, it is obvious that Parliament never intended under the Acts Interpretation Act to relax its power of control over any statutory rules or regulations. It is apparent that “ within so many days after “ simply indicates that there is a limit of time within which Parliament must act; that otherwise it will be deemed to have sanctioned the regulations. This matter is a vital one from the Constitutional viewpoint: Whether Parliament is to hand over absolute power for a certain period to an executive which behaves itself as this one has.

Senator Daly:

– I rise to a point of of order. Is Senator McLachlan in order in reflecting upon the action of the Governor-General in Council?

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– I have not heard the honorable senator make any reflection upon the action of the Governor-General in Council.

Senator Daly:

– The honorable senator referred to the behaviour of the Executive, which, of course, includes His Excellency the Governor-General.

The PRESIDENT:

– I fail to see that the honorable senator’s remarks reflect upon any action of His Excellency the Governor-General.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– The Government seeks to shelter itself behind the robes of His Excellency. The Executive must take the responsibility for the action. His Excellency the GovernorGeneral acts pursuant to certain advice that is tendered to him. I resent any departure from precedence in this matter. The action of the Government is the outcome of a .revengeful petty spirit, and I propose to support the resolution. It is not that I believe for a moment that the efforts that have been made today and the divisions that have been called by the Government have been necessary. I submit that it is in the power of Parliament at any time, within the period fixed by the legislature, to disallow any regulation whether it is laid on the table of the House or not. I have ample authority to which to refer in support of that contention.

Senator DALY:
South Australia

– I approach this subject from the same angle as did Senator McLachlan.

I have no desire to see the Senate do anything which would amount to a travesty of government. I hope that honorable senators will not be led away by what they may consider to be the real issues in this conflict, but that they will view it from the constitutional aspect, as is expected of the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) first of all moved a certain resolution for the adjournment of the Senate. Then a certain document was called for and tabled. The motion now before the Senate does not expressly allege that that document is the regulation. It is very ingeniously worded to cover what might be a regulation, and what might be a disallowance of that regulation. As you said, sir, in that inimitable style for which you are noted when dealing with diplomatic problems, it is a matter for the courts of law to decide. I do not think that we should leave the law in a state of uncertainty. In urging the rejection of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, I am not appealing to the Senate to do anything more than they and their colleagues appealed to this party to do when Labour was in Opposition. I refer to the occasion when an attempt was made to disallow Statutory Rule 273 of 1916, under the “War Precautions Act 1914-16. I invite honorable senators to compare the opinion that was then given by Senator Pearce on a matter similar to that now engaging our attention. The late Senator Givens was in the chair, and’ the following is an extract from Hansard of 6th December, 1916 : -

Senator MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

. In moving “That Statutory Rule 273 of 1910, under the War Precautions Act 1914 10, be disallowed, I wish to say that one could entertain no reasonable objection to this particular rule-

Senator Pearce:

– I rise to a point of order. This statutory rule has not yet been laid on the table of the Senate, and, under the Acts Interpretation Act, the power of disallowing any such rule is given to either House of the Parliament in these words: -

And the honorable senator then quoted the section of the act. On the present occasion Senator Pearce was very careful not to bind himself to an actual motion for the disallowance of the statutory regulation. He moved for the disallowance of a document which, he said, purported to be a statutory regulation. I direct the attention of honorable senators to the Acts Interpretation Act, which I have already quoted to you, sir, also to the Rules Publication Act, which provides in certain cases for evidence of the publication of a regulation. I submit confidently that this motion is not for the disallowance of a regulation. A regulation has not been tabled. I entirely agree with the opinion given by Sir Robert Garran on the subject, and I hope that honorable senators will grant some weight to an opinion expressed by such an eminent constitutional authority.

Senator Johnston:

– Honorable senators were not told whose opinion it was. Senator Barnes merely told us it was an opinion supplied by the Crown Law authorities.

Senator DALY:

– I am sorry that I failed to enlighten them previously. I am sure that the Leader of the Senate will give the Senate an assurance that it is the opinion of Sir Robert Garran. That gentleman submitted that a document laid on the table in this form is not property laid on the table within the meaning of the Acts Interpretation Act. Unless it is properly laid upon the table of the Senate, it, obviously, cannot be disallowed by the course which the Senate proposes to adopt. Therefore, if that opinion is sound, the Senate will put itself into the ridiculous position that Senator McLachlan is so very anxious to avoid.

Senator McLachlan:

– The Government will do so, not the Senate.

Senator DALY:

– The Leader of the Senate has quoted the opinion of Sir Robert Garran, and Senator McLachlan, keen lawyer though he is, could not fault one sentence of it. I submit that it is the duty of senators to be satisfied that the regulation upon which the discussion centres is or is not a regulation properly laid upon the table of the Senate within the meaning of the Acts Interpretation Act. Having satisfied themselves on that point, there will be only one thing to do, and that is to reject the motion, unless Senator Pearce, having heard the opinion, has the courtesy to withdraw his motion and allow the Senate to proceed with more urgent business.

Senator PAYNE (Tasmania) [3.571.- I am almost tired of expressing surprise at the specious arguments advanced V

Senator Daly. He suggests, in this instance, that there are no such regulations in existence a3 those referred to; that no regulation has been laid upon the table of the Senate. The honorable senator entirely ignores the fact that the Government circulated these regulations among members of the Senate to-day. I received a copy in my locker in the Senate club room, through the agency of the Government. The regulations were not only published, but circulated among honorable senators. Yet Senator Daly dares to insinuate that no such, regulations have been tabled.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– If the honorable senator were right, the regulations cannot be operative until they are laid on the table. As a matter of fact they are operating to-day.

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

- Senator Daly knows that the document laid on the table to-day comprises the regulations to which exception was previously taken by a majority of honorable senators. I am only too glad to have the opportunity to express my absolute disgust at the attitude of the Government in setting at defiance the decisions of the Senate. That action of the Government justifies honorable senators making every endeavour to maintain the dignity of this chamber. Never previously in the history of Australia has a government stooped so low as to defy the decision of the Upper House in an important matter such as this. Honorable senators know that the regulations were originally introduced when Parliament was in recess, in order that they could operate without Parliament having an opportunity to deal with them. As soon as that opportunity presented itself, the Senate very definitely disallowed the regulations. Now the Government endeavours to repeat its previous action. Ti that sort of thing were countenanced, it could go on interminably. There must be an end to it. I shall always be prominent in voicing my disgust at any government descending to such tactics and endeavoring to force its will on the community in defiance of the wishes of Parliament.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [4.0]. - I cannot refrain from expressing my astonishment at the arguments employed by Senator Daly in defence of the Government’s action. Regulations dealing with the waterside workers were promulgated, and, in due course, came before this chamber, which disallowed them in the ordinary way. The Government then deliberately held its hand in order that it might act behind the backs of the representatives of the people in this chamber. It refrained from taking any action until Parliament was in recess. Then it made regulations and brought them into immediate operation. When Parliament resumed a few weeks ago the Government refrained, for a considerable period, from laying those regulations on the table. When they were tabled they were disallowed by the Senate. Immediately following their disallowance, regulations in the same terms were gazetted and brought into force again. Does Senator Daly stand for practices of that kind? Does he approve of the action of an administration which seeks to defeat wellknown principles of parliamentary government by taking away from the representatives of the people in Parliament any check upon the regulationmaking power of a government? In this country the only authority to make laws is the Parliament, elected by the people. But Parliament has power to delegate its authority in certain matters. It may delegate authority to the executive to make regulations, under specific conditions. There is no portion of the British Empire in which the delegation of this law-making power to the Government is as wide and as generous as in Australia. But this wide and generous provision imposes upon the Government the responsibility at all times to act honorably and decently. The moment that a government, by trick or. subterfuge, abuses that power, it brings itself into contempt, not only in the Parliament, but in the eyes of the people. The Acts Interpretation Act, under which this delegated power is given to the executive, provides that regulations shall be tabled in both Houses, and, if disallowed in either, 3hall thereupon cease to have effect. Parliament, I remind the Senate, pronounced upon certain regulations, which thereupon ceased to have effect. But the Government, in order to circumvent the

Senate, immediately re-enacted the regulations which had been disallowed, and brought them into force. By its action the Government virtually set itself above the people. It said, in effect, “ We do not care what the people say, or what the representatives of the people in Parliament say. We have this delegated power, and intend to use it. It is true that it was never given to a government to be abused in this fashion, but, having got it, we are going to keep it, and we do not care to what extent we abuse it.” Lt must be obvious to all who give the matter a moment’s thought, that the abuse of this power by a government means that the authority of Parliament, in regard to regulations is entirely abrogated and destroyed. If the action of this Government is to pass unchallenged, there will be no longer any power residing in either House of Parliament to render ineffective regulations made by governments. Does Senator Daly stand for that principle ?

Senator Daly:

– No.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– But that is the obvious inference to be drawn from the honorable senator’s argument.

Senator Daly:

– I said nothing of the sort.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– At all events, that is the position which we are asked to tolerate. I am not concerned with the point raised by the honor able senator as to whether the regulations have or have not been tabled.

Senator Daly:

-. - How can the Senate disallow regulations which have not been laid on the table?

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.The President has ruled that they have been tabled. That is sufficient for me. I go further and say that, if they have not been tabled by the Government, they ought to be. I add that, in not laying the regulations on the table immediately they were promulgated, this Government was guilty of a gross and grave abuse of its powers. The provision in section 10 of the Acts Interpretation Act is not designed to enable a government to sneak away from and defraud Parliament of its rights. It ia intended to give the Government a proper opportunity to do its work. The instruction that, regula tions made must be laid on the table of either house of the Parliament within 30 days means that the Government must table regulations at the earliest possible moment. Every decent government has at all times observed that practice. It has been the invariable rule, when regulations have been made during a recess, to place them on the table of either house immediately on the reassembling of Parliament. The regulations to which objection is now taken were withheld, not because if. was inconvenient to lay them on the table, but for the express purpose of muzzling the representatives of the people in this chamber. The action of the Government in this matter is contemptible, improper, and unjust.

Senator McLachlan:

– It also enables the Government to shelter the lawbreakers.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– 1 am not speaking of the merits of the regulations themselves; but I do condemn the Government for flouting the Senate by ignoring a cardinal principle of responsible government. Whatever may be the immediate outcome of this particular motion, I trust that the Senate will not allow the present session to continue much longer without taking the necessary steps to clip the wings of this Government. I hope that the Senate will make it absolutely clear that this delegated power was given on the definite understanding that a government would act decently. If this Government is not prepared to do the decent thing; if it is determined to abuse the wide power given to it we should amend the law so that a regulation made under it shall be again subject to the will of the representatives .of the people in either House of the Parliament. I hope that, by an amendment of the Acts Interpretation Act, the Senate will restrict this regulationmaking power of the Government. If in another place the Government chooses to use its majority to reject the amendment, the people will be informed of the true position. They will then realize that this Government disregards the principles of democratic government; that it seeks to be a law unto itself; that it will not tolerate any interference by the representatives of the people, and intends to do just what it likes. If the

Government takes up this attitude with regard to any amendment of the Acts Interpretation Act which may he made in this chamber, then the consequences will be on its own head. I intend to support the motion purely for the reason that the Government, in a most flagrant and abominable fashion and without a single precedent in the political history of Australia, has gravely abused this power which has been placed in its hands by the Parliament to make laws by way of regulations.

Senator DOOLEY:
Assistant Minister · New South Wales · ALP

– One point which appears to have been overlooked by honorable senators who support the motion is that a little over seventeen months ago this Government and its supporters were returned with a definite mandate to give effect to Labour’s industrial policy.

Senator McLachlan:

– One of the promises made was that the Government would repeal the Transport Workers Act.

Senator DOOLEY:

– It is safe to assume that if the members of this chamber had also been sent to the country at the last election the Government to-day would have had in this chamber sufficient supporters to ensure the adoption of its policy. It is alleged that the Government is flouting the will of the representatives of the people. I deny that, and assert, on the other hand, that the Senate, by disallowing regulations made by this Government under the Transport Workers Act, and by its attitude towards other Government measures, is flouting the will of a government that was returned with a definite mandate to pass certain legislation. Having in mind the political views held by the majority of members in this chamber, I assume that in promulgating the regulations referred to the Go- vernment decided to give effect to its policy without introducing a bill to repeal the act. I hope that the Government will continue in this course, and that if these regulations are disallowed it will re-enact them without delay. Senator Colebatch was not justified in his assertion that the Government was legislating by way of regulations behind the backs of the representatives of the people.

Senator Ogden:

– How else can its action be interpreted ?

Senator DOOLEY:

– I repeat that had there been a double dissolution when last we appealed to the people the Government would have had, in this chamber, a sufficient number of supporters to pass legislation sent up to it from another place. The Government is fully entitled to present legislation to give effect to its policy. The duty of this chamber is not to obstruct, but to assist the Government.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

Senator Colebatch declared, towards the end of his remarks, that the action of this Government with regard to these regulations was without precedent in the political history of Australia. Apparently the honorable gentleman was not so well informed on this subject as he usually is upon other matters. If he were he would have been familiar with the circumstances connected with the making of regulations under the War Precautions Act in 1916. At that time the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) was Minister for Defence. Certain regulations, promulgated on the 3rd November, 1916, were not tabled in the Senate until the 6th December, some considerable time after Parliament had re-assembled. In reply to criticism concerning the action of the Government the right honorable gentleman took exactly the opposite view to that which he takes to-day. In reply to Senator Mullan, he said -

The Government have 30 days within which to lay a regulation on the table of the Senate, and there are very good reasons for that rule.

If there were good reasons for the observance of the rule in 1916, there are equally good reasons to-day, because of the known intention of the Senate to prevent this Government from giving effect to its industrial policy, thereby taking out of the hands of the executive government power which has been specifically conferred upon it by Parliament. Honorable senators opposite are endeavouring to prove that they are the chosen of the people, and that to them the community must look for protection. I remind them that since most of them were elected to this chamber an appeal has been made to the electors, and that the party to which they belong »was overwhelmingly defeated. The result of that appeal placed a new government in power, with the result that the present Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) and his supporters took seats on the left side of the Chair instead of on the right as formerly. Honorable senators opposite know well that had they also sought the suffrages of the electors at that time, they would have been transferred not from one side of the chamber to the other, but from inside the chamber to places outside Parliament. They know these things; yet they desire to take the business of the country out of the hands of the Government. No amount of argument can alter that fact or controvert that principle.

Senator Foll:

– A more recent test has been applied in the Parkes electorate.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– If honorable senators opposite desire to take solace from the result of that election, they are welcome to do so. I remind them that an even more recent election took place in the East Sydney electorate, and that the result there was entirely different.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– I ask Senator O’Halloran not to pursue that line of argument further; it has no bearing on the subject before the Chair and, apparently, it is impossible for him to follow it without arousing the indignation of other honorable senators.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– The Parliament of the Commonwealth comprises two Houses. It is in another place, not here, that governments are made and unmade. The representation of parties in another place more truly represents the will of the people than does the representation of parties in the Senate. Why was not this motion moved in another place? The Opposition was afraid to do so. The matter was brought up in the Senate because the Opposition knew that it had the numbers to frustrate the Government’s desire to maintain peace on the waterfront, and to mete out justice to those unfortunate men who have been so maligned in this chamber recently. The action of honorable senators who have spoken harshly against waterside workers is the more strange when we reflect that many of them owe their position in this chamber to the financial and other assistance rendered them by waterside organizations. I know many of the waterside workers in South Australia to be as conscientious, loyal and efficient as are the workers in any other industry.

The action of the Leader of the Opposition in bringing forward this motion is merely another attempt to penalize ihe workers.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- Both in this chamber and outside, the Government has stated that it will continue to issue these regulations despite their disallowance by the Senate because of a mandate which it has received from the people. I deny that that is so. The Senate, which is representative of States as such, is more representative of the people than is another place. If the Government is so keen on effect being given to the will of the people, why does it not make an appeal to the electors? Only a small section of the community is affected by these regulations, yet all the powers of government are being used on their behalf. Every conceivable subterfuge is being resorted to by the Government to further their interests. The persons affected are where they are because of their own actions. The action of the Government in resorting to all these subterfuges is degrading. If the Government continues to use its executive power to defy the Senate, I am prepared to go to any length to bring it to a sense of its responsibility. The Senate has certain constitutional powers which it has every right to force the Government to recognize. Senators O’Halloran and Dooley said that for some time there has been peace on the waterfront. They cannot say that that is the result of these regulations having been gazetted. These regulations were not framed to bring about peace on the waterfront. It is true that there has been comparative peace on the waterfront for some time. It is also true that since volunteer workers took the place of members of the Waterside Workers Federation pillaging on the wharfs has decreased enormously. Prior to the employment of volunteer waterside workers, Australian ports were notorious for the pillaging that took place. I do not say that amongst the members of the wharf labourers’ unions there are not any honest men. Many of them are honest, worthy citizens, who for fear of victimization have been compelled to shut their eyes to what went on. The trouble is that the organization was used by gangs of thieves for the carrying out of their nefarious purposes. I have no doubt that the motion will be carried. Should the Government again gazette the regulations, the Senate would be justified in going to any length to assert its constitutional authority.

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

– Some very harsh things have been said regarding the action taken by the Government. One honorable senator described it as being “ low down “. Such terms do honorable senators no credit. Surely, honorable senators are capable of criticizing the Government without losing their tempers or using such language. The question arises whether the Government has the power to re-enact these regulations.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Only with the consent of the Senate.

Senator HOARE:

– In my opinion, the Government has merely exercised a power conferred on it by legislation passed during the Bruce-Page Government’s administration. I ask honorable senators who blame the Government for its action what they would do if the position were reversed. Would they then be so willing to “ take their gruelling like sports “ ? The Scullin Government has merely used the power given to the executive by Parliament.

Senator Thompson:

– The honorable senator means “ abused “.

Senator HOARE:

– Not at all. If the position were reversed, and a Nationalist Government was in office, Senator Thompson would take the stand now taken by the Scullin Government.

Senator Thompson:

– I would scorn to do so.

Senator HOARE:

– The question arises whether the Senate or another place is the more important branch of this legislature.

Opposition Members. - The Senate is.

Senator HOARE:

– I know that the Senate is Australia’s House of Lords. That admission may be some solace to honorable senators opposite. Nevertheless, another place is the house of the people. No Australian Parliament should engage in a vendetta against any set of individuals. Admittedly, the waterside workers were ill-advised in the action they took at one stage; but is that any reason why this Parliament should force them and their families to starve? Are we here to legislate for a small minority or for the people as a whole? As the result of action taken by the Bruce-Page Government to penalize members of the Waterside Workers Federation, the business community of Port Adelaide has been thrown into a state of confusion, and many of the traders in that seaport have been brought almost to a state of bankruptcy.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– But the work on the wharfs is being efficiently carried out.

SenatorO’Halloran. - A large amount of the money earned on the waterfront goes direct to Malta.

Senator HOARE:

– The money earned by many of the volunteers is not spent in Port Adelaide as was the case when the members of the Waterside Workers Federation, who live in the district, were working on the wharfs. In consequence of the legislation passed by the BrucePage Government many of the business people of Port Adelaide, who support the political policy of honorable senators opposite, have been practically ruined. Surely it is time that we studied this matter from a more humanitarian viewpoint, and realized that the members of the federation have been sufficiently punished.

Senator Sir JOHN NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– No one has been punished.

Senator HOARE:

– As a representative of South Australia Senator Newlands should know of the chaotic conditions which exist in Port Adelaide, and that many of his political supporters have been compelled to go out of business. It cannot be said that the Government is not acting within its right in issuing these regulations under an act on the statute-book. The Government has the power to issue regulations when Parliament is not in session and table them within a. specified period.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– If the Senate rejects a bill the Government has not the power to make it operative.

Senator HOARE:

– Statutes are on an entirely different basis. Regulations cover minor matters which cannot be specifically provided for in legislation. If a measure to repeal the Transport Workers Act were introduced into this chamber it would not be passed by the Opposition-

Senator Herbert Hays:

– But the party of which the senator is a member promised to repeal it.

Senator HOARE:

– While the Act remains operative the Government has power to issue regulations under it. It is time Parliament recognized that the members of the Waterside Workers Federation should not be further persecuted.

Senator Ogden:

– But they brought the trouble upon themselves.

Senator HOARE:

– That might be said of criminals who have been released after serving their sentences.

Senator Sir John Newlands:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that those who have obeyed the awards of the Court should starve?

Senator HOARE:

– A few years ago the honorable senator would not speak in that strain. As a member of the Labour party I intend to support the policy of preference to unionists on which I was elected.

Senator Ogden:

– Preference to unionists is tyrannous.

Senator HOARE:

– The honorable senator was elected to this chamber as a supporter of the policy of preference to unionists. That policy has been consistently supported by the Labour party in an endeavour to give the members of trades union organizations reasonable wages and a decent standard of living. Men who are not prepared to contribute towards the cost of obtaining an award of the Arbitration Court, from which they benefit, are not worthy of much consideration.

Senator Ogden:

– Do not the members of the federation obtain a share of the work ?

Senator HOARE:

– At Port Adelaide they receive only a small percentage. When these regulations are disallowed too much power is placed in the hands of the ship-owners.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The shipowners want only efficient service.

Senator HOARE:

– The ship-owners made an appeal to the High Court in order to retain the services of volunteer labourers. They questioned the validity of these regulations, but were unsuccessful.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– They did not obtain cheap labour.

Senator HOARE:

– At Port Adelaide the ship-owners inaugurated a daily wage system, under which the men were paid a rate below that paid to the waterside workers. The Government is justified in framing these regulations, and I trust that they will not be disallowed.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- The argument of the Government Whip (Senator Hoare), who suggests that because the men working on the waterfront at Port Adelaide do not live in the vicinity of the port the regulations should be allowed, is illogical. As Senator Hays mentioned by interjection, the work on the waterfront is at present being efficiently carried out. It is ridiculous to suggest that regulations should be framed, merely because those who reside in Port Adelaide are not getting all the work. If the volunteers working on the waterfront at Port Adelaide or the Outer Harbour prefer to live at Glenelg, or some other attractive suburb in the State, they should not be prevented from working on the wharfs. Since the Transport Workers Act, which provides for the licensing system, came into operation, there has been a complete cessation of those industrial upheavals, which were continually occurring at practically every port in the Commonwealth. The Transport Workers Act was not passed for the purpose of excluding members of the Waterside Workers Federation, but in order to ensure peace on the waterfront at a time when. Australia was threatened with a big industrial upheaval.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The members of the Waterside Workers Federation refused to work under an award of the Arbitration Court.

Senator FOLL:

– Yes, in defiance of the directions of their leaders. The only crime committed by the men the Government now seeks to throw out of employment was that of obeying an award of the court. The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) in referring to these men used the obnoxious term “ scabs.” It was a nice term for our first citizen to employ in reference to men whose only crime was that they abided by an award of the Arbitration Court, a tribunal which, according to the honorable senator who has just resumed his seat, the present Government is pledged to uphold.

Senator Daly knows from his experience in South Australia that the only reason why the volunteer section of the waterside workers was not registered under the Arbitration Act was the dilly dallying of the registrar of the Arbitration Court. It was Senator Daly who tried to bring about the registration of the breakaway section of the union.

Senator Daly:

– The honorable senator is probably mixing the application by a breakaway section of the seamen’s union with that of the waterside workers.

Senator FOLL:

– I thought the application made by the honorable senator for the men under Mr. Tom Walsh covered every other section of the waterfront workers. I am sorry that I have misrepresented the honorable senator. But undoubtedly the men who obeyed the court’s award are now known as the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union, and the purpose of these regulations is to deprive them of work.

I want to show that work on the waterfront is now being carried out faithfully and well. In North Queensland it is certainly being carried out more expeditiously and at a lower cost than it was prior to the passing of the Transport Workers Act. The primary producers have reaped the benefit, and there has been less pilfering. According to Senator O’Halloran, the purpose of these new regulations is to ensure peace on the waterfront. What was the position in Queensland prior to the passing of the Transport Workers Act? Every year, just at harvest time when it was necessary to get sugar away to the refineries in the south, there was a strike in practically all the northern parts of Queensland. The people of Bowen depend largely on the fruit and tomatoes that they can send away to the south. Their season lasts for about three months. Prior to the passing of this act there was always a strike when the farmers were ready to get their produce away. They had either to face ruin or pay heavy transport charges by sending their fruit and tomatoes south by train. It is only in recent years that there has been a train service available to them. Two or three years ago the position became so desperate in the North Queensland ports that sugar-farmers in the Cairns district and many members of the Australian Workers Union, timber-getters and others on the Atherton tableland, were obliged to combine into an army for their mutual protection. They entrained for Cairns and cleaned up the waterfront there. They afforded protection to men who were prepared to load sugar, timber, and produce into ships at the wharf. Previously, there had been upheaval after upheaval in Cairns, but, fortunately, the moderates among the federation men eventually came out on top. Work is now proceeding peacefully at Cairns. In Bowen it was necessary for the mayor of the town to organize the whole of the townspeople. They marched down to the wharf and voluntarily did the loading and unloading of cargo in order that their businesses might not be ruined. Such was the state of affairs in practically every port of Australia prior to the coming into force of the Transport Workers Act when the Waterside Workers Federation had absolute control on the waterfront, and it continued until men, whom the Prime Minister now describes as “ scabs “, came to the assistance of industry and agreed to abide by the awards of the Arbitration Court. Since then the work of the waterfront has been carried on continuously, but prior to that there was no peace in the transport industry, and the primary producer had no assurance that ho could get his produce to market.

It is useless for honorable senators opposite, one after another, to plead the cause of the members of the Waterside Workers Federation as against the men who are working on the wharves at the present time. I quite agree with Senator Reid that there are probably thousands of men in the Waterside Workers Federation who were not in sympathy with the action taken by the executive of the federation, and I think that some honorable senators opposite expressed disapproval of the action of that executive in not abiding by the award of the Arbitration Court. But when we know that men have been working peacefully on the waterfront, and that they have reduced pillaging to practically nothing, and have given continuity of service, why should we sacrifice them by throwing them out of their jobs? I do not propose to do so, nor do I propose to place the primary producers of North Queensland once more in danger of being brought nearly to ruin season after season by handing over the control of the waterside work to the members of the Waterside Workers Federation.

Senator Dooley:

– Does the honorable senator propose to ask the primary producers of North Queensland to pay for the necessary police protection?

Senator FOLL:

– There will be no need for police protection for volunteers in North Queensland. Primary producers, business people and citizens of the northern ports, who have had a bitter experience in the past, are quite prepared to provide all the protection necessary to enable the volunteers to carry on their work on the waterfront.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– As this subject has been threshed out in the Senate on several occasions I do not intend to say anything upon the question of the disallowance or otherwise of these regulations. I have risen merely to give a few figures to show how the cost of loading and unloading of vessels has been brought down since the Transport Workers Act has been in force. We should regard this matter from the point of its effect on the prosperity of the country; because only by bringing down costs of production can we compete in the world’s market and restore prosperity to Australia. The figures I have relate to general stevedoring charges at Townsville, Bowen, and Mackay. The cost of discharging cargo at Townsville, in 1927, prior to the passing of the Transport Workers Act, was 13s. 8d. per ton. In 1928, during which year the act was in operation for three months only, this charge was reduced to 13s., but in 1929, when the full effect of the regulations made under the act was felt by the late Government, the cost fell to11s.1d. per ton. The figures in regard to Bowen show an enormous reduction. In 1927, the cost of loading sugar was 8s. 2d. per ton. In 1929, when the regulations were in operation for three months only, the cost was reduced to 5s. 1.8d. per ton, but in 1929, when the regulations were in force for the whole twelve months, the cost of loading was only 2s. 5.6d. per ton. Compare that with 8s. 2d. per ton. in 1928. I have not the figures in regard to frozen meat for 1927, but for 1928, when the regulations were in force for three months only, the cost was 18s.1d. per ton, whereas in 1929, when the full effect of the new regulations was felt, it was only 10s. 6d. per ton. For general cargo, which includes tallow, hides, &c, the cost of loading was 12s.8d. in 1928, and 4s. 5d. in 1929. These figures speak for themselves.

Senator O’Halloran:

– By how much has the price of sugar been reduced as a result of those reduced costs?

Senator COOPER:

– I think that a full report on the sugar question is to be tabled shortly. When we have that report we shall probably have an opportunity to discuss the point raised by the honorable senator. I am merely indicating what good has been done by putting into force the regulations made by the previous Government under the Transport Workers Act. It is quite possible, however, that if the regulations issued by the present Government come into force, we shall go back again to the old costs of loading, although every Government in Australia to-day is crying out for a reduction in the costs of production and an increase in employment. The operation of the Transport Workers Act reduced costs, and increased employment. For those reasons I shall do all in my power to oppose the re-enactment of regulations which would bring about a retrogression to the state of affairs which existed before the Transport Workers Act was introduced.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put. The Senate divided. (President - Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill.)

AYES: 21

NOES: 5

Majority . . . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

page 642

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills re ported : -

Post and Telegraph Rates Bill.

Wire Export Bounty Bill 1931.

page 642

QUESTION

DUTY ON OREGON

Is it a fact that, on the occasion of a deputation to the Minister for Trade and Customs on 2nd July, 1930, asking for an increase in the customs duty on Oregon timber, assurances were given that, if the request were complied with, it would result in an immediate increase in employment in the timber industry even up to 3,000 men?

Was the request complied with?

Has the increased employment in the industry resulted?

If so, where, and to what extent?

Is it a fact that the increase in the duties caused increased unemployment in Adelaide and/or other centres of the timber-milling industry?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– Information is being obtained.

page 642

QUESTION

PRICE OF GALVANIZED IRON

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that the price of galvanized iron has been further increased in Western Australia?
  2. What steps have been taken to relieve the people of Western Australia from exploitation in regard to the price of this commodity ?
  3. What is the difference between the retail prices of galvanized iron in (a) Sydney, and (b) Perth ?
  4. Will the Government take steps to establish a uniform price for galvanized iron in all the State capitals?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

– Information is being obtained.

page 642

QUESTION

PAPER-PULP INDUSTRY

Senator OGDEN:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government given consideration to the question of encouraging the establishment of the paper-pulp industry?
  2. Will Parliament have an opportunity of considering any such proposal during the present session?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

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

  1. The Government arranged for Mr. H. W. Gepp, consultant to the Commonwealth Government, and Mr. I. H. Boas. Chief of the Forests Products Division, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, jointly to inquire into the economic, possibilities of the paper pulp industry.
  2. It is expected that the report will be available next month, when the Government will give consideration as to what further action is desirable. Any immediate action will depend upon the passage of financial legislation now before Parliament.

page 642

QUESTION

HOBART-SYDNEY STEAMSHIP SERVICE

Senator OGDEN:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has a request been made to the Government for a continuance of the subsidy now being paid towards a steamship service between Hobart and Sydney?
  2. Is it proposed to continue such subsidy?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

– Negotiations are proceeding in this matter.

page 642

OILFROM COAL

SenatorFOLL asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What action does the Government propose to take concerning the recommendations made in Dr. Rivett’s report on the question of production of oil from coal?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The Government is at present giving consideration to the recommendations made in Dr. Rivett’s report, and it is expected that a decision will be reached at an early date. Any immediate action will depend upon the passage of financial legislation now before Parliament.

page 643

QUESTION

MIGRATION

Collection of Passage Money

Senator PAYNE:

asked theVicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

What amount has been collected from the 1st July, 1930, to date by the Western Australian State Government migration authorities in respect of moneys owing to the Government for advances to migrants by way of loan for passage money, &c. ?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The amount collected from the 1st July, 1930, to the 23rd March, 1931, by the Western Australian Government migration authorities in respect of moneys owing to the Government for advances to migrants by way of loans for passage money, &c, was £6,343.

page 643

QUESTION

PENSIONS TO EX-IMPERIAL MEN

Senator COOPER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that pensions granted to ex-Imperial service men resident in Australia are paid by the British Government to the Commonwealth Government, and through the medium of the Repatriation Department to the individual ?
  2. Considering that this pension money is virtually earned in Great Britain, does the pensioner in Australia get the benefit of the exchange; if not, will the Government carefully consider the granting of the benefit of the exchange to these imperial pensioners?
Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. An officer of the British Ministry of Pensions is on his way to Australia to discuss the matter with the Commonwealth authorities.

page 643

TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT REGULATIONS

Notice of motion by Senator Sir George Pearce - by leave - withdrawn.

page 643

DISTILLATION BILL

Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives and (on motion by Senator Barnes) read a first time.

page 643

FIDUCIARY NOTES BILL

Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives and (on motion by Senator Barnes) read a first time.

page 643

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL

Appointmentof Managers.

Bill having been returned from the House of Representatives on the 17th December, 1930, with a message (vide page 1623) requesting a conference -

Motion (by Senator Barnes) agreed to-

That the desire of the House of Representatives for a conference on the bill for an act to amend the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 191 0-1926, and forother purposes communicated in message No. 134 of the House, be complied with, and that the following senators be appointed managers of the conference, namely: Senators Barnes, Dooley, Daly, McLachlan, and Carrol!.

page 643

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (bySenator Barnes) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Wednesday, the 15th April next at 3 p.m.

page 643

ADJOURNMENT

Bruce-Page Government Finance

Administration - Statement by Mr. Theodore- Assistance to Wheatgrowers.

Motion (by Senator Barnes) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I propose to comment briefly on the reply given by the Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) through the Leader of the Senate, to a statement I made on the 19th March, regarding newspaper reports of a speech delivered by Mr. Theodore at a public meeting in the Cremorne Theatre, Brisbane, on the 14th instant. I said that he was reported in the newspapers to have made certain statements which were grossly misleading, and I was fortified by the fact that at least three persons had told me that they had heard those statements by wireless. I brought the matter before the Senate, and the Treasurer, through the Leader of the Government, said that his statement was not as reported in the newspapers, but was in the terms of a speech he had made in another place on the 12th March. I have consulted the report of that speech in Hansard, and have also taken the trouble to refer to the reports in the Brisbane newspapers of the public meeting on the 14th March. I quote, first, from the report of Mr. Theodore’s speech published in the Daily Standard, which, I understand, is a Labour journal -

The six years of the Bruce-Page Government, 1923-29, had been a period of extravagance, wasteful expenditure and reckless exploitation of overseas loan markets, which had made Commonwealth credit a by-word. In their last three years of office the Bruce-Page Government had borrowed ?129,000,000 in London and New York. This money had come to Australia in the form of goods and was the cause of the present depression and unemployment.

The Sunday Mail report was -

Mr. Theodore dealt with the Bruce Page Government which, he said, had been wantonly extravagant with wasteful expenditure and reckless exploitation of the overseas money market. In its last three years that Government had raised from London and New York ?129,000,000 of loan money, which resulted in the consequences Australia was suffering from to-day, and which left an empty Treasury.

In his reply to questions asked by Senator Glasgow, the Treasurer stated explicitly that the total of the overseas debt, incurred for Commonwealth purposes, during the three-year period mentioned, was ?4,500,000, not ?129,000,000 as alleged by him in his address in Brisbane. It appears that one must speak plainly in this matter, if the people of Australia are to be informed of the true position. lt is extraordinary that a man occupying the high and honorable position of Treasurer of the Commonwealth, should endeavour, by misrepresentation, to inflict a deadly blow upon political opponents who, for the most part, are always prepared to deal fairly with the Government and its supporters. The honorable gentleman must have known that his statement in Brisbane would mislead the people. He should be condemned in the strongest language, because it is generally understood that, as the result of such statements, which it is not always possible to refute promptly, Australia is in its present position, largely owing to the borrowing and financial policy of the Bruce-Page Administration. But, as I have shown, the figures supplied by the Treasurer himself to Senator Glasgow, give the lie direct to any such suggestion. The Treasurer also admitted, in his reply to Senator Glasgow, that the bulk of the money borrowed by the Bruce-Page Government was raised on behalf of the several State Governments. The amount required for purely Commonwealth purposes was comparatively small. Furthermore, the sum of ?20,000,000 was paid off the overseas debt, thus making the net increase, for Commonwealth purposes, ?4,500,000. It was necessary that I should again refer to the statement of the Treasurer because he endeavoured to make honorable senators believe that, when speaking in Brisbane, he merely repeated what he had said on the floor of the House. If that were so, all I can say is that the Brisbane newspapers reported him incorrectly and those who heard his address over the air evidently failed to understand what he said. I did not quote extracts from the reports in the other Brisbane newspapers, but in essence they agreed with the report which appeared in the Labour journal. I take this, the earliest opportunity available to me, to again place before the people of Australia, the true position, and conclude by saying that it is not fair, even in politics, for the representative of any party to make public statements which are absolutely untrue.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I protest as strongly as possible against the action of the Government in adjourning Parliament for a period of nearly three weeks without first passing legislation to provide for immediate financial relief to be given to the wheat-growers of Australia. It is incredible that any government with a sense of its responsibility to our primary producers, upon whom the prosperity of Australia so largely depends, should give the wheat-growers a definite promise of assistance and then agree, in the middle of this week’s sitting, to a lengthy adjournment in order that the Ministers and their supporters may attend a labour conference in Sydney. Our wheatgrowers should receive assistance at the earliest possible moment. They should have been in a position to purchase superphosphates at least a month ago, because in some of the earlier districts in my State farmers are already carrying out seeding operations. Unless help is forthcoming promptly, thousands of farmers will he unable to purchase superphos- phates this year. A great number are in actual need of sustenance. They were led to believe that they would receive a bonus on production this year. Immediately Parliament re-assembled, I brought their desperate plight under the notice of the Government. Since then honorable senators have attended regularly the sittings of the Senate in the hope that legislation for the assistance of the farmers would be sent up from another place, but up to the present we have been disappointed. It also appears that the bill which is being debated elsewhere, provides only for n bonus of 6d. per bushel on the exportable surplus. This will work out at about 4£d. per bushel on the total production. But the point which I wish to impress on the Government is that, from the point of view of encouraging next year’s wheat production, £1 worth of assistance given to our wheat-farmers to-day, would be worth £5 worth of help given a couple of months hence. The State Governments are anxious to assist the growers, but unfortunately they have not the means. Therefore, this Government should use every endeavour to give effect to its promise to do so. In addition to the £3,500,000 to be paid by way of bounty on export the Government proposes under a bill now before another place to make available £2,500,000 for distribution by the State Governments for necessitous farmers who

Deed fertilisers to put iu their crop. Some such help as this is required if our wheat production is to be maintained. When the Wheat Bill introduced in the other House was being considered the Leader of the Country party (Dr. Earle Page), suggested that the money should be raised from the Commonwealth Bank, the loan to be secured by a sales tax on flour. We do not care whether the Perkins plan is adopted, and a sales tax of £7 4s. a ton imposed, or whether a smaller tax of £2 10s. is decided upon. Even a tax of £2 10s. would be sufficient to pay off the whole loan, interest and principle, in three or four years, and should not make it necessary to increase the price of bread. Dr. Earle Page intimated that his party was prepared to support the bill, without prejudice to its declared hostility to a fiduciary note issue. As soon as it became evident that the bill was likely to receive the generous support of members of all parties the Government shelved it. I maintain that we are not doing a fair thing by the farmers if we adjourn Parliament now for nearly three weeks without first passing the Wheat Bill. In all the wheat-growing States of Australia the farmers are in urgent need of the assistance that has been so often promised them. In Western Australia, at least 8,000 farmers are in a desperate plight at the present time. They need a full bonus of at least 6d. a bushel on this year’s production to meet the most urgent of their obligations. Many of them were put on new land, which they had to mortgage to its fullest capacity in order to make it productive. The State instrumentalities are unable to carry them any longer, and they need money, not only to put in this year’s crop, but, in many cases, for actual sustenance. We naturally expect that the Government, which urged them to grow more wheat, and which last December had a bill passed through Parliament guaranteeing them 3s. a bushel at the port of export, should now keep some of the promises it has made. It is evident that the Government, in seeking this adjournment now, is preparing once more to abandon the farmers to their fate. Western Australian members of this Senate have gladly come 2,500 miles to attend the sittings of Parliament in the hope that legislation to assist the wheatfarmers would be put before them, but during the past three weeks the time of the Senate has been wasted on unimportant measures. Although to-morrow is a regular sitting day both Houses are adjourning this afternoon, and I venture to prophesy that a number of Ministers will be present at the Federal Labour Conference in Sydney to-morrow. I further prophesy that some Ministers, probably including the Treasurer (Mr. Theodore), will be head-hunting for some Labour members of this chamber, who only a few weeks ago were working strenuously to secure the reinstatement of the Treasurer in the Cabinet. I protest against such things going on when Ministers should be here attending to urgent business.

Senator Hoare:

– Does not the honorable senator think that members of the Senate should be able to get home for Easter ?

Senator JOHNSTON:

– No, not ifit involves the neglect of legislation of such importance to the farmers, and to Australia as a whole.

Senator Barnes:

– It is a pity that the honorable senator did not feel that way when the Government proposed to guarantee the wheat-farmers 4s. a bushel.

Senator JOHNSTON:

– The Federal Government made no such proposal. It was not likely that Western Australian members should consent to the proposal brought forward under which that State was to be saddled with the Liability for half of any loss incurred. This was the first time in thirty years of federation that Western Australia was to receive any assistance for her industries, and then it was attached to an impossible condition. Ever since federation Western Australia has been contributing to the support of the industries carried on in the bloated cities of the eastern States. The Government’s proposal was dishonest, unfair and unjust. If it had been reasonable we should have given it our unmeasured support.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– The scheme would have cost Western Australia £2,500,000 at least.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– That is so. In December last the Government introduced a bill to provide for a guarantee of 3s. a bushel for wheat. That bill passed both houses, and it was generally understood that the amount of the guarantee would be paid to the farmers. That, however, was not done.

Senator Hoare:

– The Government’s efforts were frustrated by the Commonwealth Bank Board, which was appointed by the Bruce-Page Government.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– The Labour Government re-appointed Sir Robert Gibson, and very properly so. Any one of the previous governments which, during the 30 years of federation, have occupied the Treasury bench could, without difficulty, have found the money for the payment of that guarantee. The present Government could not find it because of a general lack of confidence in its administration. A great mistake was made by the Labour party when it forced Messrs. Fenton and Lyons out of its ranks. During the absence of the Prime Minister in England, when the present Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) was a private member, Mr. Fenton and Mr. Lyons as Acting-Prime Minister and ActingTreasurer respectively, appealed for a loan of £28,000,000. So great was the confidence in their integrity that the loan was over subscribed. Later, however, when disastrous changes in the personnel of the Ministry were made, the Government found that it could not borrow the comparatively small sum of £6,000,000 with which it had hoped to pay a bounty on wheat, and assist necessitous farmers. It is time that a government so unworthy of confidence tendered its resignation. Particularly in the office of Treasurer there should be a man in whom the people have confidence. Financial institutions, as well as private individuals, would be prepared tolend sufficient money to assist necessitous farmers, and to pay the bounty if only there was in power a government worthy of their confidence.

The inability of the Government to borrow money resulted in the introduction into another place of certain legislation for the creation of a fiduciary note issue. That legislation would not be necessary if confidence in the administration were restored. No other government has over had to make the confession of failure that the present Government has made ; no other government has ever had to admit its inability to raise a shilling.

Even to-day the Government of Western Australia would have no difficulty in obtaining money to assist the wheatfarmers of that State were it not handicapped by the shackles that federation has forged. Before Western Australia entered into a financial agreement “with the other States and the Commonwealth, the Government of that State had no difficulty in obtaining funds in London on better terms than were granted to the Commonwealth.

Before the Senate meets again the farmers will have commenced putting in their crops. They should have been supplied with superphosphates a month ago. I protest against the callous action of the Government in adjourning Parliament for nearly three weeks without first having dealt with the Wheat Bill.

Senator Hoare:

– Why did not the honorable senator protest earlier?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I have taken the first opportunity to register my protest. I have done my best to hasten the passing of the “Wheat Bill. It is evident that the Government is not greatly concerned about the needs of the farmers. It is regrettable that their difficulties and vicissitudes have again been made thr plaything of party politics.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- At an earlier hour the Leader of the Senate (Senator Barnes) laid on the table two reports on the sugar industry, and one by Dr. Rivett dealing with the hydrogenation process of extracting fuel from coal. I should like to have the Minister’s assurance that those very valuable reports will be made available to honorable senators. I am aware that, in the interests of economy, many reports are not now printed; but, in my opinion, these reports are of sufficient importance to justify their being printed.

I desire also to refer to an answer given to-day to a question relating to one of these reports. The Minister said that the Government’s action would depend largely on what happened to its financial legislation. I assure the Leader of the Senate that, if the Government acts more or less on the lines of Dr. Rivett’s report, it will cost little, if anything, to give effect to the recommendations. I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Rivett in London, and I know something of his investigations, both in England and in Germany, regarding the extraction of fuel oil from coal. If the Government would make the position clear to companies such as British Industrial Chemicals Limited, and the German company that is interested in the production of this fuel, there would be no difficulty in inducing them to establish works here, provided legislation to ensure the consumption of their fuel in Australia were guaranteed. Representations were made to certain financial groups in London when I was there, and a friend assured me that, if an undertaking could be given, either by State or Federal Governments, that every assistance would be forthcoming in the protection of their capital, large sums could be obtained overseas for the development of this important industry. I do not favour State enterprise; but I advise the Government to get into touch with the overseas group, which, Ibelieve, is anxious to extend its operations to Australia, particularly in view of our failure to discover flowing oil.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– If, in tabling the reports on the sugar industry, the Minister laid both the majority and the minority reports on the table, I join in the request of Senator Foll that both should be made available to honorable senators. If printed copies cannot be supplied, they might be made available in roneo style.

Senator BARNES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP

– I understand that the usual procedure is to make such reports available to honorable senators, and I shall do my best to see that they are supplied with copies of them. In reply to Senator Payne, I may say that it is difficult for an honorable senator to defend himself against a member in another place, and vice versa; but a deliberate statement by a member of either House should be accepted in preference to newspaper reports, which are often very inaccurate. I may inform Senator Johnston that he will have ample opportunity, after the Easter adjournment, to give all the assistance possible to wheatfarmers and others. I can remember the time when he was not so enthusiastic as he now appears to be in his desire to assist the farmers. A few months ago the Government endeavoured to guarantee them 4s. a bushel for their wheat, but the honorable senator voted against the measure. A day or two afterwards he received a telegram from Western Australia on the subject, and this brought him to the penitent form.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Why delay action for three weeks?

Senator BARNES:

– The Government thought that it was considering the convenience of honorable senators by adjourning fora sufficient period to enable them to visit their homes during the Easter holiday season.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at5.57 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 March 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1931/19310326_senate_12_128/>.