Senate
5 June 1952

20th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 20th Parliament
  3. 1952

The President (Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner) took the chair at 11.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1445

QUESTION

IMPORTS

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs inform the Senate of the quantities and categories of goods and materials that have been imported into Australia from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the last twelve mouths?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I shall obtain that information for the honorable senator.

page 1445

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

– By way of explanation of a question that I shall direct to the Minister for Civil Aviation, I point out that some departments have not yet received instructions that air warrants should be left open. This morning I received a warrant for air travel by Trans-Australia Airlines. On asking the issuing officer whether I could present it for travel by another airline, I was informed that no instruction had been received by his department to vary the original instruction that all airwarrants should be made out on TransAustralia Airlines. Will the Minister cause instructions to be issued to all departments that air warrants should be left open, to enable the recipients to travel by whatever airline they prefer?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Civil Aviation.

Senator McLEAY:

– On the 28th May, Senator Armstrong asked the following question : -

In view of the fact that the Australian Government has now directed that a very substantia) portion of Commonwealth business hitherto handled by Trans-Australia Airlines be transferred to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, will the Government direct that Australian National Airwavs Proprietary Limited shall become, like Trans-Australia Airlines, a “ common carrier “ and so give to the public the same rights, protection and services as are extended by TransAustralia Airlines, which is a “ common carrier “

The Minister for Civil Aviation has now supplied me with the following information : -

There is considerable doubt whether the Commonwealth has the necessary power to direct private airlines to operate as common carriers and it appears that in the past proposals to achieve this result have been abandoned for legal reasons. However, I am having the question examined by the appropriate departments.

Senator McLEAY:

– On Tuesday last, Senator Cormack asked the following question : -

Will the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation inform me whether priorities exist for travel on the government-owned airline - I mean Trans-Australia Airlines - and whether the company has the right to off-load passengers at intermediate airports? I have been prompted to ask these questions because ol an incident that occurred recently. A citizen of this country who was the only passenier on an aircraft travelling from Sydney to Melbourne was put off for accommodation on another aircraft that was proceeding to Melbourne via Cnrnwa. most of the passengers being members of Parliament.

The Minister for Civil Aviation has now supplied me with the following information : -

No priorities exist for air travel on TransAustralia Airlines or any other airline as far as I am aware. With regard to off-loading

Sassengers, condition No. 7, as stated on the back of Trans-Australia Airline’s passenger ticket, issued to and accepted by the passenger, reads: “ Trans- Australia Airlines reserves the Tight to substitute without notice any othei aircraft at any intermediate stopping place and all the conditions of this ticket shall remain applicable to such substituted carriage “.

page 1446

QUESTION

VEGOLYSEN

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– On the 28th May, Senator Cole asked the following question . -

Will the Minister representing the Minister for Health have further investigations made with a view to having placed on the list of life-saving drugs the drug vegolysen? This drug is used for special cases of blood pressure, and the demand for it would not be great, but it would be of great help to pensioners who are in need of the drug if they were able to obtain it free of cost.

The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: - The question of including vegolysen in the list of pharmaceutical benefits has already been referred to an expert committee for advice. After careful consideration of available evidence the committee has expressed its opinion that this is not a suitable drug for inclusion in the list.

page 1446

QUESTION

NAVIGATIONAL AIDS

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

– Last year I asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether he would inquire into the possibility of improving navigational facilities on the Australian coast by the installation of additional radio beacons at various points. I now ask the Minister whether he has anything further to report in regard to the matter ? ‘

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– Three beacons were provided in Bass Strait in 1941. These have proved to be useful to aviation as well as shipping. Aeronautical and marine beacons are technically similar, and it has been found that ships can make extensive use of the air beacons. It would be foolish to duplicate these services unnecessarily. In a notice to mariners issued in 1948 by the Hydrographic Branch of the Department of the Navy, 64 air beacons were listed as being of value to shipping. Thirty-six of them are on or near the coast. The British Admiralty list of radio signals also includes 36 air beacons in Australia that are useful as navigational aids for ships. It is not proposed to rely entirely upon air beacons for future radio aids to shipping. One marine radio beacon is under construction by Commonwealth engineers at Troughton Island, on the north-west coast, and tenders have been called for the construction of two additional beacons, at Cape Leeuwin, Western

Australia, and at Cape Borda, South Australia. It was intended to provide a beacon at Gabo Island, Victoria, but aviation plans in that area led to the postponement of the proposal. It should be remembered that navigation on the Australian coast is not difficult compared with navigation in other areas of the world where greater developments have taken place in the installation of radio beacons. Like most other projects, the installation of radio navigational aida must proceed in stages, and progress is dependent on the funds and materials that can be made available from time to time.

page 1447

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator PIESSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General inform the Senate of the number of rural automatic telephone exchanges that are being completed in the country districts of Western Australia during the financial year 1951-52? For how many rural exchanges in Western Australia has the Postal Department the necessary equipment for installation during the financial year 1952-53? Will the PostmasterGeneral consider reducing the costs of telegrams and the charges for trunk-line telephone calls, to increase the use of both facilities and thus increase revenue to his department ?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I am unable to supply offhand the figures sought by the honorable senator. I shall bring his questions to the notice of the PostmasterGeneral and ask that replies be furnished as soon as possible.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General inform the Senate of the price that was paid by the Postmaster-General’s Department for the building in Launceston, Tasmania, which previously belonged to Wilcox Mofflin Proprietary Limited, and which was purchased by the department for use as an automatic exchange. What plans have been made to give effect to the recommendations of the Public Works Committee to house the automatic exchange in that building, and to use it to provide offices for the department in Launceston ?

Senator COOPER:

– I am not able to state the price offhand that was paid for the building that the honorable senator has mentioned. I shall ask the Postmaster-General to let me have a considered reply to the honorable senator’s question.

page 1447

QUESTION

KOREA

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. More than a year ago, when war was declared in Korea, both the Australian Labour party and the Liberal party endorsed the action taken by the United Nations. We were told that, politically, the objective of the participation of United Nations forces in the Korean conflict was to ensure that South Korea should not be overrun by the North Korean forces and that the regime of Syngman Rhee in South Korea should be preserved. Since then, particularly during the last two weeks, an extraordinary situation has developed. President. Truman has intervened-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator must ask his question.

Senator GRANT:

– In view of the fact that President Syngman Rhee has been deserted by the South Korean vicepresident and is unable to form a cabinet, should the United Nations maintain a political situation which is most detrimental to their interests? Is the Minister able to give me any information about our political aims in South Korea ? If he is not in a position to do so, will he confer with the Minister for External Affairs in order that persons who are really interested in this matter might have their fears allayed? I hope that the Minister will not accuse me of being a Communist because I have raised this subject. It appears to me that the events in South Korea have come as a great shock to many people and must be most beneficial to Russia and its allies.

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I should have thought that it would be clear to most people by this time that the purpose of the United Nations in Korea is to withstand Communist aggression. That is the task which has been undertaken. It is entirely distinct from the difficulties which have arisen during the last few weeks in relation to the Government of South Korea, to which the honorable senator has referred. I shall draw the attention of the Minister for External Affairs to the honorable senator’s question. I point out that the Minister made a general statement on foreign affairs in the House of Representatives yesterday, and I hope that copies of that statement will be available for circulation to honorable senators before the present sittings of the Parliament come to an end.

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Army obtain information concerning the number of Australian prisoners held by the enemy, and the manner in which they are being treated?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for the Army and ask him to furnish a reply.

page 1448

QUESTION

HEALTH AMD MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 21st May, Senator Ryan asked the following questions : -

Will the Minister inform me whether the Government has considered making available free physiotherapy treatment for age pensioners? If not, will earnest consideration be given to the introduction of legislation to provide for free physiotherapy attention by registered physiotherapists to be given to age pensioners under the direction of qualified medical practitioners?

The Minister for Health has now furnished the following reply: -

Physiotherapy and other treatment for pensioners and others has long been provided by public hospitals in their out-patients’ departments. It is not proposed to disturb that practice.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. Which State governments have entered into an agreement with the Commonwealth Government providing for the payment by the Commonwealth of 12s. a day per insured patient in public hospitals?
  2. From what date is any such agreement operative?
  3. Have any, and if so which, State governments declined to enter into such an agreement with the Commonwealth?
Senator COOPER:

– The Minister for Health has supplied the following answers: -

  1. The execution of formal agreements has not yet been completed with any State. All State governments have entered into arrangements in regard to private and intermediate wards of public hospitals. In regard to public wards, the Commonwealth Government desires, if possible, to make arrangements with each State to dovetail into the actual hospital setup of each State. This is being investigated.
  2. Agreements made will operate from date of execution.
  3. No.

page 1448

QUESTION

HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– As to-day in Canberra we celebrate officially the first birthday of her Majesty the Queen since her accession to the throne, I am prompted to ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether he is aware that Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of a former President of the United States of America, is aiu-anging for a portrait of the Queen to be painted and placed in an honoured position in the United States of America? Will the Minister consider the possibility of obtaining a portrait of the Queen for the Australian nation ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honorable senator’s suggestion is most’ commendable, and I shall be very happy to take the matter up with the Acting Prime Minister.

page 1448

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator HENTY:

– Yesterday, Senator Hannaford asked a question about the new post office in this building. To-day, I direct your attention, Mr. President^ to the place where the old post office was. That area of the King’s Hall has been roped off for many months, and is still in a state of disrepair. I should like to know whether, in view of the many thousands of visitors who inspect this building, early steps are to be taken to have this repair work done?

The PRESIDENT:

– I assure the honorable senator that I am well aware of the matter to which he has referred and that everything that can be done by Mr. Speaker and myself to have repairs expedited has been done. However, the job comes within the province of the Department of Works. I shall welcome the assistance of any honorable senator in my efforts to ensure that the needs of members of the Parliament shall be attended to promptly. Undoubtedly, the provision of a new post office is a great improvement, but I regret very much the failure of the authorities to repair that portion of the King’s Hall where the old post office stood. Our efforts to have the repair work carried out will be continued.

page 1449

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral a question concerning mail services in outlying country districts of South Australia, the residents of which in some cases fear that these services may be curtailed in the near future. Can the Minister state whether any move is being made, or is likely to be made, to reduce these services which even now are infrequent? “Will he urge the Postmaster-General to give very serious consideration to the desirability of retaining these services which mean so much to people in outlying areas?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall ask the Postmaster-General to furnish a reply to the honorable senator’s question as quickly as possible.

page 1449

PATENT MEDICINES

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 22nd May,

Senator Arnold:

asked the following question : -

I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In 1905, this Parliament appointed a royal commission to inquire into patent medicines and secret drugs, but owing to lack of constitutional power, little effect could be given to the recommendations of the commission. Since then the people, by referendum, have empowered this Parliament to control drugs. In view of the serious effects of certain patent medicines upon the health of the Australian people, will the Minister appoint a royal commission to inquire into the patent medicine trade in Australia?

The Minister for Health has now furnished the following reply: -

The power conferred upon the Commonwealth by the Constitution Alteration (Social Servces) Act of 1946 does not authorize the Commonwealth Government to make laws in respect to proprietary drugs and secret remedies. It is not considered that the appointment of a royal commission is justified.

page 1449

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects : -

Religious cards;

Timber (shooks);

Rubber footwear.

The Tariff Board, in the report on religious cards, has recommended that no change be made in the present tariff position, while in the report on timber (shooks) the implementation of the Tariff Board’s recommendation necessitates the promulgation of an amending by-law. This action has already been taken. Since the board submitted its report on rubber footwear there has been a marked falling off in imports of these goods. The matter is, however, being kept under constant review.

page 1449

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION

Senator McKENNA:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. How many and which organizations or branches of organizations have found it necessary, under the provisions of sub-section (3.) of section 70a of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to amend their rules in conformity with the requirements of subsection ( 1. ) of that section ? 2.In how many cases, and in respect of which organizations or branches of organizations, and for what periods, has the Industrial Registrar granted an extension of time under sub-section (3.) of the said section 70a?
  2. How many and which organizations or brandies of organizations have had their rules amended pursuant to sub-sections (4.) and (5.) of the said section 70a?
Senator SPICER:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers : -

  1. Twenty-four organizations and/or branches thereof have made alterations to their rules to comply with section 70a of the act. The organizations concerned are as follows : -

Arbitration Court Registrars Association.

Association of Railway Professional Officers of Australia.

Australian Textile Workers Union.

Commonwealth Telephone and Phonogram

Officers Association.

Federated Millers and Mill Employees Association of Australasia.

Baking Trades Employees Federation of Australia.

Industrial Life Assurance Agents Association.

Non-Official Postmasters Association of Australia.

Operative Sailmakers Trade Society of New South Wales.

Printing Industry Employees Union of Australia.

Professional Officers Association Commonwealth Public Service.

Professional Radio Employees Institute of Australasia.

Transport Workers Union of Australia. Apparel Manufacturers Association of New South Wales (Division of the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales).

Clothing Industries Division of the Queensland Chamber of Manufactures.

Graziers Association of New South Wales.

  1. V. McKay Pty. Ltd.

Tasmanian Fanners Stockowners and Orchardists Association.

Federated Clerks Union of AustraliaQueensland Branch.

Federated Clerks Union of Australia - Victorian Branch.

Federated Clerks Union of Australia - New South Wales Branch.

Operative Painters and Decorators Union of Australia, - South Australian Branch.

Operative Painters and Decorators Union of Australia - Australian Capital Territory Branch.

Postal Overseers Union of Australia - Victorian Branch.

  1. Extensions of time for organizations and/or their branches to bring their rules into conformity with section 70a have been granted to 42 organizations. In the majority of cases the extensions relate to the organization and all its branches. The additional time granted varies in each case according to the manner in which the organization is required to alter its rules. In many cases alterations can only be made at the annual or other periodical conference of the organization and in such cases an extension has been granted until the next ensuing conference. Generally speaking, it could be said that the extensions granted range from a few weeks up to approximately twelve months. The organizations which have been granted extensions of time are as follows: -

Association of Professional Engineers, Australia.

Australian Glass Workers Union.

Australian Insurance Staffs Federation.

Australian Rope and Cordage Workers Union.

Australian Shipping Officers Association.

Baking Trade Employees Federation of Australia.

Commonwealth Legal Professional Officers

Association.

Commonwealth Postmasters Association.

Commonwealth Public Service Clerical

Association.

Civil Aviation Employees Association of Australia.

Federated Brick Tile and Pottery Industrial Union of Australia.

Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia.

Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union of Australia.

Federated Photo Engravers Photo Lithographers and Photogravure Employees Association of Australia.

Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia.

Federation of Scientific and Technical Workers.

Municipal Officers Association of Australia.

Operative Painters and Decorators Union of Australia.

Postal Overseers Union of Australia.

Postal Telecommunications Technicians Association ( Australia ) .

Repatriation Department Medical Officers Association.

Trustee Companies Officers Association.

Supervisors Technicians Association, Postmaster-General’s Department.

Wool Selling Brokers Officers Association of Australia.

Commonwealth Jam Preserving and Condiment Manufacturers Association.

Footwear Manufacturers Association of New South Wales.

Graziers Association of Riverina.

Graziers Association of Victoria.

Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia.

Metal Trades Employers Association.

Milk Zone Dairymen’s Council.

Pastoralists Association of West Darling.

Pastoralists Association of Western Australia (Incorporated).

Printing and Allied Trades Employers Federation of Australia.

Queensland Footwear Manufacturers Association.

South Australian Chamber of Manufacturers ( Incorporated ) .

Showmen’s Guild of Australasia.

United Graziers Association of Queensland.

Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce.

Victorian Chamber of Manufactures.

Vehicle Manufacturers Association of Australia.

  1. Nil, although I should add that several organizations whose rules must be altered have consulted with me as to the form of alterations which would, in my opinion, meet the requirements of the sections.
Senator McKENNA:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service the following questions, upon notice : -

  1. How many and which organizations or branches of organizations have made requests under section 96m of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act for the conduct of elections pursuant to that section?
  2. How many of such requests were granted?
  3. How many of such requests were refused?
  4. In how many cases and for which organizations or branches of organizations and by whom have elections been conducted pursuant to such requests ?
  5. On what dates were such elections conducted ?
  6. How many of such elections have yet to be held?
Senator SPICER:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -

  1. There have . been nine requests imder section 9Gm of the act for the conduct of elections pursuant to that section. The said requests related to the following organizations or branches: -

Victorian Branch, Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

Sydney Metropolitan Branch, Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia.

Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen’s Association of Australasia.

Australasian Society of Engineers.

Victorian Branch, Australian Railways Union.

New South Wales Branch, Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

Victorian Branch, Australian Railways Union.

New South Wales Branch, Australian Workers Union.

New; South Wales Branch, Australian Workers Union.

  1. Five.
  2. Four.
  3. Two elections pursuant to requests made under section 90m have been conducted. The elections in question related to the Victorian Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia which was conducted by C. F. Lansbury, an officer of the Principal Registry, and the Sydney Metropolitan Branch of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia which was conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State of New South Wales.
  4. Victorian Branch, Federated Clerks Union of Australia, result of election declared the 12th December, 1951; Sydney Metropolitan Branch Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia, result of election declared the 1st December, 1951.
  5. Elections pursuant to the three remaining requests are now in the course of being held. The two elections relating to the Victorian Branch of the Australian Railways Union are being conducted by the Coinmonwealth Electoral Officer for Victoria and the election in relation to the New South Wales Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia is being conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State of New South Wales.
Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. In how many cases and in respect of which organizations or branches of organizations were applications made pursuant to section 9(>a of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act?
  2. In how many cases and in respect of which organizations or branches of organizations and at what dates were any of such applications granted?
  3. How many elections in respect of such, applications and in respect of which organizations or branches of organizations were conducted by or under the supervision of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court ?
  4. In respect of how many such cases were elections set aside by the court and in respect of which organization or branches of organizations ?
Senator SPICER:

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Nineteen applications have been made under section 96 of the act, such applications relating to the following organizations and/or branches thereof : -

New South Wales Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

Sydney Branch No. 1 of the Boilermakers Society of Australia.

Tasmanian Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

Tasmanian Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

Tasmanian Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

Viatorian Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

Victorian Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

Newcastle Branch No. 4 of the Boilermakers Society of Australia.

The Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia.

The Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia.

Sydney Metropolitan Branch of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia.

South Australian Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

Waterside Workers Federation of Australia.

Sydney Branch No. 1 of the Boilermakers Society of Australia.

Sydney Metropolitan Branch of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia.

Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia.

Tasmanian Branch of the Australian Workers Union.

Queensland Branch of the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia.

Victorian Branch of the Australasian Society of Engineers.

  1. In eleven of above cases applications were granted by the Industrial Registrar and referred to the court. The applications concerned and the dates of the granting thereof are as follows : -

New South Wales Branch, Federated Clerks Union of Australia - 30th August, 1949.

Sydney Branch No. 1 Boilermakers Society of Australia - 11th August, 1949.

Tasmanian Branch Federated Clerks Union of Australia - 12th September, 1949.

Tasmanian Branch. Federated Clerks Union of Australia - 12th September, 1949.

Victorian Branch Federated Clerks Union of Australia - 22nd November, 1949.

Sydney Metropolitan Branch Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia - 9th June, 1950.

Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia - 9th June, 1950.

Waterside Workers Federation of Australia - 30th January, 1951.

Sydney Metropolitan Branch Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia - l6th April, 1951.

Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia - 4th May, 1951.

Queensland Branch Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia - 28th December, 1951.

All of the above applications with the exception of those relating to the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and the New South Wales Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia have been determined by the court and in the following instances irregularities were found by the court to have occurred, the date of the court’s decision being shown : -

Sydney Branch No. 1 Boilermakers Society of Australia - 14th December, 1949.

Victorian Branch Federated Clerks Union of Australia - 7th March, 1950.

Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia, 1949 election - 29th November, 1951.

Sydney Metropolitan Branch Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia, 1949 election - 29th November, 1951.

The application in relation to the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia is at present proceeding before the court. The application by the New South Wales Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia, firstly mentioned, was the subject of proceedings in the High Court following which the Arbitration Court was prohibited from moving further. The remaining two applications’, viz., those re the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia, related to elections in 1950 and were determined by the court’s decisions in the other Ironworkers cases mentioned. Of the remaining applications to the Industrial Registrar all except that relating to the Victorian Branch of the Australasian Society of Engineers were refused, this latter application still being under consideration.

  1. In the following cases in which the court has found irregularities new elections have been ordered and in each case such elections have been ordered and in each case such elections were conducted by persons appointed by the court. The organizations and/or branches therein concerned are as follows: -

Sydney Branch No. 1 Boilermakers Society of Australia.

Victorian Branch, Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia.

In the case of the Sydney Metropolitan Branch of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia His Honour held that irregularities had occurred, but he did not order that a new election be conducted as at the time of his decision an election for offices in the branch was being conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State of New South Wales pursuant to section 96m of the act.

  1. In each of the cases mentioned in part 3 of this question the elections were set aside and new elections were held but in relation to the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia in one of the positions in question, viz., that of National Secretary, the election was set aside, but a new election was not ordered by the court, the court declaring that Laurence Short was the person who should have been declared elected at the electionconducted, by the organization.

page 1452

LAND TAX BILL 1952

Secondreading.

Debate resumed from the 21st May (vide page 547), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The measure now before the Senate proposes to abolish the super tax of 20 per cent. that was imposed early during the period of the last war. There is an alternative proposal that the super tax should continue to apply at 1 per cent. of the unimproved value of the land in excess of £20,000.Following the passage of the Land Tax Assessment Bill 1952 . on Tuesday, it is proposed to retain the1d. in the£ 1 tax on non-residents up to the new statutory deduction of £8,750. Following the introduction of the last budget, a basis of new valuations for unimproved land tax was adopted. The pegging that took place during the war years and in the immediate post-war years was removed, and actual values at the 30th June, 1951, were substituted. The Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) expected that additional revenue of £4,000,000 would flow to the Commonwealth as a result of that provision. Debates in this chamber during the week indicate that many honorable senators believe that the yield will be far greater than that amount. The change was opposed by the Labour party during the budget debate, as a general protest against the great burden of taxation that was being imposed upon the people under the budget proposals. It has been estimated that the relief of taxation contemplated under this bill will be approximately £1,020,000. If we add to that amount the relief of £687,000 that was contemplated by the Land Tax Assessment Bill that was passed by the Senate yesterday, it will be seen that, in the final position, the taxpayers will be approximately £2,250,000 worse off as a result of the implementation of the budget proposals. I shall not traverse again the ground that I covered during the debate on the Land Tax Assessment Bill, but I incorporate now the thoughts that I expressed in relation to that measure.

A colleague of mine, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) made a very notable contribution to thought in relation to this measure, when he estimated with great care and skill where the benefit under the provisions of this, bill would ultimately fall. On the latest figures available to him from the reports of the Commissioner of Taxation he calculated the number of taxpayers in each category of value and estimated how the remission of £1,020,000 would be distributed. I do not intend to cite all the figures compiled by him. I merely direct attention to the fact that approximately 156 taxpayers who own land of an unimproved value of between £100,000 and. £200,000 will receive a remission of approximately £120,000, and that 98 taxpayers who own land of a value of £200,000 or more will receive a remission of £300,000. Thus approximately 254 Australian taxpayers will receive under this measure relief amounting to £420,000. This bill grants purely sectional and not general relief from the burden of taxation. The Government has started at the wrong end of the scale. Many persons and institutions are in a much worse plight than are taxpayers who own land of an unimproved value of £100,000 or more. Remissions of land tax should be granted to all taxpayers and not merely to a few of them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 1453

IMMIGRATION ( GUARDIANSHIP OF CHILDREN) BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Spicer) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPICER (Victoria - Attorney-

General) [12.15]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946, which came into operation on the 30th December, 1946, vested in the Minister for Immigration an overriding legal guardianship in respect of “ immigrant children”, except those who come to Australia with their parents or other relatives, or arrive separately for the purpose of living with such relatives. In 1948, the act was amended to provide for the Minister for Immigration to act as legal guardian of the estates of these minors; to have the power to place immigrant children in the care of private persons; and to give his consent before an immigrant child is permitted to leave Australia. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that immigrant children up to the age of 21 years, especially those deprived of a normal home life overseas, shall be given the care, training and supervision which they customarily receive from their parents or guardians. The act also protects the interests of minors who emigrate to this country on their own initiative.

Child and youth emigration to Australia is encouraged in every possible way by the Commonwealth. In addition to contributing towards the fares of immigrant children brought out by approved voluntary organizations, it assists these organizations to the extent of sharing certain capital expenditure with them, and making available child endowment payments and equipment allowance. Apart from the desirability of a uniform policy throughout Australia in regard to child immigrants, it is considered that, in granting financial aid, the Commonwealth accepts a responsibility which must continue after their arrival in this country. At present, nearly 3,000 children from the United Kingdom are being cared for by responsible voluntary organizations, including Dr. Barnardo’s Homes, the Fairbridge Society, the Northcote Farm Schools, the Big Brother Movement and a number of religious organizations. The act does not cover only those children who are introduced by approved voluntary societies. It applies also to minors sponsored by friends or prospective employers. Before approval is given for them to come to Australia, full inquiries are made by the Minister’s delegates, the officer s-in-charge of the child welfare departments of the States, all of whom are performing a valuable service in ensuring that the children’s employment conditions and their accommodation are satisfactory.

During the last three years a few weaknesses in the act, chiefly of a technical nature, have become apparent to officers with experience of the practical problems involved, and it is now proposed to embody their recommendations in the act. Briefly, the amendments provide, first, that the act shall apply to minors who come to Australia with, or to join, relatives under 21 years of age; secondly, that a certificate of an appropriate officer of the Commonwealth or of a State, declaring that a person is an immigrant child, shall be prima facie evidence of that fact; and, thirdly, that the Minister shall have power to revoke exemption orders, and make exemption orders prior to the arrival of an immigrant child or of a class of immigrant children.

The first amendment concerns section 4 of the principal act, which excludes from the guardianship of the Minister minors who enter Australia with, or to join, their parents or relatives. Strictly interpreted, the wording of this section means that, in the event of two or more juvenile members of a family emigrating to Australia together, they would not legally come within the provisions of the Guardianship act. The amendment will rectify this position.

The second amendment also concerns section 4, and is introduced for the purpose of overcoming administrative difficulties which have been encountered by the Child Welfare Departments in the States.

As to the third amendment, both the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Holt) and his predecessor have, from time to time, exempted from the guardianship provisions certain classes of “ immigrant children for example, single men between 18 and 21 years of age who have come to Australia as * special project “ workers. In some instances, it has been found subsequently that it would be desirable to assume guardianship of an “ immigrant child “ covered by the class exemption. As section 11 of the act is at present worded, however, the Minister has no power to do this. The problem has been overcome by redrafting section 11 to bring it within the scope of section 33 (3.) of the Acts Interpretation Act, which provides that where a power to make an order is conferred by an act, that power includes power to revoke, vary or amend that order.

In the case of alien minors over eighteen years who come to Australia at their own expense, it has been the practice for suitable inquiries to be made by child welfare authorities before the issue of a landing permit and, if guardianship .by the Minister is not considered necessary, to make an exemption order before the minors arrive, such order to become effective upon their arrival. Since some doubt exists as to the legality of orders made prior to arrival, section 11 has been redrafted in order to make the orders lawful.

Honorable senators will observe that the amendments are of a machinery nature. The provisions of the act which ensure the adequate care of immigrant children remain unaltered. The amendments are designed ‘to eliminate weaknesses in the legislation and to facilitate the activities of those who are directly concerned with the important matter of the welfare of immigrant children.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition supports the measure. It is pleasing to see that the Government fully endorses the provisions that were made in 1946 by a government of another complexion to safeguard the interests of immigrant children. The Opposition approves the principle enunciated by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) that child and youth immigration to Australia should be encouraged in every possible way. It is also gratifying to see that so many voluntary organizations are concerned in attending to the welfare of some 3,000 immigrant children. The amendments contemplated by the bill were described adequately by the AttorneyGeneral in the course of his secondreading speech. As he stated, they are procedural and are directed towards strengthening the legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1455

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Spicer) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to improve further the machinery for dealing with industrial disputes. Under the present system, arbitral functions are divided between the judges of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and a number of conciliation commissioners.We propose to add an appeal process. By this method we expect to achieve co-ordination in matters of industrial principle and more authoritative decisions in large industrial issues.

As honorable senators are aware, the function of preventing and settling industrial disputes within the federal jurisdiction is, except in certain special industries to which I shall refer later, divided between the Full Arbitration Court and a number of individual conciliation commissioners. The court deals with the basic wage for males and females, standard hours of work, and various kinds of leave with pay. Beyond those matters it cannot go. All other matters that arise in industrial disputes must be dealt with by the conciliation commissioners who, for their part, cannot touch matters within the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, we have a system in which the court and the conciliation commissioners are, so to speak, sovereign in their own sphere. This position was brought about by the 1947 amendments of the act introduced by the Labour Government of that day. Apparently that Government based its policy on the following assumptions: - (a) That the really important issues in the industrial sphere which require to be handled by the court are those to which I have referred; (b) That conciliation commissioners would handle the bulk of industrial disputes in an atmosphere of conciliation, free of legalities; (c) That consistency between decisions of conciliation commissioners could, if necessary, he sacrificed to achieve speed in the settlement of industrial disputes.

As we said when in opposition in 1947, these assumptions are at least of doubtful validity. First, as we all know, some matters that come before conciliation commissioners raise issues or principles of great significance to the national economy and our general industrial well-being. It is no reflection upon any conciliation commissioner to say that it is quite unfair to place on the shoulders of one man sole responsibility to make a decision which can have far-reaching effects on the national economy and which can be of vital personal importance to literally hundreds of thousands of wage-earners. Secondly, it is totally impracticable to approach the settlement of industrial disputes on a rule of thumb or expediency basis. Thirdly, lack of consistency in decisions of individual conciliation commissioners can itself be just as provocative of industrial trouble as delays in dealing with disputes. That has been only too apparent from the varying decisions of different conciliation commissioners about margins. Fourthly, the very division of responsibilities between the court and the conciliation commissioners has given rise to numerous technical arguments with regard to jurisdiction. Fifthly, these very problems have themselves caused delays in the settlement of industrial disputes. The Labour Government of 1947 refused the recommendation of the opposition that some system of appeals should be introduced. But what has happened is that both sides to disputes, whether they have been representatives of employers or employees, have resorted, not infrequently, to mandamus or prohibition proceedings in the High Court to avoid unacceptable decisions.

In considering the proposed amendments, we have noted the views expressed in the annual reports of the Chief Judge and Chief Conciliation Commissioner, and studied carefully the operation of the 1947 system. We have considered the views of many representative organizations of employers and employees. We have had detailed discussions with leaders of those organizations and counsel experienced in the industrial field. Those organizations, like ourselves, have approached this problem of federal arbitration with no other desire than to devise the most effective machinery possible. There are, however, very wide divergences of views. There are those who say that we should return to the situation as it existed before 1947, and there may still be some who are quite satisfied with the present arrangements. There have been many variations put to us between these two extremes.

In general, employers’ organizations have favoured a return, with some modifications, to the pre-1947 system, and have suggested that each of the judges should have assigned to him a group of industries with a number of conciliation commissioners who would be allotted to particular industries or disputes under the control of the judge. ‘Such a system, however, would have some of the disadvantages which obtain to-day. The Full Court would determine the basic wage and standard hours, but it would be left to a single judge or a conciliation commissioner, just as it is now left to a single conciliation commissioner to decide on claims for margins and other matters. While under the pre-1947 system an appeal lay from a decision of a conciliation commissioner, none lay from a decision of a single judge, any more than it lies to-day from a decision of a conciliation commissioner.

Those who have experienced the working of the system agree that the Full Court should be placed in a position to deal with the whole wage. The Government certainly believes this; but under the system suggested by employer organizations it could happen that on some aspects there would be three hearings, the first before a conciliation commissioner, then before a single judge, and the third before the Full Court, in order that a final decision might be reached. In a jurisdiction where delays can easily become inflammatory, the frictions of such a process could prove destructive. No specific recommendations have reached the Government officially from the Australian Council of Trades Unions, but individual unions have, from time to time, officially asked us to provide a method of appeals. We should, I think, attempt to approach our industrial legislation in a non-party spirit. It is obviously important that there should be continuity in the machinery devised for the solution to our industrial problems, and for this- reason, the Government has decided on a course of action which will, we hope, retain the best features of the 1947 act. We now add to the existing structure, those adjustments which experience has indicated to be desirable.

It may be well at this stage to state the important principles which, in the Government’s view, ought to underlie a good arbitration system. First, it should be capable of providing for the speediest possible handling of industrial disputes. Secondly, it should ensure the application of consistent principles in the settlement of industrial disputes and uniformity of treatment in comparable situations. Thirdly, the arbitral machinery should, as far as possible, be self-contained, and appeals to the High Court on such matters as jurisdiction reduced- to the minimum. Fourthly, we should avoid violent changes to the machinery but should attempt to profit from the experience of earlier reforms. The search for a perfect system has been going on, almost continuously, ever since the original act of 1904 was passed. This bill is the 26th measure to amend the first act. There are, as is generally known, certain constitutional limitations on our industrial power. In the search for the most effective system, six attempts have been made by way of constitutional referendums - all unsuccessful - to widen that power. The bill now before the House embodies those principles. The court will continue to have an exclusive jurisdiction in relation to the fundamental matters of basic wage, standard hours, and long-service leave. All other issues will continue to come before the conciliation commissioners in the first instance. I shall summarize the important adjustments that we are making. First, an organization or person bound by an award made by a conciliation commissioner will be able within fourteen days after the date of the award to apply to the Chief Judge for leave to appeal to the Full Court against the award. The Chief Judge is empowered to grant leave to appeal only if, in his opinion, the award deals with a matter of such importance that leave to appeal should, in the public interest, be granted. If the Chief Judge gives leave, the Full Court will hear the appeal. Secondly, where an industrial dispute is before a conciliation commissioner and one or more of the parties desires to have the matter determined by the Full Court, the conciliation commissioner may, if he is of opinion that the dispute is of such importance that it should in the public interest be dealt with by the court, refer the dispute or part of it to the Full Arbitration Court. He must, first, however, have obtained the concurrence of the Chief Judge. Thereupon the Full Court will deal with the matter. Thirdly, if a conciliation commissioner declines to refer a matter, the party aggrieved by the conciliation commissioner’s refusal can appeal to the Chief Judge. If the appeal is upheld, the matter will go to the Full Court. Fourthly, where a matter gets to the Full Court, by either appeal or reference, then the Full Court can remit such matters as it thinks fit back to a conciliation commissioner for investigation and report. “With regard to this matter of appeals and references, I wish to emphasize that the bill does not give an unlimited right of appeal as there is, for example, in the New South “Wales Industrial Arbitration Act. Serious delays could develop if there were a multiplicity of appeals and we have no wish to create that situation. There will, therefore, be an appeal to the Full Court only where the Chief Judge is of opinion that the matter is of such importance that in the public interest it should be heard by the court. “We do not intend that the Full Court should deal with matters which the conciliation commissioners can and should handle. They are much more mobile than the court. They can deal promptly with issues in which human relations are involved, or which relate to a particular establishment or section of industry, and they can work out the detailed application to particular industries of principles that the court enunciates. But the court should decide the major issues of industrial principle and issues which are likely to recur in proceedings before a number of conciliation commissioners. We hope in this way to get some real consistency in the handling by individual conciliation commissioners of the same issues arising in comparable situations. By providing that a commissioner can, with the concurrence of the Chief Judge, refer a matter to the Full Court instead of completing the matter himself, we are ensuring that matters of great importance will be disposed of in one hearing instead of two. Again, the court’s power to refer particular matters back to the conciliation commissioner will make for a speedier treatment. We are, incidentally, giving back to the conciliation commissioners original jurisdiction in relation to all matters of leave with pay, with the exception of long service leave. We are leaving this for the moment in the hands of the Full Court, because it is largely an uncharted field and a matter of widespread importance.

Finally, to reduce any likelihood of delay, the Government proposes to add some additional judges to the Bench of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The bill permits more than one Full Court to sit at the one time . Further, we do not want the Full Court to be cluttered up with matters which will delay its dealing with the really important issues, whether in its original jurisdiction or on appeal or reference from conciliation commissioners. The bill provides, accordingly, that single judges of the court shall have wider powers than at present. These are enumerated in clause 8. That clause also deals with certain technical and machinery provisions which flow from the general arrangements for which the bill provides.

While I am on the subject of detailed technical matters, I also point out that clause 7 is designed to deal with the problem which emerged as a result of the untimely death of one conciliation commissioner recently. It could occur again if conciliation commissioners were unable to continue hearing matters, whether because of expiry of their appointment or otherwise. The provision made is along the lines of that settled by this Parliament when one of the judges of a Full Court was unable to complete the hearing of a dispute. Clause 10 of the bill substitutes a new section for the existing section 26 which deals with intervention by the Attorney-General. The present section 26 authorizes intervention only in relation to matters in respect of which the existing act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Full Court, such as the basic wage and standard hours. It is our view that the Attorney-General should be able to intervene in other matters which are before the Full Court, for example, whether by way of reference or appeal from a conciliation commissioner. It flows from what I have said already that only matters of real public significance will get to the court on reference or appeal from a con- ciliation commissioner. It is only right and proper that the Attorney-General, as representing the public interest, should have the right of intervention in such cases if it is believed desirable.

To return now to this matter of the technical difficulties arising from the division of jurisdiction between the court and the conciliation commissioners, there have been repeated applications to the High Court to decide within which jurisdiction particular matters lie. All such divisions give rise to borderline cases. The Government believes that industrial disputes should be settled promptly. It does not .believe that there should be long arguments or uncertainties about where jurisdiction does lie, assuming that there is an interstate dispute. We have, we think, met this situation by amendments contained in clauses 6 and 9 of the bill. I propose to explain them at the committee stage of the bill.

I said before that there are a small group of industries which are not under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. One of these is the stevedoring industry, which is the subject of a special act, the Stevedoring Industry Act 1949. Under that act, full responsibility is committed to a single judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. A similar situation exists with regard to the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric undertaking. Conditions of employment there are also regulated by decisions of a single judge of the court. The coal industry is in a special position. The final arbitral authority for that industry is the Coal Industry Tribunal constituted by legislation of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and New South Wales. Crown employees of the Commonwealth have their terms and conditions of employment regulated by a special tribunal, the Public Service Arbitrator, who functions under the Public Service Arbitration Act.

The activities of these separate tribunals cannot, in the Government’s view, be regarded as something apart from the activities of the court and the conciliation commissioners operating under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. There is just as much need here for coordination in matters of large industrial principle and of great public significance. It is accordingly the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to amend the Stevedoring Industry Act, the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act and the Public Service Arbitration Act to provide for a system of appeals and references to the Full Court along the same lines as those I have already described.

There is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales that neither will amend its’ coal industry legislation without the consent of the other. The Acting Prime Minister has written to the Premier of New South Wales seeking the concurrence of his Government in an amendment to the Coal Industry Act which will enable us to have a uniform system affecting all federal arbitral tribunals. The Premier of New South Wales has indicated that his Government would like time to consider this request and for that reason legislation to make the proposed change will not be introduced during this sessional period.

So much for the major reforms we are making by this bill. There are many other amendments, some of importance, which can be dealt with more conveniently when the bill is in committee. It should not be thought, however, that the system as it has existed from time to time has not provided a practical and useful method for determining industrial issues. It is quite clear that whatever the imperfections of our federal industrial machinery may have been at any point of time, the overwhelming majority of employers and wage-earners have found in the arbitration system an umpire able to hear and determine the issues that have arisen. A great majority of those affected by these decisions have consistently accepted them and abided by them. More and more is it being recognized by rankandfile unionists that the rule of law as repre’sented by conciliation and arbitration should take the place of direct action in industrial relations. This is true to-day of most industries and most wage-earners. But no arbitration machinery, however perfectly devised, can function efficiently if there are persons who, while using it for their own purpose when it suits them, lose no opportunity to damage it and remain determined to destroy it eventually.

The industrial lawlessness so evident in some sections of industry over the past decade can be attributed only in a very small part to deficiencies in the arbitration system. The true answer is to be found- in the widespread influence which communism has been able to gain in the basic industries and services of the Commonwealth, and in our key industrial establishments. The Communists have made no secret of their hostility to the arbitration system. Their position was expounded in authoritative terms by the then president of the party, Mr. Sharkey, in his pamphlet entitled The Trade Unions. This was first published in 1942 and has remained a standard text-book for Communist party members. Here is an extract from the pamphlet which sums up the attitude of the Communist to the arbitration system -

The reformist trade union officials’ wholeheartedly support arbitration They do not want strikes and struggles to disturb their peaceful salaried existence . . . The Communists regard the State-controlled arbitration system as a pernicious, anti-working class institution, whose objective is to keep the workers shackled to the capitalistic state Strikes, properly led and conducted and properly timed, are a revolutionary weapon.’ Strikes develop the Labour movement, organize and unite workers, and win the intermediate social strata to the side of the revolution . . . Political strikes are a higher form of struggle than economic strikes. Such strikes challenge the Government.

Australia has had many occasions since that pamphlet was published to see the practical application of Communist doctrine as expressed by Comrade Sharkey. It is a reasonably accurate estimate that 90 per cent, of the working days lost in Australia through industrial disputes are a direct consequence of Communist leadership or influence. These facts are not sufficiently widely known. Their implications are certainly not sufficiently widely understood. One implication is that the overwhelming majority of Australian workers to be found in industries which have escaped Communist control endorse and abide by the arbitration system.

The present Government has already tried to counter this attack by communism on the arbitration system in two important ways. We have strengthened the powers of the court to enable it to deal in appropriate cases with wilful defiance, of awards. We realize that such a power should be sparingly used in a sphere in which the primary functions are those of conciliation and arbitration. This power, which is, as it were, a reserve power, must not be permitted to become principally a punitive weapon. But if the court is to be continually subjected to attacks which have political objectives and which are aimed at its destruction, then it must be suitably armed to protect both itself and the community. The second direction in which the system has been strengthened has been by the introduction of secret ballots for union officials which have been conducted under the auspices of the court. This does, at least, now provide some assurance that the will of the majority of union members can be expressed in an honest and democratic manner. The responsible, elements in the trade unions have seized the opportunity that we gave them to purge their unions of Communist leadership. Honorable senators will have noticed in recent days the expressed determination of other unions to follow the lead of the ironworkers and the clerks’ unions.

While we are under no illusions that much of the criticism against the arbitration system comes from those who have no other purpose than its abolition, there does remain an obligation on governments to ensure that its working is made as speedy and efficient as circumstances will permit. It is from the practical working of the system that improvements have suggested themselves. The proposals which this bill makes are a reflection of needs revealed by experience. We ask all concerned to give our proposals a fair trial. I am bold enough to forecast that if this is done the provisions of this bill will at no very distant time receive the same acclaim as now is given to our secret ballots legislation. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.^9 to 2.80 p.m.

page 1460

NEW GUINEA TIMBER AGREEMENT BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time. ‘

This is a bill to approve an agreement made between the Australian Government and a company known as Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited for the formation of a joint public company to be called Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Limited. The full text of the agreement is printed as a schedule to the bill and the bill itself contains only two main clauses. One clause provides for the approval of the agreement and the other provides for the appropriation of the sum of £500,001 for the purpose of meeting the liabilities of the Commonwealth arising under the agreement. The timber company will work a stand of timber in the Bulolo Valley in the Trust Territory of New Guinea. The stand contains an estimated 500,000,000 super, feet of timber and covers an area approaching 40,000 acres. The plan provides for reafforestation to ensure continuous harvesting of the forest in perpetuity.

At the outset, it should be made clear that the stand of timber to be worked by this company is confined to the Bulolo Valley, and it is not intended that the company should draw on timber from elsewhere in the territory or that it should encroach on any adjacent stand of timber which might be considered to be the natural province for the operation of other mills. Various proposals for working the Bulolo forest have been under examination for a long time. In recent years, it has been fundamental to the consideration of this question that the forest should be harvested in such a way as to ensure orderly cutting and orderly re-planting of the cut-over areas and. as a result of both, the maintenance of a valuable resource and of a stable ind us try.

I should like to emphasize two points as strongly as possible. The first is that we have rejected absolutely any idea of simply tearing out the best of the forest for the sake of immediate advantage, leaving a ravished and denuded waste. We aim at conserving and developing the Bulolo forest for all time. The second point is that we have embraced the idea that the development of this forest must be primarily, and above all other considerations, undertaken in the interests of the territory and the peoples of the territory. We want to see in the territory itself a sound and profitable industry which will become the basis of a stable community and a centre around which other development may be stimulated. The need for development in New Guinea is urgent, and the acceptance of responsibility for that development in an orderly and an efficient way is a national responsibility which has been laid upon the Australian Government both by terms of its trusteeship agreement with the United Nations and by the compelling force of the history of our own people in that land.

In placing this strong emphasis on the interests of the Territory of New Guinea and of the people of New. Guinea, when speaking to a bill which concerns only the working of a timber project, I should like to express the hope that the final aim of all measures for development in New Guinea, no less than in Australia, will be not only commercial, but also social. That is to say, that the final outcome of that development will be that all people will be enabled to live at a better standard with mutual enjoyment of the benefits of material progress. Our role in New Guinea is not that of exploiters, but of guardians, who develop the estate in order that it may sustain a better standard of life there. Although the development of the resources of New Guinea will yield to Australia and to the world products of which mankind stands in need, and although the marketing of those products will help to provide the financial means by which the .advancement of our national purpose in New

Guinea may be assisted, the final test of the success of those measures will be inthe effect they will have in establishing.” in New Guinea communities of such a kind as to ensure the advancement and thewelfare of all the peoples who Jive in that’ territory, and in the aid they give to our civilizing mission. Initially, therefore, I commend this measure to honorable members as one which will enable us more speedily to discharge our national responsibility for development in New Guinea while maintaining the broad objectives of our policy for the future of the territory.

The proposal which has now come to fruition has been. under public notice for a considerable period. During the term of the Chifley Government, the idea that the Australian Government should associate itself with Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited for the working of this forest was first mooted. When the change of government took place in December, 1949, the whole matter was re-examined by Sir Percy Spender when he was Minister for External Territories, and in June, 1950, he publicly announced that the working of the Bulolo timber stand was regarded as a special case, as distinct from all other forest proposals in the territory, and that the proposal for an association between the Commonwealth and Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited was being carefully considered. He referred the question, in the first instance, to a committee composed of Australian forestry experts and businessmen connected with the timber industry, and presided over by the Director-General of the Forestry and Timber Bureau at Canberra. After consideration of the report of that committee, the Government decided, in August, 1950, to proceed with a proposal for the formation of a joint company. In December, 1950, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) announced a further Cabinet decision that the Government had decided to form a joint company. That statement was repeated in answer to a question on notice in the House on the 13th March, 1951, During the first half of 1951, the Bulolo company sent its own experts to examine the forest, and on receipt of their reports regarding the technical problems of logging and the general economic possibilities of working the forest, the company agreed to proceed with the negotiations. The Minister’s part during the past twelve months has been in bringing those negotiations to the conclusion which is expressed in the agreement now before the Senate.

The heads of agreement were drawn up and signed by the Government and the company in February, 1952, and at that time a further public announcement was made by the Prime Minister setting out the plan to harvest the forest in 50 annual cuts of 10,000,000 super, feet, the main considerations which had weighed with the Government in choosing this particular form of organization and the principles on which the new joint timber company would operate. I should now like to enlarge on the subject-matter of the Prime Minister’s statement of February last, and for that purpose I draw the attention of members to the actual text of the agreement which they now have before them.

The agreement that is now submitted for approval proposes that the company and the Commonwealth of Australia should forthwith incorporate and register in the Territory of New Guinea a limited liability company under the name of Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Limited. The objects of the company shall be the harvesting of logs, the sawing and milling of timber, the peeling of veneer and the manufacture of plywood in the territory, the supply of battery separator material, the utilization of timber waste, and the marketing of timber and timber products. Its nominal capital will be £2,000,000 and the initial issue of shares will be to the value of £500,000. The Commonwealth will have a majority shareholding of one share. There will be a board of four directors, two to be nominated by and to represent the Commonwealth, and two to be nominated by and to represent Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited. The board will control the general policy, including the marketing policy, of the timber company. The technical and commercial management will be carried out by a management appointed by the board of directors. In the event of disagreement between the directors representing the Commonwealth and those representing the company, the final decision, after attempts at agreement have been made, will rest with the Commonwealth. The first chairman of the board of directors will be a representative of Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited. He will have a deliberative but not a casting vote. Various provisions in the agreement will ensure that the existing services, power supply, and facilities of Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited at Bulolo will be available to the new timber company, and the Commonwealth will enter into certain undertakings in respect of the road communications between Bulolo and the port of Lae.

The interests of the Australian mainland consumers will be safeguarded by a clause which reads -

The assurance of the supply to the Australian market of plywood and other products similar to those of the timber company is fundamental to this agreement.

The forest in which the new timber company will operate is situated in the Bulolo Valley, district of Morobe, Territory of New Guinea. No boundary line is described, and the assurances contained in the agreement are in respect of so many million super, feet of timber. The Government has every reason to believe, on the information that has been received from its experts, that there is ample timber in the valley to meet all these assurances.

The Commonwealth undertakes that, subject to the legislation in force in and relating to the Territory of New Guinea, the Commonwealth will take all necessary steps and do all in its power to ensure the grant to the timber company of a permit under the Forestry Ordinance 1936-1951 and the Forestry Regulations of the Territory of New Guinea, which will confer upon the timber company for an initial period of ten years the exclusive rights to cut and remove 100,000,000 super, feet of hoop and klinkii pine, and a smaller quantity of cedar and secondary species of timbers from within an area or areas totalling 15,000 acres, owned by the Administration of the territory and situated in the Bulolo Valley. On the expiration of this ten-year permit the Commonwealth will take all necessary steps to do all in its power to ensure the grant to the timber company of a renewal of the permit for a further period of ten years in respect of a further quantity of 100,000,000 super, feet of hoop and klinkii pine and such quantities of cedars and secondary species of timber as may be determined. The Commonwealth does not enter into any commitment with the company regarding the pine timber, estimated at 300,000,000 super, feet, then remaining in the existing forests of the Bulolo Valley, but will consider any proposal of the company for that timber to be harvested by the timber company under a further permit, to operate from the expiration of the second of the two ten-year terms to which I have already referred. In other words, the continuation after the first twenty years of the arrangements made in the agreement in respect of the harvesting of the Bulolo timber will depend on whether or not, in the opinion of the Commonwealth, the agreement has operated satisfactorily. Subject to that opinion, we have in prospect the harvesting, over a period of 50 years, of a total of 500,000,000 super, feet at the rate of 10,000,000 super, feet a year. There are certain stipulations regarding the minimum and maximum quantities to be cut in any one year.

The timber company will pay the prescribed royalties in respect of timber that it cuts, and it will also pay such additional royalties as may be prescribed. The additional royalties for the first five years are set out in the text of the agreement, and those figures will be reviewed at the end of five years. Thus, both by the payment of royalties and by its share of the dividends from the harvesting of the forest, the Commonwealth will be able to ensure that the territory itself shall receive direct benefit from the commercial use of its resources. The conditions for the orderly replanting of the forest shall be determined by the Administrator of the territory, in accordance with the laws of the territory, after consultation with the timber company. Ownership of the replanted forests will remain with the Crown, but the Commonwealth commits itself in respect of the cutting of the replanted forest - that is, after the expiration of the first cycle of 50 years - to the extent that it states that “ it will look favorably upon any proposals to enable the timber company to get greater assurance of continuity of operation and of the use of the yield of the replanted forest”.

The agreement also contains clauses tosafeguard the interests of both parties in respect of any attempt by either party to sell or transfer its holding of snares in the timber company. No sale or transfer shall be made by one party without the consent of the other party, and the consenting party shall have an option to be exercised within three months, to purchase the other party’s holding in the timber company at its fair value. Other clauses in the agreement are of the usual kind, and are open to the scrutiny of honorable senators in the text now before them. Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited commended itself to the Government as an active, well-organized and experienced private company which would have great natural advantages for the working of this forest. For many years past it has been operating in the heart of the Bulolo forest. During the post-war years it has re-established itself at Bulolo, and it has in existence to-day a hydro-electric power plant which produces a surplus of electric power. It would take many years, and a big expenditure, to reproduce this plant elsewhere in the forest. Furthermore, at Bulolo the company has workshops, administrative buildings, residences, a hospital and recreational facilities, and an industrial organization which are certainly without parallel in that part of the territory and which have few, if any equals in the whole of New Guinea. It is also possessed of certain existing rights to water and land in the Bulolo Valley. The company has a fine record of efficiency under territory conditions. It is a hard-headed, practical and experienced enterprise. With such a partner, on the conclusion of an agreement, the Commonwealth can have a reasonable assurance both of prompt and energetic forest operations, and a long and stable business association, as well as the knowledge that the company’s services and facilities will be immediately available for the work of the new timber company. The natural advantages of the company for the type of operation that we had in mind, as well as its occupancy of the most eligible site in the whole of the Bulolo Valley, marked it out as the natural agent for such an enterprise.

The clauses of the agreement that relate to the management of the new timber company are designed to ensure that its day-by-day operations shall be conducted exactly as those of a private enterprise are conducted. At the same time, the Australian Government is conscious of the fact that, as the administering authority for the trust Territory of New Guinea, it has certain broad policy interests in this undertaking. The Commonwealth is obliged to pay full regard to the terms of the Trusteeship Agreement with the United Nations. The Government also realizes that it has a responsibility to ensure that the major national interests in respect of this forest shall be safeguarded at all times, and that its responsibility in respect of the future of the territory and its inhabitants must at all times be discharged. The most direct and convenient way for the Commonwealth to do this is to associate itself with the private company in such a way as will enable it at all times to take part in deciding broad lines of policy, while not engaging in the management of the technical operations.

The decision that the whole stand of 500,000,000 super, feet should be worked by one timber company was based on the requirements of sound forestry practice in relation to reafforestation. In order that the forest shall be preserved and worked in perpetuity it is necessary that the timber shall be cut on a long cycle to enable replanting and regrowth before the second cutting cycle is begun. For a substantial industry, an adequate annual cut is essential. Taking into full account the natural boundaries of the forest, the topography in relation to economical forest harvesting requirements and the desirable sizes of the factory establishments, it is considered that a rotation to give an average annual cut of 10,000,000 super, feet is the optimum. This will allow 50 years for the harvesting of the original forest, during which time reafforestation will ensure the availability of timber suitable for milling when the second cycle begins.

The Bulolo project will not exhaust the timber resources of the territory.

Although Bulolo is the main stand of hoop and klinkii pine, there are other large and small commercial stands of timber in the territory open to public tender. One large stand near Lae, containing 70,000,000 super, feet, was recently let by tender. A big proportion of the timber in this and other available areas consists of timber suitable for the manufacture of plywood. The Forests Department of the Administration also has under consideration various other stands of timber, including one estimated to contain 170,000,000 super, feet, which, it is hoped, will soon be surveyed more accurately. It is considered that that stand will meet the timber requirements of the territory, and afford an opportunity to other timber interests to obtain logs and establish local timber mills.

The Government has also decided, in addition to making these arrangements for the prompt use of the Bulolo stand, that the whole industry shall be conducted at Bulolo, rather than that logs should be exported for processing in Australia. There are certain technical advantages in so doing. The location of secondary industries close to the source of raw materials is more economical than transporting bulk raw material over long distances for processing. The road from Buololo to the shipping point at Lae is through very difficult mountainous country and the transportation of processed plywoods, veneers, and other products can be more easily arranged than the carriage of logs. Furthermore, manufactured goods are able to stand the freight charges better than can raw materials. Additionally, it is planned, eventually, to establish a paper pulp industry in the territory to utilize the timber waste. It will be possible to do this more economically in association with an already established industry than in association with a logging operation.

The most compelling reasons for our decision, however, are to he found in the effect that it will have on the further development of the territory. Suggestions have been made that the interests of the Australian timber industry have been overlooked. I want to say quite emphatically that I regard the present activity in New Guinea as a part of the activities of

Australian industry. If this territory, for which we fought, and in which we have laboured for more than a generation, were regarded as not being within the immediate field of Australian interests, but only as a foreign land, there would be a poor outlook for our future and for the future of the territory. New Guinea - both our own possessions of Papua and the trust territory - must be regarded by Australians for all practical purposes, both by reason of what we have done and can do for it, and by reason of its’ vital importance to the security of our nation, as a part of Australia. The blood of our men has been shed there, and close bonds have already been formed between its native people and our Australian community. I cannot accept any argument which rests on the suggestion that New Guinea is a foreign land. Its industries are as dear and as important to Australians as is any activity on the mainland. It is not a place to be drawn upon or exploited for the benefit of some other part of Australia. It is not a colony from which we should draw off what we want, but a part of our own country to which we give all Ave can, and which we should develop.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– It is not a part of Canada, either.

Senator McLEAY:

– I am proud that Canada is a component of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and I am proud of the people of Canada also. I hope that that spirit will always prevail in the Australian Parliament.

Senator Willesee:

– We will convey that to them.

Senator McLEAY:

– If the Opposition does so sincerely, I shall appreciate it. I look forward with confidence to the endorsement of this national project. The germ of the idea which first commended itself to a previous government is now being given practical effect by the present Government. Tb* form of company organization that has been adopted should be suitable for the particular circumstances with which we were faced, and it should achieve the objectives that we have in mind. It should not be accepted as the standard pattern for all development in New Guinea, and it is not our intention to use this means of develop ment on all occasions. In general, we lookto the energy and initiative of private- enterprise to engage in its own projects., and we trust that one early consequenceof the Government’s participation in thetask of commercial development on thisoccasion will be the stimulation of increased activity by people who are willing; to invest money and to work in the territory for the good of the territory. I commend the bill to the .Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator ARMSTRONG) adjourned.

page 1465

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1460).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of Opposition · Tasmania

.- This bill is of prime importance and it is essential that the Senate should give due consideration to it. I confess at once my sympathy for any government that has to approach the field of industrial relations in Australia. My sympathy arises from the fact that the Commonwealth has very limited constitutional power to operate in that field. In the first place its power is confined by placitum (xxxv) of section 51 of the Constitution to “ conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State “. That power is supplemented by a further power which enables anything incidental to the exercise of the power conferred by section 51 to be accomplished by this Parliament. As honorable senators know, every word of placitum (xxxv) has been the subject of disputation in the courts and has led to innumerable decisions by the High Court of Australia.

We cannot make an intelligent approach to this bill, or to any matter in the field of conciliation and arbitration, unless we realize clearly that the Commonwealth has power not over disputes, industrial disputes or even interstate industrial disputes, but only over conciliation and arbitration in relation to the last mentioned of these matters. So, in effect, all that the Commonwealth can do is to establish tribunals of conciliation or arbitration which, in turn, have jurisdiction only when they have before them a dispute, which must be an industrial dispute, and which extends beyond the borders of one State. The Commonwealth has no power to make laws relating to industrial conditions, disputes or terms of employment. I may summarize the position by saying that the Commonwealth has power not over the subject-matter of any industrial dispute but only over conciliation and arbitration in relation to such a dispute. The fact that this Parliament, which is charged with national responsibility, has such limited jurisdiction, is one of the tragedies that afflict our economy.

I am aware that the Commonwealth exercises certain complete powers. For instance, it has complete power to legislate regarding the terms of employment of its own employees and of those of its instrumentalities. It has unlimited power over employment in the various territories of the Commonwealth. Probably, it has complete power over the employment of aliens in Australia and also over the industrial conditions of those who are engaged in purely interstate trade. The Senate realizes, I am sure, that it is almost impossible to draw a line of demarcation between intra-state and interstate activities. In substance the Commonwealth’s power in the vast field of industrial relations is confined within the limited jurisdiction that I have” already outlined.

It is a great pity that, on occasion after occasion, the people of Australia have not seen fit to give to this Parliament power over terms and conditions of employment in industry and that they rejected a request for that power even when it was asked for in terms that expressly negatived any possibility of civil conscription. As the members of the Government parties realize the great difficulties with which they are faced in respect of industrial conditions, I trust that the day will come when all political parties in this Parliament will be able to present to the people a united request for additional power in the industrial field. We have only to consider the great effect upon our economy of the inflated cost of wages to-day torealize how important it is that this National Parlia ment should have a definite and overriding say in these matters.

This bill deals with very many matters. I do not intend to traverse all of them because there is no opposition to quite a large number of them, notably to the proposal contained in one of the early clauses which takes from the court power over sick and annual leave and transfers it to the jurisdiction of the conciliation commissioners. To-day, I am concerned with three particular matters covered by the bill. The first relates to appeals from conciliation commissioners, which are covered by clauses 5, 6 and 12. Secondly, I am concerned with the provisions of clause 17, the effect of which will be to confer authority upon the court and the conciliation commissioners to include in orders or awards a provision authorizing an employer to withhold wages from, and to impose penalties upon, his employees. The second-reading speech made by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) contained no specific reference to that matter.

Senator Arnold:

– It contained no reference to it whatsoever.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is so. The third important matter that I wish to discuss is covered by clause 22, which regulates the admission of employees to organizations. No specific reference was made to that matter by the AttorneyGeneral.

Before I deal with the first of those matters I want to say a word or two about the great changes that were effected by the amending legislation of 1947. As all honorable senators know, under that legislation four principal matters were left exclusively to the court. They were the female basic wage, the adult male wage, and the principles upon which both were calculated, standard hours and matters relating to leave. All other matters were delegated to fifteen or sixteen conciliation commissioners. I recall the occasion upon which the present Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), who was then in opposition, begged for 90 per cent. conciliation and only 10 per cent. arbitration. By the time the 1947 legislation had been introduced he had forgotten that plea for he opposed the appointment of conciliation commissioners and the vesting of them with power to settle large areas of dispute. To-day, the Government is confirming in principle the provisions of the 1947 legislation by preserving a distinction between matters committed to the court and matters committed to the conciliation commissioners.

I remind the Senate of some of the chief objectives of the 1947 legislation. They are set out in new section 2 of the act which was inserted by the 1947 legislation. It reads -

The chief objects of the act are -

to establish an expeditious system for preventing and settling industrial disputes by the methods of conciliation and arbitration.

I emphasize the use of the word “expeditious” because I regard expedition as of the very essence of action in the field of industrial relations. I suggest that expedition is just as important in the field of industrialrelations as it is in the field of gambling. The most important feature in a gamble is a quick decision.

Senator Scott:

– That applies to horseracing.

Senator McKENNA:

– The honorable senator who knows why horse-racing is so popular also knows that art unions in which the result is long postponed are never very popular. I venture to say that from the national viewpoint, a quick decision in a dispute is of even greater importance than is a favorable decision to one of the parties concerned. I shall develop the theme that this bill will not serve the chief purposes outlined in the principal act. Paragraph (d) of section 2 reads -

To provide menus whereby a Conciliation Commissioner may promptly and effectively, whether of his own motion or otherwise, prevent and settle threatened, impending, probable or existing industrial disputes.

The emphasis is on all forms of expedition - speed, promptitude and decision. It is very important to note that under the 1947 legislation a conciliation commissioner may move of his own volition. He does not have to wait until he has been approached by the parties to a dispute; he is authorized to move when he sees that a dispute is impending. It will be interesting to devote a minute or two to a consideratibnof what has happened in that matter. In his second-reading speech the AttorneyGeneral gave the greatest justification for that function of the conciliation commissioners when he said -

We do not intend that the Full Court should deal with matters which the conciliation commissioners, can, and should, handle. They are much more mobile than is the court; they can deal promptly with issues in which human relations are involved, or which relate to a particular establishment or section of industry; they can work out the detailed application to particular industries of principles that the court enunciates.

Those words, I suggest, constitute a very fine tribute to the excellence of the 1947. legislation and to the manner in which the conciliation commissioners have functioned under its provisions. Now let me refer to the report of the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court upon the same matter. In the early stages of his report of October last year His Honour criticized the division of functions between the court and the conciliation commissioners. He referred to it as a “jurisdictional dichotomy”, a term that is not familiar to me and one, I am sure, that will not be familiar to most honorable senators. At page 17 of the report the following statement appears : -

The establishment of a system which enables expeditious prevention and settlement of disputes has, subject to the delays consequent upon the jurisdictional dichotomy previously referred to, been achieved.

The Chief Conciliation Commissioneris also obliged to submit an annual report to the Parliament. In his report dated the 5th November, 1951, he said that-

It may be more difficult for Commissioner’s generally than for judges to determinethe limits of their respective powers. Commissioners are, in the main, laymen, whereas judges are, in the main, lawyers.

No doubt the Attorney-General appreciates that the statement that judges arc. in the main, lawyers, represents a sly dig. The report continues -

The difficulty is really not a great one to either and has not in fact, to any appreciable extent, delayed the completion of awards: certainly not to any greater extent than if a single judge was invested with the powers now exercised by a commissioner and three judges, without the reserved powers of section 25.

I have now cited tributes to the conciliation commissioners and to the system of conciliation commissionerships from the Government, the Chief Judge of the Arbitration Court, and the Chief Conciliation Commissioner. Of course, the Government in this bill does not make a frontal attack upon conciliation commissioners. It recognizes their place in the scheme of things. However, the appeal provisions, whether designedly or not, arc in my view an oblique attack upon the whole system of conciliation commissioners. The establishment of appeals from decisions which, at the moment are final and conclusive almost without exception, will definitely undermine and sabotage the whole conciliation commissioner system.

Under section 16 of the act, there is, at the moment, no appeal from the decision of a conciliation commissioner. Sub-section (1.) of that section provides that an award or order of a conciliation commissioner shall not be challenged or appealed against in any court on any count whatever. This bill proposes to provide three different forms of appeal. Under the first form of appeal a matter may be taken completely out of the hands of a conciliation commissioner, at any stage of its hearing, and taken to the court. The second deals with appeals on questions of law which may arise from time to time and throughout the whole of the hearing before a conciliation commissioner. The third, and by far the most extensive form of appeal, is that, after a hearing before a conciliation commissioner, a party or an individual who is aggrieved by the decision of the conciliation commissioner may appeal to the Full Court of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Those, broadly, are the three positions, and I propose to say something in criticism of each of them.

Clause 5 of the bill, which proposes to permit hearings before conciliation commissioners to be interrupted and transferred to the court, sets out that one of the parties to the dispute must move. If a party makes application to the conciliation commissioner to refer the dispute, or k. part of the dispute, to the Full Court of the Arbitration ‘Court, the commissioner has to make up his mind whether he will say “Yes” or “No” tothat application. If he agrees that it should be so referred, he still cannot refer it of his own motion. He must approach the Chief Judge of the court or his nominee, and obtain his concurrence, which will not be forthcoming unless the judge concerned certifies that it is in the public interest that the matter should go to the Full Court. On the other hand, if the commissioner declines to refer it or to seek the concurrence of the Chief Judge, the party who makes the application has fourteen days in which to appeal to the Chief Judge for his concurrence. There, at once, a delay of fourteen days is interpolated. There is nothing in the bill to indicate that the proceedings will be stayed during those fourteen days, but common sense would suggest that they should be. It is then a matter of obtaining an appointment with the Chief Judge. Even that does not conclude the matter, because if he concurs and makes a reference to the Full Court, the court may decide not to hear the matter at .all and refer it back to the conciliation commissioner for decision.

If that is the conclusion that is reached by. the court, all the time of hearing before the conciliation commissioner will have been wasted and the whole procedure to that stage frustrated.

Senator Spicer:

– That is far-fetched!

Senator McKENNA:

– I submit that if the Full Court holds that the matter is not one for the court to decide, and sends it back to the conciliation commissioner, the time occupied to that stage is completely wasted. The intermediate steps are a sheer waste of time. That contingency is provided for in the bill. Proposed new section 30, which deals with references from the Registrar, provides that the matter may go back with or without directions, but clause 5 does not do so. The point that I wish to emphasize in this connexion is that application to take the matter from a conciliation commissioner to the Full Court can be made at any stage of the hearing before the conciliation commissioner. It may be made the moment the hearing opens before him-

Senator Vincent:

– That might save time.

Senator McKENNA:

– It might. It may also be clone immediately before the commissioner makes his order or award. A hearing may be almost completed when a party sees a trend in the commissioner’s mind, or thinks that he detects one, and wastes perhaps months of hearing by seeking to have it translated to the court.

In all these matters of appeal, I put it very strongly to the Senate that sometimes it is in the interests of employer organizations to delay proceedings, and at other times it is in the interests of employee organizations to do so. I should have no difficulty in outlining many instances of both kinds of organization staging delaying actions in court. At a time when labour is dominant and the economy buoyant, one might expect action of that nature from employer organizations. When other circumstances apply, it might be expected from employee organizations.

Senator Vincent:

– They might not obtain leave to appeal if they started that kind of stone-walling!

Senator McKENNA:

– Leave to appeal is entirely in the hands of the Chief Judge or his nominee.

Senator Vincent:

– The Chief Judge did not come down in the last shower!

Senator McKENNA:

– No, but the fact that different judges may deal with such applications may result in conflicting decisions. One judge may regard a matter as being in the public interest, whereas another judge may take a contrary view. I think that honorable senators will appreciate that a great deal of divergence has existed from time to time in the opinions of the present judges of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, notably in the basic wage and female rates cases. It may well happen that there is a complete divergence of view as to what constitutes the public interest. In that kind of appeal, all the potentialities of delay exist.

I now wish to deal with the question of appeals on questions of law. Section 16 of the act provides that the conciliation commissioner alone, if he thinks fit, may refer a question of law for the opinion of the court. He may do so of his own volition. He is not obliged to do so merely because he is so requested by a party. The hearing will proceed smoothly despite the reference. If, in due course, the opinion of the court is available and is averse to what he has done, he must alter his order or award accordingly. Certainly, he must act in conformity with the opinion of the court. However, the proceedings are not delayed. This bill provides that three people may refer questions of law. A conciliation commissioner may still do so, and the Chief Judge may direct that it be done. I do not see how he becomes cognizant of what is going on before the conciliation commissioner. That is something I should like the Attorney-General to explain. In addition, any party to the dispute may refer questions of law. With the kind of economic circumstances to which I have referred, one can envisage a state of affairs where it will suit a party to request that a point of law relating to jurisdiction, interpretation, or procedure, be referred a month after the hearing has begun. In that way, a whole series of appeals on questions of law may result. Such appeals rest on the initiative, not of the conciliation commissioner or the Chief Judge, but of a party.

I come now to the third set of appeals, which relate to the situation where the hearing before a conciliation commissioner is concluded, and there is an aggrieved party. The hearing may have occupied many months. Evidence has been tendered, and a great deal of effort put into the presentation of the case. Any individual who is a party to the hearing’ may seek leave to appeal to the Chief Judge or his nominee. At that point there may be a divergence of opinion between the various judges of the court as to what constitutes the public interest. The first point of delay is that the award that is made is not to be effective until 21 days after it is made. That is a provision which, after perhaps months of hearing, will cause great irritation. Everything must stand still for 21 days, unless the parties unanimously consent to the award taking effect immediately. Then, within fourteen days, any party or person who is aggrieved by the order or award may appeal to the Chief Judge or his nominee, who must determine whether the matter is in the public interest. If he decides that it is in the public interest and should be referred to the court, the whole matter goes over to the court, which has specific power to admit further evidence. The admission of further evidence will re-open the whole issue. Therefore, if an organization, whether of employers or employees, wants to adopt delaying tactics regarding questions of law, it may, if it chooses, wait until the order or award is made before seeking to take the matter out of the hands of the conciliation commissioner. “What I have said on those three matters leads me to the important conclusion that this procedure is designed to undermine the confidence of the conciliation commissioners. A conciliation commissioner will never know when a matter is going to be taken out of his hands, or when questions of law will be raised by the people appearing before him. If requested, he must refer them to the court and await its determination. Even when he has reached a decision, perhaps after a hearing lasting for months, he will not know whether it is to be appealed against and perhaps overridden by the court. He will be made hesitant in the exercise of his jurisdiction. His decisiveness and certainty will be completely undermined. [ mention that in explanation of my earlier statement that, although this measure is not a frontal attack on the authority of conciliation commissioners, it is an oblique attack for the reasons that I have given. These vital provisions have not the approval of the trade union movement. The Australian Council of Trades Unions, which consists of about 72 unions, met in Melbourne to consider legislation of this kind not very long ago. The council made a request to the Government, which, I regret, the Government ignored. The conference expressed opposition to the system of appeals, but indicated that a complete review of the working of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was desired. As one of the major parties in industry, the Government has made a grievous error by going ahead and ignoring the request by the Australian Council of Trades Unions for a full opportunity for consultation. I do not suggest .that the Government should bow its head to the. trade union movement or to the employers ; but when it is asked by a responsible body such as the Australian Council of Trades Unions to allow more time for consideration, it is making a vital error in not granting that request.

The Attorney-General announced in his second-reading speech that the Government proposes to institute a system of appeals from the separate and special tribunals that have been set up in various industries. They are the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, presided over not by a conciliation commissioner, but by Judge Kirby, of the Commonwealth Arbitration. Court itself; the Coal Industry Tribunal - provided that the authority of the New South Wales Government can be obtained for this purpose; the Public Service Arbitrator, and the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. The Public Service Arbitrator, Mr. G. B. Castieau, is an outstanding lawyer who has given general satisfaction to the Public Service. Mr. Justice Wright, of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, is the industrial authority for the Snowy Mountains project. In other words, a right of appeal is to be allowed from the decisions of two judges, a lawyer, and an expert on the coal industry. The Government is seeking to gather up all industrial authorities that come within its purview and to canalize them.

Senator Spicer:

– “ Co-ordinate “ would be a nicer word.

Senator McKENNA:

– I have been intrigued by the word “ canalize “ ever since the Privy Council used it, or perhaps coined it, and I have used it on many occasions since. What is happening is that every arbitral function of the Commonwealth will be, under this measure and others that have been foreshadowed by the Attorney-General, channelled through to the Full Bench of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Quite frankly, what we fear is that a bottleneck will result in the court, in spite of the fact that additional judges are to be appointed so that two full courts, each of at least three judges, may sit simultaneously if necessary. I believe that there will be the same conflict between two full courts as there is at present between individual judges of the court. It is quite conceivable that, on a matter of high principle, two full courts, sitting simultaneously, would, by majority decisions, reach entirely different conclusions in the light of what they believed to be in the public interest.

Senator McCallum:

– What terrible people these lawyers are!

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not know what prompted the honorable senator to say that. If he doubts that lawyers disagree when sitting on tribunals, I refer him to the basic wage case and to that other case that I have already mentioned, the female minimum wage case. Perhaps the honorable senator has in mind something on the lines of the remark by the Chief Conciliation Commissioner that judges are mainly lawyers. There may be some judges who are not mainly lawyers. What the Labour party fears most is that, under this legislation, a bottleneck will be caused in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, and that there will be no less a division of opinion between the separate Full Courts than exists to-day between individual judges.

I come now to clause 17. It is an innocent looking provision which simply repeals section 55 and, in effect, re-enacts the first part of section 55. But how significant is that part of section 55 that is being deleted ! I shall read that portion to the Senate. It states -

The Court on a Conciliation Commissioner shall not include in an order or award a provision -

authorizing an employer -

to forfeit or refrain from paying any wages to which an employee has become entitled under his contract or under an award; or

to impose any penalty on an employee.

I suggest that the removal of that provision will be not merely an authority, but also a direct invitation to the court or to a conciliation commissioner to include in his orders or awards provisions such as we had in the dark old days when employers were authorized to refrain from paying wages to which employees had become entitled, and to impose other penalties on employees. I am certain that nobody in the trade union movement will approve of this amendment. It was not mentioned by the Attorney-General in his second-reading speech ; nevertheless, it is a most significant and important alteration of our arbitration legislation. I repeat that there will be an invitation to the court and to conciliation commissioners to include in their orders and awards provisions enabling employers to fine employees for minor offences such as negligence, or late attendance, and to deduct such fines from wages. I invite the Attorney-General to inform the Senate why the portion of section 55 to which I have referred is being repealed. Is it the Government’s wish that there should be included in awards authority for employers to deduct fines from the wages of employees for certain offences? If so, what offences has the Government in mind? What has happened to make the Government want to see such provisions included in awards. The Senate would be most interested to know at whose request this portion of section 55 is being repealed, and what purpose its repeal will serve.

Senator Spicer:

– There are already provisions of that kind in some awards. The awards covering the shearing industry make certain provisions in relation to damage to sheep.

Senator McKENNA:

– That may be, but section 55 was inserted in 1947, whereas the provisions to which the Attorney-General refers were included in awards prior to that date. Under section 55, neither the court nor a conciliation commissioner may insert such provision in awards.

Senator Spicer:

– They are generally accepted.

Senator McKENNA:

– They may be generally accepted in some awards, but I believe that such authority should be confined to those awards. I venture to say that the Attorney-General cannot even envisage where an authority of this kind, conferred on the court and on conciliation commissioners, may lead. The brake is being taken off. Not only may the court andconciliation commissioners regard the amendment as an invitation, but I venture to say that many employers and employers’ organizations will so regard it.

Senator Spicer:

– But they do not decide these matters.

Senator McKENNA:

– No, but they will press for the insertion of such provisions. A door has been opened that would better have been left closed. If this authority be given, an employer may be authorized not only to fine an employee, but also to deprive him of sick leave or recreation leave. Action may take any of those forms, and even at this late stage, I urge the Attorney-General to restore that portion of section 55 that is to be eliminated by clause 17.

I come now to the third aspect of this measure with which I am greatly concerned. It is contained in clause 22 which deals with membership. I direct the attention of the Senate to proposed section

S3a. At first sight, the initial subparagraph of that section appears to be unexceptionable. It states - (1.) A person employed in connexion with an industry, or engaged in an industrial pursuit, is, unless he is of general bad character, entitled, subject to payment of any amount properly payable in respect of membership, to be admitted as a member of an organization (being an organization of employees in or in connexion with that industry or of employees engaged in that industrial pursuit) and to remain a member so long as he complies with the rules of the organization.

As I have said, that appears to be completely unexceptionable. A person employed in connexion with an industry is, under another sub-section deemed to be anybody who is usually employed or who is qualified to work in a particular industry, and desires to be so employed. Therefore, this provision will open the doors of trade unions to anybody who is not of “ general bad character “. Obviously it will be most difficult to define what constitutes “ general bad character “. Such a charge would not be easy to establish against any individual. Accordingly, the door will be opened to anybody who wants to join a trade union. “ “What is wrong with that? “, one may well ask. I invite the Senate to consider two cases from the trade union viewpoint. Let us assume that a man who is not of general bad character by any stretch of the imagination, acts in a manner that is completely opposed to the best interests of his union, and is therefore expelled. The offence may involve no moral turpitude ; but for acts that are contrary to the best interests of the union he is charged and expelled. Under this provision to which I have referred, he may go straight back into the union so long as he pays his fees. Does any honorable senator suggest that that is a proper provision? Is the union to be deprived of all autonomy over its membership? Proposed section 83a (2.) provides that this section shall take effect notwithstanding the rules of an organization. Does any honorable senator consider it to be proper that a man who has been expelled from a union after a proper hearing, and for conduct that is inimical to the interests of the union, should be authorized by an act of parliament to walk straight back into that union ?

I wish to refer also to another aspect of this matter which may cause great trouble in the trade union movement. In the past, there have been breakaway bodies known as “ scab “ unions. For instance, in one industry in Victoria at present, there are two organizations of employees. I shall not name them unless I am pressed to do so, but one can well imagine the heart-burnings and upsets that may arise if members of a breakaway union are, by virtue of this provision, to be permitted to walk in, pay their fees, and resume their membership of the original union.

Senator Sheehan:

– It might alter the whole political complexion of the union.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. It might give dominance to Communist influence. Supposing that some members of a union decide to leave and establish a breakaway union and fail in their attempt. After taking such action, which has been completely subversive of the organization, under this section they have only to pay their fees in order to be re-admitted to the body that they set out to destroy. I invite the Attorney-General to give further consideration to that clause in the light of this criticism.

I believe proposed sub-section (4.) to be the most extraordinary provision in the bill. It is a part of a proposed new section which deals with the admission to membership of unions. It reads -

Nothing in this section applies to a person as to whom there is reasonable ground for believing that -

he is a member of an unlawful asso ciation within the meaning of sub-section (1.) of section thirty a of the Crimes Act 1914-1950;

he advocates or encourages, or has, within one year immediately before seeking to become a member of the industrial organization, advocated or encouraged, any of the matters referred to in that sub-section.

In other words, a man who somegroup in a union has reasonable ground for believing to be a member of an unlawful association may be debarred from admission to membership of a union under section 30a of the principal act. He does not, in fact, have to be a member of an unlawful organization. Some group or section within a union has only to have reasonable ground for believing that he is a member of an unlawful organization in order to take this action. It is not necessary that he shall have been declared to be a member of an unlawful organization by any court of this land.

Senator Wright:

– What about subsection (5.) ?

Senator McKENNA:

– I shall not overlook sub-section (5.). I am dealing with proposed sub-section (4.) at present. A person may have reasonable ground for believing what he has been told by an individual or a group of individuals who are complete liars and perjurers. He may reasonably believe what has been put before him by them. Under this clause a small coterie in a union may sit in judgment on a man and decide that they have reasonable ground for believing that he is a member of an unlawful association. They are at liberty to determine that the association in question is unlawful. They may usurp the functions of the court in that connexion. Will that action conform with the rule of law to which the Attorney-General referred during the course of his second-reading speech ? Again, a small coterie within a union may consider that it has reasonable ground for believing that a man has advocated sedition. It does not have to be established to them that he did advocate sedition. They merely require to have reasonable ground for believing that he did.

SenatorSpicer. - At present a union can refuse admission to a man because it does not like the colour of his hair.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. The members of a union may work in a specialized industry and it may not be wise that its ranks should be overfilled. That fact is recognized by the stevedoring industry legislation.

Under proposed sub-section (5.) the court will have some jurisdiction in matters of this kind. But there is no provision whereby the person who is seeking membership of a union and encounters difficulty under sub-section (4.) shall be notified of what is alleged against him. There is no protection for such a man. Proposed sub-section (5.) reads -

The court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a question or dispute arising under this section and may, nothwithstanding anything contained in the rules of the organization concerned, make such order as it thinks fit in relation to the question of dispute.

In any dispute arising out of sub-section (4.) the court would determine under sub-section (5.) whether the admission body of the union had reasonable ground for believing that the applicant for membership was a member of an unlawful association, or for believing that he had advocated sedition. The court would not be required to determine whether he was, in fact, a member of an unlawful organization, or whether he had advocated sedition. Under sub-section (5.) the court may only determine a matter arising under this section and the matter that would arise under sub-section (4.) would be whether a union which had rejected a. man’s application for membership had reasonable grounds for believing him to have advocated sedition or for believing that he was a member of an unlawful organization.

Senator Vincent:

– Sub-section (4.) does not refer to the “ coterie “ in a union to which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) referred.

Senator McKENNA:

– No. But who else would be concerned in the matter at that stage?

Senator Vincent:

– The court.

Senator McKENNA:

– The application is not made to the court in the first instance. The application for membership must be made to the union. Therefore, although the sub-section does not specify who is to believe that an applicant is a member of an unlawful association, only the union could be contemplated under sub-section (4.). No one but the applicant and the union is concerned in the matter at that stage. Proposed sub-section (5.) reads -

The court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a question or dispute arising under this section.

The only question that would arise would be whether the coterie, that is to say, the union, had reasonable ground for believing that the applicant was a member of an unlawful association. The court would not be required to determine whether, in fact, the applicant was a member of an unlawful association or whether he had advocated sedition. The truth of the allegation would not be at issue. The one issue before the court would be whether the union had reasonable grounds for believing the allegation, regardless of its truth or otherwise. This provision of the bill is causing grave concern to people in industry. Representations concerning it were made to me by a telephone call from Tasmania only last night. The Tasmanian AttorneyGeneral has been approached by bodies which are gravely concerned about the possible effect of clause 22 of the bill. I suggest that the Attorney-General should examine that clause carefully in the light of the criticism that has been made. There is no need for a clause of that type. I think that the Senate will agree with me if it examines section 80 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which reads -

  1. – (1.) The court may, upon its own motion or upon application made under this section, disallow any rule of an organization which, in the opinion of the Court -

    1. a ) is contrary to law, or to an order or award :
    2. is tyrannical or oppressive;
    3. prevents or hinders members of the organization from observing the law or the provisions of an order or award; or
    4. imposes unreasonable conditions upon the membership of any member or upon any applicant for membership, and any rule so disallowed shall be void.

Sub-section (2.) of section 80 provides that any member of an organization may apply to the court. That provision would not be wide enough to cover a mere application for membership. But honorable senators will notice that the court may act upon its own motion. It does not require an applicant to act in a matter in which rules of an organization impose unreasonable conditions of membership, or impose unreasonable conditions on any applicants for membership. What greater power can the Government need than to have vested in the court the power to disallow any rule that is tyrannical or oppressive or imposes unreasonable conditions on any applicant for membership without any application having been made to it? Not only are the provisions of clause 22 of the bill unreasonable but they are completely unnecessary.

I had intended to say something about the 1949 legislation of the Labour Government dealing with irregularities and malpractices in union ballots. However, the Attorney-General was good enough to furnish me with a lot of interesting information to-day regarding applications which have been made under that legislation and under legislation introduced by his own Government. I have not yet had an opportunity to study those cases, so I prefer to leave my comment until a later occasion.

The Opposition genuinely believes that these appeal provisions will interfere with the efficient working of the whole arbitration system. It genuinely believes that they will make more industrial trouble than they will cure. We appeal to the Government to defer this bill until the Australian Council of Trades Unions and the bodies that are reprasented on it have had an opportunity to present a considered opinion on the whole arbitration system to the Government. I believe that the unions would be able to do that in two months. According to the Attorney-General, the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and the Chief Conciliation Commissioner, the arbitration system is working smoothly, so there is no urgency in the matter. In the interests of harmonious industrial relations, the Government would be wise to await a considered opinion, of the trade union movement. Certainly the Government has the power to force the bill through this chamber, but it might find that it would be able to proceed much further along the road to industrial peace after having done that.. It knows that the trade union movement is hostile to this legislation.

I do not suggest that the Government should defer to the trade union movement. Whilst the Labour Government always considered the view of the trade union movement it did not always act upon it. Some fierce conflicts must arisein dealing with certain sectional interests and the duty of a government is to preserve the public interest. I think that the Government will be guilty of an error in tactics if it does not give the trade unions the opportunity to express their opinion on this bill. I agree with the Attorney-General that the Government is never likely to establish a perfect arbitration system, but it will have b much better chance of establishing a good system if it has the goodwill of one of the largest bodies in Australia, the trade union movement. I conclude with one more suggestion to the Government. Since the act was reprinted to incorporate amendments up to 1947,. many more amendments have been mad?. Already, it is difficult to trace them through the amending legislation. I invite the Attorney-General to have the act reprinted when this bill is passed.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) upon having made a very thoughtful and moderate speech. I also congratulate him for another reason. To-day, he has made history in that, for the. first time, a leader of the Labour party has expressed appreciation of a measure introduced by a Liberal government to deal with industrial arbitration. His action came as a shock to me. For many years, we have listened to stories from the other side that we on this side do not know anything about industrial matters, and are ignorant of the real principles involved. Almost from the very time that a Liberal government introduced the first industrial legislation in 1904, we have heard stories of that kind. Now, I really believe that the Opposition has come to the conclusion that we, as well as they, know something about industrial arbitration. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for admitting that the bill possesses some virtue.

It is proposed in this measure to amend the industrial law in various ways. The most important of the amendments will give, for the first time, the right of appeal in certain circumstances from the decisions of conciliation commissioners. At this stage it would be pertinent to review the work of conciliation commissioners since they were first appointed. It is recognized that they have had an extraordinarily difficult and important task to perform. By the act of 1947, a division was made of the functions of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The four well-known matters, standard hours, the basic wage, the female wage and certain aspects of leave, remained with the court. Other matters, which cover a very large field, were delegated to the conciliation commissioners, of whom fifteen were appointed, most of them union officials. I do not criticize their appointment from the point of view of party politics; it had certain bad features and certain good ones. It is admitted that the union official possesses a knowledge of industrial matters, but he necessarily lacks the important qualification, which is required of arbitrators and judges, of being able to weigh and sift evidence. Although the perfect conciliation commissioner has not yet been born it is possible that union officials do not make the best conciliation commissioners. I do not suggest that men should be chosen from any other trade or profession, but I do seriously suggest that we should try appointing persons other than trade union officials in order to see how we get on.

No one can deny that the work of conciliation commissioners has been onerous and difficult, or that they have succeeded to a great degree. That is acknowledged by the Government, and I believe it.

When I was a young man, I played Australian rules football, and I often thought that the umpire had one of the most difficult jobs in the world to perform. The umpire has to interpret a very difficult code of rules, and must endeavour to please both sides, as well as avoid angering a crowd of people on the other side of the pickets, people who are often very easily angered, indeed. In the sterner game of life the job of the conciliation commissioner is even more difficult than that of the football umpire. His is, indeed, a herculean task. First of all, he must be a conciliator. He must be able to “smell out” impending industrial trouble, and then he must act promptly before it comes to a head. He must try to get the parties together so that they may agree. The words “ must “ and “ shall “ are not in his vocabulary at that stage of a dispute. He is a conciliator only. However, if he fails in his efforts at conciliation - as he often does through no fault of his own - he must then assume the role of arbitrator, and bring the parties together whether they like it or not, and impose his award upon them whether they like it or not.

The conciliation commissioners, in doing their work, must endeavour to apply basic principles of conciliation and arbitration, and most of them have done so. A well-known authority on the principles of industrial arbitration, Mr. Foenander, of the University of Melbourne, who has applied himself objectively to this problem, has written on this point as follows: -

To the Australian, authoritative regulation and compulsory arbitration in industrial relations are, in their essence, the outward expression of a collective determination to secure the most desirable conditions for the growth of industry. On a closer analysis this determination is seen to involve two fundamental considerations - («) The provision o£ an industrial peace estimated to reduce to a minimum, wastage and dislocation due to strife between employers and employees: and (6) the provision for an equitable distribution of the fruits of industry among those who have co-operated in their production.

An understanding of those two aspects of conciliation and arbitration is necessary to conciliation commissioners, because those aspects are frequently in conflict. There is first the need to preserve industrial peace, but the conciliation commis- sioner is also charged with the task of ensuring an equitable division of the fruits of industry. In trying to reconcile those two duties, the commissioner frequently strikes trouble. The Parliament should do whatever it can to make things easier for the industrial commissioners, and I was astonished, therefore, when I learned that the legislation of 1947 gave no right of appeal from the decisions of conciliation commissioners. That omission provoked much criticism at the time. It was claimed that, in the absence of a right of appeal, there would be lack of uniformity in the. decisions of the conciliation commissioners. It is easy to imagine that if half a dozen conciliation commissioners were dealing at the same time with a similar aspect of industrial law they might reach half a dozen different decisions. Something of that sort did, in fact, happen. Within a year of the act being passed, one conciliation commissioner granted double time for week-end work to certain members of a union, and another conciliation commissioner granted time and a half to certain other members of the same union doing the same work, but for different employers. The judges of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court were not slow to spot this obvious weakness. The very next year after the act of 1947 was passed, the then Chief Judge of the Court, in his annual report to the Attorney-General, said - “ Section 107 casts upon me the duty of summoning, not less frequently than once in every four months, a conference of the Commissioners to discuss questions relating to the operation of the Act. . . . It is hoped that arising out of the discussions . . . some measure of uniform approach will in time be achieved. Up to the present . . . there are many indications of a disturbing lack of uniformity. For instance, some Conciliation Commissioners appear to be more influenced than others with the desirability of preserving a continuity of principles long established and found to be just and equitable than others upon whom the previous decisions of the arbitration authority have exerted less influence. … It has been urged by Conciliation Commissioners in conference, that a measure of co-ordination, to be provided by some form of appeal, at least in matters of general importance, should be included in the provisions of the Act. There is a great practical necessity for uniformity in such matters as, for instance, the principles upon which marginal rates, shift work rates, overtime and special time rates, the spread of hours of work and many other conditions of employment, should be determined. Within co-ordinated principles the discretion of the arbiter can be maintained.” It will be noted that the only form of appeal the Chief -Judge advocated was one which would facilitate uniformity.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Has there been any similar comment since then about the 1947 legislation?

Senator VINCENT:

-I shall deal with that aspect of the matter in a moment. But here we have a plea by the then Chief Judge for a measure of uniformity. I particularly emphasize the following portion of his report in relation to the views of the conciliation commissioners -

It has been urged by Conciliation Commissioners in conference, that a measure of coordination, to be provided by some form -of appeal. . . .

This afternoon the Leader of the Opposisition condemned that aspect of the measure. He stated that the provision of a right of appeal would make the conciliation commissioners nervous, and he implied that the conciliation commissioners do not want it. Tet the then Chief Judge reported that they do want it.

I think the words of the then Chief Judge should dispose of the contention that the members of the judiciary do not favour the proposed amendment. Let us consider what evidence there is to suggest that members of the general public want the amendment. During the last four years, on innumerable occasions, representatives of both trade unions and employers’ organizations have suggested that there should be co-ordination of activity in order to attain synthesis in relation to the decisions of conciliation commissioners. Recently, we had the unhappy example of the Galvin award, to which I shall refer only briefly at this stage. It has given rise to a number of strikes. While I do not for a moment criticize that award, I contend that had there been a right of appeal from that decision many thousands of workers in this country would have received justice in one way or another.

Sitting suspended from £.16 to h.,52 p.m.

Senator VINCENT:

– In this Senate during the last two years we have heard a great deal about the right of appeal being an inherent right in British justice.

In our debates on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill we were reminded again and again by the Opposition that it is contrary to the principles of British justice to deny to a person who is involved in legal proceedings the right of appeal. Now the Opposition advocates the denial of that right in the field of industrial arbitration. It contends that employers and employees alike should be denied what in other days it described as a fundamental principle of British justice. I invite Opposition senators to state whether they consider their attitude to this aspect of the measure to be in accordance with their concept of British justice. It was suggested bv the Leader of the Opposition that appeals from the decisions of conciliation commissioners would cause delays. After having stated a hypothetical case he suggested that, in the circumstances he had outlined, considerable delays would occur if the right of appeal were granted. He also said that if the right of appeal were granted a multiplicity of appeals against the decisions of conciliation commissioners would be lodged by both employers and employees in an endeavour to delay a final decision. I remind him that under this legislation the majority of appeals could be made only by leave of the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. I asked him by interjection, whether he thought that the Chief Judge had come down in the last shower. If, in the opinion of the Chief Judge a case has no merit the prospective appellant will not be granted leave to appeal. In those circumstances it cannot be contended that the granting of the right to seek leave to appeal would result in delays in the administration of justice. Furthermore, the bill provides for the appointment of additional judges to the court for the purpose of expediting hearings.

The first bona fide appeal from the decision of a conciliation commissioner will establish a precedent which other conciliation commissioners can follow, and should have the effect of rendering, unnecessary the submission to the conciliation commissioner of a multiplicity of cases related to the subject-matter of the appeal. The Leader of the Opposition will surely agree that the provisions of this measure, far from delaying proceedings in the industrial field, will expedite the settlement of disputes and the granting of awards.

I do not suggest that our industrial laws are perfect, nor do I believe thai we shall ever evolve a perfect code of industrial laws. It took, perhaps, 500 years to develop the pattern of our civil code, and even now it is not perfect. How futile it is, therefore, for any one to suggest that our industrial code could be remade, as it were, overnight. Probably many generations will pass away before we evolve a workable code of laws in the industrial arbitration field.

The third problem with which I wish to deal is the political strike. In 1904, when a Liberal party Government introduced the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, we had not heard of communism. It is reasonable to assume that our industrial laws were not devised to deal with the activities of a professional agitator working under the direction of a foreign power, such as we have in our midst to-day. It is regrettable that this Parliament has no power to deal effectively with these people. Until we obtain power to do so, the task of the conciliation commissioners will continue to be most difficult. Indeed, it appears at times to be almost hopeless. This Parliament should do everything possible to lighten the task of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and the conciliation commissioners. The provisions of this measure that relate . to appeals will considerably lighten the task of the conciliation commissioners. The granting of the right of appeal against the decisions of the conciliation commissioners is in accordance with their wishes; it is in accordance with the suggestion of the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and, I suggest, with the wishes of the great majority of trade unionists and the people generally. Because of that fact I have much pleasure in supporting the bill.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– When we are considering an amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act we must clearly bear in mind the fact that we are dealing with legislation that touches more closely upon the problems of human relationships than does any other legislation. The consideration of human relationships must become a fundamental factor in all our thoughts on this subject. I emphasize, with all the power at my command, the importance of the word “ conciliation “.. To-day we tend to move away from conciliation towards arbitration, which should only be the final resort. In. this legislation we are dealing not only with a law but also with complex human’ relations, with the hopes and ambitions of the people - with our very way of life - and even with the higher education of the masses of the Australian people. In furtherance of that point I should like toquote a statement made by Mr. Justice Higgins, who was probably, if not the greatest, then certainly one of the greatest judges who have ever handled arbitration matters in Australia. Mr. Justice Higgins said -

The truth is that the [Arbitration] Court transfers more money and affects directly morehuman lives than all the other courts taken together. The war between the private employer and the wage-earner is always with na., arid although not so dramatic or catastrophic as the present war in Europe, it probably produces in the long run as much loss and suffering not only to the actual combatants but also to the public

The truth of that statement is emphasized by the fact that this amending bill which we are now considering constitutes the twenty-eighth amendment of the original act which was passed in 1904. That fact alone indicates the deep thought that successive governments have give» to this problem. The Senate will recall that on one occasion an election was fought on a proposal for the virtual abolition of the Commonwealth, Arbitration Court, and that on that occasion the Australian people spoke with a very decisive voice. Because we have had only 48 years’ experience of the operation of this kind of legislation, and because on 28 occasions we have amended the principal act, we must keep two important points- in our mind during our consideration of the bill. The first is that there, is a great danger in dealing piecemeal with this matter instead of considering the system of arbitration as a whole. We must keep our minds firmly fixed on. the principles that were evolved by notable jurists such as Mr. Justice Higgins when they laid the foundations of our conciliation and arbitration laws. Secondly, when we are dealing with a problem that affects human relationships, we must be tolerant and understanding, ;and ensure that the standards that we have established in the past shall not be destroyed. I think that that should be the first leg of our argument.

The other point that I wish to make concerns the trend’ of arbitration because of the widely divergent views held by the two main political parties in Australia. Our conciliation and arbitration system is unique. It has been watched by other peoples of the world for a considerable “time and has been favorably commented upon. Mr. Justice Higgins referred to it as a new province for law and order. I think that that description is literally true. Arbitration is a comparatively new province into which governments and peoples have moved for the purpose of trying to maintain law and order. Senator Vincent pointed out earlier that the world has had 500 years’ experience of other forms of jurisprudence. The system of conciliation and arbitration in operation in Australia has existed for a mere 43 years. During that time, it has survived two world wars, depressions, inflation and other calamities.

Conciliation and arbitration present problems which are not easy to solve. For that reason, we should discuss it with a great deal of restraint. It is not simple to amend satisfactorily legislation which affects the working life of most Australian people. Such legislation governs the amount of money which workers shall be paid, and the hours ;and conditions applicable to their employment - matters which are vital in their lives. If a person is not happy in his work, his discontent will spread, to his domestic surroundings. Various legislative bodies enact laws which govern the lives of the Australian people. State industrial courts and conciliation commissioners, wages boards, reference boards and even the Commonwealth Arbitration Court itself all decide matters which affect large numbers of people. Superimposed on that system is a system of collective bargaining and, indeed, of individual bargaining for the services of workers.

The Opposition does not object to this bill, and particularly to its appeals provisions, on the ground that the amendments of the arbitration legislation introduced by the Chifley Government in 1947 were the last word on the matter. Far from it. However, many members of the Opposition consider that this bill represents a retrograde step. I point out that some honorable senators on this side of the chamber have a great deal of knowledge of industrial matters and also of conciliation and arbitration. It is regrettable that legislation of this kind is usually discussed by this Parliament under the shadow of some great industrial disturbance. Indeed, the Constitution itself was drafted under the shadow of the great maritime strike of 1891. Conferences which were to decide the form of the Constitution were being held when that strike, which was probably the greatest industrial upheaval in the history of Australia, occurred. The original legislation of 1904 was also introduced in the shadow of that strike. It is interesting to recall that when the 1904 legislation was enacted two governments had already fallen, so that it was born into this world in struggle and strife.

It is impossible to deal with conciliation and arbitration piecemeal. Mainly because of the raging inflation from which Australia is suffering at the present time, the efficacy of the arbitration system is frequently queried. It is common to see in the newspapers letters from persons who sign themselves “ Pro Bono Publico “, suggesting that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and the system of linking prices with wages should both be done away with.

That brings me to the consideration of the spirit of arbitration and an asessment of how we, as the custodians of that spirit, intend to protect it during our brief stay in this Parliament. The Harvester award, which determined the first basic wage, was announced in 1907. That award is much maligned to-day. However, it is interesting to recall, in these days of high prices and high wages, that the first basic wage was £2 2s. a week and was based upon the budgets of six Melbourne housewives. Following upon that award, regular hours of work, sick leave, holiday pay and so on became matters of right. I suggest that the arbitration system has provided a form of culture which is particularly suited to our conditions. People from overseas frequently inform us that we are unable to appreciate the arts and cultural matters generally, but it occurs to me that there can be no better form of culture than a high living standard. Because of the system that operates in Australia, a person who works 40 hours a week must not be paid less than a certain sum of money. If he works more than 40 hours a week, he must be paid penalty rates for the additional hours worked. How many people in other countries of the world would also like to attain such a stage of civilization? Australian employers and employees have a great deal for which to thank the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. It has raised our standard of living and has provided us with a unique form of culture.

When the arbitration system was first introduced, it was attacked on the ground that it carried within it the seeds of its own destruction and that it sought to establish conditions in which the government of the country might control the lives of workers. It was said that the system inevitably would lead to people being directed to work in certain industries, for certain wages, under certain conditions, and would result in a modern form of slavery. That contention was completely refuted by the decision -that was given in a case heard in Melbourne in 1915. I know that honorable senators opposite will hotly contest the point that I am about to make.

In 1915 a claim was made before the Arbitration Court for a special rate of pay in respect of certain wheat lumpers who produced evidence to prove that they were not ordinary lumpers. They contended that they were specialists because, by concentrating on that form of employment, they had developed a high degree of skill. Accordingly, they asked for a special rate of pay. The court refused their request. They then declined to accept employment at the minimum rate decided by the court. When an appeal was lodged against their action, Mr. Justice Higgins held that there had been no violation of the spirit of conciliation and arbitration because the court had fixed a minimum wage, which is the only kind of wage the court oan fix. The wheat lumpers to whom I have referred were not prepared to work for a minimum wage, and it was within their province, as citizens and free men, to refuse to do so. The principle involved in that case is hotly contested yet. Whether or not one considers that to be the correct basis for arbitration, I suggest that it embodies the spirit of conciliation and arbitration as conceived by its 1 founders. We must decide whether or not the bill now before the Senate proposes a departure from that spirit.

Mr. Justice Higgins stated in the case which I have just cited that a minimum wage can turn out to be a bane instead of a blessing. That statement has particular application to-day. Because of collective and individual bargaining for labour, some employees are jealous of others whose employers pay them more than the minimum wage. During the years before the last world war, minimum wages became the maximum or standard wages. It is important that we should keep in mind the spirit of the system which has existed since 1904. I have heard members of the Government say on previous occasions that the spirit of legislation is far more important than the letter of the law.

A vital departure from the principles of arbitration and conciliation occurred in 1926, when the first conciliation commissioners were appointed. In that year also, punitive provisions were introduced into the legislation. In the early days of arbitration, the High Court of Australia had ruled that the Arbitration Court had no power to demand obedience to its orders or awards, or to punish persons for contempt. The history of conciliation commissioners is an interesting one. As I have said, they were first appointed in 1926. During the early years, their authority was very limited, although it was later extended. It is important to remember that those conciliation commissioners had no power to fix standard hours of work, to determine a basic wage, to decide questions involving interpretations of the law, or to impose penalties. Although penalties existed, they could be imposed only by the Full Court. In 1933, the system of conciliation commissioners broke down. At that time only one remained in office, and he resigned shortly afterwards. In 1940, other conciliation commissioners were appointed, but in my opinion they were more in the nature of investigators. They were required to investigate conditions and report to a judge of the court, who could order them to make an order or award if he thought fit, or refer to them indus.tial disputes or matters in dispute before the court. They were not a success, and they faded away when the national security regulations were issued. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber who were industrial advocates at that time, will agree that there were interminable delays and constant frustrations because a conciliation commissioner knew that if he made a recommendation that was contrary to some precedent, it would be rejected. Like Mohammet’s coffin which was suspended between heaven and earth, the conciliation commissioners were suspended between the union advocates and the Full Court.

The next chapter was written in 1947 when the system with which we are now dealing was introduced. Sixteen conciliation commissioners were appointed, and their sphere of jurisdiction was prescribed. They were specifically precluded from dealing with standard hours, the basic wage, annual leave, and the female minimum wage. There has been considerable misunderstanding in the community about the transfer of duties that occurred in 1947. What happened was this: Working conditions consist of two ingredients. The first is what I shall term the “main body” which includes primarily the basic wage. If an employee receives, say £14 a week to-day, probably about £12 of that represents the basic wage. That is the vital content of the wage. The other component of the “ main body “ is standard hours. That too is a vital matter. Iu spite of all the abuse that has been levelled at the 40-hour week, I believe that it is one of the greatest benefits ever conferred upon Australian workers. I say that as a worker who benefited from it. Regardless of its economic implications, it is a great boon to workers in industry. As I have said, the two components of the “ main body “ of working conditions are the basic wage and standard hours. The subsidiary ingredients of working conditions include margins. For instance, reverting to that employee who receives £14 a week, the £2 over the basic wage represents his margin.

When the conciliation commissioners were appointed in 1947, the Full Court consisted of three judges, two of whom dealt with the main body of working conditions, namely standard hours and the basic wage. The third judge dealt with margins, and there was no appeal against his decisions. The 1947 amendment was not the complicated step that many people believed it to be. It merely transferred the powers of the one judge nf the court who dealt with margins and other subsidiary matters to the sixteen conciliation commissioners, but whereas the judge had been dealing with industry as a whole, each of the sixteen conciliation commissioners was given his own province. The conciliation commissioners were empowered to move from place tj place, and the result generally has been a much speedier settlement of disputes. The main objection of the trade unions to the arbitration system at that time was that delays were rendering the whole procedure valueless. It was a vital time in our history, and a much more rapid determination of industrial matters was most desirable. Again I emphasize that the appointment of conciliation commissioners did not involve any vital change in the arbitration framework. The appointments were made to expedite the work of the court or, to use a word popularly applied at that time, to “ streamline “ the arbitration system. Admittedly we have been by no means free from industrial troubles since 1947, but we must not lose sight of the fact that our secondary industries have been expanding rapidly. It is of no use to compare what one judge did in 1928, with what another did in 194S. Whether we like it or not, our economy is changing. Our secondary industries are expanding tremendously. Unfortunately this state of affairs has led to considerable confusion in the minds of many people about the precise nature of our industrial troubles and the trend of arbitration procedure.

I have said that the conciliation commissioner system has been successful. Indeed, I claim that it has been an outstanding success. The only exception has been the decision of Conciliation Commissioner Galvin, under the shadow of which we are debating this amended legislation. One criticism levelled at the conciliation commissioner system in 1947 was that sixteen conciliation commissioners might conceivably arrive at sixteen different decisions on similar matters. I remind the Senate, however, that the act provides that the Chief Conciliation Commissioner shall call a conference of his colleagues at least once every six months. Surely no reasonable body of men would allow an important matter such as this to get away from them. It is true that there has been some dissention over other awards of conciliation commissioners, but only minor matters such as holidays have been involved. In this instance, however, there has been a divergence of opinion between Conciliation ‘Commissioner Galvin and Conciliation Commissioner Findlay in Canberra. Certain things happened between the decisions of those conciliation commissioners. The problem cannot be rectified merely by providing a right of appeal from decisions such as that of Mr. Galvin. Does any one imagine that, even if an appeal were allowed, the dispute could be. brought before the court in five minutes? Delays would be inevitable. One does not wear kid gloves in arbitration proceedings. Sometimes even the boxing gloves are taken off. Every possible weapon is used. If honorable senators opposite were on the employers’ side in the Galvin dispute, and they knew that they would have everything to lose and nothing to gain from an appeal to the court by the employees concerned, would they be eager to assist the unions to have their appeal heard? I suggest that they would not.

The trouble with the Galvin award was that it was based on economic considerations. The position was rather peculiar. The approach by metal trades employeesto Mr. Galvin was based on inflation.. They claimed that repeated rises of the basic wage had diminished their margins.. Ironically, their claims were not granted! because of that very same factor - inflation. Mr. Galvin said, in effect, “ Becauseof inflation I cannot grant you the increases, although you have undeniably established your case “. He cited evidenceby leading economists to bolster his argument that the claim should not be granted.

The problem with which we are now confronted has arisen, not because of the’ absence of the right of appeal from the decisions of conciliation commissioners, but because the Australian Government has permitted the determination of eco?nomic policy to be passed over to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Throughout the years, we have frequently seen bickering between union-, advocates and industrial tribunals about .who should formulate economicpolicy. Such an argument took placeduring the hearing of the 40-hour week case. If we are to permit the determination of economic policy to be passed’ over to the court, it is time that this Parliament ‘ shut up shop. The moment a conciliation commissioner is permitted to say to an applicant union. “ You have established your case for an increased wage, but you cannot have it because of economic conditions a system of wage-pegging is being imposed, upon the community. If the Government wants to peg wages, it should do soby an act of the Parliament and not through the conciliation commissioners. I have no doubt that a decision by theGovernment to peg wages, profits and* prices would evoke the admiration of the Australian people, but to condone the pegging of wages through the decisionsof conciliation commissioners savours of snide tactics unless the Government isprepared to take the concomitant action* of pegging prices and profits.

As the Leader of the Opposition has said, delays must inevitably result from the introduction of any system of appeals- from decisions of conciliation commissioners. We must remember that the arbitration court deals not merely with matters of law, but also with the hopes and aspirations of human beings. Workers in industry are not lawyers. They are not familiar with, or impressed by, legal processes. If they believe that they have a grievance, they want it to be considered immediately. They believe instinctively that something is wrong, and they want an immediate inquiry. The leader of the Opposition was right when he said that the important thing is a decision; whether it is for or against the complaining party does not matter so much. I know from personal experience the delays that take place in bringing matters before the arbitration court in Western Australia. A period of 30 days is allowed for an application to be made to the employers. Then there is a further 30 days for a dispute to be created, ten days for counter-claims, and so on. Those pinpricking delays are a constant source of danger. A union knows it will come out of court with a mixed grill. It know3 that it will not get all it wants. Therefore, there are always plenty of union members who will be willing to accept what the employer offers in the hope of taking the matter up again at a later date.

How will the appeal system operate in practice? As Senator Vincent pointed out - although his argument was the opposite of mine - the moment a precedent has been established, court advocates know what their right of appeal will be. I have seen it happen with conciliation commissioners. A conciliation commissioner believes that an award should be made along certain lines, but he knows, that it will be useless for him to make such an award because, as soon as his decision has been given, an appeal will be lodged and, because of the precedent that has been established, his award will be thrown out by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. I say that the right of appeal proposed in this legislation will rip the powers away from the conciliation commissioners, because the moment a precedent has been established, at becomes the law from top to bottom.

Senator Guy:

-The right of appeal is not unlimited.

Senator WILLESEE:

– That is quite true, but that is in accordance with normal legal practice. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that, in certain circumstances, leave to appeal to the Privy Council must be sought from the High Court. Even in those cases, decisions are made in accordance with precedent. The benefits of the conciliation commissioners system will be nullified if there is to be a superior authority saying, “ This is the precedent. If anything that is contrary to that precedent comes before me, I shall reject it.” Obviously, the only sensible course for a conciliation commissioner to follow in these circumstances would be to fall in line with the boss and make an award that he knew would not be upset on appeal. After all, conciliation commissioners are only human, and no one likes to have his decisions upset…

As I have said, the “ main body “ of working conditions consists of standard hours and the basic wage. There is no appeal from decisions on those matters. Therefore, appeals will be limited to the subsidiary ingredients of working conditions. Senator Vincent was obviously hopelessly confused between arbitration law and criminal law. I have endeavoured to emphasize throughout my speech that we are dealing not with purely legal matters, but with human beings. Senator Vincent said that the Labour party wanted a right of appeal under the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, but does not want such a right under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. There is nothing inconsistent in that. Under the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, citizens could have been deprived .of their rights and even of their liberty. That would have been a criminal law, and Labour rightly insisted that the right of appeal should be granted. There has not been a right of appeal in arbitration cases during the 48 years since the first Commonwealth arbitration legislation was passed. This bill will destroy the value of conciliation tribunals who, at present, are able to make decisions which result in the prompt settlement of disputes.

Most awards, even if they have been made in respect of a period of three years, give the trade union the right to have them revised after twelve months. Under this bill, as a result of the delaying tactics which it would be possible for any party to a dispute to employ, a union may be very fortunate if an appeal to the court was heard within twelve months.

The Government has amended the arbitration law four times in the past two years. What intention has it of keeping the spirit of conciliation and arbitration alive? Because of the punitive amendment that the Government introduced to the arbitration legislation last year, industrial affairs are approaching a deadlock similar to that which produced the strike of 1891. The court now has the power to order men who are on strike back to work, and to order them to remove any ‘restrictions that they might have decided to be necessary in connexion with their employment. In other words, the Government has given the court limited powers to direct labour. Immediately an order of the court is disobeyed punitive action can be taken against the unions concerned. The precedent that courts and tribunals will not hear the claim of a union while its members fail to comply with the terms of their award has been established. By taking advantage of the precedent, the hearing of the claims of a union before a tribunal or court can be delayed. Men can be ordered back to work and they can be gaoled or fined if they refuse to obey the order.

I agree with that part of the speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) in which he said that these were dangerous powers to give to the court and that they should he used sparingly. Surely the distinction between the free man and the slave is that the free man may work wherever he can find employment. He should not have to obey any Government’s order in that respect. In attempting to settle industrial disputes one has to deal with complex relationships. The atmosphere of the workshop, the mine, or the forest, cannot he captured in the austere surroundings of the court. The Government proposes to allow an appeal from the decision of layman tribunals who have successfully handled industrial disputes since 1947 to legal men who will consider cases in cold, legal terms. It is impossible effectively to deal with warm human relationships in the cold atmosphere of the arbitration court. The Employers’ Review of February, 1950, contains the following statement: -

It is one of the weaknesses of the Liberal party that its knowledge of unionism cornea generally from hearsay.

That statement is profoundly correct. Because of the type of people on whom the Liberal party depends for support it is only natural that it should have only a hearsay knowledge of unionism. There is a limit to the extent to which parliaments or courts can adjust human relationships. A great responsibility restson management, which has the power to decide what wages its employees shall receive. The court only stipulates a minimum wage rate. Such matters as the kind of people to be employed, the type of lighting of the plant, the type of ventilation, the type of buildings in which the employees shall work and the type of transport in which they shall travel are all determined by the management. I do not wish to defend the man who will not do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. He is a rogue and should be dealt with accordingly. But I have met very few people who will not react favorably to a good lead by management, particularly on the supervisory level. I ask the Government to consider its policy very carefully in the light of the statement that I have quoted. As I have already said, the Government has introduced four amendments to the arbitration law in two years. It has been meandering in a province of law and order which Mr. Justice Higgins described as affecting the lives of the people more than the great war. If the Government is not careful it will smash one of the foundation stones of the Australian way of life.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– In the sphere of industrial arbitration, arbitration itself is a separate entity to arbitrary legislation and its administration. If honorable senators appreciate that fact they will avoid making the mistake of presuming that because the workers have opposed the decisions of the court they are necessarily opposed to arbitration. During the course of his second-reading speech the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) said that the search for a perfect system had been going on almost continuously - ever since the arbitration legislation of 1944 was passed. No system will approximate to perfection unless it makes provision for equality in the relationships between man and man employed on production and their services. At present there is no equality before the court. There can be no equality while man has the right to exploit and impoverish his fellow men.

Sitting suspended from 5.J/.5 to 8 p.m.

Senator CAMERON:

– Prior to 1904, the economic relationship between employers and workers was based on the right of the employers to exploit and impoverish the workers for profit. The position became so acute that it was eventually decided to adopt what has become known as the arbitration system, but arbitration has merely modified the previous system without removing the causes of industrial disputes. No attempt was made in the original act, nor in any of the amending acts, to remove the causes of disputes, although those causes can be, and I hope will be, removed.

An arbitration system, in order to approach perfection, must be based on a properly balanced economic relationship between those engaged in production, and such a relationship can never be. established so long as employers have the right to hire and fire, and to treat the workers in a way in which they would not like to be treated themselves. I have had a great deal of experience in industrial matters, and I know that during the period immediately after the passing of the original arbitration act, the. parties to a dispute generally met in conference with the presiding judge of the court. We worked on the basis of consultation and agreement, and only those matters upon which the. parties were unable to agree were argued before the court. In those days I used to appear before the court as the advocate of the plumbers’ union. At that time, even as now, plumbers were indispensable, and as such received much better treatment from the employers and from the court than did other workers. If employers treat their workers merely as cipher’s and persons of no account they must expect trouble, and we know that there is a great deal of industrial trouble at the present time. The Attorney-General, in his secondreading speech, used these words -

We have considered the views of many representative organizations of employers and employees. We have had discussions with leaders of those organizations, and with counsel experienced in the industrial field.

It might seem to the ordinary person who reads that statement that the trade unions had been consulted, but that is not so. Asa matter of fact, they are strongly opposed to this bill. I say emphatically that it is impossible to achieve, industrial peace except by consultation and agreement. It is one thing to make a law, but it is another thing to enforce that law. Whatever the unions agree to they will do their best to carry out. They do not consider themselves bound when they are not consulted, and if I were in their place I should adopt the same attitude. I agree with Senator McKenna that the unionsshould have, been consulted about theproposed amendments to the act. The Government may ignore them if it likes, but- it cannot prevent industrial disputes of the kind that now exist in the metal trades and on the waterfronts.

A conciliation commissioner goes beyond his jurisdiction when he says that he cannot agree to increase margins because to do so would aggravate inflation. If the commissioner concerned had adopted a common-sense attitude the metal tradesstrike, would never have taken place. On the question of margins, ConciliationCommissioner Galvin has adopted oneattitude, and Conciliation Commissioner Findlay, whose head-quarters are in Canberra, has adopted another. There is no strike of workers in Canberra. Conciliation commissioners must not think that they are masters of the situation. When I was Minister for Aircraft Production there were plenty of disputes among the workers engaged by my department, but they were not allowed to harden into strikes, or to> involve matters of principle. If I wasnot able to deal with the disputes personally, I sent my representative to deal with them, and we never had one strike…

However, there were numerous strikes among the workers employed by private aircraft manufacturing firms, because the directors adopted the dictatorial attitude that they would make their men do this or that. They were like inexperienced military officers who think that they have absolute control over the men under their command. During the period between 1945 and 1949, the Postal Department switched over from war-time conditions to peace-time conditions. There were disputes with the many thousands of men and women who had had no previous experience, but because we treated them on a man-to-man basis, consulted them and sought agreement with them, there was no serious industrial trouble. In those few instances in which agreement could not be reached I had to take the responsibility of giving a decision, and my decisions were never challenged.

Under the present arbitration system the court fixes wages and conditions, but the employers fix the purchasing power of wages by fixing the prices of commodities. The employers in this respect are a law unto themselves, and by raising prices they can with a stroke of the pen cancel out any wages increase granted by the court. Industrial peace will never be achieved while that situation obtains. Despite all of the legalisms that have been used by some supporters of the Government, and the threats that they have made from the floor of this chamber, men canhot be forced to work. The Australian workers will not work if they consider that they have been unjustly treated. The Government and the judiciary should remember that their power is merely relative, not absolute. The extent to which they can exercise it depends on their approach to industrial problems.

The Leader of the Opposition has stated the position very clearly. I agree with his contention that if this measure becomes law the position in the industrial field will go from bad to worse. The Attorney-General said in his secondreading speech that the Communists had made -no secret of their hostility to the arbitration system. The effect of these proposed amendments of the arbitration legislation will be to strengthen the position of the Communists to a greater degree than they themselves are capable of strengthening it. Members of trade unions appoint men to their executive who are prepared to fight their cause, in preference to men who merely apologize to the court or to the employers whenever the whip is cracked. There must be economic equality. In the past, civil wars have resulted from economic inequality. If a rich man is charged with a crime he is able to engage the be3t legal counsel in the land to defend him, but an accused who is in poor circumstances can afford only to engage lesser legal luminaries, or perhaps may have to rely on legal assistance provided by the Government. Consequently, a rich man always has a better chance than has a poor man of being acquitted. The poor man is punished not only for his crime but also for his poverty. The position is analogous in the field of arbitration. Employers are able to engage eminent counsel to study all details of industrial disputes and to try to wear down the resistance of the union representatives. I agree with the contention of the Leader of the Opposition that if the right of appeal against the decision of a conciliation commissioner is granted, an employer who is prepared to spend a lot of money on counsel will be in a favoured position. I believe that the majority of industrial disputes result from incompetent or provocative management. Strikes seldom occur in industries that are well managed and in which balanced relationships exist. There is rarely a strike in the Public Service.

Senator Wright:

– Are there any strikes in Russia i

Senator CAMERON:

– There were strikes in Russia long before the revolution. I am not in a position to say precisely what is happening in Russia to-day, but I do know that stupid and irrelevant interjections do not help anybody. What happens in Russia or in Timbuctoo is beside the point. I am convinced by the facetious attitude of honorable senators opposite that the Government is not so concerned about the probable effects of this legislation as it should be. Employers of labour seldom make a serious approach to industrial problems until they realize that their apathy may react on them.

When arrogant and aggressive employers are brought to heel, their behaviour immediately changes. I am convinced that it is possible for us to bring about a better state of affairs in industry. I endorse the advice that the Leader of the Opposition has proffered to the Government, that further consideration of the bill should be deferred for, say, two months, and that, in the interim,representatives of the Government should confer with trade union representatives. The Government would then learn that the trade unions do not want strikes. The leaders of the unions are faced with far greater difficulties when thousands of their members are on strike than are honorable senators in this chamber.

During the strike of waterside workers in 1890, many special constables were sworn in. They were issued with batons to use againstthe strikers, if necessary. But that action did not remove the cause of the strike. We should make an independent approach to this problem. I urge the Government to arrange for its representatives to meet the representatives of the unions.

Senator McLeay:

– Where would the honorable senator meet Mr. Healy?

Senator CAMERON:

– I do not think that there would be any difficulty in arranging a meeting with Mr. Healy.I warn the Government that if this measure should become law industrial relationships will deteriorate.

Senator McLeay:

– Is the honorable senator prepared to assist the Government to combat the “reds”?

Senator CAMERON:

– I am prepared to assist the Government to the very best of my ability, provided that the Government defers this measure and discusses its provisions with the trade union representatives. I remember that when representatives of the former Labour Government met Mr. Healy, they did not agree with his views. However, they told me that when Mr. Healy gave his word that he would abide by a decision, he always did so.

Senator McLeay:

– Is that why the former Labour Government appointed Mr. Healy to the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, and then kicked him out?

Senator CAMERON:

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) should know-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator should direct his remarks to the bill.

Senator CAMERON:

– Senator Vincent stated that the court should have full power. I assume that the honorable senator meant that it should have dictatorial power. If the court were vested with such power there would be more trouble in the industrial field than there is now. The moment that a judge of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration attempts to adopt a dictatorial attitude he is in trouble. When Judge Lukin adopted such an attitude in 1928, there was immediately a strike on the waterfront. The government of the day replaced about 2,500 ex-servicemen members of the Waterside Workers Federation by Italians and other foreigners, in an attempt to break the strike. But they did not do so. The judge said, “ You must respect the majesty of the law “. He was the law. Previously, those exservicemen of World War I. had been working quite peacefully in the waterfront industry. When they refused to accept reductions of wages they were replaced by nationals of a country that they had fought in the war. All these things live in the minds of the workers. Government supporters should not imagine for one moment that these things are forgotten. The workers know perfectly well what to expect after this amendinglegislation has been passed. They are prepared to meet representatives of the Government and to co-operate with the Government more effectively and sensibly than they have done in the past if their views are properly considered. I remind honorable senators opposite that it is onething to pass a law and another to enforceit.

Senator McLeay:

– The honorablesenator seems to have forgotten that hesent the Army to the coalfields on oneoccasion.

Senator CAMERON:

– I did not send the Army to the coalfields. I went about among the workers and explained the position to them. In 1943, I called twostopwork meetings and explained to thousands of them, the desperate position in which this country was placed and how necessary it was for them to increase production for the maintenance of our war-time requirements. After I had had a heart-.to-heart talk with them they went back to work and production was increased almost immediately. I acted on the principle of consultation and agreement. If that principle were adopted by members of the present Government in their dealings with miners and waterside workers they would get much better results than they are now getting.

Senator Willesee has emphasized that in considering this legislation we must remember that we are dealing with human beings and consequently we must display tolerance and understanding. Instead of adopting an arbitrary, dictatorial and provocative attitude towards the workers, the Government would do better if it sought their co-operation. It cannot hope to bring about industrial harmony merely by placing an enactment on the statute-book and policing its provisions, whether or not those provisions are acceptable to the workers. Industrial unrest in Australia to-day would be considerably lessened if the Government adopted a conciliatory attitude towards the workers and conferred with the representatives of the trade unions that are concerned in industrial disputes. Government supporters appear to believe that because arbitrary tactics have partially succeeded in the past they will succeed in the future. They will soon learn that they are wrong. There is unrest among the workers of all countries. Almost every day we read of strikes in the United States of America and of industrial upheavals in other countries which result from attempts to suppress the workers. The greater the attempt to suppress the workers the more violent is their reaction. I remind honorable senators opposite that action and reaction are equals as well as opposites.

I support the plea that was made by Senator Willesee for better understanding and a more tolerant attitude to the men and women who constitute the work force of this country. The workers have as much right as have the employers and the ruling classes to express their views.

Since I first began to work at the age of fifteen years I have always had the courage to ‘express my views, particularly in relation to industrial matters. Thousands of members of trade unions have done likewise. Men and women are not born to become the. dependants or the economic slaves of others. The worker has as much right to fair and just treatment as has any other member of the community.

I have issued these warnings to the Government lest, after this bill has become law, some honorable senators opposite will say, as the Minister for Shipping and Transport’ (Senator Mcleay) has said, These strikes have been inspired solely by Communists We must examine the background of industrial disputes and try to understand the viewpoint of the workers and the economic impact of the automatic power machine and of inflation. Of what use is it for the Minister for Shipping and Transport, or any other honorable senator opposite, to say, “ Strikes are inspired by Communists “ ? Statements of that kind are stupid and provocative and would not be made by sensible men who had experience in dealing with their fellow men.

Responsibility for the introduction of this measure rests upon the Government, but I warn it that if it seeks to implement the provisions of this bill as they now” stand the result will be very different from those they expect. The Government has already been in office for two and a half years, but strikes still continue because Government supporters have failed to realize that the workers employed in essential industries and services constitute the supreme power in any society. If the workers in key industries and services exercise their power they soon become the masters of the situation. If they are influenced to exert their power as the result of the passage of this legislation the Government and its supporters will stand to lose a great deal more than they would lose if they followed the advice given to them to-night by Senator Willesee which I heartily endorse.

Debate (on motion by Senator McCallum) adjourned.

page 1489

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; ALP (N-C) 1941-42

.- I move-

  1. That a select committee he appointed to inquire into and report upon thepension payable by the Repatriation Department to the childrenof William A. Bailey.; and that such committee consist of Senators Gritchley, Gorton, O’Byrne,Reid, Sandford, Tate, Wood, Wordsworth andthemover.
  2. That such committee have leave to send forpersonspapers and records, and to wove from place toplace.
  3. That the committee report to the Senate onthis day four weeks.

I propose the motion in the interests of British justice. In 1920 Mr. William A. Bailey went through the form of marriage with a certain lady in Melbourne. Previously he ‘had ‘been to a party and he remembered nothing of the wedding ceremony nor did he know that it had taken place until the following day when he was shown the marriage certificate. At the time of this incident he was in receipt of a pension from the ‘Canadian ‘Government as an exserviceman of World War I and was undergoing treatment at the Caulfield Repatriation Hospital for war injuries. The lady concerned ‘has visited Bailey at the hospital ‘and bad obtained certain information from ‘him. Subsequently, he was informed that ibis pension from the Canadian Government was being paid to “the woman. As the result of something that he was told about letters having been sent to this ‘lady from London he decided to go to London ‘and make inquiries about her. He went to London in 1927, taking with him ‘his father and a ‘solicitor named MacC’lennan. While he was in London he met Neville Sydney Newbolt, with whom ibe and his solicitor had long conversations during ‘the -course of which he ascertained ‘that the lady with whom he had ‘gone through a marriage ceremony in Melbourne was the legal wife of Mr. Newbolt. He obtained a statutory declaration from Newbolt to that effect and on his return to Australia he presented it, together with other evidence that he had obtained, to the Public Solicitor in Victoria with a view to obtaining a divorce if that were necessary. The Piii’bilic Solicitor told him that heshould wait until three years had expired before he applied for a divorce.

In 1932, after the three years had ‘expired, Bailey . again visited the Public Solicitor and discussed the matter witih him. The Public Solicitor then said, “ You . are free to walk out of this building and, if you so desire, to marry the first woman you meet “. In 1935, he married a very good lady, who has . since borne him seven healthy Australian children. The marriage took place in -a church in the records of which Ms name is shown as “Wm. A. Barley”. Subsequently, Bailey enlisted for service in World War II. His attestation papers bear the name “Wm. A. Bailey”. As the result of service in World War II., he is now permanently crippled, but the pension due to him from the Canadian Government is still being paid to the woman who fraudulently married him and whom he has not seen since 1924. Blis legal wife is paid a partial pension, but receives no allowance in respect of her three youngest children.

I ask the Government to appoint a select committee to inquire into this matter. In 1935 Bailey wrote to the then Attorney-General, tihe present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) stating the facts of his case. Tiie reply sent to him by the Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department, reads -

  1. . . . inform you that as . . . there does not appear to be any action which tihe Commonwealth can take in the matter, your letter has been referred to the Seca-etai-v of the Law Bepartment, Melbourne.

In 1951 he wrote to the Public Solicitor iaa Victoria, Mr. C. M. S. Power, from whom he ineccived the following letter, dated the 27th November, 1951: -

Ihavereceived your letter of the I5th inst. A perusal of my files indicates that one WilQiam Alfred Bailey,’ then of 47 Cecil-street, South Melbourne, applied to me for legal assistance in October,1932, and again in July, 1935. If you arc identical with this applicant you were then advised that as you had ample evidence that your wife’s first husband was alive at the date of your marriage to her, yon.r marriage was a nullity and there was mo necessity to commence proceedings to dissolve a ‘marriage which did not in fact exist.

I wish to obtain the documents mentioned by the Public Solicitor. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) is not able toget them. It appears that they can be obtained only by the appointment of a parliamentary select committee with power to call witnesses and examine documents.

I have no doubt that the Minister will say that “William A. Bailey is a bigamist. I have here a copy of the magazine People, which is published in every State of the Commonwealth. In the issue of the 10th May, 1950, three pages are devoted to Bailey and his life. There are photographs of him. No one has yet attempted to take action against him as a bigamist. It is said that Newbold is dead. I do not blame the Minister because no action has been taken before this. I myself had no knowledge of the case until approximately a week before I moved this motion. It was then brought to my notice by members of the Returned Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia. It is true that the Minister has in his possession a file in which it is stated that Newbold is dead, but Bailey is prepared to make a statutory declaration that Sydney Newbold is alive, and that it was his twin brother who died.

I hold in my hand the report of the select committee which considered the case of First Lieutenant W. W. Paine. That committee, which consisted of Senator Grant as chairman, Senator Cox, Senator Foll, Senator Gardiner, Senator Green, Senator Elliott and Senator MacDougall, recommended’ that Lieutenant Paine should be paid a pension on account of his disability, although the Repatriation Department had no knowledge of an operation and certain medical treatment which he had undergone. The pension was made retrospective for seven years.

Why should we allow a grand person such as Bailey, who has given seven children to the nation, and who is legally married in every sense of the term, to be denied justice on the ground that he is a bigamist?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I do not think that the honorable senator is in order in predicting what the Minister will

Bay. I very much doubt whether any honorable senator is in a position to do that. I ask him to refrain from making such predictions.

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I assume that the Minister’s reply will be along those lines. I am sincere in this matter and am not playing at party politics. I wish to right a wrong,, and I think that the members of the Government should be big enough and charitable enough to assist me to do so.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · NAT; CP from 1935

– I have listened very carefully to Senator Amour’s remarks. Before this matter was raised in the Senate, I discussed it with Senator Amour and gave him full access to the files in my possession. It is true that Mr. Bailey was married to a Mrs. Newbold on the 15th April, 1921. Before Mrs. Newbold became Mrs. Bailey she was married to Roy Alfred Roberts Shaw, also known as Frederick Newbold, who enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force as a private in the 13th Battalion under the name of Frederick Neville Smith. From the Army records it appears that this man was killed in action on the 11th April, 1917. His widow was granted a full widow’s pension, which she relinquished on her marriage to Mr. Bailey.

This is not the first time that this matter has been raised. A report that Newbold was still alive was fully investigated by the Repatriation Department, which was satisfied that he was killed on service on the 11th April, 1917. The department is paying a full widow’s pension to his widow at the present time. Senator Amour is not entirely correct in saying that the lady who is living with Bailey is not receiving a full pension. She is receiving a full pension as Bailey’3 de facto wife, as she would if she were his legal wife. The department is therefore paying two full pensions to them. Bailey joined the armed forces in June, 1940, was discharged medically unfit in March, 1942, and received a pension on account of disability due to osteoarthritis in both knees. That pension was later increased to the full special rate pension applicable to a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman. Section 99(2)(iii) of the act provides that a child under the age of sixteen years of a member, being his son, daughter, step-son, step-daughter, adopted child, or ex-nuptial child, but not including any step-son, step-daughter or adopted child who became dependant on the member more than seven years after the termination of his war service, or an ex-nuptial child who was born more than nine months after the termination of his service, shall be entitled to a pension. Four children had been born before nine months had elapsed after Bailey’s discharge from the forces. I do not know the age of the eldest child at the present time, but I think that when this case was further examined in 1950 the four children who were born before nine months had elapsed after completion of his service were receiving the full pension of l1s. 6d. a week each. The three who were born subsequently were not receiving any pension, because they were not entitled to do so under the act.

At the present time Mr. Bailey is receiving, for himself, £8 15s. a week, attendant’s allowance £1 10s. a week, and female dependant’s war pension £1 10s. 6d. a week. As far as I know, four children receive11s. 6d. a week each, or a total of £2 6s. In addition, there is an education allowance of 9s. a week for one child, and child endowment for the seven children, making a total of £17 15s. 6d. a week. I suggest that no one could say that that is a niggardly sum. In addition, the department is paying £1 10s. 6d. a week to the person whom it believes is Mr. Bailey’s legal wife, so that the total payments are approximately £19 6s. a week. I consider that the departmentis doing all that it possibly can do. I did not wish to give publicity to this matter, but I have been forced to do so. I cannot see any good reason for further investigation which would no doubt merely serve to further embarrass the persons concerned. Accordingly, I consider that it would be unwise to appoint a select committee to inquire into the matters raised bySenator Amour.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 31

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put. -

That the motion (vide page 1489) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 20

NOES: 31

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1492

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

The PRESIDENT:

– I have, to, inform the Senate that I have received’ a letter from Senator Gorton resigning his seat as a member of. the Council of the Australian National University.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -

That, in accordance-, with the provisions oi section .11 of the Australian National University Act .194(1-1047, the Senate elects Senator McCallum to be a member of the. Council’ of the Australian Rational University to fill’ the vacancy now existing on the Council.

page 1492

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 14S8).

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

– Before proceeding with my speech on this measure, I should like to thank the. Senate for the honour that has been conferred upon me by appointing me to the Council of’ tha Australian National University.

The debate-, on this bill- has been on a very high level, and I was pleased to listen, to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), Senator Vincent and Senator Willesee.. The aim of thi3 measure is to improve the machinery of arbitration. I emphasize that it does no*, repeal all other- legislation of Labour governments, or nonLabour governments. Our arbitration machinery/ has been established by a succession of arbitration bills, numbering I think 28, and dating from 1904 up; tq the. present. The purpose, of each of those measures has not been simply to contradict the legislation of a previous’ government of an opposite political colour;, but to improve the machinery.. I agree with honorable, senators opposite and honorable senators on this side of’ the chamber who- believe our arbitration machinery to- be an. integral part of the governmental machinery of this country. However much some people may- desire a different- method of determining industrial matters, whether it be collective bargaining or the oldfashioned system of individual’ bargaining) such- an alteration- woul’d be> quite impossible. For that reason, I believe that most of Senator Cameron’s long speech was completely irrelevant. Some of his remarks possibly did bear on the subject, but, in the main, the honorable senator was attacking something that no longer exists. It is simply not true to say to-day that the only people who under stand the conditions of wage-earners are trade union secretaries and the wageearners themselves. I have been a trade union official. I was; a. member of the executive of a. registered trade union for a number- of years, and I believe that Senator Robertson was, also. I ana still a member of a trade union,, and I am very glad that I am.

This measure is one of a long series, of attempts to develop the arbitration machinery. It is an. attempt to deal with a specific defect. I think that honorable senators have agreed that, in sonic way,, conflicting, decisions by conciliation commissioners must be prevented. Such conflicts as that which exists between the Galvin- decision- and the Findlay decision must be, dealt, with- in some way. I understand that the Opposition, wishes to deal with this situation by providing that a conciliation commissioner shall not take the economic: condition, of tha nation into account in making am award. I think that that proposal! would be- just, as- difficult to implement as, the, Government’s proposals. As has been stated in. this debate, the Common. wealth Arbitration Court now, deals- only with the basic wage, leave1 and one. or two, other matters.. All other cases aim dealt, with by conciliation commissioners.. I do; not think, it. is possible, for the conciliation commissioners to avoid dealing with matters which have a. legal aspect.. Consequently, there must be. some, co-ordinating, body, otherwise conflicting decisions will. be. inevitable.. I am fully in. sympathy with those who object to the Galvin award’ although I’ attach no blame to Mr. Galvin. I think that he tried to do his duty to- the country and that he was legally entitled1 to obtain the advice that he received!,, but such action should be taken by a co-ordinating body to whom final appeals, may be made.

The Leader of the Opposition presented a picture of interminable delays which he alleged would result, from this bill.. When previous amendments to the

Conciliation, and Arbitration, Act weise considered by this chamber direprophecies were made. It was1 stated that, the proposals would not. work and that they were unacceptable to the trade unions. The unions have accepted thai legislation and have been glad to take advantage of such provisions as those relating, to secret ballots. In my union a revolution has been made possible because it took advantage of the Commonwealth arbitration legislation.. A gentleman whom we had been told, was the true voice of the Labour movement and of the teaching profession was discarded and a very fine teacher has been put in his place. The system of appeal in arbitration must be given a trial. If it produces the delays and difficulties which Senator Willesee and the Leader of the Opposition fear the act can be further amended. This bill provides that four methods of appeal may be made. In order to avoid frivolous appeals it has. been proposed that the Chief Judge should be given a right of veto. That is to say, the appeal, in the first place, must be an appeal for leave to appeal. I consider that this bill will provide smooth machinery which will work easily.

I do not agree with Senator Willesee that there is a sharp difference between what he called’ “human relations” and law. Honorable senators may see human nature and human relations’ being dealt with in any police court or children’s court. All courts deal with human relations and their primary object is to do justice. People who have not made a study of the law do not realise that a cold judicial temperament is necessary to a judge’ in order that he may avoid being carried away by sentimentality. Sentimentality can be just as destructive of good human relations as viciousness or illwill. I d’o not believe that the average employer is determined to grind the utmost out of his employees. I do not deny that such a state of affairs existed in the past, but I d’o not agree that it was ever as universal as many advocates of socialism contend. There was a type of individual whom Charles Dickens depicted very well. The Opposition has been fighting extinct Satans, as Carlyle called them. It would not be possible for employers to act in that way to-day because, the whole climate of opinion would be against them. A. change in public opinion is. one- of the greatest reforming agencies., I appeal to honorable’ senator* to give- this bill- a trial!., I ask them not to pre-judge it in the light of their prejudices. I ask them, not to imagine that, it is only the people who ‘hold official positions- in, the- trade union movement who understand the needs and capacities of ordinary men and, women.. I hope- that the bill will be carried

Senator RYAN:
South Australia

,. - The bill before the Senate represents a direct attack on the trade unions, their standards and membership. The bill lias been designed especially to subjugate the powers of conciliation commissioners and to channel conciliation and arbitration1 eases back to the legal precincts of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court with ‘all its legal atmosphere’, verbosity and technical ramifications, which engender irritation and frustration and are diametrically opposed to the fundamental basis of the Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration acts. I deny Senator Vincent’s: allegation that the provisions of the bill were solicited by the trade union, movement. The Australian Council of Trades Unions sought the cooperation of the- Government when it contemplated introducing amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act consequent upon the industrial disturbances which followed the Galvin award. The- Australian Council- of Trades Unions, being the parent body of the industrial movement, in Australia, obviously should have been consulted on this matter. That body is an- integral part of the conciliation and’ arbitration system and its decisions have a tremendous impact on the economic life of our country. Other organizations associated with the trade union movement were not invited to tender their views on this bill. The Australian Workers Union,, a powerful organization with a membership of 180’,000 workers, was not asked1 for its opinion of the contemplated alterations of the act. The Labour Government always solicited the cooperation of the trade union movement. As a result,, beneficial alterations were incorporated in the act. The principal alteration dispelled the irrational, irritating and frustrating delays which .took place in giving effect to the claims of the trade unions by the court. Prior to the appointment of the conciliation commissioners a single judge heard the claims of unions. At different times several judges of the court could not handle the overwhelming number of cases that had been submitted to them for determination. Consequently, there was a backlog of applications. That feature of the arbitration system was eliminated by the appointment of sixteen conciliation commissioners. They gave effect to the tenets of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act by making possible a speedier settlement of industrial disputes.

In his second-reading speech the Minister said that the proposed amendments to the ‘Conciliation and Arbitration Act would enable the speedy settlement of industrial disputes. The trade union movement thinks otherwise. As on a previous occasion on which a proposed amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was submitted to this chamber, the trade union movement was not consulted on the Government’s proposals. I understand that the Australian Council of Trades Unions was so interested in the matter that it made representations to the Government. The Leader of the Opposition has asked the Government to give consideration to one of the features of this bill which is inimical to the interests of trade union members and which the Opposition fears will not be acceptable to the trade union movement. This bill makes provision for appeals against the awards of conciliation commissioners. It also provides .that the employers shall have the right to penalize employees. The jurisdiction of a single judge of the court is to be extended to cover various industrial fields, and in certain circumstances he will have authority to refer matters to the Pull Bench of the court.

The Attorney-General has stated that the bill confers a limited right of appeal. I cannot understand what he means by a limited right. Up to the present, there has been no appeal from the decision of a conciliation commissioner, and that system has given general satisfaction to the trade unions and the community in general. Now it is proposed to depart from the system because, we have been told, it is necessary to deal with the situation arising out of one major industrial disturbance. The Government has made no attempt to deal with that disturbance on its merits. Instead, it proposes to alter the whole arbitration system, although the general prosperity of the country is sufficient proof that the system is working well. The Government could have dealt with the decision arising out of the dispute by providing that conciliation commissioners shall deal only with such matters as come within their jurisdiction, and that they shall take no notice of economic or political factors; but perhaps a better and fairer way would have been to give the conciliation commissioners power to make automatic adjustments of margins in accordance with variations of the basic wage. However, the Government does not choose to do anything so simple and straightforward. It pretends that this amending legislation is designed to correct an anomaly arising out of the Galvin award, but the bill does a great deal more than that.

Under clause 5 of the bill, the parties to an industrial dispute are to be given the right to appeal from the decision of an industrial conciliation commissioner. It is provided that when a claim is lodged for determination, the conciliation commissioner may determine the matter himself or refer it to the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, who either sends it back to the conciliation commissioner for hearing, or decides that it shall be heard and determined by the Full Bench of the court. The Full Bench, in its turn, may divide the claim into sections. It can hear one or more sections itself, and refer others to the conciliation commissioner for full investigation and report. All this will take time, and will inevitably increase the sense of irritation and frustration among the workers.

Still further delay may be caused if one of the parties exercises its right of appeal. After the conciliation commissioner has given his decision, any of the parties to the claim will have the right to apply for leave to appeal from his decision. The trade unions believe that the conciliation commissioners have rendered good service. They have certainly overtaken the arrears of work that clogged the ‘Commonwealth Arbitration Court before 1947, and they have discharged their duties in the spirit of the act.

This afternoon Senator Willesee treated us to an exposition of the philosophy of goodwill that has been engendered in industry. I think that that atmosphere has developed to a marked degree throughout the industrial field, consequent on the efficiency of the conciliation commissioners. They have brought lay minds to bear on applications, and have expedited hearings. They have been very successful in unravelling problems associated with claims that have been submitted to them for determination. Although laymen, as distinct from men with legal qualifications, they have applied a practical knowledge of industrial work to the problems with which they have been confronted. Some who were previously artisans of various kinds, have a practical knowledge of standards that have obtained within the sphere of their activity. They have grown up in that atmosphere, and, shorn of all legal technicalities, they have been able to bring their practical knowledge to bear. It is obvious that more work will result from the proposed additional appointments to the judiciary. This will have a bad psychological effect on the conciliation commissioners, because their duties will be performed in a legal atmosphere. This in itself will perpetuate industrial unrest because the workers will lose faith in the conciliation and arbitration system. When delivering the joint policy speech of the present Government parties in 1949 the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) stated that if returned to office he would make a strong endeavour to develop better relationships between employers and employees. However, this bill seeks to achieve the antithesis of that objective. Owing to the ramifications associated with appeals, determinations will be delayed for many months. The resultant frustration and irritation will have a detrimental effect on the productive capacity of the workers concerned.

The trade union movement is strongly opposed to other provisions of the bill. Section 55 of the principal act reads -

The Court or a Conciliation Commissioner shall not include in an order or award a provision - (a)…

authorizing an employer -

to forfeit or refrain from paying any wages to which an employee has become entitled under this contract or under an award; or

to impose any penalty on an employee.

Clause 17 repeals section 55 of the principal act, and inserts in its stead the following new section: -

The Court or a Conciliation Commissioner shall not include in an order or award a provision requiring a person claiming the benefit of an award to notify his employer that he is a member of an organization bound by the award.

The proposed new section does not specifically provide that the court or a conciliation commissioner shall not incorporate penalty provisions in awards. That provision in the principal act has been subtly omitted. This is a fundamental condition that affects the rights of the workers in relation to weekly hiring, which has been recognized in the industrial life of this community. Every worker is worthy of his hire.

Senator Wright:

– That can operate only if the award so provides.

Senator RYAN:

– If it was intended that the court or a conciliation commissioner should not be empowered to incorporate a provision authorizing an employer to refrain from paying wages to an employee, the original provision would have been retained in proposed new section 55. Do not honorable senators opposite realize that the trade union movement resents this omission? An employer has not a licence to determine of his own volition the value of the work of an employee. Due to extenuating circumstances, such as a breakdown of transport, a worker may arrive at his place of employment five or ten minutes late. I have known of instances when employees who have been only five minutes late have been stood down from a morning’s work. The employer would not accept any explanation of late arrival.

In the absence of a specific provision that an employer shall not deduct wages, there could be a reversion to that practice.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– It could operate only if it is so provided in the award.

Senator RYAN:

– I realize that.

Senator Wright:

– It does not operate at the will of the employer, but only if the court so orders.

Senator RYAN:

– Does not Senator Wright believe that the employers will take advantage of the omission of that provision from the proposed new section? Why was the section amended to favour employers? It has been my experience that employers are ever ready to take advantage of anything that will benefit them. Of course I do not blame employers’ representatives for obtaining the best bargain possible for their principals.

Senator Wright:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that a judge would include such a ‘provision in an award?

Senator RYAN:

– I do not suggest that a judge readily would do so, but I have a distinct recollection of such practices in the past. A similar provision was incorporated in an award that was made for an industry with which I was connected some .years ago. Provision was made for pro rata work. That determination followed representations that certain bakers had imbibed too freely of intoxicating liquor and, on arrival at their place of employment, were not lit to perform a full day’s work. Consequently the tribunal made provision for such circumstances within the ambit of the determination. Obviously the employers exploited the situation. There are many similar instances recorded in the industrial history of South Australia. I am fearful that the proposed new section will lead to a revival of that state of affairs. I strongly urge the Govern ment to delete clause 17 and to allow section 55 of the principal act to stand. What is wrong with it? Why delegate to conciliation commissioners this specific power to interfere with the stability of weekly hiring wage standards? It would be bad enough if the Full Bench of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration were to assume the power to Implement such an order.

The effect of proposed new section 83a will be that the court may determine the eligibility of an applicant for admission to an industrial organization. Unless the applicant had a bad character the court, would probably regard him as eligible for membership. We contend that the organizations alone should decide who should be admitted to membership. When framing this amending legislation the Government might well have provided for compulsory unionism. If it takes away from, the unions the right to decide who shall be eligible to join them, why should it not compel a non-unionist to become a member of a trade union? The provisions that apply to trade unions and organizations of workers should also apply to organizations of employers. If an employer wishes to join the Employers Federation or another employers’ organization he, too, should have the light to appeal to the court for admission to the organization. This is a lop-sided provision which discriminates against the workers. Organizations of employers and employees alike are compelled to comply with the provisions of the act relating to registers of members and the like. Why, therefore, should the Government discriminate against the workers in respect of eligibility for membership of their organizations?

Provision is also made in the bill for a matter to be referred to a single judge of the court. As we all know, a single judge may, if he so desires, refer to the Pull Court matters that have been submitted to him for consideration. Thus, by making provision for matters to be referred to a single judge the Government is paving the way for further delays in the hearing of claims. The provisions of the measure may also give rise to demarcation disputes. Skilled welders or fitters, or even bakers, may be split up among a number of unions. I can visualize circumstances in which such a division may be desirable, but I contend that it is unwise to empower the court to determine whether a welder should become a member of the Australasian Society of Engineers or the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Such matters as eligibility for membership should be left to the organization concerned.

The Government has made no attempt to achieve industrial harmony or to attain the objectives that are set out in the principal act. It has deliberately fostered industrial unrest by its failure to cooperate v.ith the -workers. The provisions of this amending, bill and of other legis?lation introduced by the Government will be most costly to unions, will result in innumerable disputes and will delay the hearing of claims. Their psychological effect will be quite different from that expected by the Government. In future conciliation commissioners will be, reluctant, to handle cases because their decisions may be made the subject, of appeals. Once the appeal system commences, it will grow rapidly and the efforts of the conciliation commissioners to settle industrial disputes will be stultified. They will be so hamstrung that they will be afraid to make decisions, and the industrial development of Australia will correspondingly suffer.

Even at. this late- hour I appeal to the Government, to postpone further consideration, of this measure until after it has consulted with the trade union movement. The Australian Council of Trades. Unions- has. already given an assurance to the Government that the defects that are apparent in the conciliation and arbitration legislation can be satisfactorily remedied within- the next month or two without resort to provisions of the kind that are contained in this measure.

In my capacity as an ex-official of the Raking Trades. Union of South Australia £ have tried to convince the Government that it has adopted a wrong approach to the problem of industrial relations. When I sought improved conditions on behalf of the members of that organization, I discussed fully and frankly with rile representatives of the employers the matters that had caused unrest among my colleagues. When I accepted my post in- the- organization I regret to. say that its members where working, under conditions that bad no- parallel in this country. After 24 years of administration of its- affairs,, I left it in a. flourishing condition,, with its procedures- completely streamlined, and its members enjoying conditions that, are equal to the. best in Australia,, if not in. the whole world.

We honoured the- principle of conciliation and arbitration and invariably reached a practical solution of our difficulties.

I trust, that this Government will defer further consideration to the bill until after a conference- between representatives of the Government and the trade union movement has taken place. Any agreement reached at a conference between the Government and the trade union movement can subsequently be ratified by a suitable amendment of the principal act.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

– I have no desire to intervene in the debate other than to indicate to honorable senators that the Government is eager to secure the passage of the bill so that it may be returned to the House of Representatives.

Senator Ashley:

– It is a very important bill.

Senator McLEAY:

– I am well aware of. that and accordingly I have no desire to limit discussion of it.. I. merely appeal to Opposition senators to refrain from unnecessary and tedious, repetition.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– Senator Ryan has submitted’ a case that should be answered by responsible Ministers. It is regrettable that honorable senators opposite should receive in silence and with contempt the remarks made by members of the Opposition during, the debate on such an important measure. In view of the statement made by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), during, his second-reading speech, that the purpose of these amendments is to improve the existing arbitration legislation, it might Be supposed that the Government is sincere in this matter. Unfortunately,, I believe that it does not wish to improve- industrial conditions and to enact, legislation which will provide for more expeditious, settlement of industrial disputes. At the moment, the Government, is. drunk with power gained by means- of misrepresentation, chicanery and fraud. By those, means, it. was. able to induce the people of this country to place it. im control of the Parliament. Because the. members of the Government possess that power, they believe that, they may sit idly by and remain dumb while honorable senators on this side of the chamber plead with them to give consideration to valuable suggestions. One can be pardoned for thinking that the Government believes that because it is possessed of fleeting power it is able to bludgeon and coerce into submission the workers of this country.

If honorable senators look back to the time when the upward struggle of man began, they will perhaps appreciate that no force in the world can prevent the progress of the common man who has only his labour power to sell. That struggle has been going on for centuries. If this Government thinks that it can prevent it, it is sadly mistaken. During the course of this debate, honorable senators on this side of the chamber have endeavoured to point out to the Government that this legislation is likely to destroy a system which has been responsible for the establishment of better relations between employers and employees. The road leading to the present level of those relations has not been an easy one to follow. Much suffering and turmoil were experienced by those who travelled along it. The present system of conciliation and arbitration has been reached as a result of negotiations extending over many years. Possibly the first attempt to bring about an understanding between employees and employers was made in Victoria. The suggestion that employers and employees should be enabled to discuss their grievances before a tribunal and that the decisions arrived at should have force of law and be applicable to industry generally was looked upon as an idle dream. Fortunately, in the ranks of the parliamentarians of that day there were men who were in every respect worthy to be called liberals. They had profited by the struggles of the past and by the great examples of liberalism in England, such as the successful fight to abolish slavery. They were eager to better the conditions of the people. I look in vain to-night for the successors of those men amongst honorable senators opposite. It seems that they have passed away. Apparently the members of this Government have forgotten the lessons of history.

The original wages board proved to be a great success, but with the coming of federation and the growth of industry throughout Australia, it was soon recognized that what was required was a system that would be capable of dealing with industrial conditions throughout the Commonwealth and not only with those that existed in a particular State. It is true that employers in individual States considered that they were being inconvenienced or were at a disadvantage if they were required to abide by decisions of a legal tribunal whilst employers in other States were not obliged to do so. From that position, our system of federal arbitration developed.

In the early days, great difficulty was experienced in proving that an interstate dispute existed. Under the legislation of the time, it was necessary for a union to prove that a dispute existed beyond the borders of a certain State. In other words, it had to be an interstate dispute. The legislation was ultimately amended and decisions made by the judiciary rendered it easier for unions to gain access to the court. Further difficulties arose concerning whether awards of the court should apply to more than one industry. If honorable senators have studied the history of arbitration in this country they will be aware of the great difficulty experienced in instituting the common rule, under which an award has general application. An important case was heard by the High Court of Australia, as a result of which the High Court ruled that this Parliament had no power to clothe the Commonwealth Arbitration Court with authority to make an award which would be .binding upon all workers in a particular industry. From that decision can be traced much of the difficulty that has been experienced in promoting industrial peace in certain industries.

Despite what has been said by honorable senators opposite, it is evident that the Government has failed to grasp the opportunity to win the approval of the trade union movement. Senator Ryan, who for many years appeared before arbitration courts and is aware of the legal atmosphere which still surrounds such courts, contributed an excellent speech to the debate. It is most regrettable that this Government again proposes to throw a spanner into the arbitration system. Were the supporters of the Government sincere when they recently wooed the workers of this country for greater production and greater co-operation? They spoke of the right of workers to share in the control of industry. They expressed the belief that, to prevent the overthrow, of the present system of society, there should be a coming-together of employers and employees. Were they speaking in that fashion because labour is scarce and because the worker now holds a position in the economic world which was denied to him in the past, when he was merely a number or a body ? Is there a sincere desire on the part of employers to bring about industrial peace? Many honorable senators opposite have remained silent during this debate. Either they are afraid to espouse the bill or they have no knowledge of the subject. They are deaf to the pleas of honorable senators who have knowledge of arbitration machinery, which can do so much towards achieving industrial peace.

Debate interrupted.

page 1499

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Edward Mattner:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1499

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Is the Government plotting to introduce an artificial set of conditions? Who has disputed the efficacy of the conciliation commissioner system? Only three decisions by conciliation commissioners have led to disputation. The first was the decision of Mr. Blackburn in the tramways case. Then we had the decision of Mr. Hall in the Victorian railways ease, a dispute which, I believe, had its origin in the personal animosity of the Commissioner, Mr.

Hall, not only towards the industrial organizations concerned, but also towards certain railways officers. On that occasion the transport system of Victoria was brought to a standstill. Finally, we have the now famous decision of Mr. Galvin in the metal trades case. But are honorable senators opposite not aware of the thousands of disputes and threatened disputes that have been efficiently dealt with by conciliation commissioners? Are they aware that but for the work of conciliation commissioners, industrial unrest in this country would have been much more widespread than it is? Does the Government seek a return of the conditions that existed in the days when there was only one judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to deal with all the ramifications of industry? The delays in having matters brought before the court in those days were beyond all reason, and later they prompted the first president of the court to refer to the “ Serbonian bog of technicality “. The undertaking with which I was associated, the Victorian Railways, provided employment for 400 distinct categories of labour ; yet all matters relating to that industry had to be brought before one judge. Sometimes years elapsed between the lodging of a claim and the making of an award. In the intervening period of course, the wheels of transport were kept moving. That was not because the workers of those days were any less militant than the workers of to-day, or because the railways authorities wanted to improve working conditions; it was because there were fewer jobs than men, and so the railwaymen waited patiently for decisions to be given by the court. I recall that the first award gave Victorian railwaymen an increase of 2s. 9d. a day in their basic wage. There was no cost of living rise and fall provision in those days.

One of the most serious anomalies of our arbitration system was that key organizations, which, by striking, could inflict great damage upon the economy, were able to secure a fairly expeditious hearing of their grievances, whereas other less fortunate workers, such as white collar workers, had to go to the end of the queue. The appointment of conciliation commissioners in 1947 eliminated most of those delays, and to-day the humblest member of the community who is a member of a registered organization can have his grievances heard expeditiously before the appropriate tribunal. Bo honorable senators opposite imagine that if the efficacy of the conciliation commissioner system is destroyed by an avalanche of appeals, and unions once again have to wait for long periods for the settlement of disputes, the men will stand idly by as they did in the early days to which I have referred, and refrain from taking direct action ? Any one who believes that is grievously misjudging the temper of the times and the power of the industrial worker to seek redress. The worker in industry has as much right to withhold the sale of his labour as primary producers have to withhold the sale of foodstuffs because they consider prices to be too low.

There are other provisions of this legislation which, if given effect, will contribute to the destruction of our arbitration system and throw industry into turmoil. Senator Ryan referred to the matter of membership of trade unions. Surely honorable senators opposite are aware of the struggles that have taken place over the principles of union membership. Surely they are aware of the bad feeling that can be caused by the disloyalty of unionists to their fellows; yet under one clause of this measure, disloyalists and “ scabs “ will be able to return to unions if they so desire. When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking this afternoon, I said by way of interjection that this clause might completely change the political outlook of all industrial unions. Apparently, the Government believes that this provision will serve to keep militant workers out of the trade unions. It will not. The Government is blowing hot and blowing cold in this bill. It hopes that under the provisions of one clause certain individuals will be prevented from joining trade unions; and that under another clause unions will be powerless to prevent other individuals from being admitted as members. I remind honorable senators opposite that before men may join certain unions thev must have served an apprenticeship. They must be trained men. The Government might be able to secure an influx of workers into an unskilled organization if an industrial dispute has occurred. We have had “ scabs “ on the waterfront, in the coalmining industry and in the pastoral industry. Some of them may, in thenignorance, have thought that they were doing the right thing; but invariably they have done a disservice to their fellows. Do honorable senators remember the railway strike of 1917 in Nev/ South Wales?

Senator Grant:

– It lasted for 25 years.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It is true thai its echoes were heard for 25 years. Do honorable senators remember the 1903 strike in the Victorian Railways? The echoes of that dispute, too, reverberated for many years. It was the cause of much disputation and dislocation of work. If the Government wishes, during its brief period of office, to set industrial affairs in order, let it listen to some one who ha? had experience in these matters and isprepared to give it advice.

Other sections of this hill will destroy the harmonious conditions which exist in industry. Mention has been made of members of subversive societies. Under criminal law there is an offence known as being in possession of goods reasonably suspected of having been stolen. It i? most difficult for a person to prove himself innocent of .that charge. The prosecution does not have bo prove that the goods were stolen or that the accused stole them but only that they anight reasonably be suspected of having been stolen. Likewise, the Government ha* provided in this bill that a person who may reasonably be suspected of being an undesirable person can be denied membership of a union. There is in this country an organization which has for its objective the rehabilitation of men who have broken the law and been punished.’ Having paid their penalty, when they come out of prison they are entitled to an opportunity to become decent members of society. Many of them have done so as a result of the help that they have’ received from the organization. But some of these men have to leave joh after job and are denied the opportunity to become rehabilitated. In our form of society it is often necessary for a man to be a member of a union in order to earn bis living. Does the Government intend to make it impossible for a man to reestablishhimself by preventing him from joining a union ? Does it intend, to deny him the opportunity to lead a useful life and provide for his wife and family? Under this clause a man who is suspected of not being worthy of membership of a union can be refused admission–

Senator O’Sullivan:

– If it is proved to the satisfaction of the conciliation commissioner.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It is apparent that the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) would like to revert to the time when a man had to be capable in the opinion of his employer.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The honorable senator does not believe in arbitration.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I do.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Then why does he not support the bill?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Why should any man who is willing and able to work have to appear before a legal tribunal and have his whole life made known to the public in order that he may work ? The onus of proof is upon him.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The Senate is not considering the Communist Party Dissolution Bill.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– The Communist Dissolution Bill did give a man who was thought to be a Communist a chance, but this bill gives a man no chance. Possibly the Minister has not read the bill. Sub-section (4) of proposed new section 83a reads -

Nothing in this section applies to a person as to whom there is a reasonable ground for believing that -

he is a member of an unlawful association within the meaning of subsection (1.) of section 30a of the Crimes Act 1914-50; or (b) he advocates or encourages, or has within one year immediately before seeking to become a member of the industrial organization, advocated or encouraged, any of the matters referred to in that sub-section.

Men struggled for the uplift of the workers long before the Russian revolution and beforeKarl Marx wrote his theory of communism. They were the agitators of those days. If this provision had been in operation in the early days of the Labour movement the men who have brought about improved conditions in industry could have been denied the right to work and live. This is a most cruel section of the bill. What does the Government propose should happen to men who are denied the right to join a union? Will they have to exist on the miserable dole which the Government hands out as unemployment relief ? If not, they could be arrested for vagrancy. These proposals indicate the type of Government that is in power at present. I ask honorable senators to heed the lessons of the past if they want industrial peace and increased production. I ask the Government to examine this matter more carefully. The Australian Council of Trades Unions has requested the Government to wait until it has had an opportunity to examine the pros and cons of this complex legislation. I do not consider that the fixing of margins is too great a responsibility for one man to undertake. The many grades of workers, from professional men to men on the basic wage, who are employed by the Victorian Railways have their margins fixed by a single judge. That being so, there is no reason why a conciliation commissioner, with his knowledge of industry, should not be able to determine margins. I ask the Government to postpone further action on this measure until a conference of the trade union organizations has considered it. In that way the Government could help to bring about industrial peace and assist in the advancement of the country. If the Government fails to respond to this request the industrial trouble of the future will not be the result of subversive influences but of the stupidity, blindness and lack of sincerity of the present Government.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– From the statements that have been made by the Government and its supporters it would appear that they have a very great love of the working man. They love him so much that they intend to alter the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in such a way as to make it harder for him to live. They intend to give the Commonwealth

Arbitration Court power to deprive him of his conditions. They intend also to reduce the possibility of his obtaining redress for bis wrongs by delaying the machinery of arbitration. I sometimes wonder why honorable senators opposite accuse Opposition senators of preaching class hatred. The Opposition has not, in fact, preached class hatred, but if honorable senators examine the bill before the Senate they will find in it the application of the principle of class hatred. They will find that it proposes to make it harder for them to obtain better conditions. There is no suggestion that equivalent action should be taken with respect to the employing class. Arbitration processes have been devised in such a way as to benefit the employers and to penalize the workers. It is no wonder that class hatred has been fostered, and that the workers seek to redress their grievances by methods other than arbitration.

This amending bill is a blow against the principle of conciliation. The Labour movement has always favoured conciliation, and from the earliest times has sought to settle disputes at round-table conferences. A South Australian, Charles Cameron Kingston, suggested that an independent chairman should be appointed to preside over conferences between the parties to industrial disputes. It was also suggested that the workers should organize in an attempt to elect representatives to Parliament so that their point of view might be considered when legislation was being framed. Later, at the instance of the Labour movement, conciliation commissioners were appointed. Now, as I have said, the Government is striking a blow at the principle of conciliation. This legislation will put the fear of God into the conciliation commissioners. They will be afraid to exercise their judgment freely, knowing that at any time there may be an appeal from their decision. There is nothing wrong with the present system. I have not heard any honorable senator opposite condemn the system that has operated since 1947; yet it is proposed to destroy that system.

Before conciliation commissioners were appointed, disputes were heard by single judges. The Pull Court of the Common- wealth Arbitration Court determined such matters as the basic wage, hours of labour, wages of females, and leave, and it was provided that every award issued by a single judge should conform to the principles laid down by the Full Court in respect of those basic matters. There was no right of appeal from the determination of a single judge. If the parties to a dispute reached an agreement, it was certified by a judge. If the parties decided that the agreement should continue in force for twelve months, the judge would not re-open the case before the expiration of that time unless new factors were introduced. However, if the parties were unable to reach agreement, and the judge made an award, he was always ready to hear further evidence on an application that the award be varied. There were delays under that system, but that was due to the need to comply with certain technicalities.

Later, conciliation commissioners were appointed, but the same principles were applied. There were round-table conferences between the parties to disputes, and the conciliation commissioners tried to get the parties to reach agreement. Sometimes a conciliation commissioner would leave the conference so that the parties might confer among themselves. If they could not reach an agreement, the conciliation commissioner had the right to make an award. The trouble is that some of the conciliation commissioners have tried to become dictators. They have said, in effect, “ I have issued an award that is to remain in force for twelve months, and I will not re-open the matter before the expiration of that time “. That is an example of human frailty. Nothing of the kind ever occurred when matters were heard before a judge of the court, and only a few of the conciliation commissioners have been guilty of that fault. All that is needed to remedy this present situation is to tell the conciliation commissioners that their job is to act as conciliators, not as dictators. Senator Sheehan mentioned the case in which Conciliation Commissioner Hall refused to register an agreement reached between the Victorian Commissioner for Railways and the railway workers. He was acting, not as a conciliation commissioner, but as a dictator, and that is the sort of. behaviour which this Government is now supporting. “We have been told that there are no strikes in Russia because the workers are not allowed to strike. The Government would like to introduce the same kind of dictatorship in Australia, and to tell the workers, at the point of a gun, what they should do.

Under the provision granting the right of appeal there will be interminable delays. First, there must be an application to a fudge, who may refer the matter to the Full Court. Then, if the Full Court grants the application for an appeal, the whole process must be started over again, and the appeal duly heard and determined. We know that when an application of that kind is argued by counsel before the Full Court there is little likelihood of a quick decision. When legal counsel used to be admitted to industrial proceedings in former years there were always delays because long arguments took place on legal points instead of the parties giving their attention to the merits of the case. It will be made so hard and so expensive to get a’ decision under the proposed system that the workers will find it much cheaper to stop work. When an appeal is lodged with the Full Court, that body may- consider some of the points involved, and decide that certain others should be dealt with by the conciliation commissioner. If the court then decides that it will hear evidence on that matter but refers other matters back to a conciliation commissioner the position would be no better than it is now. Furthermore, the Tight of appeal will operate after an award has been made. This indicates the love of honorable senators opposite for the workers of this country! That is how the Government proposes to help them to. obtain decent rates and conditions and to resolve their differences with their employers ! Statements that have been made by many men who have appeared before the court, conciliation commissioners, and wages boards from time to time, have revealed weaknesses in the arbitration system. Insufficient tolerance has been displayed towards the workers by the various tribunals.

In effect, we are now considering suggested amendments to proposed amend ments. The Government has apparently taken notice of suggestions that were made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). The effect of one proposed amendment will be that a party to an application shall not, during the course of a hearing by a conciliation commissioner, have the right to apply for an appeal. Provision is also made that an award shall not operate until the expiration of 21 days from the date of the determination, unless the parties so agree. A conciliation commissioner shall not be empowered to shorten the period, but he may be empowered to determine when an award shall take effect. In the past, the practice has been to make an award retrospective to the date of application for a determination. But now it is to be provided that an award shall not apply until twenty-one days after its announcement, or such other period, as the conciliation commissioner may direct. I should like the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) to clarify the position. Will a conciliation commissioner be empowered to make an award retrospective to the day that the application was submitted ? If he is not to be so empowered, the effect of the amendment will be to rob the working people of this country of the redress- that they enjoy under the existing legislation.

I shall now address myself to the proposal that the court shall have the right to empower employers to penalize employees. In days gone by, I have been penalized by employers for minor breaches. It may surprise some supporters of the Government to know that some employers still fine their employees for trivial breaches. I know of an instance when the proprietor of a laundry displayed a notice reading “ Talking is not allowed. Employees offending will be fined half an hour’s pay “. An employer’s right to fine his employees was written into awards years ago, and apparently employers are again to be granted that right. Employees so penalized will have no right of appeal against the employer. In other words, employers will have the right to dictate to their employees. Under some State awards employers are empowered to “dock” an employee 15 minutes’ pay, or half an hour’s pay, if he is one minute late for work. The effect of the- pa?o vision in the- bill is- that the court may incorporate that power in an award.:. All that the Government proposes to give to the workers’ is a roundabout method1 of appeal from determinations by conciliation commissioners.

Other honorable senators on this side of the chamber have already criticized the provision that the court shall have power to determine the eligibility of an applicant to join an organization. This savours of dictatorship. It is the extreme of extremes. Yet honorable senators opposite refer to the Communist dictatorship! In effect, the court is to be empowered to say to an applicant, “ You may join a trade union, provided you do what we want you to do “. The court may reject an applicant, not because of something that he has. done, but because of something that the- court believes he might reasonably be expected to do. The whole thing is a mix-u-p. I strongly adivise the Government to withdraw the bill and to confer with the trade- union movement, particularly the Australian Council of Trades Unions and the Australian Workers Union, which are the two biggest factors in unionism in Australia to-day, embracing 95 per cent, of unionists who are working in industry. The Government should endeavour to enter into an amicable arrangement with the trade union movement in order to overcome the present deadlock in industry as a result of the’ Galvin award. That difficulty could be overcome. The men should be told to do their job; and! the conciliation commissioners should not encroach on spheres that are within the jurisdiction of the. court. A conciliation commissioner has no more right than. I have to deal- with the economy of the country. The court deals with matters affecting the basic wage, hours, and leave. It should say to the conciliation commissioners, “ You make awards for margins and incidentals attached to particular trades. We will deal with economic factors “.. That is the way out of this particular difficulty, and probably some of the other difficulties with which the Government, is confronted. The Government should remove dictatorships and revert to methods- of conciliation.. The Government, promised the people of this country that it would restore value ‘t«r the £1.. Yet it now seeks to take- away from the workers some o-f the- benefits that they have gained over the1 years-. This measure will’ slow down the arbitration machinery so that the workers will not obtain better condtions than they now enjoy.

Sitting suspended from 11. SO. p.m., to 12 midnight.

Friday, 6- June 1952:

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

!.. - When the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), made, his second:reading speech on the bill this afternoon, he quoted, statements, that had been, made by a former president, of the Communist party of Australia relative- tcn the policy of that party in regard to conciliation and arbitration. From what I can recall of the statement, it was to- the effect, that the- workers had nothing to gain from the arbitration -system and that reform leaders- of industrial unions- were using it to keep the workers- shackled to capitalism. Although that was. an extreme: view., strangely enough supporters of the. GO.vernment have at times shared it. Some employers have not always supported the arbitration system. I propose to’ quote the remarks of a former president of the Master Builders Association of New South Wales on the subject. Honorable senators- will notice the similarity between it amd the- statement made by the. former president of the Communist party. The former president of the Master Builders Association of New South Wales said -

Australia, has done- the- world’s workers a magnificent service- by proving- that compulsory arbitration is bankrupt of a single virtue, and should be avoided by Labour as a pestilence. I urge you to bring about the end of this cursed system before it desolates our established industries and brings min and wan* into every Australian home; Ninety-nine percent., of the, industrial troubles of the Commonwealth are due to this system, which, instead of bringing peace, has brought about only, strikes and turmoil and has ranged- Australia in two hostile camps and1 made them irreconcilable enemies.

In- fairness to the present occupant of the office of president of the Master Builder? Association of New South Wales, if make it clear that those- statements were made, not ky him,, burt’ .by one of his predecessors.

Senator Vincent:

– Will the honorable senator, state tha name of the person whose statement he quoted ?

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– I shall pass on to the honorable senator1 the book that contains Ft.

Senator Vincent:

– Do not be afraid to disclose the name.

Senator BENN:

– No good purpose would he served toy. so doing, because the person concerned no longer holds office in the organization. I could quote many similar statements that have been made by representatives of employers. As there were differences of opinion on the value, of the conciliation and arbitration system before the principal act was passed in 1904, so to-day there are two extremes of thought on this important subject. The system was conceived for the benefit of reasonable employers and employees, but to-day the average Australian worker is a firm believer in it. He does not desire to resort to the strike weapon in order to bring about the rectification of his grievances. He is prepared to observe the law and the conditions laid down by the courts so that he may help to carry on our industries and contribute his share to the social life of the community.

It is the responsibility of the Government to take whatever measures are necessary to preserve the system of conciliation and arbitration. It has stood’ the test of time and it is the desire of the people that it shall continue to function in the future. How can it continue to function,, and how can the people of Australia retain their confidence in it, if governments make it incapable of functioning? Those who have had industrial experience know that if the conciliation and arbitration legislation is to achieve its purpose, there must be interwoven through it the ingredient of speed so that there shall be a direct road from the source of industrial trouble to the source of settlement of that trouble. This bill does not provide the means for the achievement of that objective.

Several honorable senators to-night have explained that, m future, when the parties to a dispute appear before a con.ciliation Com missioner, one of the parties may immediately submit that the matter to> be heard is of such importance that in the public interest the conciliation commissioner should not hear it,, and that unnecessary delays would occur: Senator Vincent told, us. that,, at one- time,, he was asn. Australian Rules footballer. I know, from watching that game, that tha ball may be passed forwards,, backwards, sideways or in any other direction. All I can say is that th? person who drafted this bill must be a rugby enthusiast because, in rugby the ball may only be- passed backwards. The provisions of this bill will undoubtedly mean that all movements in. the industrial arbitration field will be in a backward direction.

The Government appears to have overlooked the possibility that, under the provisions of this measure, countless appeals may be lodged. A conciliation commissioner will appear in his court to hear a claim, “and one of the parties will object to his dealing with it. He will have to adjourn the hearing,, and that day will be wasted. All the unnecessary hold-ups which we have come to accept as part and parcel of the legal system of Australia will follow. But that is not all. A party to a claim may question the jurisdiction of the conciliation commissioner to hear it, or contend that the matter contains a question of law, and consequently should be referred to the court. In such circumstances, the conciliation commissioner wall have no option but to refer the matter to the Chief Judge for decision. If the Chief Judge decides that the case comes properly within the jurisdiction of the conciliation commissioner concerned, or that no question of law is involved, he will refer the matter back to the conciliation commissioner. In that way, greater delays will occur. I wonder why the Government has gone to the trouble of introducing a bill of this kind. After an examination of the contents of the measure I can only conclude that the Government is not honest enough to say that it has- no confidence in the capacity or qualifications of the conciliation commissioners to carry out their ordinary duties. The Government, rather than discharge the conciliation commission er* and appoint judges in their place as it should’ do if it believes them to he incapable, has virtually said to the conciliation commissioners^ “ You can carry on with your joh. We shall not discharge you, but we shall so rearrange your duties that in future your powers will be negligible “. In that way the Government has destroyed the confidence of conciliation commissioners in their work and proposes that they shall be left only tho crumbs. Obviously, the Government has no confidence in the conciliation commissioners and, in a roundabout way, has reorganized their work in such a manner that the whole principle of industrial conciliation has been destroyed.

Honorable senators have said that facts are far removed from law. We do not know what the duties of a fitter and turner are. When a fitter and turner is handling metal, the nature of his work is obvious to us; but if the law steps in and decides that some other tradesman shall do a part of the work of a fitter and turner, it is almost impossible to separate the law from the facts. When matters of that kind have to be submitted to a judge for determination, further delays occur. I am more closely associated with the workers than is any member of the Government. I listen to their discussions and I know their feelings, because I have discussed their problems with them - in some instances, with hundreds and thousands of them. The workers are reaching the stage at which they are losing confidence in the conciliation and arbitration system, because of the delays that occur in the settlement of disputes and the unnecessary procrastination indulged in by the court. Lengthy arguments take place on the legal aspects of a problem, and delays are interminable.

Representatives of the Australian Country party know what a well is. Some wells are timbered. There should be no dispute about what constitutes a well. But I recall that, on one occasion, the House of Lords took a whole day to decide that a timbered well 32 feet deep was not, in fact, a building 32 feet high. That illustrates the kind of delays that occur in our industrial courts. The workers of Australia, particularly those who work under Commonwealth awards, do not deserve the treatment which the Government is storing up for them in this bill. It will be recalled that during the last war journeymen allowed their trades to be diluted. All honorable senators will be aware of how jealously such men regard their trades. When a man serves for five or six years as an apprentice and becomes a skilled workman, he is proud of his trade, of the knowledge that he has and of the work that he perforins. When a call was made for greater output during the war the journeymen acquiesced in a proposal that their standards should be broken down and that inexperienced workmen should be taken in and trained. Dilutees, as they were called, were permitted to carry out skilled work. When the war ended and it became necessary to repatriate men who had been in the services and had thus been deprived of the opportunity to learn a trade, the journeymen agreed to ex-servicemen being taken in to their trades. Although most of those exservicemen were adults and thus debarred by the law from serving apprenticeships, they were permitted to become journeymen. In that way the Australian tradesmen contributed to our social welfare and to the demands of industry. In return for that contribution they are apparently to receive this legislation.

Frequently, when claims are presented to arbitration tribunals, delays occur. First, the hearing by the conciliation commissioner is delayed. An appeal to the court may follow, and the matter may be referred back to the conciliation commissioner. It amazes me that an award made by a conciliation commissioner is not permitted to operate until the expiration of 21 days from the date of making the award. That means that, although it may take a union several weeks to prepare a case for submission to a conciliation commissioner, the award which the conciliation commissioner ultimately makes does not operate until 21 days afterwards. I suggest that that is most provocative. Within those 21 days an appeal may be made.

An important feature of the bill is that although a certain time is allowed for the lodging of appeals against decisions of conciliation commissioners, no time is specified within which judges shall hear such appeals. A judge need not hear an appeal case for twelve months or even for two years. He is not bound to bear it immediately or within any given time. That seems to me to be a serious omission from the bill. I know something about appeal cases, and I appreciate that an appeal cannot be made verbally. It must be made in writing and recognizances must be entered into. If there is an avalanche of appeals, as there is likely to be when this legislation becomes operative, the judges of the court will be at liberty to put those appeals on one side and to deal with them at their leisure. In my opinon, the prestige of conciliation commissioners will be considerably lowered by this bill. They will become the wood and water carriers of the judges. It is not so long ago that the Parliament passed a bill to increase the salaries of judges, and I consider that something should be done to make the judiciary carry out its duties in a more satisfactory manner than it has in the past.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– I do not intend to contribute to the legal side of the debate, because the legal matters involved have been dealt with by honorable senators who are more versed in legalism than I am. The remarks which I propose to make concern facts as I see them and as they are seen through the eyes of the workers. All honorable senators are no doubt aware that the strike of 1891 was the cause of millions of pounds being wasted. In addition, it generated so much hatred that ships, wool, woolsheds and houses were burnt. Men were imprisoned. Indeed, the hatred became so bitter than certain persons did not stop at destruction.

Senator Wright:

– When was that?

Senator MORROW:

– In 1891.

Senator Wright:

– The honorable senator did not say who the men were.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator MORROW:

– I do not intend to take any notice of the chirping “ peewees “ on the other side of the chamber. I shall address myself to you, Mr. President. The system of conciliation and arbitration was introduced in an endeavour to get industry running smoothly. Labour is the source of all commercial values. No commodity has a commercial value until labour power is applied to it.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– What about wildflowers ? .

Senator MORROW:

– Even wildflowers have no commercial value until the labour power involved in bringing them to market and in selling them is taken into account. Labour power is the most important commodity inour society. It is the means of bringing wealth to this country. It is supplied by workers who receive in return for it only sufficient money on which to live and to reproduce their kind. The surplus commodities that they produce are taken from them. The workers realize that they are being robbed and deprived of the fruits of their production.

The Commonwealth Arbitration Court was established for the purpose of trying to promote harmonious relations between employer and employee. To-day, the court itself is to blame for the hatred in which it is held. Twenty-six amendments of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act have been made for the sole purpose of subjugating the workers. The bill which the Government is now seeking to pass will not assist the court to function more smoothly. I remind honorable senators opposite that labour cannot be obtained by the mere provision of penal clauses.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says that the word “conciliate” means to reconcile, to soothe or placate. The people who introduced conciliation and arbitration appreciated that they owed a great deal to the workers of this country. Consequently, they were called upon to devise ways and means to reconcile, soothe and placate the workers. The bill now before the Senate will not soothe or placate them. On the contrary, it will create even greater hostility to the court than that which exists at the present time..

Government senators interjecting,

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! If there were no interjections the honorable senator could proceed with his speech, and this bill might have a quicker passage through the Senate.

Senator MORROW:

– I do not interject when any other honorable senator is speaking. I sit quietly and listen to what he has to say.

Senator Cameron:

– Most honorable senators are not worth listening to. If they undertook some study they might be better informed.

The PEESIDENT. - Order ! I suggest that Senator Cameron should study the standing order which refers to interjections.

Senator MORROW:

– The rate of pay of skilled workers is lower to-day than it was in 1907. At that time, the margin for skilled workers was fixed by the court, and the fitter was taken as the measuring rod. A pattern-maker was then paid11s. a day, which was 4s. above the basic rate. The fitter was paid a little more than 3s. margin, or 48 per cent. of the basic rate. In 1946 that margin was reduced to 26 per cent. of the basic rate.

Senator Vincent:

– A Labour government was responsible for that!

Senator MORROW:

– The Australian Labour party had nothing to do with it. It took a strike of skilled workers to force employers to restore margins to the equivalent of those which existed in 1907, or 48 per cent. of the then basic wage. To-day, the margin of the fitter is again down to 26 per cent, of the basic wage. The system of arbitration is ruining the country. Youths cannot be encouraged to learn a trade, because after they have spent five years on poor wages, they find that the margin which they are paid for the skill that they have acquired does not compensate them for the time and money that they have lost. Yet the country is clamouring for tradesmen. In fact, is has been necessary to import them from the other side of the world. Had the Arbitration Court functioned properly, it would have given skilled men the margins to which they are entitled. I have in my hand a document which indicates the feelings of the unionists about this legislation. This is a serious matter for Australia. When this measure becomes law, there will be an exit from the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Several unions are already discussing the advisability of walking out of the court. I received the following letter to-day: -

Dear Sir,

I am instructed to advise you of the following resolution which was carried at a stopwork meeting of the above organization, this morning: -

Resolution. - That this branch, in view of the pending legislation to alter the Arbitration Act, considers the legislation a step in the right direction of fascism and asks the Federal Council to discuss with the A.C.T.D. the advisability of our Federation withdrawing from the Court, and, further, that this stopwork meeting call on the A.C.T.U. to call a full Trade Union Congress together to examine the possibility of all trade unions withdrawing from the Arbitration Court seeing that all Arbitration Court amendments are directed against the whole of the trade union movement

Yours Faithfully

I urge the Senate not to take that matter lightly. It is a most important resolution which may have far-reaching effects upon the working people of this country. The state of mind of Australian workers to-day is such that many more resolutions of that kind may be carried. The Government refused to heed the opinion expressed by the Australian Council of Trades Unions conference that there should be no right of appeal from decisions of conciliation commissioners. How can it expect the co-operation of industry when it ignores the wishes of workers in that way? We are told repeatedly that the Communists are the cause of our industrial troubles. If that is so, Judge Kirby must be a Communist. As honorable senators are aware, there is widespread waterfront disputation to-day. Skilled men are striking for higher margins; yet the Government would have us believe that all is serene. All may be serene inside these four walls, but outside the Parliament, the nation is in a state of turmoil because a conciliation commissioner made a mistake. The duty of a conciliation commissioner is to foster industrial peace, and any conciliation commissioner who fails in that duty should be removed from his office by a resolution of the two Houses of Parliament. Why should we allow industry to be disclocated and grievous losses to be inflicted upon the nation simply because one man has given a wrong decision?

This measure provides for appeals from the decisions of conciliation commissioners, but we all know that the result will be only a cluttering up of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The job of a conciliation commissioner is to conciliate, not to act as a dictator. We have had previous experience of dictators. In fact, we owe the establishment of our parliamentary system to the action of a dictator who provoked the incident known as the Eureka Stockade. Honorable senators opposite sneer at that, but it is true. It is history. It was the Eureka Stockade that gave us the parliamentary system that we know to-day. Any one who does not know that has ignored the history of Australian politics. Dictatorship provoked revolt in 1854, and again in 1891. When the Aluminium Industry Bill was before the Senate, the manager of the Bell Bay undertaking was eulogized by honorable senators opposite for his treatment of the workers. The truth is, of course, that conditions were so bad at Bell Bay that the workers revolted and compelled the management to provide certain amenities and to improve working conditions.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I think the honorable senator is straying from the bill. I ask him to confine his remarks to the provisions of the measure now before the Senate.

Senator MORROW:

– I shall ‘ do that, Mr. President. In fact, I thought that my remarks were definitely related to arbitration and conciliation matters. However, I turn now to the AttorneyGeneral’s second-reading speech. He said -

Clause 10 of the Bill substitues a new section for the existing section 26 which deals with intervention by the Attorney-General.

Why does the Australian Government want to intervene in disputes between employers and employees unless it intends to side with the employers? The Government should keep aloof from industrial disputes; yet, apparently, under this measure it intends to use all its authority to act against the interest of the workers. Surely the workers are already having a hard enough fight without the Government taking the field against them. The Attorney-General also said -

It is accordingly the intention of the Government to bring down legislation to amend the Stevedoring Industry Act.

As I said previously, if only Communists cause disruption in industry, the Arbitration Court judge who, in effect, reduced the wages of waterside workers in 1950, should be branded as a Communist. Everything was going smoothly until he increased the hours of labour of waterside workers without increasing their pay. That was something that even the employers had not sought. How can employees have faith in the Arbitration Court when a judge suggests to the employers that working hours should be increased from 80 to 32 a week ? I remind the Senate, too, that when the court gave workers generally a basic wage increase of fi a week, the waterside workers received only 10s. 4d. a week. They retaliated by imposing an overtime ban. That ban was the result of a cause. The waterside workers did not precipitate the crisis. It was precipitated by a judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Recently, a ban was again placed on overtime on the waterfront because the judge refused to hear an application for increased margins. The margins of waterside workers have been reduced from 22 per cent, of the base rate to 12 per cent. It was this reduction of their margins by almost 50 per cent, that led to the imposition of the present overtime ban. Again it was the result of a cause. The waterside workers did not precipitate the trouble. Far from seeking increased wages, they were merely trying to hold what they already had.

These words may not sound very nice here, but this is the place for talk. If the country is to be saved from ruin, there must be more straight talking in the Parliament. I was told recently that when I spoke, my facts were all right, but that my expressions were crude. Sometimes opinions have to be expressed bluntly because plain language is better understood. This is no time for flowery talk. I have given two instances of industrial disputes having been provoked by the Arbitration Court itself. Surely’ that state of affairs should be remedied. Why should the waterside workers, or any other workers, be deprived of a portion of their purchasing power? The reduction of margin percentages has caused widespread dissention, and because some sections of industry have gone on strike, the Government has introduced this amendment to force the men back to work. The Government might as well try to push the tide back. Any one who believes that this bill will be of any assistance is foolish indeed. It will not help one iota, because as soon as organized labour realizes what it is up against, it will act and that action will not be in the best interests of the nation because production will fall greatly.

The Attorney-General said that the court would be an umpire. Is it necessary to have an umpire when we already have conciliation commissioners? The conciliation commissioners have merely endeavoured to preserve the percentage margins that existed in 1907. Surely an umpire is not needed for that! The workers are only seeking their rights. If the Government wants to deprive them of their rights, it will have to accept the full responsibility for its action. Senator Cameron said that men react in accordance with conditions and circumstances operating at a given time. That remark was greeted by sniggers from the Government bench, but it is quite true. When men see their livelihood being taken away from them by certain conditions and circumstances they act. We have had experience of some very forceful action.

Senator Pearson:

– Led by a few Communists.

Senator MORROW:

– I did not think that the honorable senator was so dense as to misundertand what I was saying. I have pointed out that the action of the waterside workers and other sections of industry has been prompted, not by the Communists, but by the Arbitration Court. Surely the sooner we inject sanity into the court the better. On a previous occasion in this chamber I mentioned a court case in which I appeared before a judge and asked for an increase in wages on behalf of workers. The judge had granted an increase to similar workers on the mainland. The case that was put before him in Tasmania was unanswerable. We pointed out that the work, responsibility, and skill required of the men in Tasmania was similar to that which was required on the mainland. The judge did not even wish to hear the reply from the departmental representative. At 3 o’clock in the afternoon he adjourned the court. At about two minutes past 3 o’clock his associate handed me his judgment. I asked her why she appeared to be tired, and she said, “I was up till 12 o’clock last night typing this “. That is the kind of occurrence which brings disrepute on the court. That judgment had been written before our case had been heard.

Senator McLeay:

– Come on.

Senator MORROW:

– I can continue for another hour if you-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator will address the Chair.

Senator MORROW:

– The workers are blamed for all the ills of the nation. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) habitually blames certain workers for the delay in the turnround of ships. He should read the second report of the Stevedoring Industry Board, which stated -

During a year ofrecord imports, the congestion of cargoes on wharves has been seriousWharf congestion generally comes under public notice because of its adverse effect on shipping turn-round. In fact, its effects are of wide significance: in its immediate effect, labour force becomes inadequate and proper tonnages cannot be achieved. It breeds and preserves inefficiency in stevedoring practices and, by enforcing periods of idleness on the job and by slowing down the tempo of work, has a psychologically bad influence on the attitude of stevedore and worker. In the normal course of events these are the very things which efficient employers are striving to eradicate. In a congested working area they are artificially preserved. A product of past- war years, wharf congestion is a creeping paralysis which renders cargo handling a costly, protracted and tortuous process. The problem of wharf congestion arises when cargo is stacked in sheds and on the wharves and precincts, until eventually the sheds are jammed, the wharves are cluttered and transport Ianeways are blocked or obstructed. In Melbourne and Sydney, at the peak of congestion, cargo has spilled out on to public roadways. Congestion occurs because the clearance of cargo from the wharf lags behind the rate of ship discharge.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator is completely out of order in quoting that report. It has nothing to do with the bill.

Senator MORROW:

– I was replying to the Attorney-General, who said in his second-reading speech that certain individuals had caused delays in industry. I bow to your ruling, Mr. President, but I did not think that I was out of order. The worker is blamed for every mishap in industry. The employer is never blamed. In order to try to excuse the inefficiency of the employer the Government has introduced a bill which will be completely ineffective. When the employer has approached the court it has always functioned much more rapidly than it has functioned for employees. That is what will continue to happen. The conciliation commissioners did a good job in streamlining the arbitration system. The whole system should not be condemned because of a mistake that has been made by one man. The Government’s excuse for hamstringing the conciliation commissioners is that one man has made a mistake. I shall oppose the bill.

Motion (by Senator Gorton) put -

That the question he now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– Will the Minister inform me of the reason for the alteration of the interpretation of the word “ employer “. The definition of employer in the principal act is - “ Employer “ means any employer in any industry and includes a club.

The words proposed to be added to that definition after the word “ includes “ are -

Any person who is usually an employer in an industry and also includes

Will the Minister explain the significance of the addition of those words?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– It is proposed to add those words to the definition of employer to bring it into line with the definition of employee. The Registrar of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration has held that an association that makes application for registration as an association of employers under section 70a may consist only of persons who are actually employing labour at the time of the application. The amendment was suggested by employers.

Senator Sheehan:

– The addition of the proposed words will mean that a person who is not in business at the time of the application may be deemed to be an employer ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– That is so.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Reference of disputes to the Court).

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– Proposed new sections 14a and 14b have been adequately debated during the day, and I do not propose to traverse again the arguments in connexion with them. However,, I desire to place certain submissions before the Minister. Is it correct that once a hearing has been commenced by a conciliation commissioner, a party to the hearing may make an application at any stage of the hearing to have the matter referred to the court? In other words, can he make his application the moment the conciliation commissioner embarks on the hearing, or may he defer it until the hearing has proceeded for weeks or months, and. then make it immediately before an award is due to be published?

Senator O’Sullivan:

– I would say “ yes “ to that proposition.

Senator McKENNA:

– Then, is there anything in the provision to prevent an employer from, making, application after application to the conciliation commissioner for a reference?

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The answer is that there is nothing to stop him except common sense.

Senator McKENNA:

– I submit that there is more than that to it. Sub-section (4.) of proposed new section 14b provides that an appeal may be instituted within fourteen days of the refusal of the conciliation commissioner. What happens during those fourteen days? Does the hearing go on? There is no reference in the legislation to a stay of proceedings, although I take it that the proceedings would be stayed until it is known whether the party is going to take advantage of his. right to appeal within fourteen days. At the expiration of that time he may again apply to the conciliation commissioner on the ground that the situation has. altered, and go through the process again and again and again, thus causing interminable delay.

SenatorO’Sullivan. - There is nothing to prevent the making of repeated applications, but in the meantime the conciliation commissioner may, at his discretion, proceed with the hearing. If there is flagrant abuse of the process I have no doubt that the conciliation commissioner would take appropriate action.

Senator McKENNA:

– But what would he do? The conciliation commissioner has no power that is not conferred on him by the act, and it is not a sufficient answer to say that he would take appropriate action. Will the Minister point out where it. is stated in the sub-section that the hearing may continue pending an appeal ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) asked whether there was any provision under which proceedings might continue pending an appeal. My answer is that there is nothing to stop them. If a conciliation commissioner were faced with a repetition of applications he would consider them an abuse of proceedings, and there is nothing to prevent him from’ going on with the hearing and making his award. In the absence of any provision to the contrary he has an inherent power to do so.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– If that is so, then sub-section (4.) means nothing at all. It reads -

An appeal under the last preceding subsection shall be instituted within fourteen days after the date of the refusal of the Conciliation Commissioner.

One of the parties to the dispute moves to have the proceedings taken away from the conciliation commissioner and placed before the court. The conciliation com missioner says “ No “ to that application, and the law gives the party fourteen days within which to appeal against that refusal. Surely it is subversive of the intention of the law for the commissioner to proceed with the hearing of the case before the expiration of the period of fourteen days.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) is now changing his ground. First, he asked me what would happen if a party to a dispute made a succession of applications to appeal, and I answered that question. Now, he asks what would happen if a party made a single appeal. In that case, the conciliation commissioner may continue with the hearing and may make an award, but if the appeal is allowed, the award would be a nullity.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– Where is it stated that the hearing may continue ? It is specifically provided that a party shall have fourteen days in which to appeal. Of what use is that provision if the conciliation commissioner may continue the hearing, and actually make an award, before the expiration of the fourteen days?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– In civil proceedings, when an appeal lies from an inferior court to a higher court, there is no automatic stay of proceedings. Unless the higher court grants a stay of execution the judgment of the inferior court may be executed. I have no doubt that if a single appeal only were made the conciliation commissioner would not proceed with the hearing, but would await the result of the appeal.

However, if a party made appeal after appeal, I have no doubt that any sensible conciliation commissioner would decide that the applicant was humbugging, and would take no further notice of him. That is how he would prevent an abuse of proceedings.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I controvert the Minister’s statement that I changed my ground. I posed three questions, two of which he answered to my satisfaction. The other he has not answered. I asked whether proceedings before a commissioner would be stayed immediately an appeal was made, and he referred me to the civil courts. I remind him that the function and powers of the civil courts are backed by a large body of common law, as well as by statute law. The civil courts provide no analogy with the Arbitration Court, which derives its authority from statute-law alone. I shall not pursue the matter further because I do not wish to harass the Minister. I merely repeat that his explanation has not satisfied me. I believe that there will be considerable confusion. The conciliation commissioner will want to know whether he is to continue or to wait for fourteen days. The Minister has not satisfied me that there is anything in the legislation to cause him to halt or to continue.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– This clause is of fundamental importance, as I think every honorable senator will agree. I recall that the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) promised, during his second-reading speech, that he would provide further explanations of these provisions in committee. The whole system of appeals arises from the fact that, under the act, there is a division of jurisdiction between the court and the conciliation commissioners. This bill is based upon the assumption that the division will be retained. I want to know why that view is preferred to the view stated by the Chief Judge in his fourth annual report, in which he referred to the separation of a dispute and the provision for its settlement by two distinct authorities. The report dealt with the complete impossibility of defining the separate jurisdictions. I invite the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) to comment upon this matter. Perhaps he may consider that a better course to follow would be to confer the whole jurisdiction upon the court, with a. direction that primarily it shall concern itself only with those matters that are mentioned in section 35 of the principal act and that the other matters shall be dealt with by the relevant conciliation commissioner, who shall have power to refer to the court any part of those matters which ordinarily would be considered to be within his province. That, I believe, is what the Chief Judge had in mind. The procedure would be much simpler than that of having a series of appeals. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to express his view upon this matter.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I say immediately to Senator Wright that I should not be concerned with section 35, to which he referred-

Senator Wright:

– .Section 25.

Senator McKENNA:

– No, the honorable senator referred to section 35. I should be concerned with section 25, as it will be amended by this bill. The position of the Labour party has been well defined, not only by the form of the 1947 act, but also by the attitude that was adopted by the Opposition during the second-reading debate on this bill. We believe that the situation established under the terms of the 1947 legislation should be preserved. The Chief Judge may have been critical of the division of jurisdiction, but that is only one opinion, important though it may be. The parties in the field must also be considered, and the conciliation commissioners, who will deal with the problem in fact, are entitled to have their views considered. I acknowledge that the Government has a right to make its own decision notwithstanding any views that may be held by the parties in the field, but nobody should be under any illusion concerning the opinion of the Labour party.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I seek information on the discretionary power that is to be vested in conciliation commissioners in relation to the public interest by proposed new section 14a (2.). In the principal act, a conciliation commissioner is required as a matter of duty to take such action as he thinks fit for the prompt prevention ot settlement of an industrial dispute by conciliation or arbitration. The accent in that provision is on speed. The Government, in this bill, seems to have adopted a new concept, that of the public interest. What will happen if a conciliation commissionerfinds himself torn between the mandatory requirement now contained in the principal act and the provision for the exercise of discretionary power in the public interest in proposed section 14a (2.) ? Will the Minister comment on that situation? Reference has been made repeatedly, in relation to appeals, to approaches to the Chief Judge. What form will an approach to the Chief Judge take? Will it be an application on the record, an application on affidavit, or an application by way of complete hearing and determination ? In the last case, the procedure will involve the appearance of representatives or counsel, and it will intervene between two other hearings. Such an application to the Chief Judge could be as protracted as the original hearing or the ultimate hearing, if not more protracted. Much of the criticism that has been levelled at this measure has been based on the probability of delays. Has the Minister any views to offer on this subject?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– Applications to the Chief Judge will be made informally, probably in chambers, not to the judge sitting judicially. If a conciliation commissioner refuses to refer a matter to the court, on the ground that it is not of such importance that, in the public interest, it should be dealt with by the court, the party wishing to have the matter so referred may apply to the Chief Judge within fourteen days by way of appeal from the conciliation commissioner’s refusal. In such circumstances, the Chief Judge will act on the same principles as those on which the conciliation commissioner has based his decision. He must be satisfied that the matter is of great public importance. It is not likely that the opportunity provided in the proposed section will be availed of unless the

Chief Judge, or the conciliation commissioner, is satisfied that the matter is of great public importance. Therefore, the problem of delays by way of appeal is not likely to arise.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I ask the Minister to compare proposed section 14a (2.) with the provision contained in proposed new subsection (2.) of section 16, which is contained in clause 6. In the whole of the proposed amendments the accent is now on public interest. Hitherto it has been on speed and expedition. The Opposition has criticized the proposed amendments .because it considers that they will be responsible for delay in the settlement of industrial disputes. It is significant that proposed new section 14a (2.) takes public interest completely out of the hands of a conciliation commissioner. No matter how important he considers the matter to be, he is not able to initiate a reference himself. It must be on the application of one of the parties. I cannot believe that the Government’s attitude in relation to public interest is bona fide. Where there is a real question of public interest, though neither of the parties might regard it as such, a conciliation commissioner is not empowered to refer the matter to the Chief Judge. But on a question of law, it is mandatory that the conciliation commissioner shall do so of his own motion, or on application by one of the parties. There is a distinction that is not evident to me and I should be pleased if the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) would be good enough to clarify the position.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– The proposed amendments of section 16 of the principal act are designed to avoid unnecessary and perhaps frivolous matters becoming the subject of applications by the parties. Proposed new section 14a does not empower the conciliation commissioner to do what the honorable senator has suggested. He cannot of his own motion refer the matter. The bill has been purposely drafted in this way because it is considered that it should be outside the functions of a conciliation commissioner to have powers other than those that the proposed new section will vest in him.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– Ostensibly the purpose of this measure is to expedite the settlement of industrial disputes. I have listened with interest to the various interpretations that have been made of proposed new section 14a by legal members of this chamber. In view of the difference of opinion about the precise meaning of the provisions of proposed new section 14a, I suggest that the committee should report progress, so that honorable senators may have an opportunity to study its provisions thoroughly. As the proposed new section is the crux of the measure, which, it is claimed has been designed to inspire the confidence of the workers and expedite the settlement of industrial disputes, it is unfortunate that there should be so much confused thinking about its meaning. Alternatively, the Government should stand the measure over until the next sessional period of the Parliament. I understand that the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives do not permit of the same close attention to detail* by that House as our Standing Orders permit. Already we have found that there is a very serious obstacle in the way of the attainment of what the bill ostensibly seeks to accomplish.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– The legal members of the Senate seem to be confusing . themselves about the respective powers of conciliation commissioners and the court. The Government professes to be concerned primarily with the quick settlement of industrial disputes and the maintenance of peace in industry. However, it is evident that if, while evidence is being heard by a conciliation commissioner, either party to the application considers that the decision may go against him, he may appeal to the court. I should like the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) to tell me whether the lodgment of the appeal would thereupon take the application out of the hands of the conciliation commissioner. If that is the case, I contend that this legislation has been introduced for the purpose of deliberately prolonging industrial disputes.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) to the peculiar position in which a conciliation commissioner will be left because of the manner in which hi: .?bull be required to exercise his jurisdiction. Section 39 of the principal act reads -

In the hearing and determination of an industrial dispute -

the procedure of the Court or Conciliation. Commissioner shall, subject to this Act and the regulations, be within the discretion of the Court or Commissioner;

the Court or Commissioner shall not be bound to act in a formal manner and shall not be bound by any rules of evidence but may inform ite or his mind on any matter in such manner as it or he thinks just; and

the Court or Conciliation Commissioner shall act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities and legal forms.

We have been told that the object of the amendment is to enable an application to be referred to the court in certain circumstances. We must keep in mind the procedure that the principal act lays down shall be followed by conciliation commissioners. In that connexion I should like to read an extract from a judgment in the House of Lords in the case of Moses, and Parker, as reported in Appeal Cases, 1896, at page 245. The head-note reads as follows : -

By Tasmanian Act No. 10 of 1858, s. 5, disputes concerning lands yet ungranted by the Crown are referred to the Supreme Court, whose decision is to be final ; and by s. 8, the Court is directed to be guided by equity and good conscience only, and by the best evidence procurable, even if not required or admissible in ordinary cases, and not to be bound by strict rules of law or equity or by any legal forms. hi other words, the principles upon which the Supreme Court of Tasmania acted in such disputes were substantially the principles upon which the Commonwealth Arbitration Court or conciliation commissioners are required to act by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In the case that I have cited, an attempt was made to carry an appeal to the House of Lords from a determination of the Supreme Court sitting in that arbitral jurisdiction. Lord Hobhouse, in the course of his judgment, stated -

The Court has been substituted for the commissioners to report to the governor. The difference is that their report is to be binding on him. Probably it was thought that the status and training of the judges made them the most proper depositaries of that power. But that does not make their action a judicial action in the sense that it can be tested and altered by appeal. It is no more judicial than was “the action of the commissioners and the governor. The Court is to be guided by equity and good conscience and the best evidence. So were the commissioners. So every public officer ought to be. But they are expressly exonerated from all rules’ of law and equity, and all legal forms. How then can the propriety of their decision be tested on appeal ? What are the canons by which this Board is to be guided in advising Her Majesty whether the Supreme Court is right or wrong* It seems almost impossible that decisions can bc varied except by reference to some rule; whereas the Court making them is free from rules. If appeals were allowed, the certain result would be to establish some system of rules.

The Parliament is being asked to lay down principles to be observed by an authority, but the terms of the legislation under which the authority was established exclude it from observance of those principles. There is such a basic difference between the jurisdiction of the conciliation commissioners as set out in the act and the jurisdiction that they will be presumed to have under this measure, that the system will be unworkable.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– Proposed new section 14a deals, not with appeals, but with references. Appeals are dealt with in a later clause. Once a reference has been made, a case is taken out of the hands of the conciliation commissioner and goes immediately to the court. Thus, there is only one hearing, that is by the court. Without a reference, the case would be heard first by the conciliation commissioner and then, on appeal, by the court.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) has omitted to inform the Senate who makes the reference.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– That is stated in the proposed new section.

Senator AYLETT:

– Is it made by the conciliation commissioner, the employers or. the employees? “What stage must a case’ before a conciliation commissioner reach before a reference can be made? it is of no use for the Minister to attempt to confuse us. If a case may be referred to the court, why should it be heard by a conciliation commissioner in the first instance? In such circumstances to bring a case before a conciliation commissioner is merely a waste of time.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I cannot read the whole of the proposed new section for the benefit of the honorable senator.

Senator Aylett:

– I have asked the Minister to explain it.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

-I cannot explain it more clearly than I have already done. The provision means that any party to an industrial dispute may apply to the conciliation commissioner to have the case dealt with by the court.

Senator Aylett:

– Such an application may be made at any time while the case is in progress ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Yes.

Senator ASHLEY:
New SouthWales

,. - The. Minister should clarify the term “ public interest “.What magnitude of public interest is necessary to justify a conciliation commissionerrefering a matter to the Chief Judge? Does the Chief Judge or the conciliation commissioner decide whether the matter should be heard by the court?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– The point raised by Senator Ashley is an important one. Public interest cannot very well be defined because what may be a matter of public interest: to-day may be. a matter of the utmost insignificance to-morrow.. The Chief Judge will be the sole arbiter of what is in the public interest.

Senator Ashley:

– Does not this provision confer upon a conciliation commissioner almost the function of a Parliament to decide what is in the public interest? Public interest may extend to almost anything.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The Chief Judge occupies a very high judicial position. The decision of a conciliation commisioner that a matter is in the public interest is subject to the concurrence and approval of the Chief Judge.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– The Minister’s reply does not clarify the position. A conciliation commissioner may refer a matter to the Chief Judge if he thinks that it is in the public interest for him to do so. What limitations are applied to the term “public interest”?

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– I do not know why Senator Ashley expresses so much anxiety in regard to a matter with which the courts are constantly dealing. Courts of appeal frequently decide whether a particular matter raises questions of great public importance or of exceptional concern tothe public. The High Court and the Privy Council have always decided such matters in relation to applications for leave to appeal from the decisions of inferior courts. The problem posed by Senator Ashley is neither novel nor peculiar. Decisions on matters of this kinds have been made by courts, for centuries.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– The industrial upheaval that is threatening this country to-day as the result of the Galvin award may well be regarded as a matter of public interest. Although Mr. Commissioner Galvin determined that it was not in the public interest for him to deal with the margins claim, a similar claim was dealt with by another conciliation commissioner on the ground that its consideration was a matter of public interest.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– Mr. Commissioner Galvin held that in his opinion it was not in the public interest that margins should be preserved. The term “public interest “ as used in the Galvin award is in a context different from that in which it is used in this bill. Under this legislation the test is whether it is in the public interest that a matter should be referred to the court. It is impracticable clearly to define the term “ public interest “. As Senator Wright has said, superior courts of appeal are always determining what is public policy or public interest, and it is not a novel departure from existing practice to ask the Chief Judge to determine whether in the public interest an industrial matter should be dealt with by the court.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– A definition of the term “ public interest “ should be inserted in the bill. I make that suggestion because of what happened in the Victorian Railways case not long ago. Honorable senators will recall that the Victorian Railways Commissioners agreed with the Australian Railways Union to certain wage increases but Mr. Commissioner Hall refused to grant the increases on the ground that it was contrary to the public interest to grant them. As we know, that decision caused considerable inconvenience to the public. If the wording of the proposed new section were altered to read “ in the employer’s interest “, instead of “’ in the public interest “, at least we would know where we stand.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– The committee should not permit the bill to be passed without recording its most emphatic protest against the provisions of proposed new section 14a. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) has admitted that at any time during the hearing of a case by a conciliation commissioner an application may be made that the case be referred to the court. The Government apparently has no confidence in the conciliation commissioners and it wishes to reduce their status to that of a mere office boy. If it regards them as incompetent, it should dismiss them from office. The conciliation commissioners have been instru mental in settling many industrial disputes and their decisions have been regarded as satisfactory by one of the parties to a case, if not both or all of them. Two or three weeks may be spent in the hearing of evidence by a conciliation commissioner before an application is made to refer the matter to the court in the public interest. Such an application may result in interminable delays before a final decision is made. Is it any wonder that Senator Morrow has quoted a resolution of protest from one of the largest unions in Australia against this iniquitous legislation ?

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– Proposed new section 14b reads as follows : - ( 1 . ) Subject to the next succeeding subsection, the court shall hear and determine an industrial dispute, or an industrial dispute so far as it relates to a matter in dispute, which has been referred to it under the last preceeding section and for that purpose may make such order or award as might have been made by the conciliation commissioner.

We have been told that the purpose of this bill is to streamline the conciliation and arbitration system. Do the provisions of the proposed new section mean that if after a conciliation commissioner has heard the whole of the evidence from both parties to a dispute, and the matter is referred to the court, the whole of the evidence must be repeated in the court?

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The court would not necessarily insist on hearing the whole of the evidence.

Senator MORROW:

– As a rule the courts do not make payments retrospective. This provision is a camouflage for the purpose of saving money for the employers. If they delay a hearing and a determination, the workers will lose heavily financially.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– Honorable senators on the Government side have referred to “ the public interest “. On the 9th April, the Waterside Workers Federation banned overtime because of the refusal of Judge Kirby to deal with the question of margins. Later the Full Court of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court ordered the federation to discontinue the ban on overtime. Is it in’ the public interest that the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board should continue to pay appearance money to thousands of waterside workers? Ships are not available for them to work and they have banned overtime. As the result of the ban, Australia is threatened with one of the greatest industrial upheavals in its history.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for trade and Customs · LP

– It would be presumptuous of me to endeavour to anticipate what standpoint would be taken by the Chief Judge in any given circumstances. As I have already stated, the action to be taken would rest entirely on the discretion of the judge. The Chief Judge occupies a very responsible position, and I have no doubt that he will discharge his duties to the satisfaction of all good Australians.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– Senator Sheehan suggested a short time ago that the consideration of this bill should be adjourned. The measure is one of the most important that has come before the Parliament, and I protest against this discussion of the bill by the committee when all honorable senators are tired and reasonable answers to questions cannot be obtained by honorable senators on this side of the chamber. I am certain that almost all honorable senators on the Government side are confused and frightened by the measure. They are determined to push it through all stages even if they reach a state of exhaustion.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– That is an idea.

Senator GRANT:

– That is the only idea in the head of the Minister. Honorable senators on the Government side have referred repeatedly to free discussions and public interest. It is not in the public interest to put through an important bill at thislate hour. I protest against this unseemly haste. I suggest that the whole measure be postponed Honorable senators can meet to-morrow or next week if necessary. I suggest that progress be reported and that the committee meet again. Honorable senators are not in a fit condition to give the measure the attention that it deserves.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · LP

– I can understand Senator Grant being tired and confused because he has been listening to the speeches of his colleagues. Senator Willesee gave an admirable address and so also did the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), but very few of the other honorable senators on the Opposition side touched on the bill at all. Some of them did not reach the turn of the century in their speeches. I sympathize with the honorable senator.

Senator Grant:

– I do not need the Minister’s sympathy.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Clear and explicit explanations have been given to every question that has been asked and I am prepared to continue to answer questions.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

Thattheclause standas sprinted.

The committee divided. (TheTemporaryChairman - Senator A.D.Reid.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause6 -

Section 16 of the principal act is amended -

by omitting sub-section (‘2.) and inserting in its stead the following subsection : - “(2.) A Conciliation Commissioner may, and, at the direction of the Chief Judge or upon the application of a party who appears or is represented before him, shall, refer a question of law arising in relation to a matter before him, including a question whether he is empowered to exercise jurisdiction under this act in relation to such a matter, for the opinion of the Court.”;

SenatorO’SULLIVAN (QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs) [2.10 a.m.]. - I move -

That in proposed section 16 (2.) the words “ or upon the application of a party who appears or is represented before him “ be left out.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– From the viewpoint ofthe Opposition, this amendment slightly improves the bill and I therefore propose to devote little time to it.Sub-section (2.) of proposed section 16 will accordingly read, ‘” A Conciliation Commissioner may, and, at the direction of the Chief Judge shall, refer a question of law . . . “ I accept the amendment. I should like the Minister for Trade andCustoms(Senator O’Sullivan) to inf orm me how the Chief Judge will become cognizant of whatis going on before a conciliationcommissioner. I suggest to the Minister that it can only happen in one way : That there shall be an application to him by a party to the proceedings before the conciliation commissioner.If that is correct - and I donot see any other answer to it - there is no point in deleting the words to which the Minister refers in his amendment. They might just as well remain where they are. If theChief Judge may only intervene and require a conciliation commissioner to refer a question of law when he is approachedby a party to do so, surely it wouldbealmost as well to leave the words in.

It seems to me that proposed new subsections (6.) and (7.) of section 16 are most ingeniously devised in order to eliminate all questions of reference to the High Court ‘concerning the division of jurisdiction between the court on the one hand and the conciliation commissioners on the other. I do not propose to traverse the sub-sections, but I wish to put a proposition to the Minister. If he is able to answer it in the affirmative, I need pursue the matterno further. Is it not a fact that these sections will enable the court, even if mistaken on the question of jurisdiction, to override the act itself?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– In regard to the first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), no method has been provided by which the Chief Judge could receive cognizance of the proceedings before a conciliation commissioner. It would be competent for the Chief Judge to act of his own motion. He could hear of the matter extra-judicially. It could be referred to him by the conciliation commissioner, but I agree that the most probable manner in which he would be informed would be by notification by either party. Notification could also come from some other source which the Chief Judge considered sufficiently reliable to act upon.

I do not accept the proposition that the court will be able to override the act, for the reason that the court gets its power from the act. By virtue of the act, jurisdiction lies where the court says it lies, regardless of any other provision contained in the act.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.That is completely clear, but I should like to pursue the matter a little further. Proposed sub-section (7.) will enable a conciliation commissioner to make a decision concerning jurisdiction that may he opposed to a specific provision of the act. The explanation which the Minister gave in relation to the court also applies in relation to a conciliation commissioner. The proposed sub-section reads as follows : - (7.) If, in relation to a matter before a Conciliation Commissioner, the question whether he is, having regard to the provisions of section thirteen of this Act, empowered to exercise jurisdiction in relation to that matter has not been referred for the opinion of the Court, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Conciliation Commissioner is empowered to exercise jurisdiction in relation to the matter.

I have already conceded, in favour of the draftsman, that it is a most ingenious way to get over any question of jurisdiction, to say to the court, in effect, “ If you act according to the power which the Parliament has provided and mistakenly decide so and so, nevertheless, by this section we justify an otherwise erroneous decision “. I merely point out that, in effect, the proposition I put first is accurate: That the court and the conciliation commissioner, in certain circumstances, are entitled to determine their own jurisdiction, even though the act purports to separate them.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The reason for this provision is obvious, although, admittedly, it is somewhat ingenious.

It will save a lot of time which would otherwise be occupied by arguments, discussions and appeals concerning the jurisdiction of conciliation commissioners or of the court. If the court says jurisdiction lies, it willlie by virtue of the provisions of the act.

Senator McKENNA:

– In the circumstances which the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) mentioned, the Parliament cannot say that it is, itself, making a clear distinction in this bill between the jurisdiction of the court and that of a conciliation commissioner, but is leaving them to fight that matter out among themselves.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– That is so.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

.- Under the principal act, a conciliation commissioner is not empowered to deal with standard hours, the basic wage, or certain matters relating to leave. Under paragraph (a) of proposed sub-section (6.) of section 16, the court may empower a conciliation commissioner “notwithstanding anything contained in this act “ - that’ is the principal act - to exercise jurisdiction in relation to a matter arising when a question is referred to the court as to whether a conciliation commissioner, “having regard to the provisions of section thirteen of this Act “, is empowered to exercise jurisdiction. I should like to know whether that provision overrides the provision in the principal act to which I referred in my opening remarks? If it does, will not the court he empowered to override limitations prescribed by the Parliament ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · LP

– A determination of the kind, which Senator Ashley has mentioned, by either a conciliation commissioner or the court, must be made in accordance with proposed sub-section (6.) of section 16, that is, having regard to the limitations and provisions of section 13 of the principal act. That proposed sub-section reads-

Where a questionreferred to the Court under this section is whether the Conciliation Commissioner is, having regard to the provisions of section thirteen of this Act, empowered to exercise jurisdiction . . .

Subject to that limitation, if the court is of the opinion that a conciliation commissioner is empowered to exercise jurisdiction, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the principal act, he is so empowered. This is the point that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has just raised. Jurisdiction shall lie where the court determines that it shall lie, but that determination must be made having regard to the limitations contained in section 13 which sets out the limitations on the powers of conciliation commissioners.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– Paragraph (a) of proposed sub-section (6.) of section 16 reads -

  1. If the opinion of the Court is that the Conciliation Commissioner is so empowered, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Conciliation Commissioner is empowered to exercise jurisdiction in relation to that matter; . . .

That means, notwithstanding any limitation in the principal act. . Therefore, in effect, the court may exercise a power that is not provided for in the act.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I point out to Senator Ashley that the power to which he refers is given under the act. It is humanly possible, but most unlikely because it would be most improper, that a judge could disregard completely the limitations contained in section 13. But if, in fact, a judge disregarded those limitations and determined that the jurisdiction of a conciliation commissioner lay in a certain direction, it would lie in that direction.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– Under paragraph (a) of proposed sub-section (6.) of section 16, a conciliation commissioner is empowered to deal with any matter outside the act and to that degree he could usurp the functions of the Parliament. He could, as Conciliation Commissioner Galvin did, give a decision on a matter of policy. Conciliation Commissioner Galvin directed attention to the inflationary spiral in order to justify his refusal to increase marginal rates under the metal trades award.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– No question of jurisdiction arose in respect of the Galvin award.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put -

That the clause, as amended, be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the affirmative.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Exercise of Court’s jurisdiction).

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

New clause 10a.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) proposed -

That, after clause 10, the following new clause be inserted : - “ 10a. Section twentynine a of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (2.) the figure (3.) and inserting in its stead the figure (7.)

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I protest against this indecent haste. These clauses are being bludgeoned through before we have time to refer to the principal act. Now that we have sat until this late hour, we might as well do the job properly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

New clause agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Appeals from orders, &c, of conciliation commissioners).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition opposes this clause and will vote against it. The clause provides for an appeal to theFull Court, for which the leave of the Chief Judge is necessary. I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) whether it is correct that any person bound by an order or award may apply for leave to appeal to the High Court, and will not be restricted to any particular grounds of appeal ? I take it that, under proposed section 31a (4.), the court must hear the matter and has not the power to refer it with, or without directions, to the conciliation commissioner.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The Leader of the Opposition has correctly stated the position.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 (Decisions of court to be final).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This is merely a consequential clause, and on behalf of the Opposition I record formal opposition to it, but without calliug for a division. If you will permit me to do so, Mr. Temporary Chairman, in order to save time, I shall make the same comment in relation to clause14.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15.

After section forty-seven of the Principal Act the following section is inserted “47a. An order or award of a Conciliation Commissioner shall not, except by consent of all parties to the industrial dispute who appear or are represented before the Conciliation Commissioner, have effect until after the expiration of twenty-one days from the date of the order or award.”.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the words. “ except by consent of all parties to the industrial dispute who appear or are represented before the conciliation commissioner “, be left out with a- view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “unless all parties to the industrial dispute who appear or are represented before the conciliation commissioner consent or the conciliation commissioner otherwise directs”.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.-I I raise now, on behalf of Senator O’Flaherty, a matter that he raised at an earlier stage of the bill, that is, that in this proposed section an order or award made by a conciliation commissioner is not to have effect until after the expiration of 21 days from its date. Senator O’Flaherty was concerned, as I am also, that, as a result of this new section it might, no longer be possible for aconciliationcommissioner to make an order or award having retrospective effect, say to the date of the application before him. Will the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) give the committee an assurance that, despite the provisions contained in this new section, a conciliation commissioner may stillmake an order or award of that retrospective nature, which will, presumably, lie dormant for a periodof 21 days without its retrospectivity being affected by that dormancy ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

. -The honorable senator’s view is quite correct. An order or award may contain a retrospective provision and may lie dormant until after the expirations of 21 days from its date, but when the award comes into effect the retrospective provision contained in it will come into effect from the date of retrospectivity awarded or ordered.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 (Conference with State authorities’) .

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition formally opposes this clause, but will not call for a division on it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 (Employees not to be required to notify membership of organization).

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– This clause reads -

Section fifty-five of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead:- - “ 55. The Court or a Conciliation Commissioner shall not include in an order or award a provision requiring a person claiming the benefit of an award to notify his employer that, he is a member of an organizationbound by the award”.

Section 55 of the principal act reads -

The Court or a Conciliation Commissioner shall not include in an order or awarda provision-

requiring a person claiming the bene fit of an award to notify his employer that he is a member of an organization bound by the award or :

authorizingan employer -

to forfeit or refrain from paying any wages to which an employee has become entitled under his contract or under an award; or

to impose any penalty onan employee.

I should like the Minister to tell the committee the reason for the proposed removal of the protection that is given in the principal act. An employee may be late in coming to work, and may be penalized by the employer accordingly, or he may damage property and be penalized in regard to it.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

. -No final penalty may be inflicted by an employer on an employee unless provision for such a penalty has been made in the award under which the employee works.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– -Sub-paragraph (b) (i) of section 55 of the principal act reads -

The Court or a Conciliation Commissioner shall not include in an order or award a provision -

authorizing an employer- -

to forfeit or refrain from paying any wages to which an employee has become untitled under his contriict or under an award: or

to impose any penalty on an employee.

Are we to take it that its elimination will mean that it will be possible for an employer to inflict a monetary penalty on any of his employees, and to deduct it from his salary or wages? I believe that such a procedure will throw a very grave responsibility on the Government. Senator Morrow this evening, in the course of his second-reading speech, drew attention to some of the disabilities that employees weTe likely to suffer as a result of action by the employer in respect of some small fault on the part of the employees. . Before this section was inserted in the act, employers had arbitrarily inflicted penalties upon their employees. If the men were a minute late punching the time clock, they would be fined half a day’s pay, or “ stood down and told to go home for the day. The repeal of this section leaves it open to employers to penalize their employees. Consideration should be given to the establishment of an appropriate tribunal to protect workers against employers. Such a tribunal functioned in the Victorian Government Eailways, and an employee could appeal to it against a decision by the head of his branch, or the Commissioner of Eailways. If the Commissioner considered that an employee should be punished, the tribunal heard the case. Evidence was taken on oath, and the employee had the right to call evidence on his own behalf, and to have the assistance of counsel, or a layman. I have appeared on behalf of many employees before the tribunal. As the result of the repeal of section 55, tribunals of that kind may be abolished, and employees will be left without protection against employers.

Many employers have established tribunals of this kind, because they do not believe that an employee should be penalized as the result of the arbitrary decision of a leading hand or somebody else clothed with a little brief authority. In the past, employees were punished for such trivial offences as making a cup of tea. Men began work at 6 a.m. or 7 a.m., but they could be punished if they boiled the billy during the course of the working day. Most awards now recognize that the making of a cup of tea during the working day is permissible. I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) to explainwhy section 55 is to be repealed.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

. - The answer to Senator Sheehan’s question is very simple. This Government believes that it is only fit and proper that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court or a conciliation commissioner should be completely entrusted with the responsibility for making an award. If the court or a conciliation commissioner considers it fair and reasonable that these safeguards should be included in an award, they will be inserted in it. As the result of this amendment, the court or a conciliation commissioner will have discretionary power to decide whether the provision should be inserted in an award. The suggestion that employers will have power to inflict wanton and arbitrary penalties on employees for trivial misdemeanours, offences or neglect is quite false. The terms and conditions of employment in a particular industry will be governed by the award made by the court or a conciliation commissioner. This amending legislation will not deprive the court or a conciliation commissioner of the power to insert such a provision in an award, if its inclusion is considered necessary for the protection of employees.

The employer, ‘ if he acted outside the provisions of the award, would be subject to a penalty.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) whether it was the Government’s own thought, uninspired by any outside source, to repeal section 55. If anybody suggested such action to the Government, will the Minister inform me of the source of those representations ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) is aware that I am not the Minister responsible for the preparation of this bill, and I cannot say, of my own knowledge, whether any representations were made to the Government from an outside source for the repeal of section 55; but I understand that representations to that effect were made by a representative of an employers’ organization.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

.- The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) has intimated that section 55, which affords protection to employees against employers, is to be deleted at the request of an employers’ organization. That admission alone justifies the request of the Opposition that it be allowed more time to consider this matter. Had the intentions of the Government been known earlier, the trade union movement would have made representations to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) for the retention of this section. The repeal of section 55 is as objectionable to the Opposition as is an amendment of subsequent sections. I understand that section 55 is to be repealed as the result of representations made by the metal trades employers. Why should the Government accede to their request without having heard the union’s views on the matter? Why did not the Government consult the Australian Council of Trades Unions when it received the representations from the employers’ organization? Section 55 is of the utmost importance, and its repeal will cause industrial unrest.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I have no knowledge of the particular employers’ organization that made the representations to the Government, and I am not aware whether any union made a submission for the retention of section 55. I am not in a position personally to know that, but I point out that any government should not be ashamed to obtain information from a responsible body. I am sure that Senator Ashley, when he was a Minister in the Labour Government, frequently conferred with employers and employees. He was perfectly justified in doing so. That is the proper course for a government to take if it desires to be properly informed on various matters. I do not see anything inherently evil in being an employer, or in the Government consulting an employer. The point which must be borne in mind is that terms of an award are still in the discretion of the court or a conciliation commissioner. It is fit and proper that we should trust a judge or a conciliation commissioner.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– I am afraid that the Government has listened to one employer, who has persuaded it to repeal section 55, which gives protection to the employees. The employer apparently wishes to return to slave conditions and will endeavour to persuade a conciliation commissioner to insert punitive clauses in an award in order that the employees may be disciplined. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) has told us that there is nothing inherently evil in a government consulting a responsible body.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– A responsible body of employers or employees.

Senator MORROW:

– The Government has taken notice of the views of the employers. Yet it ignored the request of the unions which previously requested it not to insert the repeal clauses in this act’. I object to this clause because it only provides a protection for the employer.

Motion (by Senator McLeat) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

In division:

AYES

NOES

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reid:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I called the Minister.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 21 - by leave - taken together and agreed to.

Clause 22 (Certain persons entitled to be members of organizations).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This is the clause which I mentioned during the debate on the second reading of this bill and to which the Labour party has the most strenuous objections. I am not going to repeat the arguments against the clause that were used by my colleagues and myself during the second-reading debate, but the Opposition will oppose it with their votes. We regard this clause as wholly obnoxious.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the question he now put.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

The committee divided. ( TheTemporary Chairman - Senator A. D.Reid.) Ayes . . . . . . 28

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

AYES: 0

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Thirdreading.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) pro posed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I protest emphatically against the indecent haste with which the bill has been rushed through the Senate, and I also protest against the way in which the Opposition has been treated. You, Mr. President, were not responsible, but on two occasions Opposition members, who rose to their feet with the intention to speak, were ignored by the Chair. We were prevented from discussing some of the most important clauses. Clause 17 is very important.

The PRE SIDENT. - The honorable senator knows that he may not, during the debate on the third reading, discuss matters that have already been considered in committee.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Then I shall deal with something that has not been considered in committee.

Senator Wright:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable senator has said that clause 17 was not debated in committee. That is false.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is now 3.20 a.m., and this has been a long debate. There is a standard of conduct which we all wish to see observed, but I believe that certain things occurred in my gallery this evening - things which, I hope, will never occur again so long as I have anything to do with the proceedings of this chamber.

Senator Grant:

– What are you talking about?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Ashley has the floor, but he may not now introduce matters which have already been discussed in committee.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I appreciate your tolerance, Mr. President, I am speaking now only because I was denied the opportunity to speak earlier. This legislation will cause industrial trouble from one end of the country to the other. “We have had an admission from a Minister of the Crown that a section was deleted from the original act because of representations that were made to the Government by an association of employers. Well, certain requests were also made by the trade unions, but their requests were ignored. That is just what one would expect from a conservative government which represents the employers. There is at present a threat of industrial unrest greater than has ever occurred before. When the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator McLeay) assumed office he promulgated a twelve-point plan for the preservation of peace in industry, but no attempt was made to put it into effect because opposition was encountered in certain quarters-

It is not true that members of the Opposition are not prepared to assist in the prevention of industrial disputes. Every time the Government gets itself into trouble it whines for the co-operation of the Opposition. I have before me a newspaper report of a statement by a Minister of the Crown in which he wants to know what the Labour party is going to do to settle the waterfront dispute. The Government has been in office for two and a half years, during which time it has done little except talk about communism. The Labour party is at all times prepared to help in the settlement of industrial disputes, but what chance is there of industrial peace when the Government begins tinkering with the processes of arbitration? Surely Ministers have not forgotten that the Bruce-Page Government was turned out of office because it attempted to interfere with the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. This legislation, far from helping to preserve industrial peace, will have the opposite effect. Many clauses of the bill are very provocative. The Government refused to consult the unions about those provisions, but it yielded immediately to representations that were made to it by the employers. I understand that Mr. Fowler of the Metal’ Trades Employers Association persuaded the Government to delete a provision that would have protected the employees. Not even the Australian Council of Trades Unions, the supreme trade union body, was taken into consultation. Its representations were ignored.

I protest strongly against the methods that the Government has adopted. The Senate has sat on seven days during the current sessional period and the Government has had plenty of time in which to allow us to discuss this, one of the most important bills that has ever been submitted to the Parliament, upon which not only the welfare of the unionists but also the welfare of the nation may depend. The amendments that were made in committee earlier will cause industrial unrest throughout the country. Instead of making a contribution to industrial peace, the Government has inserted in the legislation provocative provisions, some of which will deny justice to the unionists. Government supporters have claimed that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) has tried to satisfy the Australian Council of Trades Unions, but the undeniable truth is that, on this occasion, he has refused to consider the interests of the trade unions. After the exhibition of ruthlessness that we have witnessed, I hope that Government supporters, when they are in Opposition, will never repeat the complaints that they formerly made against the Labour Government that it forced its measures through the Senate with indecent haste. The truth is that most of the bills that the Labour Government introduced in the closing hours of sessional periods were merely machinery measures of very little importance which did not have any effect on industrial conditions. I protest against the bludgeoning of this bill through the Senate.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I protest against the undue haste with which this very important bill is being forced through the Senate. In the committee stage, whenever we sought to discuss a contentious clause that appeared to be likely to cause industrial upheavals, the Government, having failed to reply satisfactorily to our charges, fell back on the use of the gag. It demands increased production, and it appeals for peace in industry, but this bill will cause disruption in industry throughout Australia. ‘ We were not allowed to discus3 vital clauses at the committee stage. For example, I refer to the provision relating to qualification for membership of trade unions. Portions of the relevant clause are designed to replace some of the provisions of the notorious Communist Party Dissolution Act, which was declared by the High Court to be invalid. Who will judge the character of a man and decide whether or not he should be admitted to membership of a union? The provision embodies many of the objectionable features of the anti-Communist legislation. The Government has been in consultation with representatives of employers who will be affected by the bill, but it has refused to take any notice of the trade unions, whose members will be equally affected by it. I was astonished to hear the startling information that the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) disclosed at the committee stage. When we asked why the employees had not been accorded the same opportunities for consultation as were granted to the employers, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) immediately applied the gag. Yet he is a member of a government that professes to stand for democracy, and for conciliation and arbitration in industry! The Opposition was prepared to help the Government. The suggestions that we submitted, had they been adopted, would have provided for the maintenance of industrial peace. But the bill, in its present form, will cause more disruption in industry than there has been in the past.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– You hope!

Senator AYLETT:

– We have read to the Minister resolutions that have been adopted by responsible unions, npt “ Com “ organizations, which have openly declared the course of action that they intend to follow if the Government persists in its intention to apply the penal provisions of the bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator is indulging in dull repetition. We have already heard everything that he has said, both during the second-reading debate and during the discussions in committee. I thought that he proposed to introduce new matter and I gave him an opportunity to state his case, but I realize now that he is merely engaging in dull and tedious repetition.

Senator AYLETT:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr. President. I enter my protest, and remind the Senate that I did not speak during the ‘ second-reading debate and that I was prevented from speaking in committee.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– I enter an emphatic protest against the persistent use of the gag at the committee stage, particularly when vital clauses were under consideration. In reply to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan), who said that Senator Aylett hoped there would be industrial unrest, I say that, on the contrary, the Government hopes there will be industrial unrest.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You are misrepresenting the Minister.

Senator MORROW:

– He said that.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The Minister interjected, “You hope I”.

Senator MORROW:

– These clauses are very provocative. By inserting punitive clauses in the bill, the Government is getting back to the slave days. I repeat the warning that has been already given by Senator Aylett, that this bill will cause industrial unrest. The country will lose millions of pounds by it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator is indulging in tedious repetition. He is merely repeating what he stated a number of times during the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill. The question is -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator Sandford:

– I rise to order! Senator O’Byrne was on his feet and had sought the call before you put the question, Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I did not see Senator O’Byrne rise before I put the question.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1531

STATES GRANTS (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1952

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 22nd May (vide page 687).

The bill.

Upon which Senator Wright had moved by way of amendment to clause 2 (1.) (vide page 685) -

That the words “ to the States in such amounts, and subject to such conditions, as the Minister determines.”, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ only to such States as make a provision for the acquisition of land for war service land settlement on just terms.”.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– The Government has considered the amendment that has been moved by Senator Wright, but is not prepared to accept it.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– The object of the bill is to give the Minister for the Interior of the day the right to pay to the States moneys that are appropriated under the original legislation, on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. It also seeks to repair the deficiency that was revealed by the judgment of the High Court in the Magennis case. The debate in another place was focussed entirely upon the point of view of the Government that moneys appropriated by the Parliament for the acquisition of land for the settlement of ex-servicemen should be made available on just terms. However, since I moved the amendment the Minister has assured me that under this bill moneys will be paid not only for the acquisition of land, but also for the maintenance of settlers on their farms. If my amendment were accepted it may have the most undesigned and undesirable effect of restricting payments to the States that require it to finance the settlement of ex-servicemen on the land. In these circumstances, it seems to me to be desirable that the Minister should be free to pay to the States such moneys as are properly available for that purpose. Therefore, I ask for leave to withdraw the amendment.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– Senator Wright has stated the position correctly. I am glad that the difficulty has been resolved in this way.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1531

SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL 1952

Bill received from House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The amendments proposed in this bill were foreshadowed in the second-reading speech on the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. All that the measure is designed to do is to make the same adjustment of the industrial machinery provided under the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Power Act in regard, to references and appeals to the Full Bench of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court from decisions of the single judge of the court who normally has jurisdiction, as are being made in the case of the. conciliation commissioner system. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator McKENNA (Tasmania - Leader of the Opposition [3.49 a.m.]. - The Opposition opposes this bill. Our objections to it are identical with those that we have to the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. No useful purpose would be served by reiterating them. I record the emphatic opposition of the Australian Labour party to the measure.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– The dangers inherent in the proposed alterations of our conciliation and arbitration system have been stressed during the course of this evening by honorable senators on this side of the chamber who have a long experience of the trade union movement and of the problem of industrial relations. Their warnings were nOt heeded by the Government when a vote was taken upon the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, and I do not expect that they will be heeded when the vote is taken on this measure. The Opposition believes that the Government’s proposals will impede the evolution of the system of conciliation and arbitration in this country and, possibly, cause widespread industrial trouble. I realize that the history of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is one of frequent amendments, but I believe that some of the amendments that are proposed in this and other measures will sow the seeds of the greatest industrial upheaval that Australia has known. The position is aggravated by the fact that the Government does not possess the confidence of the Australian people. The repercussions of its action will be felt long af ter it has. lost office.

I record my protest against this interference with our conciliation and arbitration legislation. I believe that, by introducing the measures to which I have referred, the Government has dug yet another portion of its political grave. The right of the working men and women of this country to press for a just share of the national wealth will be restricted. Perhaps the measures will have the effect, of bringing nearer the day when common sense will prevail among the rank and file of the Australian people. The fact that these amendments of the conciliation and arbitration system have been foisted upon the people by their traditional opponents and, in many instances, enemies, may hasten the abolition of a state of society which can function only with the assistance of an . arbitration court that awards an unjustifiably small portion of the national wealth to the workers, and bring nearer the day when every person in this country will have economic security and a reasonable opportunity to live a full life. All that the arbitration system has ever given to the ordinary man is what may be regarded as his bread and butter needs. Measures such as this and the bill that preceded it will assist to bring nearer the day when we shall have a state of society in which the emphasis will be placed on personal worth rather than on wealth. They will cause discontent throughout the Commonwealth, and the Government must take full responsibility for what will happen. Possibly, they will accelerate the arrival of the day when we shall have a society in which cooperation rather than competition will he the order of the day, and people will accept their responsibilities rather than be influenced by selfish personal motives. I well remember the criticism that was levelled at Labour governments on the rare occasions when they had to use the weight of the numbers of their supporters to pass legislation through the Parliament. Historians will record with interest how, during a critical period in 19*2. when the order that the government of the day represented was declining, the Government merely accelerated that decline.

The warnings that have been issued to the Government by men in both Houses of ‘the Parliament who have had very “many years of practical experience in the service of their fellow men, have gone unheeded. Every Government supporter will have :to take his share of responsibility for the Government’s failure to heed them.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

.- The object of ‘this bill is similar to that of the bill that has just been disposed of in that it proposes ‘to clothe the Commonwealth Arbitration Court with powers that are “far greater than those which it should possess. My colleagues have expressed astonishment that such proposals should have been submitted. I do not share their astonishment - because I realize that, in introducing these measures, tha Government is acting in conformity with its usual practice. Many attempts hav£ been made by the Government and its supporters to deprive the trade unions of their self-governing powers; but all of them have failed. The fight has been waged for many years. The Government now hopes that by delegating greater powers to the ‘Commonwealth Arbitration Court it will be able to achieve by legal means what it has failed to achieve by other means. It is running true to form: For all practical purposes it has declared war against organized Labour. Admissions made by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) reveal the fact that the Government is prepared to go to any lengths in order to control the trade unions. It must accept responsibility for the result of its actions: Work oh the waterfront is already held up and the dispute may ,Vé extend to other industries; hu: lbc fight will be continued. I have no illusions about that matter: .Through the medium of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and the conciliation commissioners the Government hopes to control the policy of the unions for its own purposes and in the interests of those whom it represents. But it will not succeed in so doing.Instead, it will put innocent people to a great deal of inconvenience and expense that could be avoided. Ultimately, it will be defeated.

References have been made by Opposition senators to a similar attempt by the Bruce-Page Government in 1926 when it submitted to the people by way of referendum a proposal which would have enabled it to control or dissolve the trade unions. The proposal was defeated, and at the following general election the Government itself was defeated. Had the then Prime Minister and the ‘members of his Government been sufficiently far-sighted, they would have known what the result would be. This Government has adopted a similar policy, but i’t is attempting to gain its ends by more ingenious and systematic methods ‘than those adopted by the Bruce-Page Government. We, have been told that this legislation has. been intro>duced for the purpose of establishing and maintaining industrial peace. In reality, its object is to enforce greater ‘control over trade unions. To -the degree that that oan be done, the unions will be deprived of ‘self-governing powers. They came into existence because they demanded self-governing, powers, and they have enforced those powers, perhaps to a lesser degree than I personally care to see, but nevertheless they have done so. The Government now proposes to declare open warfare oh them in the guise of maintaining industrial peace. The Government seeks to shelter behind the court and to persuade the public that its intentions are entirely innocent. I have no doubt that some of the. judges of the court will contend that the Government is saddling them with responsibility which properly belongs to the Parliament. They may say that their powers have not been properly defined and that they do not wish to accept responsibility for the creation of. further industrial unrest. That attitude was. adopted by certain judges, particularly ~M,r. Justice Higgins and Mr. Justice % Higinbotham, t who practically defied the Parliament because improper powers were delegated to them.

I shall, accept the decision of the majority for the time being, but I know perfectly well that those who will pay the penalty for legislation such as this are those who’ are responsible for placing such legislation oh the statute-book.

Question put -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The’ Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

Ayes . . . . . . 28

Noes . . . . . . 17

Majority . . . . 11

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I merely wish to ask whether the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority was consulted regarding this measure. If so, what was its view? In addition, is the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) able to inform mo whether Mr. Justice Wright, who is the arbitrator charged with responsibility in this matter, was consulted? If so, what were the views that he expressed? If neither was consulted is the bill merely the work of the Government, without reference to any organization of employees ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I regret that I am not in a position to reply specifically to the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition, (Senator McKenna). As the honorable senator is no doubt aware, the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme is administered by the Department of National Development. I have no doubt that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) conferred with the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner). I am, however, able to give the honorable senator an assurance that the Government would have behaved in the manner expected of a responsible government.

Senator McKenna:

– That really does not answer my questions.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I am not in a position to detail the precise procedure that was pursued before the bill was introduced.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– A short while ago I left the chamber for the purpose of having a cup of tea, and when I returned I found this bill on my table. In common with several other honorable senators on this side of the chamber, I have not yet had an opportunity to consider it. May I suggest that in order to give me and other honorable senators an opportunity to do so, the Senate adjourn to a later hour of the day? We do not know what is in the bill. We are not magicians. We cannot take it all in at one glance. My request that progress be reported and that the sitting be resumed later to-day so that we may have an adequate opportunity to consider the measure is reasonable.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · LP

– I regret that Senator Aylett was not in the chamber when I made my second-reading speech on this measure. Had he been here, he would have understood the purpose of the bill.

Question put -

That thebill stand as printed.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved m the affirmative. Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without ‘ amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1535

PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATION BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) proposed -

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

Senator CAMERON:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I oppose the motion, because I am not disposed to assist the Government in any way. The Government is bludgeoning this opposed legislation through the Senate. Some Government supporters are asleep, and I do not wish to wake them, but obviously they are not in a proper state, mentally or physically, to deal with this important bill. They are taking everything for granted, like so many “yes” men. I am prepared to sit here until 5 a.m. to-morrow if necessary, but obviously other members of the Senate would not be able to do that. They require their sleep, and should be allowed to have it. To rush controversial legislation through the Senate in the early hours of the morning is quite wrong. The Chifley Government, of which I was a member, did not do that. We practically nursed honorable senators opposite so that they were not fatigued mentally or physically. This is the consideration that we receive in return.

Question, resolved in the affirmative. Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

When I spoke on the motion for the second reading of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, I explained that that bill proposed to allow an appeal from decisions of conciliation commissioners to the Pull Arbitration Court by leave of the Chief Judge in certain circumstances, and to permit conciliation commissioners to refer matters before them to the Full Court in certain cases. I said then that the Government intended to introduce amendments to other legislation in order to apply the same policy to proceedings before other Commonwealth arbitration authorities. One such authority is the Public Service Arbitrator. Under the Public Service Arbitration Act, he has jurisdiction to determine claims relating to salaries, wages, rates of pay and terms and conditions of employment in the Public Service. The expression “ Public Service “ is used here in a broad sense because the arbitrator’s jurisdiction extends not only to officers and employees employed under the Public Service Act, but also to those employed by public institutions and authorities of the Commonwealth. The authority of the Public Service Arbitrator thus extends now to employees of such agencies as Trans-Australia Airlines and the Commonwealth Railways, to wages staffs at defence production and munitions establishments, and to employees of the Department of Works. There is, at present, no appeal from the arbitrator’s decisions, nor is the arbitrator required to have regard to decisions of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court upon the matters with regard to which the present arbitration act recognizes that there ought to be general standards - that is, the basic wage, standard hours and leave. I have no doubt that in practice the Public Service Arbitrator does consider the relevant decisions of the Arbitration Court.

If the jurisdiction of the arbitrator were limited to the Public Service proper, that is, the career service consisting of administrative departmental officers, this might not raise difficulties. It has always been recognized that conditions of employment applicable in industry are not necessarily applicable to a career service. But at present there are many thousands of wage employees engaged in occupations which are the subject of awards made under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act whose conditions of employment are regulated not by those awards but, because they are employees of the Commonwealth, by determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator. Honorable senators will not wish me to traverse again the principles which have guided the Government in its approach to the various amendments of industrial legislation. All 1. need say here is that the cases that may be expected to go from the Public Service Arbitrator to the Full Court will involve matters of considerable importance which, in the public interest, should finally be decided by the supreme industrial tribunal.

Finally, as honorable senators are aware, determinations of the arbitrator are required to be laid before both Houses of the Parliament and if a determination is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the Parliament may disallow it. Clauses 7 and 8 of the bill make consequential amendments to the present provisions but do not depart from the principle. I commend this bill to the Senate. [Quorum formed.]

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition desires to record its strongest opposition to this measure. There is less justification for providing for appeals to theCommonwealth Arbitration Court from the Public Service Arbitrator than from any other tribunal. It has not been suggested that there is any conflict between the decisions of the Public Service Arbitrator and the deci sions of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. This bill appears to constitute a most unwise interference with a very stable situation. I invite the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) to state whether any Public Service organization has sought the right of appeal to the court. I understand that a Minister in another place acknowledged that no Public Service organization had sought the provision. I can inform the Minister that Public Service organizations are most grievously opposed to it. There is no support for the Government’s proposals from the employees. I should also like to know whether the Public Service Arbitrator was consulted on this matter and whether the Public Service Board was consulted, and, if so, what its reaction was to the proposal. If none of the parties to which I have referred requested the introduction of this legislation I should like to know who did ask for it. Is this bill further evidence that the Government is determined to channel all arbitration through the Commonwealth Arbitration Court? It is apparent from the case which the Government itself has stated that there is not justification for a change in the existing procedure. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber will record their opposition to this measure by their voice and vote.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The present Public Service Arbitrator, Mr. Castieau, is a man with legal training and a great deal of experience. I suggest that it is not necessary to permit appeals to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court from the decisions of men of Mr. Castiean’s ability.

In conducting Public Service arbitration cases it is necessary to collect evidence from all parts of Australia. An approach is generally made to the Public Service Board and this requires a lot of travelling and organization. If the negotiations with the Public Service Board are not successful it is necessary for the parties to return to the various States and outback parts of Australia and thentake steps to approach the Public Service Arbitrator. I consider that this bill will aggravate the present position.

I wonder whether this bill is completely necessary, even after taking into consideration the position that will obtain when the Governor-General has signed the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill which has just been passed by this chamber. The PublicService Arbitrator is not a conciliation commissioner in the true sense of the word and it cannot be necessary to take this step which the Government has suggested is concomitant with that which has been taken in relation to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I also desire to make an emphatic protest against this measure. I do not know why the Government wants to interfere with the present arrangement in the Public Service, for which there is a tribunal that is presided over by a very competent arbitrator, who from long experience, has acquired a deep knowledge of Service conditions. Those conditions often differ from the conditions outside the Service. As for tradesmen employed in the Public Service, the practice is for them to come under the basic awards operating in respect of their trades, and I cannot see any reason why a special right of appeal should be provided.

In clause 5 of the bill it is proposed to refer to the Full Court matters which involve the making of a common rule. I quote from the clause as follows : -

  1. After section fifteen of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: - “5a. - (1.) Upon application by -

    1. the Board;
    2. a Minister affected by the claim or application ; or
    3. the organization by which the claim or application was submitted to the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator may, if he is of opinion that a claim or application made to him under this Act, or a matter arising out of such a claim or application (including a question whether a term of a determination should be a common rule, and. if so, whether the common rule should be a common rule of the Public Service or of any branch or part of the Public Service), is of such importance that the claim, application or matter should, in the public interest, be dealt with by the Full Court, and subject to the concurrence of the Chief Judge, refer the claim, application or matter to the Full Court.

Seeing that the public interest is invoked, I should like the Minister to say whether the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has power to make a common rule in a matter that affects, not only the Public Service, but also the general public. Should not such a matter be determined by the High Court? This is a very important matter and cannot be lightly passed over. It needs explanation and clarification. The bill will cause an intrusion into an industry that has proceeded for quite a long time without any trouble. I am opposed to the measure.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– in reply - I inform the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), that I am not aware whether the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) consulted with the Public Service Board or the Public Service unions about this measure, but I have been informed that he consulted with the Public Service Arbitrator. The Public Service Arbitrator is very competent. He is a man with legal qualifications, although such qualifications are not necessary under the statute that creates his position. I assure the honorable senator that there is nothing sinister in this measure, and it is merely designed to streamline the arbitration system. It follows the pattern of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill that was passed by the Senate yesterday. In reply to Senator Sheehan, I may say that I am not aware of anything that will prevent the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration from making a common rule. I would be surprised if there was anything in the measure that would have that effect.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I should like the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) to inform me, possibly by the use of a legalism, whether the difficulty in relation to the making of a common rule could be overcome. I understand that some years ago it was ruled that the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration had not the power to make a common rule.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · LP

– I cannot recollect the circumstances in which the High Court of Australia made that decision, but conceivably the circumstances that then obtained may have been different from those of to-day. I have been informed that there exists no reason why a common rule should not be made by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court.

Senator Sheehan:

– Applicable only to the Public Service, or to outside employers as well?-“

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The court would not be restricted specifically.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1538

COAL INDUSTRY BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to remove a doubt as to the true meaning of section 34 of the Coal Industry Act 1946-1951, which has arisen from the recent judgment of the High Court in Aberdare Collieries Limited v. The Commonwealth. That case concerned the National Security (Coal Mining Industry Employment) Regulations. Under those regulations, the reference board’s function was to “ consider and determine “ industrial matters. The High Court made certain observations on the meaning of these words to the effect that they did not connote the exercise of the Commonwealth’s powers in relation to conciliation and arbitration. The same phrase, “ consider and determine “, appears in section 34 of the Coal Industry Act, which provides that “The tribunal “-the Coal Industry Tribunal that is - “ is to have power to consider and determine” the types of industrial disputes and matters enumerated in the section.

The sole purpose of the present measure is, therefore, to remove any doubts about the tribunal’s power insofar as its federal jurisdiction is concerned. The bill is expressed to be retrospective in its operation to the date when the Coal Industry Acts first came into operation. When speaking on the second reading of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, I reminded the Senate of the agreement between the Governments of the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales that neither would introduce amendments to its coal legislation without the consent of the other. The Premier of New South Wales has indicated his concurrence in the amendment proposed by this bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The Opposition does not intend to impede the quick passage of this bill. The Premier of New South Wales has given his approval to the measure, and, as it is of a simple technical character, the Opposition will support it.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) said that the Premier of New South Wales did not object to the bill. However, I understand that there is some opposition to it from the persons who are principally concerned, namely, the employees in the industry. I have read in the press reports that meetings have been held to protest against this legislation.

Senator McLeay:

– Not against this bill.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Yes.

Senator McLeay:

– The protest was against the provision of a right of appeal to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, with which this bill does not deal.

Senator ASHLEY:

– This bill will amend the legislation under which Mr. Gallagher operates.

Senator McLeay:

– That is so. It will validate what Mr. Gallagher has done, and it has the approval of the Premier of New South Wales and the miners’ federation.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Apparently I have been misled. However, I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs to confirm that statement.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · LP

– in reply - I assure the honorable senator that the Premier of New South Wales was consulted and that he concurred in the proposal. I am certain that he also consulted the miners’ federation. This is purely a machinery bill for the purpose of conforming to the decision of the High Court in the case to which I referred in my second-reading speech.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1539

DEFENCE (SPECIAL UNDERTAKINGS) BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The first purpose of this bill is to make provision for the protection of the atomic weapon test which is to be carried out at the Monte Bello Islands, off the northwest coast of Australia. The fact that preparations for the test are already being made gives the measure an urgent character. It will be recalled that on the 19th February, 1952, a joint announcement was made by the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and of the Commonwealth that in the course of this year the United Kingdom Government intended to test an atomic weapon produced in the United Kingdom, and that the test would be conducted in cooperation with the Government of the Commonwealth. That announcement was followed by another that was made on the 15th May, 1952, in the following terms : -

The test of the United Kingdom atomic weapon in Australia will be carried out at Monte Bello Islands off the north-west coast of Australia as a joint operation involving the three fighting services and the Ministry of Supply. The operation will be under ‘ the command of Rear-Admiral A. D. Torlesso, and the test will be under the scientific direction of Dr. W. G. Penney, of the Ministry of Supply. Besides Her Majesty’s ships Zeehrugge and Narvik which have already sailed carrying a detachment of the Royal Engineers, and stores, the special squadron will’ consist of Her Majesty’s ships Campania Flag Ship, Tracker and Plym. These latter ships are being specially fitted to transport the scientific staff and test equipment and are expected to sail in about two months’ time. Units of the Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force will work with the special squadron in Australian waters.

The executive control of the project rests entirely with the United Kingdom authorities, and the policy on matters such as those relating to the presence at the test of observers, whether they be officials or representatives of the press, is entirely for the United Kingdom authorities to determine. The role of our forces that will take part in the test is mainly in the realm of logistics. The principal responsibility for security has been assigned to the Australian authorities. For the sake of the security of this extremely important undertaking, the bill proposes that an area bounded by the circumference of a circle within a radius of 45 miles and centred on Flag Island, one of the Monte Bello group, should be a prohibited area, and that no unauthorized person should enter or fly Over that area.

The Monte Bello group consists of three main islands - -Hermite. Trimouille and North-West Island. These are separated by a lagoon capable of harbouring small ships. The largest of the islands, Hermite, is about 6 miles long. There are many small islands in the group, and the whole, with Barrow Island, is situated on a coral reef about 100 miles north-east of Exmouth Gulf and some 45 miles to the west of Cape Preston. The islands are barren and fairly flat. Recent surveys have disclosed no evidence that they have ever been inhabited by man, probably because there is hO surface water after a period of drought. They are the home of a few birds and small animals. The plant life there consists mainly of spinifex and a few varieties of wild flowers. At times5 in the past> the lagoon to which I have referred has been used fis a haven by Japanese “pearling fleets, but it has not been used for this purpose during recent years. Barrow Island-, whish is much larger than any of the Monte Bello group, lies to the south on the same coral reef. It is about 18 miles long arid 6 miles wide. It is low-lying, the highest point upon it being about 2f0 feet above sea-level. It, too, is barren and uninhabited. The circular area of radius 45 miles which it is proposed to declare a prohibited area also embraces several tiny islets near the Australian coast; but none of these is of any particular significance. The area extends into territorial waters in ohe or two places) but does not include any portion of the mainland.

The reason for prohibiting this area is: Of course, to protect from observation by any unauthorized person, whether he be On land, on sea Of in the air, “the activities conducted in relation to the atomic weapon test. Incidentally, the prohibition will serve the purpose O’f closing the area to persons who otherwise might stray into it and suffer physical harm as a result of the experiment. Thi’ bil] makes provision for the GovernorGeneral to terminate the prohibition of the area as soon as it is safe to do so. It makes provision also for the declaration of restricted areas within which there shall be a control of aviation. It is intended to declare as a restricted areas the area bounded on the east by the meridian of longitude 122 degrees east, on the south by the parallel of latitude 25 degrees south, and on the north-west side by the limit of the territorial waters of the mainland. where they extend from a little below Carnarvon to just short of Broome. The reason for imposing this control in the present case - similar considerations may arise in future Cases - is that, ih order that the prohibition of flying over the prohibited area may be effectively policed, the appropriate authorities will require to be given a measure of control over aircraft in the vicinity of the prohibited area. This control of civil aviation will be removed as soon as the interests of defence permit.

The prohibited area centred iri the Monte Bello group cuts across the MAry Anne passage, through which a trading ship normally passes about once a wees. However, ships engaged ih normal commercial activities in the vicinity will be permitted to pass through this passage and it is intended that there shall be a simple system whereby ships may operate in these waters under permit. By a similar system, it is intended that there shall be no interference with the normal scheduled flights of civil aircraft over the area of the mainland which will become subject to restriction. By the same token, the operations of the flying doctor service will be unhampered, and machinery will be set up to enable the granting of permits for charter and private flights made in the conduct of the ordinary affairs of that part of Western Australia. The bill, in addition to making provision for the granting” of permits to enter prohibited areas provides in detail for the search of persons entering, within or leaving a prohibited area, and gives power to appropriate officers to seize anything in respect of which there is reasonable ground for believing it to be evidence of an offence. The bill further provides a power to arrest persons reasonably suspected of having committed, or of being about to commit, an offence against its provisions. The bill also provides that no action shall lie against the Commonwealth, a State, or any person acting in accordance with the measure, in respect of anything done in pursuance of it; but if the GovernorGeneral is satisfied that any action taken was taken without reasonable cause, he may award compensation.

The bill renders the provisions of the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act 1947 applicable to special defence undertakings. This is proposed in order to remove any doubt whether, as a matter of construction of the definition of “ approved defence project “ in that act, its provisions may be invoked for the protection of such undertakings. Certain other machinery provisions, to which I need not refer at this stage, are also included in the bill.

The penalties provided for offences are severe. I make no apology for that; but I invite the attention of the Senate to the provision which requires the consent of the Attorney-General to the institution of any prosecution. This, I suggest, will alford a safeguard against the measure being applied without due consideration.

The Government has thought it wise, in preparing this measure, to make provision for any similar undertakings which may require to be carried out. It is designed to cater for such undertakings, whether they are for the defence of Australia alone, or whether, as well as being for our own defence, they are for the defence of another country with which we are associated in preparing to resist international aggression. Certain prohibitions and restrictions have already been made under existing legislation in respect of the atomic weapon test. However, it goes without saying that the existing legislation was not designed with this particular test in mind, and therefore it is not remarkable that in some respects it is un suitable for .present purposes. It is not only desirable, but also necessary, that the limits of the authority given to protect an undertaking such as the one at present in contemplation, should be expressed in specific and appropriate terms.

The amount of public interest and curiosity which the present operation is exciting, and will continue to excite in increasing degree, will be readily understood. Some of this interest may be ascribed to natural inquisitiveness, but some is, and will be, nefarious. The Senate will, therefore, comprehend without difficulty the major importance of maintaining the essential secrecy of the test, and of ensuring that nobody shall be in the vicinity without a legitimate reason.

Although it will not be possible at any stage to make a detailed statement regarding the test, the Government has gladly made facilities available for it, and I can assure the Senate that in no way will the interests of Australia be overlooked. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.– The Opposition supports the bill. It is fundamentally important that an operation such as that which will be undertaken at Monte Bello Islands should be completely protected from the security aspect. When the Chifley Government established the guided weapons testing range and had developed it to the stage where it was producing secret weapons, the Govern’ ment wa3 obliged to provide adequate security cover. At that time, suggestions

Were made that Certain Communistcontrolled trade unions might cause trouble at the range, and it was therefore necessary to apply stringent security measures in the area. This bill provides for temporary arrangements to be made, and it is apparent that at the expiration of the tests the Governor-General may declare the regulations to be inoperative. It is important that legislation such as this should be introduced, and I do not think that it need be discussed further.

Question resolved iu the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1542

WOOL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1952

Bill received from House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is the first of three measures which are designed to reintroduce the wool tax which has been suspended in its original form since 1946, and to increase the rate of tax to 4s. a bale on all wool produced in Australia for the purpose of advertising wool and its uses. Similar legislation has been in operation for some time. It may assist honorable senators in their consideration of the proposal if I were to review briefly the history of the wool tax since it was first imposed in 1936. In that year, following the initiative taken by the Australian Wool Growers Council for the imposition of a levy on wool for publicity purposes and the establishment of a board to deal with publicity and research, the Australian Wool Board was created under the Wool Publicity and Research Act1936. In addition to its responsibilities for publicity to wool in Australia and abroad, the board was also empowered to take such steps as it considered necessary for the improvement of the production of wool in Australia, and the conduct of research into the production and use of wool. To provide funds for the board a tax of 6d. a bale was imposed on all wool grown in Australia and shorn after the 1st July, 1936, and this rate applied until 1945. Out of the funds so provided, the board carried on its work in Australia, and also made its financial contribution to the International Wool Secretariat. The secretariat was created in 1937 by the Australian Wool Board in conjunction with similar organizations in South Africa and New Zealand, for the purpose of carrying out wool publicity overseas on their behalf.

Wool publicity activities were continued in the war period, and in 1944 the government of the day decided that the time had arrived when a more intensive publicity campaign should be conducted. It was also decided by the government of the day that the Australian Wool Board, which had until that time been responsible for wool research, should concentrate on publicity activities and that other financial and administrative arrangements should be made in respect of research work on wool. Legislation was enacted early in 1945 to increase the rate of wool tax to 2s. a bale, to limit the Australian Wool Board’s activities to wool promotion, and to provide a government contribution for wool research equivalent to the amount raised from the operation of the wool tax. As a result of this, and increased contributions from New Zealand and South Africa, the International Wool Secretariat was enabled to expand its promotion campaign, and subsequent agreement between the secretariat and the American Wool Council to establish and operate jointly the Wool Bureau Incorporated in the United States of America permitted the development of increased publicity activities in North America.

Late in 1945, the Governments of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa adopted the wool disposals plan as a means of disposing of the surplus wool accumulated during the war. The Australian wool industry’s share in the cost of operating this plan was provided from a contributory charge, which was collected as from the 1st July, 1946, under the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act and related legislation. In order to meet the convenience of all concerned, it was provided in the Wool (Contributory Charge) Assessment Act that, while the contributory charge should apply, the Wool Tax Act should remain in suspense, and, further, that the 2s. a bale which would otherwise have been collected under the wool tax should be collected as part of the contributory charge, and be paid to the Australian Wool Board. This arrangement has applied until and including the present wool season. However, by the beginning of the current season - 1951-52 - the wool disposals plan was virtually complete, and the rate of the contributory charge was therefore reduced to one-eighth of 1 per cent. The objective was to raise only so much money as would have been raised had the wool tax continued to operate, that is, an amount approximately equivalent to 2s. a bale. As the principal purpose of the contributory charge now no longer exists, it is appropriate to dispense with the contributory charge altogether and to bring the wool tax into operation again to make provision for wool use promotion funds. The primary purpose, therefore, of this bill and two complementary measures which will be introduced shortly is to repeal the contributory charge legislation and to revive the wool tax.

It is proposed to make the changeover at the 1st July, 1952, before the commencement of the new wool season. As the wool tax generally becomes payable when wool is received into store and the contributory charge is not payable until the wool is sold, it is inevitable that wool received into store by brokers and dealers before the 1st July, but not sold until or after that date, should escape payment of both the charge and the tax. If the wool tax operates from the 1st July next, only a relatively small quantity of wool is likely to escape payment of both the contributory charge and the wool tax. Some revenue - about £7,000 - will, of course, be lost to the Australian Wool Board as a result, but the recovery of this amount would not be worth the cost and the administrative inconvenience to the Government, the wool-selling brokers and the wool dealers. The problem, of course, does not apply in the case of wool exported.

Provision has been made in the bill for the exemption, from wool tax of any wool on which contributory charge has been paid or is payable. When the wool tax was raised to 2s. a bale in 1945, it was expected that it would yield an annual sum of about £350,000. However, actual realizations have usually been rather less than this. Further, as with other costs, the cost of wool publicity has considerably increased since 1945. Increasing costs in Australia and overseas have materially affected the Australian Wool Board’s finances. This year, for example, it has been necessary to draw on the Wool Industry Fund to the extent of £150,000 to meet the board’s deficit. At 1952 currency levels, the income from the wool tax at the rate of 2s. a bale will no longer provide adequately even for what might be regarded as a minimum wool promotion programme.

The Australian Wool Board has proposed that, next season, the rate of the wool tax should be increased to 4s. a bale, with corresponding increases in the rate of tax on wool supplied in fadges, butts, and bags, and that the wool tax in later years should be not less than 2s. a bale, or more than 5s. a bale. The two wool-growers’ organizations, the Australian Wool Growers Council and the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation, which nominate representatives to the Australian Wool Board, have approved of these proposals. In a joint statement supporting the increase of the rate of wool tax, the chairman of the Australian Wool Growers Council and the president of the Graziers Federal Council of Australia said -

If the levy is not increased, and the expenditure of the Board is to be reduced, roost of the reduction will have to take place in America, and this would not lie in the interests of the industry, because America is the home of synthetic fibres, and a considerable amount of money is being spent in advertising those fibers We must do all we can to counter this activity … it is felt that now is the time to intensify, rather than reduce, the woo] promotion programme of the Wool Board.

I strongly support those views, and, in passing, point out that the rate of 4s. a bale represents about 0.22 per cent, of the average value a bale of wool between September and April in the current woolselling season.

The second purpose of this bill and its associated measures, therefore, is to increase the rate of the wool tax to 4s. a bale for the 1952-53 season and to fix upper and lower limits to the tax in future years. I should mention that in approving the increased rate the Australian Wool Growers Council suggested that it be struck for one year only, pending the council’s consideration of wool funds generally. It has pointed out that various moneys contributed by the wool industry and now administered by the Government, for example, the Wool Industry Fund and the Wool (Reserve Prices)

Fund, should be examined with a view to determining whether, by the use of some of these moneys, the rate of the wool tax could be reduced below 4s. a bale. For this reason it is proposed, in complementary bills which will be introduced shortly, to apply the rate of 4s. a bale only until the 30th June, 1953, in the first instance. Provision is made in those bills for the rate of wool tax on and after the 1st July, 1953, to be prescribed in regulations; and, before regulations are promulgated, for consideration to be given to any recommendations on the rate of tax that may be made to the Minister by the Australian Wool Board after consultation between members of the board and the wool-growers’ organizations which nominated them for appointment to the board. In this way, the board will be in a position from time to time to recommend a rate of wool tax with full knowledge of the views of the wool-growers’ organizations on that point.

The Government would expect that the board’s recommendation on the rate of tax would be made not later than the 31st May preceding the wool year in which it is intended that the rate should apply, thereby giving reasonable time for consideration of the board’s recommendation and for promulgation of the regulations prescribing the rate before the commencement of the new wool year. These arrangements will permit the rate to be varied from time to time, according to circumstances and, in particular, for the position of the various wool funds to be reviewed by the growers’ organizations <ir>c! the Government prior to the commencement of the 1953-54 wool season. The Government’s review will necessarily include consideration of the amount which it should in future pay to the Wool Research Trust Account. When the wool tax was increased to 2s. a bale in 1945, the government of the day indicated that it was prepared to contribute, for the purpose of wool research, an amount equivalent to the amount that the wool industry paid in wool tax. Provision was made accordingly in the Wool Use Promotion Act, and annual payments have since been made to the Wool Research Trust Account from Consolidated Revenue. The credit balance in that account now stands at about £900,000.

Whilst the Government does not propose to increase the amount of its contribution to the Wool Research Trust Account to the same amount as the receipts from the wool tax at 4s. a bale, it is by no means the intention of the Government to withdraw from the field of wool research. It is too important to the future economic welfare of our country. The proposal in the Wool Tax Assessment Bill 1952 to repeal section 15 (2.) of the Wool Use Promotion Act which provided for the existing arrangement is to remove a legislative commitment to continue to find research moneys equal to any receipts from the wool tax. The Commonwealth will continue to make a substantial contribution towards research and though at present I am unable to state precisely what the Government’s contribution will be, it will not be an amount appreciably different from that produced from the present 2s. a bale tax. By that I mean that it may be decided, as an alternative to a government contribution determined by the amount of tax a bale, to have a fixed annual contribution of a specified amount, say, for example, £350,000. I expect that the decision will be made before the next session of the Parliament, in which case a new provision, will then be introduced in place of the existing section 15 (2.) of the Wool Use Promotion Act.

The Wool Tax Assessment Bill contains certain saving clauses consequent on the repeal of the contributory charge legislation and a consequential amendment of the Wool Realization Act. The bill also provides for amendments to the existing wool tax assessment acts which are designed to bring the machinery provisions of those acts into line with other more recent taxation legislation. Tb, quarterly periods in respect of which returns of wool tax must be made are altered, and the time by which payment of tax must be made by wool-brokers and dealers is extended. The bill also includes a provision empowering the Commissioner of Taxation, in special circumstances, to grant further extensions of time. These provisions have been inserted to meet th, position of wool-selling brokers who contend that, on the higher rates of tax now proposed, the provisions of the existing wool tax assessment legislation would operate unfairly against them. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The Opposition does not oppose this measure, the purpose of which is to impose a levy of 4s. a bale on wool in order to provide funds for advertising wool and the purposes to which wool can be applied. I have often wondered whether the Government has ever satisfied itself that the money collected for the purpose of advertising wool has been properly spent.

Senator McLeay:

– The wool industry has chosen special men for this work, and I know from my reports that they are as good a group as represent any export industry in this country.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I believe that the industry is represented by a South Australian, Mr. Waterman.

Senator McLeay:

– Yes.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The report which he furnished on his return from abroad was very fine. However, I think that the Government should have prepared a schedule of the type of work that is being done in order that it may satisfy itself that the best use is being made of this money. It is always wise to check this type of expenditure. I agree with Senator Piesse that this matter is of paramount importance. Now is the time to increase advertising on wool, especially in the United States of America. I also agree with the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), who has said that synthetic fibres are being advertised in the United States of America to such an extent that wool will have to be publicized more than ever. I should like the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) to obtain a report on the expenditure of this money in such a form as will enable him to examine in detail the manner in which it is being spent.

In concluding his speech, the Minister referred to a provision which has been inserted in the bill to meet the position of wool-selling brokers who contend that, on the higher rates of tax now proposed, the provisions of the existing wool tax assessment legislation would operate un fairly against them. I cannot see how those people would be affected by the provisions of this bill. The Opposition supports the measure.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– The original measure was introduced by the Lyons Government, and imposed a tax of 6d. a bale on wool for the purpose outlined by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay). In 1945, amending legislation increased the tax to 2s. a bale. The bill proposes to increase it again to 4s. a bale. I suppose the Government has decided that the wool-growers are well able to pay the tax, but I should like the Minister to tell me what has been done with the amount of £7,000,000 that lies in the Wool Industry Fund, which honorable senators opposite, when in Opposition, accused the Labour Government of stealing from the wool-growers. Why has not some of that amount been applied to make up the deficiency of £150,000 in the wool promotion fund ? There is a surplus of £900,000 in the wool publicity fund. Surely that amount could be used to offset the deficit. I do not say, however, that the growers are not in a position to pay this tax. Prior to this proposal, the Government made a £l-for-£l contribution to the fund to meet the contributions of the growers, and I should like to know why it intends to discontinue making that contribution.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– I shall intervene briefly to make some remarks in relation to the matter that was raised by Senator Armstrong, who asked how the wool funds were being used. The annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization shows that nineteen activities connected with sheep are being carried on as the result of some subsidy paid by the Australian Wool Board.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– But that is in connexion with the research fund, is it not?

Senator CORMACK:

– I happened to be discussing the matter with the chairman of the board a fortnight ago and he told me the amount of money that is being made available in respect of specialized activities and investigations. As I have not the exact figures in my head at the moment, I cannot give them now, but the Auditor-General has dealt with the subject in paragraph 109 on page SO of his annual report, which shows an expenditure of £515,000 against an income of £358,000, and accumulated funds of £310,000. The figures indicate a- deficit of £170,000. It was a unanimous wish of the agencies and interests engaged in the wool industry, expressed through the Graziers Federal Council and other federal bodies, that the contribution should be raised to 4s. I am perfectly satisfied, both as a woolgrower and as a member of this Parliament, that the money in the funds will be expended satisfactorily.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– in reply - The concluding paragraph in my second-reading speech has reference to the fact that, as the tax has been raised from 2s. to 4s. a bale, a considerable amount of money is involved, and the wool-selling brokers have to hold the wool for some time before it is sold, and, therefore, they are given a little longer period for the return of the tax. Senator Ashley has referred to the Government’s contribution. I indicated in my second-reading speech that the Government has in mind a contribution of £350,000, but the precise amount will be finally determined during the next sessional period of the Parliament, when the budget is presented.

Senator Armstrong has raised the point whether the money is properly spent. I was the Minister acting for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) for some months, and, therefore, I am familiar with the situation. The wool-growers’ organizations are represented on the various boards that advise upon the way in which the money shall be expended. Departmental officers keep a close check of the work which i3 done, and I do not think that any one will find a group of men who are keener and better qualified to keep a watch on the ways in which the money is expended. Senator Ashley has also referred to the special fund of £7,000,000. I am not in a position to indicate the exact state of that fund at the present time, but if he requires the information, I shall arrange to have it supplied to him.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1546

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 1) 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In my second-reading speech on the Wool Tax Assessment Bill 1952, I explained that it was proposed to impose a tax on wool at the rate of 4s. a bale. The purpose of this bill is to impose this tax on all wool produced in Australia and, on and after the 1st July, 1952, received into store by a wool broker or dealer. The bill sets out the rates of tax proposed to be applied on wool supplied in bales, butts, fadges and bags, and the procedure to be adopted in determining the rates after the 1952-53 season.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The Opposition approves the bill, and will support it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 1546

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 2) 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move - That the bill be now read a second time.

This is the third of three bills designed to impose a tax on wool at the rate of 4s. a bale. This bill proposes to impose the tax on all wool produced in Australia, and exported on or after the 1st July, 1952, with the exception of wool received into store by a woolbroker or dealer. The bill sets out the rates of tax proposed to be applied on wool supplied in bales, butts, fadges and bag3, and the procedure to be adopted in determining the rates after the 1952-53 season.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– This bill is in conformity with the other wool tax bills with which the Senate has already dealt, and the Opposition has no objection to it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 1547

NEW GUINEA TIMBER AGREEMENT BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1465).

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– This is a strange bour for the Senate to be discussing the new socialism of the Government, but we are now considering a proposition by the Government that we should enter into an agreement with Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited to develop the timber resources of the Bulolo Valley in New Guinea. Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited aims to take 500,000,000 super, feet of timber off 40,000 acres of land. An outline of this bill was considered by the Chifley Government, but the measure now before us has been considerably altered from the arrangements discussed by the Chifley Government with Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited. It is important that the magnificent timber of New Guinea should be exploited.

At the proper time I shall move that this bill be referred to a committee of the Senate so that we may make a closer examination of the situation in New Guinea and of the implications of the measure. We wish to do so because conditions have changed very considerably since the Chifley Government considered the matter. In those days timber was in very short supply, Australian timber was not sufficient for our needs, and it was difficult to import timber. However, during the last few years there has been a flood of timber into Australia from Japan, North America and Brazil. Figures that were published a week or so ago indicate that less than 50 per cent, of the number of houses that were commenced in this country twelve months ago are being commenced at present. The electorate of Lyne, in the northern rivers areas of New South Wales, is located in a great timber district. In that area great difficulties are being experienced by timber-getters and saw-millers, because timber is now being over-produced in Australia. We do not need any more timber in this country, and some unemployment is beginning to occur in the industry. Indeed, some saw-millers are closing down throughout Australia. The urgency of developing New Guinea timber is not so great now, and further consideration of the matter might allow us to work out a more favorable agreement for the people of this country.

The Chifley Government made some arrangements with Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited under which it was to have the option of acquiring the company’s interests under certain circumstances. That cannot be done under this bill. If either party decides to sell out it is required to give the other the first choice of buying. Under the original arrangement the company was to accept a substantial portion of the charge for constructing a suitable road from Bulolo to Lae and the cost of building bridges over two streams, which will be necessary if the road is to become traffickable. An expenditure of about £70,000 a year will be necessary to keep the 100 miles of road in good condition between those points. Anybody who has seen the great sweeps of water that come down during the wet seasons there will realize why such a large annual expenditure will be necessary. Washaways are frequent, and very bad.

Now, of course, the cost of the road will have to be borne by the Government alone. The Opposition would like the question of the refunding of customs duties to the company to be examined. I do not consider that that could be justified at present. There are other ways of encouraging New Guinea enterprise than by that means. Therefore, I should like a committee to consider whether, in all the circumstances, that is a right decision. Finally, I would like to make certain that the Australian timber industry will not be seriously affected by the development that we- have in mind in the Bulolo Valley. As I have stated, the Australian timber industry is already goffering a rather bad shock, because timber is in over-supply. All the indications for the future are that the demand for Australian timber will be less than the supply for some time to come. One of the suggestions that we make is that the timber from New Guinea should be brought into Australia in log form, and that processing and veneering should be done on the mainland. Only sufficient veneering should be done in New Guinea to cater for the requirements of New Guinea, and for export to places other than the mainland of Australia. After all, the production will be manned by New Guinea labour, which will be cheap compared with mainland labour. The New Guinea natives are paid about 15s. n month and provided with keep. A remarkably efficient job is being done by that cheap labour - and by some very dear labour, too! If we do not make certain that the Australian industry shall not be affected by anything that we do in New Guinea, we shall be cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Something must be done about the tremendous timber plantations in the territory. An exportable trade throughout the world is available, if the right type of timber can be found in New Guinea. It is tragic that year after year most of it is wasted, instead of being worked. At the appropriate time the Opposition will move that the Senate appoint a committee to examine some of the aspects of the matters that I have mentioned.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

– I shall state briefly why it would not be wise to submit this proposition to a committee. The proper thing to do is to go ahead straight away and get the development going as quickly as possible. After all, in view of present world conditions, the rapid development of New Guinea is of paramount im portance. Senator Armstrong has stated that timber is in good supply in this country. In fact, he stated that timber is in over-supply in Australia, and that therefore the timber from New Guinea should not be brought, in to add to that over-supply. Under the terms of the agreement, the Government will have complete charge of the policy of the company and, should the shipment of New Guinea timber to Australia lead to an over-supply on the local market, the Government can arrange to have it sold overseas. Senator Armstrong said that the company should contribute to the cost of constructing and maintaining the road and the two bridges. I understand that the Government has not decided yet whether a toll shall be levied on the road, which will be used, not only by the company, but also by residents of the large area surrounding the Bulolo Valley. that the road will open up. There are many settlers in that region already and many more are expected to establish themselves there. Senator Armstrong also criticized the proposal to refund customs duty to the new company. The Government, which will be in charge of policy, will be able to force the company to sell its timber in Australia. Obviously, that timber will not be sold here at more than the world price. Therefore, if the company had to pay customs duty, it would receive less for timber sold, in Australia than- it would receive on overseas markets. In view of the fact that the Government can compel the company to send its timber to Australia, it is only just that the customs duty should be refunded in those circumstances.

I am completely at variance with Senator Armstrong’s suggestion that the timber should not be submitted to manufacturing processes in New Guinea. It would not be just, proper, or wise to regard New Guinea merely as a source of raw material for processing in Australia. The territory must develop its own industries and process its raw materials on the spot. It would be just as wrong to compel Western Australia, for example, to send its timber to the eastern States for processing as it would be to insist that New Guinea timber should be processed on the mainland. Senator Armstrong spoke of cheap native labour and said that the standard wage in New Guinea wa3 15s. a month, plus rations. That as not correct. The lowest paid worker in the territory receives 15s. a month, plus rations and other benefits. Skilled workers receive high margins. In fact, the really skilled native worker earns about £11 or £12 a week. In any case, as the Government will be in charge of policy, it can ensure that its interests, both in Australia and in the territory, shall be protected.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– I wish to deal with a matter that was evidently overlooked by Senator Armstrong and Senator Gorton. I refer to the subject of reafforestation. Irrespective of the remarks made in the Senate this morning, the agreement between the Commonwealth and Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited will be put into operation, pine stands in New Guinea will be reduced and the sawn timber will be transported either to Australia or to another country where it is required. The agreement is unsatisfactory because it contains no provision for reafforestation, which is left to the control of the Administrator. Although the present Administrator will undoubtedly pursue a vigorous policy of reafforestation, he will not always occupy his present position. Under the administration of a new appointee the pine stands of New Guinea may be greatly reduced and no effort may be made to replace them. In the past good timber stands have been cleared in that way. Virgin forests which appeared to contain sufficient timber to keep the mills going for at least ten or twelve years have been cut out in three or four years and no attempt has been made to replant the area. The agreement between the Commonwealth and the company should contain a clause requiring the company to replant the forests in which it operates.

Some time ago when I visited a sawmill in north Queensland I observed that men were running mine detectors over pine logs to detect shrapnel. I ascertained that the logs had be.en cut from an area in which a military camp had been established during the war. During gun-firing exercises shrapnel shells had been fired into the forest and many trees were damaged. The mine detectors were used in order to protect the saws from damage.

Timber has been wasted on a large scale on the Australian mainland. Large areas of valuable timber have been burned to clear land for grazing and agricultural purposes. I do not say that such wholesale destruction of timber will take place in New Guinea, for, despite Senator Gorton’s statements about the future development pf the territory, I believe that the prospects of settlement and development are very limited. It is our duty to protect the timber assets that exist there. Timber is a valuable asset of the territory. If we give this company the right to take from these forests the timber that it thinks should be cut, and do not, at the same time, insist that it should replant timber, we shall fail in our duty. We should insist upon a comprehensive reafforestation scheme being prepared and should ensure that it will be put into effect. That is one reason why this bill should be submitted to a committee.

It is not quite correct to say that at the present time the timber market in this country is more or less sufficient to meet the demand. Notwithstanding that some mills are working only part-time and that others have been closed, the market is short of good plywood timber. If we grant to companies such as Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited the right to go into the forests of New Guinea, manufacture plywood there and transport it to the mainland, probably some of the timber in this country will be preserved, but the Australian market will be flooded by timber from New Guinea and serious unemployment will occur in our timber industry. That would have a serious effect upon the economy of certain portions of Australia, particularly the northern part of Queensland, where plywood is manufactured on a large scale.

I desire to direct the attention of the Senate to the failure of the Government to give other companies an opportunity to compete with Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited for the right to enter into an agreement of this kind. Bulolo Gold

Dredging Limited is being given a monopolistic right in respect of timber. Perhaps that is the only thing that can be done in the special circumstances of this case, but, if it is necessary, for the purpose of securing supplies of plywood, for a private company to work the forests of New Guinea in conjunction with the Government, an opportunity should have been given to other companies to compete for the right to work the forests. The Government will be committed to an expenditure of approximately £100,000 a year upon the maintenance of the road between Lae and Bulolo. I do not see how that expenditure can be avoided. The cost of maintaining the road will be borne, not by the people of New Guinea, but by the people of Australia. That is another good reason why the bill should be referred to a committee. It is possible that expenditure upon the road will be more than £100,000 a year. I understand that the distance between Lae and Bulolo, where the timber stands are, is approximately 97 miles. Hundreds of bridges may have to be constructed in that length of road.

The granting of this permit to the company will mean that it will receive a never-ending permit. I have no doubt that once it commences to fell the timber, it will continue to do so until there is no timber left in the area. It is essential that a reafforestation policy should be adopted now and put into operation. I support the suggestion made by Senator Armstrong that the whole matter should be referred to a select committee for further investigation.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– This is an important bill. It is amusing to see this Government adopting socialism, a philosophy which it has always condemned. The Government proposes to embark upon a socialist venture and to invest in it a cool £250,000. It also proposes to expend some hundreds of thousands of pounds in order to build a road. That money will come either from loans from the Australian people or from revenue supplied by the Australian taxpayers. The bill would be less objectionable if the Government organized its socialist enterprise so as to ensure that the profits from it come back to the Australian people. However, half of them will go to the other side of the world.

Five hundred million super, feet of timber are to be taken from the area, at the rate of approximately 10,000,000 super, feet a year. In order to fool the people, the Government has stated that there will be a great deal of waste products and that a paper mill, which could use those products may be established in the area. I suggest that if honorable senators opposite knew anything about paper mills, they would appreciate that a great deal more timber than is available as waste would be necessary to support a mill. If a paper mill is established, some of the most beautiful timber in the world will be used for the manufacture of paper. It seems to me that the proposal represents the first step towards permitting another company from some other part of the world to exploit the natural resources of New Guinea. The statement that a paper mill will be established is simply camouflage designed to attract a company which is probably already negotiating with the Government. That is one reason why the Opposition wants a committee of inquiry. Honorable senators ‘ have not been told whether the company will pay taxation. According to New Guinea laws, it will be free of taxation. Apparently the company will employ cheap native labour and will slash to pieces the Australian standard of living. There will be no arbitration court there to protect the workers. If the company can employ labour for 15s. a month, the colossal profits that will accrue to it can be imagined. Australians were not given an opportunity to invest in the industry. If an opportunity to do so had been given to Australian timber-millers, the capital required would have been over-subscribed quickly. Care should be taken to ensure that timber from New Guinea is not dumped in Australia so that Australians will be thrown out of work.

Senator Kendall:

– The _ honorable senator does not know what he is talking about.

Senator AYLETT:

– I know that the Government had not denied that native labour will be employed at a wage of 15s. a month for each man. Clause 8 of the agreement states -

In carrying out its operation the Timber Company may employ such labour as may be conveniently and practicably employed, having regard to local conditions and the availability of different types of labour.

The workers will not get arbitration court rates of pay and conditions. They will be paid the local rate and work under the conditions which are common in that area. If the company can get sufficient labour on that basis, it will have no trouble in under-cutting prices on the Australian market, thus causing Australians to be thrown out of work. I do not say that I have any sympathy for the timber-millers of Australia. Most of them are the biggest thieves that I have known. At one period they obtained rises of 150 per cent, and 200 per cent, in the price of timber when wages were pegged. The prices are still rising. There is no better gold mine in Australia than the timber industry. If this company exploits native labour in New Guinea, the profits should come to Australia. They should not go to Canada. If the Government was a true socialist government instead of being a half-baked one, it would manage this matter more efficiently.

Senator Cormack:

– I rise to order. If the honorable senator is feeling tired, I suggest that he seek the indulgence of the Senate under Standing Order 404 to conclude his speech sitting down.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Aylett has not sought the indulgence of the Senate.

Senator AYLETT:

– Apparently some honorable senators opposite who have been asleep are now waking up. I was speaking of the Government’s semisocialistic proposal. If the Government wanted to associate itself with private enterprise in this venture, it should have sought the assistance of an Australian company, and not a Canadian company, as is proposed under this legislation. Perhaps the Government was afraid to do that knowing that Australians have a habit of insisting upon decent award standards for employees. I am primarily concerned with the protection of the workers in the timber industry, and of the New Guinea natives, who, in my opinion, will be exploited under this agreement. I agree with the Government that New Guinea should be developed, but I do not agree that native labour should be exploited to provide profits for an overseas company. There are other belts of timber in New Guinea, and I should like to know whether the Government is prepared to give Australian timber-millers an opportunity to develop them. If so, would the Commonwealth provide the necessary roads and keep them in repair ? I happen to know that certain Australian timber-milling companies would be only too happy to be given access to good stands of timber. They would be prepared to build their own roads if necessary. Not long ago, a Tasmanian timber company offered to build from 15 to 20 miles of macadamized road or a railway into timber country. It undertook to cut a specified quantity of timber, and to pay royalties to the State Government. It also agreed to forfeit its lease if it failed to comply with any part of its agreement. Let honorable senators compare that arrangement with the proposal that the Government has embodied in this measure under which an overseas company will be given exclusive rights to exploit the timber wealth of New Guinea. This matter cries out for investigation.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– In view of the hour, I shall reply to only some of the points that have been raised in this debate. Senator Armstrong was correct in most of his statements. However, when he was discussing the importation of timber from New Guinea, he suggested that such imports would compete with the mainland product. I point out that the stand in the Bulolo Valley consists almost wholly of hoop and klinkii pine, which is practically unprocurable in Australia. Consequently, far from having to compete with such imports, Australian timber users will experience difficulty in obtaining supplies of timber of that kind because competition for it from other countries will be very keen. In addition to the royalties that will be paid to the New Guinea administration itself, and which are set out in (he bill, a toll at the rate of 2s. 6d. a 100 super, feet will be payable towards the upkeep of the road from Bulolo to Lae.

Senator Benn said that he was particularly interested in the aspect of reafforestation. The New Guinea administration will take particular care to ensure that re-afforestation is continuously and efficiently carried out in accordance with the provisions of this bill. The honorable senator also said that imports of three-ply from New Guinea would seriously compete with the Australian product. The three-ply market on the mainland is now over supplied, as a result of credit restrictions which have curtailed the manufacture of furniture. Furthermore, the New Guinea three-ply is not of the type that is produced in Australia. The New Guinea product is white pine and is far superior to Australian three-ply and the product that is obtained from Borneo and other sources.

Senator Benn:

– Does it not contain borer and other pests ?

Senator KENDALL:

– No ; white pine, hoop pine and klinkii pine is completely free of pests. That is one reason why the Government has taken every possible precaution to protect the stands in the Bulolo Valley. Senator Benn also suggested that timber imports from New Guinea would flood the Australian market I assure him that that will be most unlikely because, as I said earlier, Australian millers will experience keen competition from other countries for New Guinea veneers and plywood. In any event, Australian millers will be adequately protected under clause 14 of the proposed agreement which provides that the New Guinea products, including veneer, three-ply, tops .and other types, should be made available in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of Australian plywood manufacturers. Veneer is easy to handle, and the white pine can be imported not only as threeply, but also as veneer. It can be backed with Australian hardwood and processed in this country so its importation will not put Australian timber workers out of work.

Senator Benn was also worried about the cost of building a road and bridges. The road is already there and has been there for a number of years. It will only be necessary to pay for its upkeep and it would have had to be maintained in any case because it goes right to Wau. In the course of its wanderings it merely passes through Bulolo. The extra traffic will not make much difference to it.

Senator Benn:

– It will have to carry heavy loads of timber.

Senator KENDALL:

– They will not be any heavier than the loads that it carries now. Loads of three-ply and veneer would be lighter than the present loads which pass over it. Thirty-two sheets of veneer weigh only 1 cwt. Consequently, no additional cost would be incurred in the upkeep of the road.

Senator Aylett suggested that the Government was undertaking a socialistic venture. This may appear to be so on the surface. The fact is that the Government has participated in this project in order to protect a very valuable asset. As the years go by, contrary to Senator Benn’s expectations, the areas that will be reafforested will no longer belong to the company. They will revert to the administration.

The profits of the venture will be shared equally between the Commonwealth Government and the Bulolo Company. Out of the profits Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited will have to pay fairly heavy royalties. I have been asked why this company was chosen to participate in this venture. The answer is that it has the water rights and land leases of the only flat piece of land in that area. It also has turbines and a small native village and is ready to commence operations. The Government is very keen to commence operations now, not in four or five years’ time. Not only will the Bulolo stand develop a new industry but the maintenance of the road to the area will make it possible to develop hundreds of thousands of acres of land in the Markham Valley.

I am sorry that this matter did not come up at some other time. The only other point that I want to mention is that several newspapers said that I had objected strongly in the party room to the bill. That is both true and untrue. I objected to any proposal that the timber be given to one company only, whereby other people in New Guinea would be subject to a monopoly. That matter has been adjusted. The upper end of that stand, near Wau, is to go to interests like Siew Guinea Gold and various other interests and there is to be no monopoly of the timber. The other point was that I was worried about the timber industry in Australia. That fear has also been expressed by honorable senators opposite, but has been covered by the provision in the bill that veneers will be made available to Australia.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. A critical study of the bill itself and the Minister’s second-reading speech would convince anybody that the bill is loosely worded. Certain of the proposals may mean anything. Under this bill the Commonwealth will enter into certain undertakings in respect of the road from Bulolo to Lae. What are those certain undertakings? Unless the Government tells us the nature of them itis asking us to sign a blank cheque.

Senator Kendall:

– If the honorable senator reads a bit further on in the bill he will find out what these undertakings are.

Senator CAMERON:

– I agree with the Government about the potentialities of New Guinea, but it would be possible to refer to the potentialities of Australia and their value, without specifying what they were. We are concerned about the exact conditions under which this joint company will operate. We should be deeply lacking in a sense of duty if we allowed ourselves to be committed by the bill or the statements contained in the Minister’s second-reading speech, without knowing what we are buying into.

Senator Kendall:

– The honorable senator should read the bill.

Senator CAMERON:

– The technique to-day, as in the past, is to exploit and impoverish native labour. Such a policy has gone on for so long in the Asiatic countries that it has led to revolutions, and it is not unknown here in Australia, because I can remember when native labour was imported to work on the sugar fields. I also remember the results. Native labour in New Guinea is used on the same conditions as it was used in the Queensland sugar-fields, and it is fairly profitable; but I am not concerned so much with the matter of profit as I am with the danger that the market will be flooded with the products of cheap labour. An agitation has arisen in the United States of America against the flooding of American markets with products manufactured in Japan, because the American workers are being detrimentally affected. There is a similar situation in Australia. Opposition senators will not support the Government, unless we know what we are buying into. A select committee should be appointed to inquire into the whole matter. The Opposition’s proposal in that respect is perfectly proper and legitimate. Honorable members opposite pose as successful businessmen. I do not believe that successful businessmen would commit themselves privately to a proposition of this kind, knowing what has occurred in the past. My only purpose in speaking in this debate is to attempt to justify the proposal to appoint a select committee. The inquiry could be conducted expeditiously. We have to justify our existence here, and we shall not do so if we sign a blank cheque. I know perfectly well what has happened in the past, and what is happening at the present time. It will continue to happen, to the detriment of Australian workers, unless adequate safeguards are provided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– I move -

  1. That the bill be referred for consideration and report to a select committee of the Senate comprising four Government and three Opposition senators.
  2. That the report of the committee be presented to the Senate on or before the 31st day of July, 1952.

  3. That notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders -

    1. the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place, and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate; and have leave to report from time to time the evidence taken;

    1. the committee shall have leave to report from time to time its proceedings, and any member of the committee shall have power to add a protest or dissent to any report;

    2. five members of the committee shall constitute a quorum of the committee ;
    3. the chairman of the committee shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote.

If the Government cannot see its way clear to agree to the motion, the Opposition will vote against the bill.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Question put. The Senate divided. (The President -Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I ask the Minister to consider clause 8 of the agreement in the schedule to the bill. It reads -

In carrying out its operations, the Timber Company may employ such labour as may be conveniently and practicably employed having regard to local conditions and the availability of the different types of labour.

Will that clause empower Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited to employ native labour at the ruling rates in the Territory of New Guinea, or will such natives have to be employed at standard Australian wage rates and conditions? I suggest that it would not be correct for the Australian Government to exploit native labour.

Senator McLeay:

– If Senator Aylett will put in an application I shall see that it is favorably considered.

Senator AYLETT:

– Honorable senators are sent here to do a job for Australia, and not to be treated with contempt. The Government has treated the Senate with contempt throughout the whole of to-day. Indeed, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has endeavoured to have this legislation rushed through the Senate by a process of exhaustion, and by so doing not only has he treated me with contempt but he has also treated the Parliament with contempt.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has assured the honorable senator that if he should put in an application it will be favourably considered. I now assure him that if he will put in an application it will not be favorably considered. The wages paid to natives of New Guinea in the circumstances contemplated in the agreement will be standard wage rates that have been fixed by the ordinances of the Territory of New Guinea, and approved by the United Nations.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– As I am not an applicant, and not likely to become one, I should like the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) to furnish me with some information about the wages that are payable to the natives in New Guinea. While I am well informed about basic wage rates and marginal rates on the mainland, I do not know what wages are paid to native labourers in New Guinea. I make it clear that I would not be a party to exploiting native labour.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– Wages vary in New Guinea just as they do in every other country. A lot depends on a native’s experience, and the type of work that he performs. I understand that books are available in the Parliamentary Library which contain full information on this subject.

Senator Aylett:

– Does not the Minister know the rates?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– No.

Question put -

That the bill stand as printed.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator J. P. Tate.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1555

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1952

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this bill.

page 1555

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator HENTY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

Will the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation inquire into the cuts that have been made by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to the service between King Island and the mainland? The residents of King Island are entirely dependent upon the air service for the carriage of mails and passengers between the island and Victoria.

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has now supplied me with the following information: -

Considerable progress has been made in the settlement of the strike in the oil refineries in the United States. Australia’s stock position is reasonably satisfactory, and we have now relaxed restrictions on the consumption of aviation fuel, so that it should now be possible for airline companies to restore their schedules to 90 per cent. of what they were before the restrictions were applied.

page 1555

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) - hy leave - agreed to -

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the date on which the Senate next meets.

page 1555

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to a date and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 1555

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. A. J. English - Delegation to

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association - Argentine Ant

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I am sure that I express the sentiments of all honorable senators when I say how sorry we shall be to lose the pleasant association, assistance and service of Mr. Alfred Joseph English, who will retire on the 19th June after a very meritorious and creditable service in the Senate extending over a period of more than 30 years. On occasions such as this, we are reminded that we are particularly indebted to those who serve the Senate so faithfully and well, and without whose assistance, and cooperation and cheerful service, the Senate could not function. I am confident that I express the sentiments of honorable senators generally when I say that I trust that Mr. English will enjoy a long period of happy retirement. As long as we who. have known him remain here his memory and his pleasant service to us will be cherished. I should like you, Mr. President, formally to convey to Mr. English the appreciation of the Senate for his loyal and efficient service.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I have pleasure in associating the Opposition with the remarks made by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) regarding Mr. English. It is a blow to lose old friends, and to mis3 familiar faces around this chamber. Mr. English has endeared himself to all those who knew him for his cheerful presence, and his readiness to help. I have taken the opportunity personally to wish him well. I know that he looks forward to a pleasant and happy retirement. May I add to the remarks of the Minister that I trust that, as Mr. English will live in the vicinity of Parliament House, he will be a frequent visitor to the precincts of this chamber when his retirement takes effect.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Aus tralia

– 1”. associate myself with the remarks of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) regarding Mr. English. I trust that Mr. English will enjoy a very happy retirement and a well-earned rest.

I rise also to congratulate Senator Willesee upon his appointment as a member of the Australian delegation to attend the meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association at Ottawa. I extend also to my fellow whip in this place, Senator Annabelle Rankin, my heartiest congratulations on her inclusion in the delegation. One of the proudest moments of my life was when I was chosen to represent this Parliament at a meeting of that body in 1949. I know something of the educational value of such visits. I am delighted with the selection from the Opposition and also from the Government side. 1 wish our two representatives God-speed. I know that they will enjoy themselves, and that they will worthily represent this country. I trust that the harmonious relations that have existed between Senator Annabelle Rankin and myself in the years we have served together in this Senate as party whips will not be broken on her return. If they should be broken, she will have a difficult job to repair them.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– I join with Senator Critchley in congratulating Senator Annabelle Rankin and Senator Willesee on their appointment to the delegation. Senator Annabelle Rankin, who was a member of the Broadcasting Committee of which I was chairman, will, I am sure, worthily represent this Parliament at Ottawa.

Senator PIESSE:
Western Australia

– I take this opportunity to explain to honorable senators that on the two occasions during this sessional period upon which I mentioned the subject of Argentine ants that I was not dealing with a joking matter. I trust that honorable senators will realize that I was dealing seriously with a serious problem, and now that they know something of the menace of these ants, that they and the press of Australia will do all they can to help me to eradicate them from the Commonwealth.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Edward Mattner:

– It will be a great pleasure to me to convey the good wishes of the Senate to Mr. English. I am delighted that honorable senators have seen fit to pay tribute to him, because the members of our staff give us very efficient service, which we appreciate sincerely. It was fitting that, on the eve of his retirement after 30 years’ service in the Parliament, those richly deserved compliments should have been paid to him.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I express my thanks to Senator Critchley and to the other honorable senators who have wished me well on my trip to Ottawa, and also to those who have made it possible for me togo.Iam looking forward to the visitverymuch, but. I am looking forward, most of all, to my return tothis country, when I shall heabletotellthe Senate of the matters that the delegation discussed whilst abroad.

Question resolvedin the affirmative.

page 1557

PAPERS

The following, papers were presented’: -

Public Service Act - Appointment - Department ofthe Interior - K. W. Storey.

Public Service Arbitration Act - Determination by the Arbitrator, &c. -1952 - No. 42- Musicians’ Union of Australia,

Stevedoring. Industry Act- Australian. Stevedoring Industry Board - Second Annual Reportand financialaccounts, for year 1950-51.

Senateadjournedat 7.11 a.m. (Friday) to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 June 1952, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1952/19520605_senate_20_217/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant