House of Representatives
27 October 1910

4^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PRESENTATION OF ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
- Later -
QUESTION
- POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- SYDNEY NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS
QUESTION
- KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY
QUESTION
- PROMOTIONS TO CLERICAL DIVISION
QUESTION
- LEON ADELL
QUESTION
- PAPUAN NATIVE LABOUR
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (LEGISLATIVE POWERS) BILL
PAPER
ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 5291

PRESENTATION OF ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I desire to announce that His Excellency the Governor-General has appointed it o’clock this morning as the hour at which he will receive the AddressinReply to the speech which he delivered on the occasion of the opening of Parliament. He will be present in the library at that hour.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall be pleased if, at the time stated, as many honorable members as can conveniently attend will accompany me to present the Address.

Later -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to announce that I have presented the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General.

page 5291

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Penny Postage - Wireless Telegraph Stations - Lopping of Trees - Undergrounding of Wires - Peak Hill Postmaster

Mr J H CATTS:
for Mr. Thomas Brown

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Is it a fact that immediately prior to Fede ration, the whole of Victoria had a twopenny postage rate for letters, and that in1901 a penny postage rate was adopted throughout the whole of the State ?
Can the Postmaster-General state how many extra hands were put on to cope with the increased correspondence, and the cost of employing those hands?
Is it not a fact that in New South Wales there are already large areas where penny postage is in operation ?
What are those areas, and what is the population ?
Can he say what percentage of the letters now posted in New South Wales bear only a penny stamp?
Does he think it would require a larger staff in New South Wales to cope with the increase of letters consequent on a penny postage scheme being adopted than itdid in Victoria, seeing that in the latter State the whole of the State was formerly subject to a twopenny rate, while in New South Wales there are certain areas already enjoying the lower rate?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Yes.
The Deputy Postmaster-General, Melbourne, reports that twenty extra sorters were employed in 1901, in consequence of the reduction of the postage rates on letters to one penny, at a cost of £1,565 per annum.
Yes.
See answer appended.*

Broken Hill,East Broken Hill, South Broken Hill, North Broken Hill, Broken Hill West, and Broken Hill Railway Town - Six offices.

Harden and Murrumburrah - Two offices.

Narribri and Narribri West - Two offices.

Wyalong and West Wyalong - Two offices.

These areas were all granted prior to Federation, the maximum radius under the regulations passed since Federation being 8 miles.

The estimated population of the areas is 893,000, or 56 per cent. of the total population of’ the State.

About 48 per cent.
In view of the fact that in Victoria prior to Federation, all letters were prepaid at the twopenny rate, and in New South Wales about 56 per cent, of the population are now within the penny radius, and about 48 per cent. of the letters are prepaid at one penny, the expense ought not to be more in the latter case than in the former.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether the land for the erection of a wireless telegraph station near Sydney has been obtained ?
If so, whether any steps have been taken to erect such station?
If not, what is the reason of the delay?

Mr TUDOR:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

The site was acquired by notice in the Gazette, dated 15th September, 1910, see pages 1539 and 1540. 2 and 3. The contractors are understood to be taking the necessary steps to complete the erection of the station within the contract time.

Mr HEDGES:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

If his attention has been drawn to the paragraph in the Melbourne Herald of the 24th inst., which reads as follows : - “ Wireless to the Orsova. - The Orient mail steamer Orsova, ‘ which arrived from London to-day, has been fitted with the Marconi system of wireless telegraphy since her last visit to Melbourne. On the voyage out the’ wireless ‘ was kept going, and the operator had a very busy time. The Orsova was in communication with the English stations while in the Mediterranean Sea, and messages were received and despatched from the Bay of Biscay to Madeira, a distance of nbout 1,000 miles. On last Monday afternoon, when a few hundred miles from Fremantle, the result of the Caulfield Cup was received from the P. and O. linerIndia. Yesterday evening, when 30 miles west of Cape Otway, the Orsova ‘ conversed with the Orontes and Zealandia, which were then lying at Sydney “ ?
Is the Minister aware that the Orsova has been fitted with wireless telegraphy since her last visit to Melbourne without in any way delaying her while in port?
Is the Minister aware that the Orsova and many other modern vessels have been built since this Parliament passed the amount required for the installation of wireless telegraphy in the Commonwealth ?
Does the Minister consider that reasonable progress is being made with the1 installation in the Commonwealth?
Is it a fact that the supposed experimental station, which the Minister states the contractors have at Sydney, is for receiving messages only?

Mr TUDOR:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are - 1 and 2. No.

Yes.
I am not in a position to know what progress the contractors are making with the works, but will see that the terms of the contract are complied with.
The Chief Electrical Engineer reports that he saw this station when in Sydney recently, and that it is not for receiving messages only.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

With reference to the lopping and consequent injury of a large number of trees in the prin- cipal streets of Albury by his Department, to make way for telephone and telegraph lines -

In view of this question having been brought to the notice of his Department on several occasions, why have these lines not been placed underground ?
Is he prepared to take steps to have this work done immediately, so that the property of the municipality may not be further damaged ?

Mr TUDOR:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

Because the circumstances were not considered to be such as to warrant the work being done.
The matter will be further inquired into, with a view to seeing what steps are now justified.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

With reference to the case of the unfortunate late postmaster at Peak Hill (Mr. Guilfoyle), who shot himself during a fit of temporary insanity induced by overwork, resulting, it is alleged, from the refusal of the Department to give him assistance, will the PostmasterGeneral have inquiries made as to whether postmasters elsewhere in New South Wales have complained of overwork, and applied for and been refused assistance?
Is it true that there is a considerable amount of overworking going on in various ranks of the service in the General Post Office, Sydney, from heads of Departments downwards?

Mr TUDOR:

– Inquiries are being made, and the desired information will be furnished as early as possible.

page 5293

QUESTION

SYDNEY NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

asked theMinister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

What is the estimated present value of the various naval establishments at Sydney?

Mr FRAZER:
Minister (without portfolio) · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Department has no information at present available in the matter, but inquiries are being made.

page 5293

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether the recent report, that, at the present time, the immense elevated limestone plateau of twenty millions of acres, north of the Great Australian Bight, is” fairly smothered in lovely pastoral grass,” and which is lying unused and unproductive, together with the new phenomenal discoveries of gold at “ Bullfinch,” near Southern Cross, both tapped by the proposed direct railway to Fremantle from Port Augusta through Kalgoorlie, will induce the Government to reconsider its intention not to proceed with the construction of the railway from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie till next year?
Is there any ground for believing that there will be any more favorable circumstances, in connexion with this work, next year, than those existing at the present time?
What ground is there for postponing the immediate progress of this great work, so necessary in the interest of Federation and of National Defence ?

Mr HUGHES:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. It has been decided to immediately make arrangements for the quantity survey for the transcontinental railway, provided for in this year’s Estimates.

There will be no unnecessary delay in the actual construction of the railway.

page 5293

QUESTION

PROMOTIONS TO CLERICAL DIVISION

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice-

How many of the 416 officers of the General Division, who have passed the clerical examination, have been appointed?
Is it a fact that some General Division officers in New South Wales, who passed the examination in June, 1909, have not yet received appointment?
Is it a fact that two clerical examinations have been held, for those outside the service, while qualified officers from the General Division are awaiting appointment?
Is it fair to the General Division officers to refuse them promotion unless they qualify themselves, and after qualifying and proving their fitness to still refuse them promotion?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

– The Public Service Commissioner reports -

Yes. Thirty-two (32) officers passed the examination, of whom twenty-two (22) have already been promoted.
Yes; because in some Departments junior clerks are required.
The officers have not been refused promotion, but are being absorbed as suitable vacancies occur. It is probable that the ten (10) officers awaiting their turn for promotion will be disposed of when funds are available, after the passage of the Estimates.

page 5293

QUESTION

LEON ADELL

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

With reference to the little white girl, Leontene Adell, taken to India to be brought up as a Mahomedan, will the Minister inquire from the Government of India as to whether they have any power to return the child to Australia.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Minister for External Affairs · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Every means available will be adopted with a view to having the child either returned to Australia, or placed in the care of suitable persons.

page 5294

QUESTION

PAPUAN NATIVE LABOUR

Mr McDOUGALL:
WANNON, VICTORIA

asked the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

How many natives were employed on the plantations in Papua in the years 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909?
What are the weekly wages paid to native employes by Papuan planters?
Are the natives always paid their wages in money ?

Mr BATCHELOR:
ALP

– The answer to the third question is “Yes.” I ask the honorable member to move for a return embodying the information asked for in questions 1 and 2, as it is not available in Melbourne.

page 5294

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (LEGISLATIVE POWERS) BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 26th October, vide page 5251) :

Clause 4 -

Section fifty-one of the Constitution is altered by omitting the words “ Conciliation and Arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ Industrial matters, including employment and the wages and conditions of employment and also including the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes.”

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– I move -

That the words “ Industrial matters, including employment and the wages and conditions of employment, and also including the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes” be left out, wilh a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, “ Labour and employment, including -

the wages and conditions of labour and employment in any trade industry or calling; and

the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, including disputes in relation to employment on or about railways the property of any State.”

It has been urged, particularly by the honorable member for Flinders, that the phrase “ industrial matters “ is ambiguous, because it is difficult to say what subjects are, and what are not, included in it. ‘The clause has accordingly been remodelled. It is, I think, now free from ambiguity, and definite in its terms. It is, in some respects, narrower than the clause as it originally stood in the Bill. In one respect - the inclusion of railway employés - it is wider.

It has been stated very many times during the course of this debate that the object of these amendments is to destroy State rights. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I wish to make it perfectly clear that our object is not to take from the States one jot or tittle of power not absolutely needed for the effective working of the National Government. I am inclined to think, and I am strengthened in that view by the arguments used yesterday in a case now before the Arbitration Court, that the words “ industrial matters “ would be held to mean no more than is covered by the proposed amendment - that is to say, matters affecting the conditions relating to labour and employment. It might be contended, however, that such a thing, for example, as technical education is an industrial matter ; that Parliament having power to make laws in respect to industrial matters, it could legislate for the training of citizens in the arts and crafts. That, however would be a bad thing, because it would divide the education power now wholly within the province of the States. I do not say that it would be held that we had such a power if “ industrial matters “ were inserted in section 51, but it might be so held, and all we ask for is the power necessary to make effective laws for the preservation of industrial peace and the regulation of the conditions of industry. The amendment gives us as much as. and no more than, we want.

Sir William Lyne:

Mr HUGHES:
General · West Sydney, Acting Prime Minister and Attorney · ALP

– I come now to paragraph b of the proposed new clause, dealing with the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, including disputes in relation to employment on or about railways, the property of any State. It was generally a widely prevalent idea when the Commonwealth was established that the Constitution as it stood gave us power to prevent and settle industrial disputes without reservation, but it appears that all the power we ever had and have relates to the creation of Courts of Conciliation and Arbitration for that purpose. As this has been proved to be quite inadequate, we take, in this Bill, full power to prevent and settle industrial disputes, bymaking laws for determining industrial conditions, by the creation of Courts, or in any other way we think fit. This provision includes, amongst others, disputes in which railway servants are engaged. I take it that, since we are going to be properly charged with the prevention of all industrial disputes, and the promotion of industrial peace generally, there ought not to be excluded from our jurisdiction 100,00c men; and I take it that the State railway servants all over Australia fall not far short of that number. Quite apart from the question of State control or non- State control, it is very much better that the body which has jurisdiction over the whole of the industrial sphere should deal, if neces- sary, and, of course, only if necessary, with all industrial disputes, if and whenever the industrial peace of the Commonwealth is threatened. If we admit that it is proper to allow such a large and everincreasing body of men to be outside our jurisdiction, one of the chief reasons for the whole amendment would appear to be abandoned, because our contention was, and is, that unless one authority is endowed with control over the whole field, we are never likely to have such a control over the factors that make for industrial unrest as is absolutely essential for the promotion of lasting peace. Although it is unlikely that the employes of the railways of several States would be disturbed at the same moment, yet clearly a strike and stoppage of transport in one State must inevitably affect other States. We have, therefore, to face the facts, and one of those facts, unfortunately, is that railway servants do strike, as we have lately seen in France; and, when they strike, cause endless confusion, and practically arrest the entire industrial machine. I say nothing now about the circumstances that led up to the Victorian railway strike, or the Sydney tramway strike; but, while it is very properly the business of the States to see that the industrial conditions of their employes leave them no reasonable ground for protest, there are such things as sympathetic strikes, and the inevitable effects of strikes, which elude every effort, on the part of tribunals whose operations are limited, to deal with them. Only those who have been thoroughly acquainted with industrial organizations realize the power and danger of sympathetic strikes. There is nothing so much to be dreaded, and unless we have a power capable of covering the whole industrial sphere, nothing which we have so much reason to dread. We are asking in this amendment for nothing but what the Parliament has approved in the past, and what it was thought we had when we voted for Federation - a power that every day becomes more and more necessary to be included in our jurisdiction. Whereas there are to-day, say, 100,000 railway employes and perhaps 200,000 State employes altogether, in Australia, there are very likely to be 500,000, and perhaps more, in twenty-five years’ time.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– 500,000?

– My merits are becoming visible to the honorable member.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The honorable gentleman’s past annexations and aggressions have been costly enough, but his present concessions and condescensions are absolutely ruinous. The next time that he is out for political rapine, let it be in his old familiar style. This modest method of the domestic fowl does not fit either his appearance or purposes. Generous sentiments will not make us rich, and a few more proofs of it will send the State Legislatures out into the world in a condition positively verging upon the indecent. They will not have a rag left with which to clothe the nakedness of their local governments. They will be turned out into the world burdened with nothing but his effusive sympathy and good-will.

Let me emulate the Acting Prime Minister by assuming, though far off, a somewhat similar patience under provocation. This is the first amendment in the Bill which has any prospect of being carried, and it has been proposed by the honorable gentleman himself. He has given us to understand that it is “ submitted in obedience to the strong representations of Opposition critics. They have shown him that in the words “ industrial matters “ there may possibly lurk some desperate, piratical attack by the Commonwealth upon technical schools. Rather than that the technical schools in any hamlet of the Commonwealth should be threatened, the honorable gentleman has come down to this House, withdrawn his original clause and submitted another under which we have his personal guarantee that those schools will hereafter be safe from the tyrannical clutch of this Parliament. That represents an enormous gain ! Throughout this country the glad tidings will flash to the presidents and secretaries of our technical schools. They may henceforth slumber in peace. The technical schools have been saved. But at what price? What pressure and strain have been put upon the sympathies of the Acting Prime Minister inducing him to part with this prize, while incidentally, unostentatiously, compassionately - and as a sort of casual consequence - annexing 100,000 employes from the State railways? This is no bargain, but a gift to the technical schools !

Mr Hughes:

– I omitted to mention the kindergarten schools, which are also in peril.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The only persons qualifying for the kindergartens are, first of all, the innocent and relatively youthful members on this side, and the members of the State Legislatures overwhelmed by the benevolences of the honorable gentleman. In case it is by a lapse of memory that he is annexing some hundreds of thousands of persons who are receiving State pay for discharging State services, but who are now to have their wages and conditions dictated by this Parliament, perhaps we had better take him at his word. All I am dreading is lest the super-generosity of his nature should be so affected by some argument of mine that he may desire to re-draft his amendment out of some further consideration. After these instances we ask for no more sympathy. The honorable member may continue to favour us with a few half-bricks, or any other missile that is handy; but we ask him to give us no more concession and no more charity, even to save more technical schools.

Let us be fair to my honorable friend, whose attitude throughout has been perfectly consistent. For instance, in regard to trade and commerce, he took out of the States all a man could take; he struck out the only limitations that exist. There is nothing left; but, as to that, we have no room for complaint. Of course, as has to be incidentally pointed out, the trade and commerce power never having been defined, so far as I am aware, within any sovereign State, the task of defining whatever residuary relics may remain to the States after the Attorney-General has taken all he can get under the widest amendment he can possibly frame will still leave a large field for legal interpretation. But that is not the honorable member’s fault, because he would have taken the residuum too if he could.” There was really nothing more within grasp that he could seize ; and. therefore, his consistency is amply manifest. He was above any pettifogging consideration as to what the Commonwealth actually needed - as to what extension of the trade and commerce powers was really required in the interests of Australia. Some of us were reckless enough to admit that we could see directions in which, if a segment of the sphere could have been technically severed, there might have been some valuable additions to our trade and commerce powers. Unfortunately, we did not have the honorable gentleman’s assistance, and were unable to make any such advance; But, as I have admitted, so far as it is possible for him to lead or the House to go, he has gone.

Again, in regard to corporations, we were able to make a distinct offer to federalize and sterilize them so far as they related to monopolies, combinations, or trusts - to give all the power necessary to meet the highest and widest view of present Commonwealth needs. But here, too, the honorable member was consistent; he was not concerned with meeting the needs of the Commonwealth, even where they could be clearly defined - he wanted all, and he took all.

– I do not propose to detain the Committee by considerations which originally would have been strictly apropos, and, in fact, unavoidable. In the briefest and most summary way I have given my view of the effect of the AttorneyGeneral’s consistency on the various proposals before us. The further clause, which has yet to come, is precisely of the same character. If it had been material to any possible action by this House, or if we could have influenced this Committee in any way, it would have been necessary to consider how far this clause could be modified so as to meet, at all events in this instance, the actual, present, or approximate industrial difficulties of the Commonwealth by ample and sufficient, but not excessive, extensions of the Federal power. We have considered this ques tion in 1907-8, and at other times, making a steady advance towards a practical method of meeting such cases as are now unprovided for by the machinery of the Constitution. Personally, I think that our progress has been very real ; at all events, for my part, I confess to having a much clearer opinion than that previously cherished. I believe that if opportunity had offered, we could, with confidence, have submitted to the Committee a modification of the proposal of the Government bringing within the scope of Federal jurisdiction every industrial dispute, difficulty, or, using the word in a large sense, every industrial unfairness which might be expected to occur in connexion with the working of the Commonwealth. I fully admit that until this is accomplished our Constitution will remain incomplete. But great as this issue is, it is not, under present circumstances in this House, and in view of the fact that the Bill must be sent directly to the electors, a practical obligation on us to enter into the particular field covered by the amendment. We should be doing so then for the purpose of assisting, so far as we can, by mutual consultation and expressions of opinion, in the formation of a right judgment here, and of a practical conclusion in the country. I put these considerations aside somewhat reluctantly ; but time is valuable, and the amendment which we had before us, and which would have evoked these considerations as necessary corollaries, is now displaced by another Ministerial amendment, which differs not simply in its effect, but also in its character.

– The amendment means that this Parliament may legislate as to all conditions.

Mr DEAKIN:

– That is the second point. In addition to, or substitution for, but quite irrespective of, State laws, it will be competent for the Federal Parliament to lay down all the conditions of employment - as long as the conditions are general - which must be applied to the servants of the State Parliaments.

Of course, one is at a great disadvantage at every turn during the discussion of this Bill. Because every man of us here knows that the great bulk of the votes that will >e cast for it, when it is submitted to the country, will be given by men who perhaps approve of one or other of the four different and separate proposals which are here improperly tied together. The electors will look at what they may get industrially, 01 at what they may get by some exercise of the trade and commerce power, or at what they may get by dealing with corporations, or at what ‘ they may get by checking trusts and combines ; and, wishing to get some advantage, they will vote for getting that particular thing, and not for changing the Constitution. But it will be transformed. As we are all citizens of the States - it may be said that we are citizens of States before we are citizens of the Commonwealth - and we are brought, in one way or another, most intimately into relations with local Governments.

Besides, we are all accustomed to a unitary form of government. That is to say, our States have accustomed us to a unitary form of government, and to dealing with their problems in the relatively direct and simple fashion, characteristic of a unitary form of government. We are now asked to lay before the people proposals which a great portion of our population will read and consider as though they were made under a unitary form of government. They will ignore the fatal effects that their action will have upon our Federal structure - a structure which ought to be permanent. Aiming at industrial matters, or those connected with trade and commerce, or with corporations, they will ignore the fact that they are striking at the Constitution and destroying the pillars which support it. The consequence is that we shall get a vote on particular legislative proposals which ought to be a vote, wholly and solely at this stage, to determine a new distribution of legislative powers. We labour under an enormous difficulty. Those who take the view that the Federal Constitution, and especially its Federal principle, should be preserved, and that any amendment made should be in accordance with that principle, start with that very heavy handicap against us. And now the Attorney-General - excellent tactics, if you like ! - gets 100,000 more votes into his scale by this specific proposal affecting the railway servants. He holds out a specific inducement to every railway servant in this country to vote for altering the Federal Constitution, with a view of securing the anticipated benefits which he may think likely to arise hereafter from the operation of Commonwealth legislation. Yet that is not the ‘real question on which he is voting.

– So far as is necessary lo fix the general conditions with which all private owners must comply. But we are dealing now with bodies which are, and will remain, Government monopolies in every State - businesses in which, there being no competition, there is no question of putting competitors on a fair and even footing. Competition is excluded - a factor which is enormously to the advantage of those engaged in State employment. Besides, a State or public body invariably considers those under its charge, more liberally than a private employer. It is not under the same pressure. A State cannot be forced into the Bankruptcy Court by its rivals. It can raise its charges, and deal with its conditions, as it pleases. The private employer, however, has no such choice. He may not alter his charges, nor vary his conditions, except at the risk of ruin, while the State can go on its way rejoicing, developing at the public expense. The Attorney-General has not given an illustration of a State in Australia in which railway servants are unfairly treated. Even if he could, he would require to proceed to the next stage, and to show that the electors in that part of Australia were so insensible of the demands of justice that they were not taking steps to remedy that condition of affairs.

– Next to nothing. If this latest amendment be made they will not have left to them even their selfrespect. The Attorney-General in his demeanour to-day posed as “ the mildest manner’d man” that ever, so to speak, attempted to cut the throat of six States at once. The conduct of those who supported him was most appropriate. While he spoke they felt that they were at a funeral, and behaved as mourners. They were extremely sympathetic, and at times discreetly sad. They were determined to inter the corpses of the States, and not only to bury them, but to place upon them a weight of legislation against which even their ghosts must find themselves powerless.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I felt keenly for the civil servants at the time to which I have referred. Even if there are 100,000 of them in Australia, and in the future there will be probably 500,000 men affected by this proposal, surely we are not going to deny them the franchise when every one else has it, or refuse to allow them to defend their own rights, and ask their members to see that they are not imposed upon. What is the Parliament for but to see that they as well as other people have their rights ? I am not in favour of strikes if they can possibly be avoided, but I am not in favour of malicious treatment of the railway officials. A finer body of men than the railway officials cannot be found in the Commonwealth. It is for this Parliament to say, if this amendment is carried, what power it will exercise under it. It does not follow that, because the Government are asking for an amendment of the Constitution, we shall exercise all the powers that may be given to us; but it is a very good thing to have some of them, and be able to delegate them in various ways, and keep a supervising control over the whole of them. The honorable member said that this power was not given in any other way. I think it was intended, at any rate, that whenever there was a railway dispute or a strike which extended from State to State the Commonwealth Parliament should deal with it; but it was only to the question of extension from State to State that the Justice of the High Court who dealt with the matter took exception. He decided on a technical point that certain strikes did not extend from State to State. Take the case of the coal miners. That dispute was intended to extend from State to State, but it was held that it did not. No member was more against the action taken by the High Court, or against the principle of their action, than was the

Leader of the Opposition. He thought, before the decision was given in that case, that it would be in quite the opposite direction, as was the intention of the Constitution.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What does the honorable member mean by saying that the coal miners’ dispute was “ intended “ to be an Inter-State dispute?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I was referring to the dispute at Newcastle, where the men were affiliated with the miners at Jumbunna, in Gippsland. They thought that the dispute would extend beyond New South Wales, and I believe it was an extension.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– They tried to make it extend.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– If it did extend, no matter who made it-

Mr Scullin:

– They looked for protection.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– They did, but their application was ruled out by the Court. We have to abide loyally by the decision of the High Court, and technically, perhaps, they are right, as they are men whose minds have been trained to deal with these matters, but it was a great disappointment, at any rate to myself, and I think to the Leader of the Opposition also, when the decision was given which practically stopped us doing what we wanted to do at that particular time. It was then promised that action should be taken hereafter with a view to giving the Commonwealth Court power to deal with matters of that kind, and the railway servants, as well as all others, were to come in. I cannot understand now how the Leader of the Opposition or the members who were then in his Ministry can oppose the measure. What was right then, and what was intended to be done and approved at the time by the Government, is right, and should be approved by them now, no matter what side of the House they sit on. It may be a good thing, and an asset for a politician, to be callous, and certainly the honorable member for Flinders is the ideal of callousness. The Ministry ought to be very thankful to the honorable member for his cold, hard words of this morning, for if they do not rouse the people of the country, nothing on earth ever will.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– They will hear the jingle of the leg-irons !

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Never mind about the “ leg-irons.” “ Fair play is bonnie play “ ; and, whichever side of politics we take, if we believe in one great principle we should adhere to it, unless we can justify an alteration of our views. The honorable member for Parramatta laughs; and, apparently, it is nothing to him how men may suffer. The honorable member for Flinders evidently forgets the misery he brought on the wives and children of the men in the Victorian railway service.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member ought to do me the justice to say that I made no reference to the strike ; I referred to events which took place six months before the strike.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– The honorable member also referred to the action he took when there was the railway trouble in Victoria.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I was not referring to that time.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I am quite sure the honorable member did refer to the strike in Victoria, though he may not have used the word “ strike.”

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I made no reference whatever to the time of the strike. In reply to an interjection from the other side, I justified my action six months before then in regard to separate representation.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– The events are interwoven, and represent such a black spot on the career of the honorable member that the people of the country are not likely to forget them. My desire has always been to create a buffer against strikes, which cause so much harm and suffering ; but I knew many of the men employed on the railways in Victoria at that time, and knew what they had suffered. I told them that I knew they would be beaten ; and I admit freely that they took action to remedy their grievances in the wrong way, but any man in a public position ought to deal leniently with those who make a mistake, and not in the way in which the honorable member acted, or in the way in which the strikers in New South Wales were dealt with. The House is practically in favour of taking more power in connexion with industrial legislation, and, in my opinion, the amendment ought not to stop short at railway servants. As under the Tariff it is sought to give protection to the employes, so ought protection to be given to all the employes in the Public Service. The honorable member for Flinders, however, has shown the iron hand without the glove, and seeks to lay it bare on the shoulders of these unfortunate men. I hope the time will never come when we shall deal with our public servants as though they were beasts of burden and not of human flesh and blood. All humanity is liable to mistakes, and should not be menaced in the way that the honorable member seemed to think right when he was in power in the State. I hope the Attorney-General will see his way to make the clause wider so as to embrace all public servants. If the provision be left as it is, with the special reference to railway servants, a great army of public servants may find themselves excluded. The honorable member said that public servants were better paid than were those in similar employment outside; but we all know that that is not so. I had the privilege of introducing the present Commonwealth Public Service Act, which provides for a minimum wage of £110 per annum. Under the regime of the States Governments we found in Victoria, for instance, public servants of fifteen to twenty years’ service receiving from ^40 to £jo per annum ; and it is not reasonable to expect the Federal Government to sit quietly by while people are asked to work for less than a living wage. It ought to be our endeavour to see that every one receives sufficient remuneration to bring up a family, not in affluence, but in comfort - that there is no sweating or grinding down in the Public Service, either State or Commonwealth. Similar small salaries were paid in New South Wales at one time, excepting to a few heads of Departments. As a whole, the public servants there were receiving less, by a great deal, than was paid to others similarly employed outside.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does the honorable member say that he brought in the provision for a minimum wage?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I did.

Mr Page:

– The honorable member for Hume was Minister in charge of the Bill.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– But that provision was forced on him, and he spoke against it.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I had charge of the Bill, but before it was introduced I was one of the strongest advocates of the minimum wage. As I was saying, the rank and file of the public servants, not only in one State but in all, were paid less than was paid for similar work by private employers, and they had to work very long hours. All the circumstances completely justify the present action of the Federal Government. Are we to be guided by what is paid by private employers? Are we to dominate private employers, or are private employers to dominate us? If we have a spark of manhood we shall dominate them, and, at any rate, see that the people under our control and supervision receive such a wage as to enable them to live comfortable and happy lives. The honorable member will, I think, on reflection, see that he has made a great mistake in his speech of to-day. But he has come out in the open ; and I am led to wonder how “liberal” that “Liberal party” is to which he belongs.

Mr Fenton:

– The honorable member means the “ Liberal party “ who fought the last election?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Yes; the honorable member for Flinders is conservative all the time - a Conservative of Conservatives. I had begun to think, from his utterances during the last week or two, that he was seeing with different eyes ; but today he has unmasked himself, and the fact will live in history.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– There has been a caucus meeting since !

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I know nothing about the caucus ; I belong to neither one caucus nor the other. The honorable member for Flinders, in his speech this morning, did not do justice to himself, and certainly did not do justice to the Public Service. The Attorney-General has told us that there are 100.000 railway servants in Australia, and that in twenty years he thought there would be 500,000. Twenty years is rather a short time for such an increase ; but when the continent becomes pierced with railways, as we desire, for the purposes of development, we shall, if not in twenty years, perhaps in forty, have twice 500.000. Are all those people to be left to the tender mercies of the States? In my opinion, the proposals of the Government do not even approach Unification ; but there are powers exercised by the State Parliaments that ought to be vested in the Commonwealth, and which the framers of the Constitution intended should be so vested. The High Court, however, has decided against the Commonwealth ; and the sooner an appeal is made to the people the better. It is proposed to ask the people whether they agree to the change; and surely the honorable member for Flinders has no objection to majority rule? During the last ten years great strides have been made by the Commonwealth, with the result that many eyes have been opened. The result of the elections on 13th April made people open their eyes a great deal wider, as will, I believe, the next election, or I am very much mistaken. Honorable members opposite should honestly call themselves Conservatives, because while they describe themselves as “ Liberals “ they are sailing under a false name. The sooner they rid themselves, if it be possible, of all Conservative elements, including the capitalistic element, the better it will be for the Commonwealth. As to the Inter- State Commission, which is expressly provided for by the Constitution, the honorable member for Flinders expressed the opinion that its duty will be to deal only with differential rates. My own opinion, however, is that the InterState Commission will have to deal with a great deal more ; and I am not betraying any secret when I say that it was the intention of the Leader of the Opposition, when he. was in office, to vest that Commission with power to deal with industrial disputes all over the Commonwealth. I think the honorable member even placed his proposal before the House ; but at any rate, he was very strongly in favour of it. Why all this outcry on the part of the Opposition? I should regret to see in Australia anything but a democratic Parliament - a Parliament prepared to consider the interests, not of one class, but of all. Such a Parliament can be secured only by an extension of our powers, and I hold that the Acting Prime Minister is doing theright thing in proposing this amendment of the Constitution. T cannot speak long and vigorously, because my health will not permit of my doing so at the present time, but God forbid that the honorable member for Flinders should ever have power to embody in an Act of Parliament the sentiments to which he has given expression today ; God forbid that he should have power to deal with the public servants of Australia, ‘ and to harass and tread upon them as he would, according to the statements that he made this morning.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– He has no chance today.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I should hope not. I have only to say, in conclusion, that I could not refrain from expressing my utter abhorrence of the sentiments uttered by the honorable member for Flinders.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– I fail to understand why the remarks made by the honorable member for Flinders should have roused the ire of the honorable member for Hume. We have always known on which side of the fence the honorable member for Flinders stands, and I do not think it can be justly said that, in the speech which he made this morning, he gave expression to any callous sentiments or to opinions to which exception could rightly be taken.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– The honorable member did not object to a certain Bill that he passed in the State Parliament.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– That measure was necessary for the salvation of the rights of the people whom honorable members opposite are supposed to represent. But for such action as rhe honorable member for Flinders took, when Premier of Victoria, the whole State would have been cast in gloom, poverty, and misery, owing to the course pursued by the railway men. They knew at the time that there was in existence a Conciliation and Arbitration Act, of which they could take advantage, and had they been wisely led they would have done so. I know many of these railway men - a number of them are my personal friends - but I cannot help saying that if they had not been misled they would have appealed to the Federal tribunal. During the Victorian railways strike an engine was stopped at my own door, at Great Western, the fire drawn, and the water allowed to run away, the passengers being left stranded on the roadside.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I cannot allow the honorable member to discuss the incidents of the Victorian railways strike without allowing others to do so. That I do not intend to do. I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the proposed new clause.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– I would remind honorable members that we have not yet been federated for ten years, and that we are working under a Constitution which was. drawn up, after the most careful consideration, by a Convention representing the collective wisdom of Australia. When the people of Australia accepted that Constitution they little thought that within ten years, and before the population of the Commonwealth had increased by 500,000, an attempt would be made to throw it into the melting pot. This proposed amendment of it means the destruction of all State rights. I do not think for one moment that the States would have agreed to federate had they thought that within ten years the Commonwealth Parliament would seek practically to annihilate them. That is what this proposed amendment of the Constitution really means. Unlike the honorable member for Hume, I hold that it means Unification, and that if it be accepted by the people there will be practically nothing left to the States. I feel confident that the Labour party will find that the people will disapprove of this proposition, for its acceptance would mean handing over the States to the service of the Commonwealth. It would mean, further, that men inside a ring fence, employed all the year round, wet or dry, at a fair wage would be able to dictate the policy of the Government of the Commonwealth. Instead of remaining a free people we should become fettered. Whilst the honorable member for Hume was speaking an honorable member interjected that this proposal meant the leg-ironing of the States. It means something more; it means legironing those who are free to-day. Do honorable members think that the people are prepared to become slaves to party and to party legislation? If they do, they are mistaken. I believe that they will stand up for their rights, and that at the next general election they will reverse their recent verdict. Common sense and justice is sure to prevail. The people did not realize that legislation of this drastic character would be proposed, to the detriment of all free people.

Mr Carr:

– If they disapprove of the proposed amendment of the Constitution, they will reject it.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– I think they will, notwithstanding the action of the caucus. There is no caucus on this side of the House. This latest addition to the proposed amendments of the Constitution was carefully concealed until the last moment. It was circulated in printed form after a vote had been taken on the Bill, so that it must have been ready for some time, and I fail to understand why it was not included in the Bill as originally introduced. I dare say that the honorable member for Cook, who is interested in railway servants, knew that such a proposal was contemplated, but it was probably held back to be made more definite. After all, I welcome its definiteness. I am sure that when the people are called upon to vote upon it, they will not forget what transpired in connexion with the Victorian railway strike-, and that they will take effective measures at the next general election to insure the retention of their freedom. Do honorable members realize that the primary producer is responsible for all the wealth of the Commonwealth? All manufactures, industry, and commerce depend upon his industry, integrity, and ability ; yet he is the most heavily taxed. All this must affect, later on, our manufacturers and those they employ. If the proposed amendment of the Constitution now before us be accepted, it will shackle the people, and bind them body and soul to the public servants of Australia and to the Labour party.

Mr Fenton:

– I should like to see the honorable member in hobbles.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– The honorable member never will. I recognise that the Labour party, in submitting this proposition, are simply endeavouring to carry out the dictates of their masters, the Labour unions of Australia. Unless they did so they would not be true to the platforms they have signed, and the pledges that they have given. This is an endeavour to secure the enactment of restrictive measures that will satisfy their organizations.

Mr W J JOHNSON:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The same remark will apply to the Opposition.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– But, unfortunately, our party is not organized. Every honorable member opposite is a worker in the Labour organization, but the position is different with us. I have not formed committees or appointed secretaries in any part of my electorate. At the last general election I was prepared to rise or fall according to the will of the people.

The CHAIRMAN:

– What has that to do with the question?

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– I wish only to say that these measures are being forced upon us by the Labour Government, who have the ball at their feet, and are determined to kick it. This is not a just proposal. It is against the interests of the people, and I am satisfied that, although the Labour party were returned with, a large majority at the last general election, the people never dreamt of their being shackled in this way.

Mr Batchelor:

– The honorable member says that of every thing we propose.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– That is not so. The honorable member for Hume referred to the question of wages. We must not forget that a man can only pay according to his means. At the time to which he referred the States paid a fair wage for the work that had to be done.

Sir William Lyne:

– What ! Forty pounds a year?

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– In some cases that might have been £10 too much, and in others a hundred times too little. A Government, like a man, must pay according to its means. When the States freely handed over to the Commonwealth their chief source of revenue, they little thought that an attempt would be made to take all these powers from them. We are satisfied, however, to bow to the will of the people. The cry of the Opposition has always been, “ Let us accept the verdict of the people,” whereas the Government and their supporters have said from many public platforms, “ We cannot trust the people.” They were induced to say so during the Federal campaign, because they did not think that the provision made for the representation of Labour was sufficiently liberal. From our point of view it has been too liberal. We have been indifferent, whilst the Labour party have been up and doing.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honorable member will have a chance to “stump” the country on this matter.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– When I attempt to “ stump “ the country I shall have nothing else to do. As an Australian who believes in his country, I say that the States should not be put into hobble skirts. I have been called a Conservative, but if it were not for Conservatism, the so-called Liberals would land the country in the Insolvency Court. It is to the Conservatives that they have to trust to find ways and means for our great national works, the Liberal attitude being, whenever any proposal is mooted, and the question of cost arises, “That is all right; the money will be found.” The money can be found only by taxing the primary producer, on whom the community depends. Recently a speaker in Melbourne advocated the nationalization of the railways and the free carriage of passengers. He, no doubt, was a Liberal ; but under such an arrangement, how would money be found to pay wages and the cost of maintenance, to say nothing of the interest on the loans borrowed to construct the works which have made this country what it is - the finest in the world? This is the last country in which there should be ill-feeling between labour and capital. Yet it is being stirred up every day.

Mr Ozanne:

– By the honorable member’s side.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– No ; by the opposite side. This proposal is absurd. The railway strike in Victoria showed how disastrous it would be to remove State control, while the fact that collieries are closing in the Newcastle district is evidence of the foolishness of the miners there in striking last year. The men forget that the employers have to find markets for their coal and other produce, and to earn a profit on their transactions to enable them to pay wages. No doubt the true economic position will be generally understood some day. I am a Nationalist, and a believer in Federation, and, therefore, I say that we should not tear up the Constitution. Through public apathy in the past, taxation has been greatly increased, and it is not easy to reduce it; but the burdens which are now pressing on them may arouse the people to the need for legislation for the community as a whole, and not for a section only.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

. -I can speak with authority on this question, as I was once one of the abused civil servants, having been a railway employe for nineteen years, though only a casual hand. In the Tasmanian railway service, and in the Public Service of the State generally, nothing could be done without bringing pressure to bear on members of Parliament, and he who had most influence got on best. This created an individualistic system, every one working for himself. Now the service is on a sound footing, and the men are able to get their grievances redressed. Personally, I am opposed to strikes, and was not in favour of the Victorian railway strike; but the men were so dealt with that they were forced to strike. In one case, an engine-driver living at Bendigo, who had taken up rifle shooting, and had become a crack shot, was compelled to resign from the rifle club, although the practice did not interfere with the discharge of his duties. In another case, a man who was giving away his surplus milk was charged with selling it, and put to endless trouble. It was pin-pricks like these that brought about the strike. Before the strike occurred, men were sometimes on their engines for eighteen and twenty hours at a time. A driver told me that he had often found himself asleep when the engine was running 40 miles an hour. Such a state of tilings is not conducive to public safety. Engine-drivers as a class are as fine a body of men as there is in Australia. No matter how hot the day, they have their duties to perform, the engine-driver watch ing the signals and the running of the engine, and the fireman shovelling coal into the furnace. The first consideration is not what they are to receive for their work, but the safety of the travelling public. Certainly they are not paid exorbitant rates. The honorable member for Flinders claimed to know all about their duties, although he was never a railway man, and has probably not done a hard day’s manual labour in his life. An engine-driver is always watching signals, and regulating the speed of his engine so that he may carry out his timetable. If the driver of an express train cannot run to time, he is put on to a goods locomotive, while if he tries to make up time, and an accident happens, he is charged with manslaughter. The higher officials are always protected by the regulations, however. In Great Britain, the Board of Trade would not allow a signalman to be on duty more than eight hours. Its inspector would suspend a man who exceeded that period, and an independent inquiry would be held to ascertain why he had been kept so long at his post. It does not pay to overwork men, or to treat them as they were treated in Victoria prior to the strike. If the railway servants cannot get justice from the State Government, they should be allowed to go to an independent tribunal, such as the High Court. We compel private employers to treat their employes fairly.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The High Court might reduce wages.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The High Court might sometimes decide against the men ; but they would know that they were getting justice. In Tasmania, if a man makes a mistake, he is brought before a tribunal of subordinate officers, who are not likely to submit an adverse report to their superiors.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Those conditions do not obtain in New South Wales.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Everything is not as it should be in New South Wales. Some time ago the Arbitration Court there made an award under which carpenters had to be paid at certain rates. The railway carpenters were working at a far less wage, and when the machinery was put into force to compel the Commissioners to pay the same wage as outside people, I understand that the Commissioners refused to do so. Why should men who are working faithfully and well for the State be refused the same treatment as is extended to men working in private employment? The honorable member for Flinders said that thousands of men were making application to get into the service. If they do, they apply without knowing the way the service is conducted, or the conditions under which they will be expected to work when they get there. I want to put the case fairly before honorable members on the Opposition benches, many of whom, I believe, desire to do justice by advancing the cause of the many. In the old days in the civil service a man’s soul was not his own. What I am about to relate is a fact. It may be said that the incident is too small to bring before the Committee, but it is little things of that kind that demonstrate what it meant to be in the service in the old days. Let me cite a case that came under my notice about eighteen years ago. An official was carrying out some important work that necessitated his standing by the men all day, and consequently he had to go back to work at night. On the Chief Officer of the branch entering, the > officer failed to rise when he saluted him, and for this petty offence he was severely reprimanded. ‘ Those are the pin-pricks that make one long for a just tribunal from which justice -may be obtained. It was that kind of thing that brought on the strike in Victoria, and has caused no end of trouble throughout the length and breadth of the services in Australia. On behalf of a section of the citizens of this great Commonwealth, I appeal to honorable members to be just and fair to those who are not in a position to help themselves because they cannot go on to the hustings or come into Parliament and look after their own interests, as private employers and employes can. As an ex-railway man, all I ask for, on behalf of those in the services throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth, is justice. The only way they can get justice is by submitting their case to an independent tribunal, such as we wish to establish, by placing on the statute-book the clause now before the Committee.

Mr PALMER:
Echuca

.- Whilst listening to the speech of the honorable member for Denison, I could almost imagine that we were dealing with a matter connected with some little Pedlington, instead of a great and important constitutional question affecting the welfare of the people of a vast continent. After years of careful thought and deep consideration by the best and keenest intelligence of Australia, the Federal Constitution was evolved and deliberately established. That Constitution is in operation to-day. What it took years to perfect and to induce the people to adopt, is going to be undone by a single Act of this Legislature.

Mr J H Catts:

– What about die electors and the referendum?

Mr PALMER:

– The Government propose to put these constitutional questions before the people in such a way that their individual interests will be brought -into conflict with the broader issues, which only should be placed before them when .dealing with constitutional matters. We are told that the railway men in Victoria were suffering under grievous pin-pricks when the great strike occurred. I am not going to descend to controversy in regard to any officer who may have been reproved because he saluted his chief sitting down. Those questions are beneath the dignity of this House, and the importance of the issues before it. But whatever grievances may have existed at the time of the great Victorian railway strike, and whatever attitude the honorable member for Flinders may have taken up, the fact remains that no sooner did the strike take place than the people of Victoria decided against the men.

Mr Bamford:

– The honorable member has no warrant for saying that.

Mr PALMER:

– I have warrant, because no sooner did the strike take place than immediately in every town and village, and in almost every hamlet, meetings were spontaneously held, owing to the feeling of the people against the railway men. These so fortified the Government that a speedy collapse of the strike took place. Those are the facts connected with the early termination of what otherwise might have been a very disastrous dispute. It was possible to bring that strike to an early conclusion in the best interests of the people and of the men themselves, because the State of Victoria is compact, and those who were involved in the contest were comparatively near to the centre of government. The Government were also vested with all the power and authority necessary to control the service. By the exercise of that power, and the fact that they were sufficiently near to the dispute to bring proper pressure to bear, the Government brought about a satisfactory result to the public, and to the men themselves, in the shape of a speedy settlement. But when we compare the State of Victoria, which, from the point of view of area, is comparatively insignificant, with this vast island conti- nent, the conditions are seen to be totally different. If we adopt the legislation now proposed, and give the Federal Parliament authority to step in and prescribe rates of pay and conditions of labour for the employes of State Governments, it will practically mean that the Central Government will control the State railways. Can we reasonably hope, as thinking men, that this control will be effectively exercised by the Central Government? Reason appears to be against the contention. The area is too vast, and the conditions too diverse. Constitutionally bound as we are to legislate for one portion of the Commonwealth as we legislate for every other, whatever determination we adopt for one State must be adopted for the others. Our reason must convince us that what is fair as applied to the Victorian railway system, or the New South Wales railway system, may be absolutely unfair and outrageously illogical if applied in other States. If the Bill becomes law and has the effect, as I presume honorable members opposite hope it will have, of largely increasing the rates of pay, and, to some extent, reducing the hours of labour of State railway employes, it will mean either that higher rates of freight will have to be charged or that less advantages will be given to the public.

Mr Bamford:

– Then, does the honorable member argue that those concessions are given now to the public at the expense of the men?

Mr PALMER:

– There is no desire to do it at the expense of the men. When the honorable member for Denison was talking about the hardships which the engineers endured, I appealed to him to say what rate of pay they were receiving, but he ignored my appeal.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I could not hear the honorable member’s “ still, small voice.”

Mr PALMER:

– I am not prepared to say what rates of pay the engineers and other employes in the railway service are receiving, but I do know that they are receiving very fair rates.

Mr J H Catts:

– If the honorable member does not know what the rates are, how can he say they are fair?

Mr PALMER:

– I know that they are fair, because we do not hear any extensive grumbling regarding them. If there were anything outrageously wrong about them, I am satisfied that those concerned would have brought all their political power and influence to bear, and had them righted long ago. The power to pay these men the wages which they demand depends largely upon the earning capacity of the railways. In order to increase the railway earnings we should encourage production, but the raising of the rates of freight will follow as a necessary corollary upon what is now proposed, although freights are quite as high as they should be, judging by figures from other parts of the world. .The inevitable effect of raising freights will be to diminish production. Indeed, the whole course of our legislation this session appears to be in the direction of discouraging production. I refer especially to the land tax, and to the higher rates of freight which will have to be imposed by the Railway Departments if this amendment is agreed to. Is that the way to encourage productive development, and our railway business? The proposals of the Government tend entirely in the direction of Unification. I fail to see a solid power that will remain vested in the States if this measure be passed. It is not so very long ago that we in Victoria used to hold a public holiday on what was known as Separation Day, celebrating the granting of a separate Constitution to the Colony, because separation meant the right of the people of this part of Australia to legislate in their own interests. But we are now asked to take a retrograde step ; and it will be interesting to know whether the sanction of the Prime Minister has been given to this measure. I am not inclined to think so, and that this is a case of “ when the cat’s away the mice will play.” The fact remains that these proposals, if carried, will sap the very foundations of the State Constitutions, and, more particularly the amendment bringing the whole of the railway men of Australia under one set of rules and conditions. It is impossible to tell what the effects may be. I am not a prophet of evil, because I believe the common sense and judgment of the people will ultimately prevail; but it is within the range of possibility that, if we seek to bind closely and firmly all the varying parts of Australia into one whole, we shall create conditions which the people will resent, and which, if not relaxed, may possibly lead to bloodshed.

Mr Fenton:

– Perish the thought !

Mr PALMER:

– Perish the thought, yes; but, in other parts of the world, we have seen, over and over again, when diverse interests have been welded together by political means, such feelings of antagonism and rancour aroused as to lead to bloodshed. What has happened in the past may happen in the future. It is because I feel that the people of each of the States desire to control their own affairs that I regard this proposal as a retrograde step, calculated to make for the undoing rather than the development of Australia. It is almost hoping against hope, but I should like to see wiser counsels prevail amongst the supporters of the Government. At any rate, we may with reason rely on the common sense of the people outside, and anticipate that, when they apprehend the true significance of this measure, they will be prepared to support us in our opposition. I regard this measure as an illicit and improper proposal, diametrically and almost wickedly opposed to the terms and conditions under which we sit as a Federal Parliament. It aims at drastic and farreaching consequences - at giving the supreme power, not to the people as a whole, but to a section. It is true that the people as a whole have to sanction the change; and if they do so the blame will be on their heads and not on ours, and they will be the sufferers. Under this legislation trade unions will be able to so establish themselves that there will not be a free man in Australia. Every one will be dragged at the heels of the unions, and compelled to contribute to their support.

Mr Riley:

– What has that to do with the clause?

Mr PALMER:

– The clause is designed to give the unions such powers as I have described ; but when they do get that power I believe they will turn against the Commonwealth Labour Government, as they have turned against the Labour Government in South Australia. I have been to Adelaide, and I know that the trade unions are speaking against the Verran Government, which they regard as doing no more for them than any previous Government, and as acting as harshly in industrial disputes as the Wade Government did in New South Wales. The same will happen with, the Commonwealth Labour Government as soon as they are obliged to assert themselves in defence of the rights of the community against the mob rule of those who call themselves unionists. I speak of “mob rule,” because it represents unlicensed and undisciplined control.

Mr Riley:

– I thought the honorable member was objecting to the organization and firm discipline of the unions !

Mr PALMER:

– The union organization is a thumb-screw organization; every man is a “ forced “ man, apart from the few who profit in a pecuniary way. The intention of the amendment before us is to increase the power of the trade unions to subvert the liberty of the people, and to compel men whose politics are not in agreement with those of other unionists, to subscribe to union funds. That is all we have to hope for from legislation on the lines the present Government are now following.

Mr RILEY:
South Sydney

.- Honorable members opposite seem to tate altogether too extreme a view of the powers proposed to be given under this clause. All that is sought is to establish an Arbitration Court clothed with power to deal with all industrial matters. This Parliament will not fix wages and conditions, but merely provide a proper tribunal to perform that duty. A previous Parliament established an Arbitration Court, which has saved considerable money to both employers and employed, while at the same time preventing the spreading of strikes. In the Broken Hill dispute, for instance, the State Court of New South Wales absolutely failed, but the Federal Arbitration Court, with Mr. Justice Higgins on the Bench - in which the men had confidence as against Wages Boards - successfully brought the dispute to a termination. It was Mr. Justice Higgins, and not this Parliament, who dictated to the mineowners what should be the wages and conditions. The honorable member for Flinders took the view that the Commonwealth Parliament was going to dictate to the States as to the hours and wages to be observed; but, while I have great respect for the abilities of that gentleman, he seemed altogether illogical in this regard. Every Court dictates to the parties before it the terms under which disputes shall be settled, and, in the case of an Arbitration Court, the conditions under which an industry shall be carried on. Even the Wages Boards do that; and, really and truly, honorable members opposite are only raising a bogy. The Federal Government will appoint a Judge, with, I trust, lay assistants representing all classes of the community ; and it is really a stretch of imagination to suggest that this Parliament is going to dictate the wages and conditions of all State employes. The object is simply to create machinery to prevent strikes extending beyond one State.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Why take power to go further ?

Mr RILEY:

– We are not going to deprive the States of their powers, but we have a right to co-ordinate powers, so that, if the State tribunals cannot settle a dispute, the Federal tribunal may. Surely such a proposal is in the interests, not of one class, but of the whole community ; and I cannot think that the people will revolt at a measure of the kind. The Commonwealth Parliament passed certain legislation with a view to giving the harvester industry a start without outside competition; but the members of both Houses had the full expectation that the employes would receive fair and reasonable wages. Unless that had been so, I question whether Parliament would have passed the Act giving a complete monopoly to this industry. But, notwithstanding that there was this distinct understanding, the High Court held that, because Parliament had passed practically a Bonus Bill, it had gone outside of its jurisdiction; and the whole legislation was null and void. We as a Parliament representing the people, ought to have the power to regulate industries. The ramifications of the pastoral industry extend throughout the Commonwealth, so that no State could adequately deal with a dispute. In the case of the shearers and rouseabouts, when some difficulty arose, both parties agreed to appeal to the Federal Arbitration Court, without raising the question of jurisdiction, with the result that for the last three years there has been satisfaction and peace in the industry ; and it is a great advantage to have this stability. When a dispute arises among railway employes in a State, or in more than one State, the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Court should have jurisdiction to intervene and settle it.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– But this proposal goes very much further.

Mr RILEY:

– I know that it does, and in my opinion the Federal tribunal should have power to regulate all industries. Whilst we take that view, we do not say that we are going to tell every employer how he shall run his business.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That is exactly what is being proposed.

Mr RILEY:

– All that we propose is to empower the Parliament to create a Court, the President of which shall be a Justice of the High Court, having the confidence of the people, to do justice to all parties.

Mr J H Catts:

– We have power to tax the people to the last extremity, but we do not do so.

Mr RILEY:

– That is so. I have the greatest confidence in the Court to be created, although I do not know what its personnel is to be. Why should not railway employes of the States be able to avail themselves of any machinery that is set up for the settlement of industrial disputes? The mere fact that they are servants of the States should not deprive them of the right to take advantage of any law that we pass.:

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Can they not avail themselves of the Boards in their own State, which are at present working so satisfactorily ?

Mr RILEY:

– If an Inter-State strike of State employes took place, then according to a recent decision of the High Court the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Court could not deal with it.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does not the honorable member know that the State Government, with the machinery that it already has, can prevent an Inter-State dispute?

Mr RILEY:

– It cannot do so in all cases. We are asking for a wider power, and we hope to create a Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Court that shall have power to make an award which cannot be set aside on any question as to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. Awards have been made by Mr. Justice Higgins and by Mr. Justice O’Connor, after due consideration, and I believe them to have been just and equitable, but on a tech.nical point they have been set aside, the High Court holding that the powers conferred upon the Federal Parliament have been exceeded in passing the law under which the awards were made. The railway men give value for the money they receive,_ and, that being so, they have an equal right with all other sections of the community to free access to the Federal Arbitration Court. It is no argument to say that since they are Government employes they can have no grievance. We know that they have. I am also sure that there would be greater satisfaction in the Post and Telegraph Department if its employes were allowed to file a case for the decision of the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Court. If that were done, they would receive justice, and be satisfied. I look forward with the greatest confidence to the work of the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Court when it has the extended powers for which we are now asking. I hope that the Opposition will not think that we are trying to secure complete control of all State industries.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– What would the honorable member do if the railway men did not accept an award of the Federal Court ?

Mr RILEY:

– What would the honorable member do if they refused to accept an award of a State tribunal ?

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Put them in gaol, and leg-iron them !

Mr RILEY:

– The honorable member has asked a fair question, and I shall give him a straight answer. I believe that occasions must arise when neither an Arbitration Court nor a Wages Board will give satisfaction, and I hope the time will never come when the workers will give up their final right to strike. Every inducement, however, should be given to men to be guided by the awards of the Court.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– That is a straight answer.

Mr RILEY:

– It is a logical one. As an industrial community, I think we are in a better position than were our fellow workers in the last century, and I feel confident that the time is rapidly approaching when Arbitration Courts and Wages Boards will take the place of the old methods of settling industrial disputes.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What the honorable member says in effect is, “ Let them be content to arbitrate while they are satisfied with the award, and when they are not let them strike.”

Mr RILEY:

– No. My experience of men is that once convinced that their case has been fairly tried they will loyally abide by the decision of the Court. In my experience as a representative of the employe’s in the Arbitration Court of New South Wales, I never knew the workers to refuse to accept an award of the Court, although they suffered by it, provided that they felt satisfied that they had received a fair hearing. When men hear of intriguing, and believe that false evidence has been given against them, they cannot be blamed for being discontented. I believe that with the advance of education in the industrial arena the time is coming when industrial disputes will be settled by the higher and nobler method of arbitration rather than by resort to brute force, and I therefore welcome the wider powers pro posed to be taken in this connexion. I feel that they will tend to the welfare of the employers as well as of the employes, and prove to be in the best interests of the progress’ of the community.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- Although suffering from influenza, which has been raging in Melbourne during the last week or two, I cannot allow the debate to close without making a few observations on this important question.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I should think the honorable member would support his own proposal.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Part of this is a proposal which I had the honour to submit to the Inter-State Labour Conference held at Brisbane in 1908. The reasonableness of it appealed to the representatives at that Conference, and it now has the support of the whole Labour movement.

Under the Constitution, this Parliament has power as follows : -

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to -

Conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State.

When that paragraph was inserted in the Constitution, it was understood by the electors that it would provide a real power for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by means of conciliation and arbitration, exercised by a tribunal to be constituted by this Parliament. The terms of the provision are, when critically and legally analyzed, so contradictory and vague, however, that the Justices of the High Court have practically judicially reduced our power to make laws with respect to industrial disputes to a nullity.

We have heard from various members of this Parliament who were members of the Federal Convention all sorts of pleas in favour of non-interference with the Constitution. It is the work of their hands, it is their pet baby, and therefore must not be interfered with. It is so sacred, according to their view, that one must not suggest any alteration of it. The High Court has shown, however, that in some respect’s the framers of the Constitution did not know what they were inserting in it. In the very memorandum prepared by the Attorney-General in the late Government - who, by the way, took part in framing the Constitution - we have a quotation from a judgment given by the Chief Justice, Sir Samuel Griffith, inwhich he said -

In my judgment, the words of pl. xx. (of the Constitution) are not clear and unequivocal, but are open to two constructions.

What greater reflection could be heaped upon those honorable gentlemen who claim that the Constitution should not be amended? Are we not to have some power clearly and definitely expressed in the Constitution? The Chief Justice of the High Court went on to say -

Applying the principles which I have stated, I think that they ought not to be construed as authorizing the Commonwealth to invade the field of State law as to domestic trade.

Here, then, is a power so vaguely expressed in the Constitution that the Chief Justice, despite his learning, found it impossible to clearly define it. It was open, he said, to two constructions, and he was forced to say, in effect, “ I think a certain construction should be placed upon these words.” Thus it is left to the Chief Justice of Australia, whether he be a Conservative or a Liberal, to determine, according to his way of thinking, the kind and extent of the powers of this Parliament. It is open to him to place upon these words a construction which he may believe to be right, although the electors may consider it to be altogether wrong.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does the honorable manber suggest that if this amendment be made there will be no more quibbling or misunderstanding ?

Mr J H CATTS:

– The amendment that we propose to make is clear and definite. The whole objection of the Opposition is that we are asking for too wide a power, and that the amendment should be narrowed down to fit some specific case. If that were done, the old story would be repeated, and it would be found that the Arbitration Court was powerless to deal with certain cases that had not been anticipated. The power would be narrowed down by the fine quillets of the law, until a chaotic position similar to that which now confronts us would again come into existence. We need a wide and definite power to prevent this eternal quibbling in the High Court. The boot trade employés spent£3,000 in going before the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, in the exercise of their powers under the Federal Act; but, whilst the award made was in equity and good conscience, it was cut down on some technical point upon appeal.

Mr.J oseph Cook. - Still, all that money is in the country.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member’s interjection shows to what straits he is reduced in endeavouring to find some reply to my argument.

There has been argument in the High Court as to the meaning of “ conciliation,” of “arbitration,” and of “industrial dispute.” It has been held that there may be a dispute which is not an “ industrial dispute,” and it has been asked, ‘ ‘ What does ‘ industrial ‘ mean?” The question whether unionists or non-unionists should be employed has been held in some cases not to involve an industrial dispute. The meaning of the words “ extending beyond the limits of a State “ has been questioned. What most people would think an “ Inter-State dispute “ has been held by the Court not to be one. I do not know that it has been definitely stated in a judgment of the Court, but I believe that the view is held by legal luminaries that there could not be an InterState railway dispute, because the railway men of each State are working, as it were in airtight compartments, each under the separate control of Acts of the State Legislature. Should a dispute occur in the New South Wales, Victorian, and Queensland railway services, the employés all asking for the same conditions, or striking because of the same grievances, the dispute would be held to be, not an Inter- State dispute, but a series of separate State disputes. It has been held that to constitute an Inter-State dispute there must be employers with businesses extending over more than one State or possessing factories or distributing agencies in more than one State. Where men are working at similar employment in different States, under different employers, their disputes, although about the same matters, are not Inter-State, but separate State disputes.

When I hear the academic arguments of honorable members opposite, it seems to me that the people, when asked to vote for the Constitution, were not told what some of its provisions were intended by its framers to mean. Furthermore, members like the honorable members for Flinders and Angas, both constitutional lawyers, express different opinions. How, then, can the people know what is meant? The other day, the Attorney-General had to confess that he was quite unable to understand the honorable member for Ballarat, and, although I followed the honorable gentleman very closely, I could not make out his meaning half the time. While I strongly disagree with the honorable member for Flinders in politics, I think him the ablest man on that side in regard to these questions. He makes himself understood, and does not cloud his ideas by the use of voluminous and contradictory phrases. Many honorable members opposite, if they make a statement, immediately find it necessary to spend, perhaps, a quarter of an hour in whittling it away by definitions which end in confusing, not only their hearers, but also themselves.

At the present time, our constitutional powers regarding industrial matters amount to almost nothing, because of the decisions of the High Court. Therefore, we ask the people to give us the powers that we need. We seek by the amendment now’ before the House to have the Constitution altered to read -

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to : -

Labour and employment, including -

the wages and conditions of labour and employment in any trade, industry or calling ; and

the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, including disputes in relation to employment on or about railways the property of any State.

The original proposal in the Bill is that the Constitution shall be made to read -

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to : -

Industrial matters, including employment and the wages and conditions of employment, and also including the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes.

Dealing with paragraph a first - the wording is more definite than as proposed at first. Were the wording of the Bill to be retained, the High Court would be asked to define the meaning of “ industrial matters,” and it might be held that some disputes between employers and employes are not “ industrial disputes.” The wider language of the amendment will not leave the Commonwealth at the mercy of the High Court, as the language of the clause does.

It is said that in asking for this power we seek to take from the State Parliaments the right to deal with industrial disputes, but that is not so. There will be no interference until the necessity for it arises; but, of course, the Commonwealth law must prevail over a State law. The Constitution empowers us to pass laws in regard to many subjects with which we have not dealt. For instance, we have not passed laws relating to marriage or to immigration. During the last ten years the States, through their Agents-General, have been promoting immigration, and, although the system adopted has been most objectionable, this Parliament has not interfered. But wherever national considerations outweigh State considerations, they should prevail. It must not be forgotten that the Constitution gives us two classes of powers - exclusive and concurrent powers. Our legislation in regard to invalid and old-age pensions was passed in the exercise of a concurrent power. The States have still the right to provide pensions for their citizens if they care to do so, and if they thought that our pension rates were not generous enough. The imposition of duties of Customs and Excise is the exercise of an exclusive power not possessed by the States. In regard to industrial matters we desire a concurrent, not an exclusive, power.

Those who say that we wish to take from the States the right to deal with industrial disputes talk with their tongue in their cheek. No doubt, they will make this false statement throughout the country, with a view to misleading the people and obtaining a prejudiced vote on a great national question. It is said that it would be a mistake for the workers to place all their eggs in one basket; but they are not asked to do so. We are adopting the safer method of placing the eggs in two baskets. If the bottom falls out of one and the eggs get broken there will still be some left in the other.

It is true that the power proposed says nothing about Industrial Courts, Wages Boards, or tribunals of any description. It is a general power to legislate with regard to labour and employment, but I am sure no one on this side of the House would attempt to determine by direct Act of Parliament the wages and conditions of employment in industries. That has never been the policy of this party. Our policy has rather been to constitute tribunals to investigate industrial disputes and determine labour conditions. That policy will be continued by this party. I have pledged myself to my constituents to go in that direction, and shall certainly do it unless I go to them again and give them an opportunity of indorsing or rejecting an alternative proposal. We cannot state a political policy in a constitutional clause. The means of carrying a policy is machinery, and must not be confused with the original power under which such machinery would be constructed.

– There were certain unions and industrial organizations that refused to accept the Bill, but that had nothing whatever to do with the political Labour party, who from the beginning advised them to accept it. Mr. McGowen and Mr. Holman addressed the Trade Union Congress to that effect, although the Bill was certainly not everything that was desired. I do not care whether these bodies are called Wages Boards or a series of Industrial Courts. I am concerned only with the powers they exercise. If a Wages Board has power to investigate industrial disputes fairly and lay down awards, that is to me an acceptable form of arbitration. They are good or bad according to the powers vested in them, and the principles of administration upon which they are based. Therefore, this talk about Wages Boards versus Arbitration Courts is foolish, because the terms themselves have no meaning to the ordinary mind. Whilst there is no desire on the part of the Labour party to exclude the jurisdiction of the State Parliaments from the industrial sphere, it is necessary for this Parliament to have power to deal with such disputes as have been mentioned, and so we ask for this extended power.

I come, now to the second paragraph. Since speaking on the second reading. I carefully examined the statement of the power asked for, and found it did not include railway men as necessitated by the High Court judgment. Having brought the omission’ under notice, it is now corrected by the express provision now before us.

I have been for many years connected with the railway and tramway employes of New South Wales. In the test case.that was referred to the High Court, I was one of the parties. When the applications for registration under the Federal Act came before the Registrar, I was present and took part in every case considered. The case taken to the High Court was really stated on a question raised by me. I was very desirous that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court should have the power to deal with the disputes of railway employes. It was not a question of what I desired, but of finding out the actual position. I for one thought it best that the Court should at the earliest moment be given an opportunity to settle whether it really had power to deal with railway disputes. I did not think that railway organizations should exist for years under the registration of the Act, believing they had certain powers and rights under it, when, as a matter of fact, they had none, and so at the earliest opportunity, on the application for registration, I sought to have the question decided. It was decided that the Commonwealth Parliament had no power to legislate for the disputes of railway men.

Some honorable members will remember the great fight that took place in this House over the matter originally. The Deakin Government were defeated and the first Labour Government came into office on the question of the inclusion .of railway men under the Commonwealth Arbitration Act. There was a majority in the House in favour of including them, and the Watson Government, before they went out of office, passed the clauses in the Act bringing them under the Federal Arbitration Court.

Application for registration under the Act was then made by the railway organizations, a body of which I am the Federal secretary. In the test case before the Court it was found that they could not be included in the Federal Arbitration Act.

After that a Conference of the amalgamated railway employes’ associations of the various States was held in April, 1908, at Adelaide. There it was decided to ask the Inter-State Labour Conference, meeting at Brisbane in July, 1908, to seek an alteration of the Constitution to include the railway employes. At the Brisbane Conference I had the honour to move the following motion : -

That steps be taken to amend the Federal Constitution Act so that the benefits of concilia- tion and arbitration be extended to all State Government employes.

That was seconded by the honorable member for Newcastle and carried unanimously. It then found a place in the platform of the Federal Labour party.

Every man on this side of the House has come to this Parliament pledged to his constituents to give effect to that proposal. When honorable members opposite ask why this question is being placed before the House, my reply is, “ Because it is necessary to do so in order to keep faith with the electors who sent this party into power.” It is not a matter fixed up at a hole-and-corner meeting in the last five minutes, but has been blazoned forth on our platform since 1908 and placed before the electors in the printed platform of the party in every constituency in Australia.

Apart from .the desire of the railway men to have the same rights and privileges under the Federal law as are extended to other employes, let me refer to some phases of the question which show how the conditions of railway employes are related to conditions in other industries. The railway employes include practically every trade and calling in Australia. There are among them bricklayers, engineers, carpenters, blacksmiths, and so on; in fact, I could run through the whole gamut of the mechanical and artisan trades and show that the same classes of men are working in the various Railway Departments. If under the Federal Arbitration Act power is given to the Court to deal with carpenters, bricklayers, and engineers working in private employment, but no power is given to deal with them when working in State employment, we may have two different tribunals dealing with the same class of workers engaged in the same district. The Federal Arbitration Court may lay down one set of conditions for outside carpenters, and the State tribunal may lay down a different set for carpenters in the service, although the men might belong to the same union. Some of the amalgamated engineers in the Railway Departments of the States are associated in their union with men in outside employment. Unless this power is given, the Union would be cut in half, and the Federal Arbitration Court would have to say it had no power to deal with State servants.

Personally, I believe that the employes’ of Railway Departments represent a selfcontained industry, and should be organized as one industrial unit; but I am not here to ask for legislation to suit my particular ideas. Power ought to be vested in the Federal Arbitration Court to determine whether it is proper to include railway men with private employes, or whether it is more advisable that they should be segregated as an industry with special conditions.

– I am asking what would be done in such a case as I have instanced.

Mr J H CATTS:

– We should do the same as in the wire-netting case ; the powers under the Constitution are quite sufficient to carry out the Federal law.

The honorable member for Flinders presented the academic argument that the proposal means taking the control of railway employes out of the hands of the States - that it means heaping indignity on the States and lowering their prestige. But in New South Wales the State Parliament has practically admitted its inability to deal directly with industrial disputes arising in the railway service, and has created an industrial tribunal to deal with them. The State Parliament does not fix the wages of the railway men in New South Wales, but these are fixed by the Railway Commissioners, or by the Wages Boards constituted under the industrial

Acts. During the last three years I have been concerned with the constitution of eight or nine Wages Boards for the railway servants, and in that time, though I do not say the whole result has been due to those particular Boards, wages have been increased by at least ,£100.000 a year. The question now is whether the wages shall be dealt with by a Federal tribunal or by a State tribunal.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Have the Wages Boards proved satisfactory?

Mr T H CATTS:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Not altogether; but I suppose that when there are two sides to a question, no decision can be satisfactory to both.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– But they have been fairly satisfactory?

Mr J H CATTS:

– They have bettered conditions, though, as I say, they have not proved altogether satisfactory.

The honorable member for Flinders has told us that railway men will always get fair treatment from the departmental administrators ; but the very fact that under the Wages Boards in New South Wales the wages have been increased to the extent I mentioned, shows that in the past the Railway Commissioners have not given what is now considered fair. The honorable member for Echuca contends that increased wages to the railway employes means increased fares and freights ; but it is a very curious fact that, during the last three years in New South Wales, in face of the increased wages, there has been a reduction in freights and fares equal to ^1,000,000. As a matter of fact, it has been shown time after time that reduced hours of work do not necessarily mean reduced output, but that, on the contrary, fair conditions and fair wages give men more heart in their work and produce better results. The better paid men are, within reasonable limits, the better for all concerned ; and fair wages have never militated against any industry, but rather, according to the experience of all broad-minded employers, tend to increased profits.

The honorable member for Flinders further said (hat a Commonwealth tribunal would dictate to the State Parliaments as to their annual appropriations. Well, there is nothing new in that suggestion, because, under the Constitution at present, the Government has control of the railway’s with respect to transport for the naval and military purposes of the Commonwealth. Under that power the Commonwealth Government could demand a train, or trains, anywhere ; and if such trains meant the impairment of the rolling-stock or permanent way, it would necessarily entail increased Estimates. We have power to tax materials imported for railways, and do so. This increases the State appropriation, and because we have the power and exercise it, nothing dreadful happens. When that academic argument of the honorable member for Flinders is tested it is found to be of no value ; and the question resolves itself into one of the necessities of the situation, and of convenience in dealing with certain classes of cases. If it is a necessity in regard to transport for naval and military purposes that the Commonwealth should have certain power over the railways of the States - a power which may incidentally be reflected in the Estimates of the States - surely it is reasonable that the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Court should have power to deal with industrial disputes amongst State railway employes. After all, the question resolves itself into one as to what is for the public good. On that point-, I submit that the whole principle has long since been determined, and that it was recognised, even by the Conservative Convention which had the drawing up of our Constitution.

Mr WISE:

Mr Fenton:

– Unholy.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The honorable member supplies the fitting word. We considered ourselves in duty bound to put an end to that alliance by any means which should offer. Reference to the press of the day will show that we made our intentions quite clear. The present Prime Minister speaking just before the vote was taken, said -

Believing as I do in State Socialism -

A team of bullocks would not drag language like that from him to-day - and holding that the general welfare of the people must be considered, I am bound to embrace every opportunity to advance those views. I desire to protect the State Parliaments against the civil servants.

A change has occurred since then. The civil servants are now under the special care and protection of the Labour party; they are nestling snugly and securely in its bosom. It was not always so. The honorable member for Wide Bay looked upon them at one time as a nuisance to the State Governments, and said -

I desire to protect the State Parliaments against the civil servants.

Labour and employment including -

Including, and therefore larger than - the wages and conditions of labour and employment in any trade, industry, or calling.

What does “calling” mean? I find the word defined in the dictionary as -

An avocation, a profession, a trade, a collective name for persons following any profession, the state of being divinely called.

Surely that must mean the caucus. Not satisfied with getting all the industrial concerns of the States in your clutches, you are going to control the labour and employment engaged in sacred callings, and, if need be, to fix the wages for the clergymen of Australia.

Mr Hughes:

– We ask for no more than the Act of 1904 gives us -

Industry, business, trade, manufacture, undertaking, calling, service, employment on land or water.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– “ Calling “ means any profession, any collective employment of any kind. It would include lawyers.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I pointed out that the amendments ‘ submitted by the AttorneyGeneral contained a very different power from anything contained in any provision previously submitted to the House under the terms of the existing Constitution. Amongst other things, I said that I saw no great objection to control of wages and conditions within some of the State Departments and State services. In making that statement 1 should have said that in New South Wales I believe nearly all the employment in the Railway Department to-day is regulated by Wages Boards set up under the industrial and arbitration powers of the State. I believe it is a fact that in the Railway Department there alone there are eight or nine different Wages Boards regulating conditions of employment. I think the only objection which our Railway Commissioners offer is that they shall not be associated with the trades or callings outside - that they shall be confined within the Department.

Mr West:

– It is the outside ones that he has to obey.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I do not know of any party which has used them, nor does the honorable member either.

Mr Higgs:

– Wade’s party did. How did the irons get on to Bowling?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– In the same way that they got on Sleath and Ferguson, with the support of Labour members.’

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member has been talking for half-an-hour, and has not yet touched the proposal !

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr J H Catts:

– In some cases; not in all.

Mr SAMPSON:

– My remark may not apply to the Wages Boards appointed in connexion with the railway workshops, but I understand that those appointed in connexion with the traffic branch are composed of men within the service, and are in reality departmental Boards. The State railways are Australia’s arteries of commerce. The Constitution provides for an Inter-State Commission to regulate and control Inter- State trade, but no reason has teen shown for placing the railway employes under Commonwealth jurisdiction. To place them under such jurisdiction would be to invade the sovereign rights of the States, and subvert the authority which should control them. Therefore, I am sorry that the Government has seen fit to propose an amendment which is a direct blow at the existence of the States authority.

Dr CARTY SALMON:
Laanecoorie

– I have always held the opinion that where the State invaded the realm of private enterprise its operations should be controlled by the same laws, and it should be compelled to observe the same conditions as are imposed on private employers. The Government proposes to considerably enlarge the legislative powers of the Commonwealth, to enable us to entirely control a large number of industries. These industries will compete with those established under private enterprise, and should, therefore, be subject to the same conditions, and the same pains and penalties should apply where the law is not observed. It is said that the railway service differs from any other State service. I hold that where there is an intermediate authority, such as a Commissioner, to whom powers have been delegated, that authority should be amenable to the control of Courts of conciliation and arbitration, though I agree that up to the present Australia has not much reason to congratulate herself on the success of her efforts to provide for the settlement of industrial disputes by this means. I question whether, if the proposal of the Minister be carried, we shall have the hearty co-operation of those who are so strenuously seeking to obtain these added powers. I am astounded at the scope of this proposal. The Minister proposes to put all State services as well as all State industrial enterprise under the supervision of the Commonwealth Court. As a Federalist, I feel that it would be a grave error to do so, and, therefore, I refuse to support the amendment. The inherent powers of the States must be recognised in a true system of Federation. We have no warrant for trenching upon those powers, unless in a grave national emergency, such as has not yet occurred. Statements were made today regarding the attitude which would be adopted by the Commonwealth Court of Arbitration if railway officials refused to perform the work for which they are engaged, supposing it entailed the carrying of men to a place where a strike had been declared. I asked the honorable member for Cook what he thought would happen under such circumstances if an appeal were made to a Federal Arbitration Court, and I must say that his answer was anything but satisfactory. The honorable member, with his intimate knowledge of railway matters, went somewhat astray in the illustration he gave.

He and his party are asking that enormous powers shall be given to the Federal tribunal, but in using such an illustration he did not recollect the effect which the exercise of those powers would have upon those whom he more particularly represents. If the Federal Court interfered in any direction at all, it would be in the direction of compelling the men to return to their duty and continue the work which they had contracted with the State to carry out. As in the United States, the Court, if it interfered at all, would direct the men to keep up that communication between the several parts of the Commonwealth which would be almost entirely destroyed if they ceased work. The only possible claim that could be made to the Federal Arbitration Court would be to bring pressure to bear upon the men to compel them to restore those communications which they had by their acts destroyed. I regret that the Minister has seen fit to depart from the spirit, if not from the actual language, of the resolutions carried at the Labour Conference at Brisbane regarding the extension of these powers. I am certain that if such a proposition as this is properly understood by the people it will not be indorsed by them, but, under present circumstances, I must say, with a certain amount of regret, that it may be adopted. If it is adopted it will strike a very severe blow at the permanency as well as the usefulness of the Federation of which we have reason to be proud, and which cost us an enormous amount of labour to create. It was brought into operation under auspices with which no other country was favoured, yet at this early stage of its history it is being treated in a fashion in which no self-respecting gardener would dare to treat any seed or plant from which he expected to reap a decent return. There seems to be a desire on the part of some honorable members to pull up, with almost infantile inquisitiveness, the tree that we have planted, and endeavour by examining its roots to see how it is progressing, and then to try to hasten its growth by taking it away from its natural soil and subjecting it to conditions under which it cannot possibly be expected to flourish.

Mr CARR:
Macquarie

.- I wish to reply briefly to the charge that we are seeking to wrest rights from the States. This Commonwealth could not have come into existence except by the cession of certain State rights; therefore, it cannot expand except by the cession of further State rights. We are not taking up a standanddeliver attitude towards the States. We could not do so if we wished. We are simply appealing to the greatest of all forces, the people, who are behind this and every other Parliament. Honorable members seem to be taking a sympathetic stand in defence of the State Governments, as if the particular powers with which they are at present intrusted ought to be vicariously protected by them at any cost. The wellbeing of the rank and file of the people is, we say, a national question. We consider that the future of the Australian nation is involved in the well-being of the working community, and we say that some of the States have not been giving the working community a fair deal. Hence we claim that it is the duty of this Parliament, elected on a more democratic basis than the other Parliaments, and therefore more truly representing the people who allegedly govern this country, to take a hand and create a tribunal which shall be above all the State Governments and Parliaments, and see that equity obtains. If that is necessary in regard to the rank and file of the workers engaged by private employers, it is only rendered necessary because the State Governments have not done the right thing towards them. If the State Governments have made it necessary for this Parliament to step forward to protect those in private employment, surely it is illogical to contend that the same State Governmentsshould be trusted with the fate of their own employes.

Mr Sampson:

– Then they are not fit toemploy them.

Mr CARR:

– The honorable member himself has said that it is necessary in the case of certain private employes to establish a Federal tribunal to oversee these matters. I rejoin that it is only necessary because the State Governments have neglected their duty in that regard. Therefore, it is onlylogical to assume that they have equally neglected their duty in regard to their ownemployes.’ Some of the State Governments, at any rate, are to be blamed in that regard, and hence our action to-day. We are simply appealing to our rulers, the people, and as these matters are to go before the people, why all the outcry and protest from the benches opposite? If the Opposition have a case which the people indorse, that will settle it. The people are the final arbiters, and we ask that an appeal be made to them. We are not endeavouring to force anything on the country that the country will not have an opportunity of rejecting. That is a perfectly logical attitude to take up, and it does not merit the attacks that have been made upon it.

Mr LIVINGSTON:
Barker

.- It seems to me that the more the Federal Government get the more they want. The first big business they took over was the Postal Department. They had only managed or mismanaged that for a short period when a demand was made for a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole business. If that was necessary in the case of the Postal Department, what are the Federal Government going to do with a large business like the railways ? If some little thing goes wrong at Port Augusta it will have to be referred for decision to YassCanberra, or some other distant spot. I do not think the people will feel inclined to give the Federal Parliament any more power. They already regret those which have been given to the Federal Parliament, and I think the Government would be wise to leave this part of the business alone. This Parliament appears to want to undertake everything but what it should undertake. It should have taken over the State debts, but has kept carefully clear of them. It is now trying to take over another paying Department, and leave the debts with the States. By-and-by this Parliament will get all the paying Departments over, and leave the people to pay the State debts as best they can. This Parliament wants to get the railways, and mismanage them as it has done the Postal Department. How can we develop AustraIia without the railways? If this Parliament interferes with our railways it will be doing a great injury to the whole of Australia. The proposition to bring all the railway servants under the control of this Parliament is too ridiculous to think of, and if it were submitted to the people as a separate issue there would be a majority of three to one against it. Unfortunately, several questions will be put to the people together. One will vote in favour of one proposition, another in favour of another, and in the aggregate a majority will be obtained for them all.

Mr Page:

– Hear, hear ! That is what we want.

Mr LIVINGSTON:

– I do not think the honorable member wants it in his heart. No man would be more grieved than the honorable member to see the railways and other interests of Queensland managed from Yass-Canberra. The honor able member’s heart is with the people of his State, although he dares not show it. I trust that every man and woman in this community will vote against this proposal when the time comes. I sincerely hope that each issue will be put to the people separately, so that their voice may be fairly heard. The proposition now before us, if carried, will mean misfortune for the people. Let this Parliament carry out its duties. It has taken over the Northern Territory. Let it deal with that first. It cannot be developed without railways. The proposition that this Parliament should have power to deal with all the railways of Australia will have my best opposition in the country, and I hope it will never be indorsed by the people.

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

.- I was struck, when listening to the AttorneyGeneral’s opening remarks this morning, with the absolute want of any convincing arguments for the introduction into our Constitution of such a sweeping amendment, dealing with the whole of the industries of Australia. I understand that after T left the chamber the honorable member referred to the votes given on a previous occasion by certain honorable members, presumably with the object of suggesting that if they voted against this amendment to-day they would be acting inconsistently. If that was not his object, I do not know why he should have made special reference to the votes given by honorable members in 1904. I was one of those to whom the honorable member referred. Not only in 1904, but on a previous occasion I spoke and voted for the inclusion of the railway servants under the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill then before Parliament. That, however, was under the terms of section 51 of the Constitution, relating to “ conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State.” I felt convinced at that time that it would be in the interests of the producers and of the rest of Australia to have our railway services in disputes extending beyond the limits of a State under the effective control of a Conciliation and Arbitration Court established by the Federation, and so I gave my vote for the inclusion of the railway servants in the Bill on the two occasions referred to. On one occasion there was no crisis, but I gave my vote as a matter of principle. On the second occasion

I also gave my vote as a matter of principle, although there was a crisis. It has been stated that at that time honorable members voted for the purpose of dislodging the Government. That may be so, but I distinctly stated that I had both spoken and voted for a similar proposal before as a matter of principle, and that I was quite consistent in the action I then took. Honorable members will, perhaps, bear with me while I read half-a-dozen lines from a speech I delivered on the ist June, T904, as follows : -

As one of those’ who on a former occasion supported the proposal to bring railway servants within the scope of the Bill, I desire to say that I intend to vote for the amendment. When I voted previously there was no crisis, and no question as to whether the Ministry should remain in office, or be rejected from it. I voted for what I believed to be an important principle, and I shall act similarly this evening.

Mr Carr:

– Very few men are “ game “ to read their own records !

Mr FULLER:

Mr JENSEN:

– A good many of them have gone to the West, and to other States. The young men of Tasmania are leaving because they can get better conditions elsewhere, and the State is left with the old men, women, and children. That is happening because we have no industrial laws to give the people their rights. On page 4 of their report, the Commissioners deal with the baking trade. They say -

In this industry we find that the following rates of payment made to the undermentioned employes are inadequate for the services rendered : - Clerk, aged 25 years, 4^ years’ service, 25s. per week ; biscuit baker, aged 22 years, 8 years’ service, 30s. per week; general hand, aged 26, 2 years’ service, ns. per week; packer, aged 22, in his fifth year of service, 20s. a week ; general hand, almost 18, just on 3 years’ service, 9s. per week.

They say further -

In the bootmaking trade we find that rates of payment made to several of those employed are very low, a finisher, with 8 years’ experience, receiving only 22s. 6d. per week, whilst a bootmaker engaged on children’s boots receives 24s. 6d. per week ; putter-up, 9 years’ experience, 30s. per week ; bootmaker, 12 years at the trade, 32s. 6d. ; another, 13 years at the trade, 29s. A packer, 28 years of age, receives 22s. 6d. per week.

On page 6, the Commissioners speak of the conditions in regard to Government clothing contracts -

A female operative that was examined, who is employed in the manufacture of clothing by the Government contractor, is paid the following rates for the various classes of garments she turns out : - Trousers of a dark-bluey material, 7£d. per pair; cadet trousers, gd. per pair. This operative can earn at those rates, on the average, 10s. a week. The garments are cut out before being sent to the worker. The trousers for - the post-office and railway employes are made on piece work, and paid is. fid. and is. 3d. respectively. The females engaged thereon earn on the average 10s. to 11s. per week.

That is the remuneration for work for the Commonwealth service. The women of Tasmania are earning us. per week in making clothes for the servants of this Government. Is it not time that we took industrial matters in hand? -

In one work-room the girls are taken on as learners, and work up to six months without pay.

That is the way in which the State arid the Commonwealth contractors are treating employes in Tasmania. Dealing with coffee palaces and cafes, the Commissioners say -

There were two of these places of business visited, where it was found that the pay to the employes varies from 8s. to 15s. per week and board for housemaids and waitresses; kitchenmaid, 14s. ; second cook, 20s., £2, and £2 5s. Cashiers and clerks are paid 10s. a week to 12s. In one establishment the higher rate is paid during the summer, which lasts about four months. The hours worked weekly range from 79 to 83 for waitresses and housemaids. The porters receive from 173. 6d. to 22s. 6d. per week.

As to corporation employes, the report says -

We find that the rate of wage paid (.0 labourer in the employ of the. Hobart City Council are very low - 5s., 5s. 3d., 5s. 6d., 5s. gd. per day - being, in our opinion, insufficient to decently house and maintain a family.

Fancy language like that from a Royal Commission. The men who work for these wages have to pay from 8s. to 10s. and 12s. per week for house rent. Not one of them dare murmur, because the city of Hobart is in such a poor way, and every other place in Tasmania is in a similar condition. They have to take these rates or starve. The Commission was appointed because a Labour member in the State House stated that these conditions existed.

Mr J H Catts:

– Yet nothing has been done.

Mr JENSEN:

– -The Government has not attempted to pass legislation to deal with these poor people since the report was tabled. Yet we have their champions on the other side of the House saying that the State Governments have done their duty and are quite capable of looking after the wants of the people of the States. Yet if a man dare open his mouth in regard to the way in which he has to live, he is not wanted. He must take what is offered to him, or starve. That is the condition of affairs in Tasmania. The report regarding the Hobart Council’s Cartage Contractors is astounding. It concludes as follows : -

The low rate at which the Hobart Corporation cartage contracts are let renders it impossible for the contractor, who receives 6s. 6d. and 7s. 6d. a day for horse, cart, and driver, to pay a fair wage to those engaged as drivers; married men with families receiving 20s. and 23s. per week in this capacity.

Does the honorable member for Swan want any further evidence? Does he still say that the State Governments in the past have carried out the duties intrusted to them, and that there is no need for the people to come to this Parliament for relief?

Sir John Forrest:

– The honorable member should not misquote what I said.

Mr JENSEN:

– The honorable member said that the State Governments have done their duty in the past, and were quite capable of carrying out the legislation required. As a matter of fact, they have failed to do so. With regard to dressmaking, the report states -

Five establishments that carry on dressmaking as one of the branches of their business were investigated. The system of employing gratuitous labour for apprentices was found to be generally adopted, ranging from one month to six months, without any payment being tendered for services rendered.

These children gave six months of their labour free to those blood-sucking capitalists. Simply because he has a business, a man in that State can take the flesh and bone and sinew of his neighbour’s children, and say, “ You must work for me for six months for nothing.” These are rich men who own retail shops in the city. Any of them can take his motor car at night, drive out to his suburb, smoke the best cigars and drink the best champagne, go to every theatre, and take a floating palace to London every year. Yet they tell the poor that their children have to work for them for six months for nothing before they can be taken on as regular hands. Is that right or fair? Why should any man who has brought up his children decently be forced to let them work for nothing for a fellow citizen living under the same State laws? Those are absolute and positive truths, undeniable facts, and honorable members opposite must be aware that these things exist -

At the expiration of the period of probation a wage is paid of from is. 6d. to 2s. 6d. per week.

After six months’ service these decent young girls, who leave their parents’ homes in the morning with pure and innocent hearts, are taken on by these capitalists at a wage of from is. 6d. to 2s. 6d. per week for doing work which is worth to their employers probably £1 or £z a week. What a wonderful country we live in - this democratic Commonwealth that has a turnover of ^265, 000,000 each year, and in which a portion of its 4,500,000 people are treated in that way.

In some cases the girls are called upon to return of an evening, in order to make up time lost through public holidays. The wages of juniors, improvers, and senior hands range up to 35s. a week. The hours worked average from 44 to 48 per week. Sick pay is discretionary with the employers. Three private dressmaking establishments were visited, and the evidence showed that in two of them apprentices were taken for one and three months without wages ; then they were paid from 2s. to 2s. 6d. per week. In the other case, is. per week was paid as wages from the start. Payments to employes vary from 2s. 6d. to ’25s. per week. The hours worked vary from 44 to 47 per week. Absence through holidays and sickness is not paid for.

Wonderful country ! Beautiful State Governments ! I come now to Launceston -

In Launceston, there were five establishments visited at which dressmaking was an adjunct of the business. In one it was found that apprentices were paid 2s. 6d. at the beginning of their employment; in the others, the period of service for which no payment was made varied from a fortnight to six months.

One evening in Hobart a young lady called my attention to a dress in a shop window. She said she was paid 2s. 3d. for making it, and the material in it cost 9s. or 10s. The sale price of the dress was 15s. That shows the way the workers are sweated. Regarding the flour mills, the report says -

The system of dividing 24 hours into two shifts of 12 hours by millers and engine-drivers appears to us unnecessary and objectionable, considering the nature and responsibility of the work engaged in, and we are also of the opinion that this work should be carried out by three shifts of 8 hours.

Fancy, in the flour mills of Tasmania men working two shifts of twelve hours each at responsible work of that kind. Yet the honorable member for Swan champions the State Parliaments for the way in which they have carried out their duties in the past. He said that any industrial laws that were necessary were always given to the people in the States. The honorable member for Wilmot knows that it is an absolute fact that there is not one atom of industrial legislation on the statute-book of Tasmania.

Mr Atkinson:

– The Lower House has sent up proposals for Wages Boards before now.

Mr JENSEN:

-And the property House - the Dead House - has kicked them out. In the jam factories, according to the same report -

We find that the wages paid in branches of this industry are altogether inadequate, several adult labourers receiving 4s. and 4s. 2d., fireman 3s. 8d., solderer 3s. 4d. per day ; girls of 16 years of age, 8s. per week; girls of 17 years of age, gs. per week; girls of 18 years Df age, 10s. per week ; girls of 19 year’s of age, 12s. per week, and girls of 20 years of age. 10s. per week.

It is also our opinion that females should not be called upon to work more than 46 hours per week; more especially when it is considered that many of them found it absolutely necessary to remain standing during the whole period they are employed.

Mr Atkinson:

– Are not wages better now than when the Commission reported ?

Mr JENSEN:

– No. There is a strike going on at present in Launceston. In the contract for laying down the Launceston municipal tram lines, the workers, who have to . use a double-ended pick and a shovel all day breaking up the hard macadamized road, are paid 6s. a day for eight hours’ work. When they struck, the excuse put forward by the employers was that when they tendered for the work they were prepared to give whatever the Government or municipal rate of wages was. It is simply because the Government of Tasmania are starving the people of the State that the private .employers follow suit. That is one of the State Governments which are held up to the House as such patterns. The report further states -

At the laundry visited, in Launceston, the female hands are paid from 8s. to 15s. per week; the carter, £2; assistant carter, £1 ; forewoman, 22s. 6d. The hours average 54 per week. Overtime is paid for at the rate of 4d. per hour for those receiving under 10s. a week, and over that amount 6d. per hour. During the summer months some of the girls return to work on Sunday for 4 hours, for which they receive 2s.

The rates of payment paid to females following this unhealthy occupation are inadequate, in consideration of the number of hours worked, which, in our opinion, should not exceed 46 per week. The nature of their employment requires them to be standing for the whole time they are at work. Sunday work, which is unnecessary, should be abolished.

At Launceston, the pay for painters in the establishment visited ranges from 5s. to ys. 6d. a day ; signwriters, 8s. to gs. a day. Boys start at 5s. a week. The hours are the same as those worked at Hobart, and all time lost is stopped.

We find that the rates of wages prevailing in this trade are insufficient remuneration to competent tradesmen, considering the skill required and the character and responsibility attaching to their particular calling.

From the evidence obtained from those employed on the river steamers of Hobart it was ascertained that the firemen received 15s. to 30s. per week ; deck hands, 10s. to 20s. ; pursers, 20s. to 25s. ; stewards, 20s. to 23s. ; cook, 15s. ; mates, 15s. to 30s. per week. The hands are all supplied with their board and lodging.

Office hands receive 8s. to £2 per week. The hours of the firemen are usually about 72 during the ordinary season, but when the Sunday excursions are run, the hours average 84, without any extra pay. The deck hands work 62 to 70 hours per week ; stewards and pursers, 54 ; mates, 50 to 60 hours per week ; neither holidays nor absence through sickness is paid for.

In Hobart, we find that the rates of payment made to officers and general hands are very low in proportion to the long hours worked weekly and the nature of their occupation. The practice of exacting service from employes on Sunday, without remuneration, is most reprehensible, and, whether running Sunday excursions or engaged in the ordinary channel trade, consideration should be given to those that render service whenever Sunday work becomes necessary.

These capitalistic steam-ship companies of Hobart, some of which are very wealthy, pay their men 15s. a week and expect them to work on Sunday for nothing in order to take pleasure-seekers about. The Commission pointed out specially that that was unfair, but nothing has been done. I come now to the shirt manufacturers, and this comment on the shirt industry is the most striking in the whole report -

Piece-workers who are engaged in the manufacture of under-flannels and blueys are paid at rates that render it extremely arduous for operatives to earn a livelihood. It has been learnt that 2d. is paid for making a flannel and7½d. for completing a bluey -

I suppose honorable members know what a “ bluey “ is. It is of material almost as heavy as a blanket, and it is used for overcoats by men in the wet portions of Tasmania. Just fancy a woman having to press a needle and thread through a “ bluey,” and complete the garment for 7½d. !- from cutting it out and finding the necessary thread, and that necessarily very long hours have to be worked in order for those engaged in their manufacture to obtain a living.

As to tailoring, the report says -

In this trade the making of trousers and vests is almost entirely in the hands of female operatives. The log prices for making sac coats vary considerably, as low as 7s. being paid to female workers. In one establishment visited two logs were kept, the female workers’ log prices being about one-half that of the male workers’ log prices.

If a woman can turn out a coat in an establishment she should receive the same remuneration as a man, but, as a matter of fact, the employers take advantage of the weaker sex. I protest against such treatment from the floor of this House, and if this Parliament is intrusted with the power which it seeks, it will be no more than it has a right to expect from the people, considering that such conditions as those to which I have referred can be found to-day in a State of this Commonwealth.

Amendment agreed to.

Question - That the clause, as amended, stand part of Bill- put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 29

NOES: 15

Majority … … 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 -

Section fifty-one of the Constitution is altered by adding at the end thereof the following paragraph : - “ (xl.) Combinations and monopolies in relation to the production, manufacture, or supply of goods or services.”

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– I hope that, as far as possible, discussion on this clause will be curtailed, in view of the fact that opportunity will be afforded, under the Monopolies Bill, of practically traversing the same ground. It has only to be observed that this clause is supplementary to the trade and commerce and corporation clauses. Whereas the trade and commerce clause deals with the sale of commodities and articles of various kinds, and the corporations clause with the power of corporate bodies and trading companies generally, the present clause relates to the production, manufacture, or supply of goods. The clause gives Parliament the power to make laws in respect of all those phases in which goods appear and reappear from the moment of production to the moment of consumption; it follows the production, the sale, the manufacture, and the ultimate disposal of them, both from the side of the producer and from the side of the consumer. It is proposed by the honorable member for Angas to substitute an amendment, so as to make theclause apply to combinations and monopolies in restraint of trade. It is necessary to deal with the production, manufacture, and supply of goods, because the trade and commerce power as well as that dealing with corporations are not sufficient.In the case of the sugar industry, for instance, it is of no use controlling the sale if we cannot control the manufacture - we must have control over the whole. These powers will be exercised by the Parliament elected, most probably, after the referendum, and consequently elected by people who are thoroughly well aware of the powers which will exist, and who will exact from their representatives a pledge of how far they propose to go.

Mr DEAKIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · PROT; LP from 1910

– The Government, therefore, will not endeavour to exercise any of those powers during this Parliament.

Mr HUGHES:

– I do not say that at all. We are pledged to introduce the new Protection in this Parliament, and we shall do so if we get an affirmative reply to the referendum. We are pledged to give a reasonable wage to every person in the Commonwealth, so far as legislation can do so. I do not say what else we shall do, because time is obviously the essence of the contract, but I do sincerely hope there will not be many more sessions like the present one. I do not suppose that any honorable member desires another, but, having regard to what we have promised to do, we are perfectly justified in doing this very necessary work this session. I wish only to point out to honorable members and to the community that we do not propose to exhaust the possibilities of these amendments in this Parliament, and that the people will have ample opportunities to exact from their representatives a pledge as to how far they are prepared to go. In view of the present methods of production in this country, as well as in every other land, it is absolutely necessary that we should have power to deal wilh combinations and monopolies.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.-I think that the shortest way to test the feeling of the Committee on this question is to be secured , by moving to omit the word “ relation “ in lines 4 and 5. I do not care much whether the word “ trust ‘ ‘ is inserted or not. I think it better that it should be, but since the Attorney-General takes a different view, I shall not press my proposal in that regard. I believe that our power to deal with trusts is contained in an earlier clause. In order as far as possible to meet the Attorney-General, I suggest that the proposed new paragraph should read as follows -

Combines and monopolies in restraint of trade, commerce, or manufacture, in any, part of a State of the Commonwealth.

If a combination is not in restraint of trade we ought not to touch it. All the laws in relation to monopolies and combinations are based purely on restraint of trade. The question was considered in the English shipping case dealt with in r892, when it was held that there are combinations which, not being detrimental to the public, and not being in restraint of trade, ought to be beyond the law of unlawful conspiracy.

Mr Batchelor:

– What is the meaning of “restraint of trade “ ?

Mr GLYNN:

-I could not explain, nor possibly could the honorable member apprehend, the meaning without breaking the rule of economy which has been prescribed bv the Attorney-General. As the clause stands, power will be taken to suppress any combination, irrespective of whether it is or is not in restraint of trade. The trade and commerce part of the Bill is independent of this provision. I move -

That the word “ relation,” lines 4 and 5, be left out.

Question - That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 15

Majority … … 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report, by leave, adopted.

page 5356

PAPER

Mr. FRAZER laid upon the table the following paper : -

Defence- Commonwealth Military Cadet Corps - Report of the Director-General for year ending 30th June,1910.

Ordered to be printed.

page 5356

ADJOURNMENT

Accountant, Post and Telegraph Department - Accommodation for Warships - Markers’ Strike at Williamstown.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr. J. H. CATTS (Cook) [10.41).- I desire to ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General if he will be good enough to lay upon the table of the House the papers relating to the appointment of an Accountant in the Post and Telegraph Department ?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– The honorable member for Cook will realize that, although I am acting for the Postmaster-General, inasmuch as I answer questions relating to his Department, I have no direct official connexion with the Department, and cannot make a definite statement in reply to his inquiry. I will, however, submit his request to the Postmaster-General. Personally, I see no reason why the papers should not be laid upon the table of the Library. I trust that the request will be complied with.

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

.-I wish to ask the Minister representing the Minister of Defence a question with reference to a promise made last week to lay upon the table of the Library the correspondence and report in connexion with the accommodation at Williamstown, Brisbane, and Sydney of the warships which are shortly to arrive in Australia ? The papers have not yet been laid upon the table of the Library, although they were promised a week ago.

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

.- Has the Minister representing the Minister of Defence received from the military authorities a report relating to the instruction given to members of the Permanent Artillery to take the places of the markers who went on strike at the Williamstown Rifle Range?

Mr FRAZER:
Acting Treasurer · Kalgoorlie · ALP

– In reply to the honorable member for Illawarra, I have to say that the papers to which he refers were in my possession last week. They were returned by me to the Minister of Defence. I assure the honorable member, however, that there will be no difficulty in getting them back; and I will see that they are obtained.

Mr Fuller:

– To-morrow ?

Mr FRAZER:

– Yes ; I do not see any difficulty about obtaining the papers tomorrow. In reply to the honorable member for Adelaide, I have to state that the report of the Inspector-General relating to the Williamstown incident has been received by the Minister of Defence, who is now considering it. I hope to be in a position to make a statement in reference to the matter, on behalf of the Minister, tomorrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.46 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 October 1910, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1910/19101027_reps_4_58/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives27 October 1910

PRESENTATION OF ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Mr HUGHES:Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr SPEAKER:

Later -

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Mr J H CATTS:for Mr. Thomas Brown

Mr TUDOR:Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr TUDOR:

Mr HEDGES:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr TUDOR:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr TUDOR:

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr TUDOR:

QUESTION

SYDNEY NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr FRAZER:Minister (without portfolio) · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Sir JOHN FORREST:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr HUGHES:ALP

QUESTION

PROMOTIONS TO CLERICAL DIVISION

Mr RILEY:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

QUESTION

LEON ADELL

Mr FOWLER:PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr BATCHELOR:Minister for External Affairs · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

PAPUAN NATIVE LABOUR

Mr McDOUGALL:WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr BATCHELOR:ALP

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (LEGISLATIVE POWERS) BILL

Mr HUGHES:Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

Sir William Lyne:

Mr HUGHES:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr Tudor:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr Deakin:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr HUGHES:General · West Sydney, Acting Prime Minister and Attorney · ALP

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr HUGHES:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr Tudor:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr DEAKIN:Ballarat

Mr Hughes:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Hughes:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Hughes:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Hughes:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Hughes:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Hughes:

Mr DEAKIN:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr W H IRVINE:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Frazer:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr W H IRVINE:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr W H IRVINE:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr W H IRVINE:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:

House of Representatives
27 October 1910

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr J H CATTS:
for Mr. Thomas Brown

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HEDGES:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr FRAZER:
Minister (without portfolio) · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr HUGHES:
ALP

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr BATCHELOR:
Minister for External Affairs · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr McDOUGALL:
WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr BATCHELOR:
ALP

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

Mr HUGHES:
General · West Sydney, Acting Prime Minister and Attorney · ALP

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP