House of Representatives
13 June 1956
22nd Parliament · 1st Session
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- PAY-ROLL TAX
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
- DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AVIATION
- GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
- STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1956
- TARIFF PROPOSALS 1956
- TARIFF BOARD
- CHOKES, LOW POWER FACTOR
- STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1956
- EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1956
- NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1956
- CELLULOSE ACETATE FLAKE BOUNTY BILL 1956
- RAYON YARN BOUNTY BILL 1956
- ADJOURNMENT
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. C. J?. Adermann) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 3123
QUESTION
COAL INDUSTRY
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– I give notice that at the next sitting I shall move that T have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Coal Industry Act. Tor the information of honorable gentlemen opposite, and in particular the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I might mention that the bill is merely consequential upon the Arbitration legislation that we have already debated, but that I had to defer action upon it until the consent of the Government of! New South Wales came to hand.
page 3123
QUESTION
AUSTRALIAN EX-PRISONERS OF WAR
Mr GRAHAM:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I ask the Treasurer, as Acting Prime Minister, whether he has received any recent reports on the second payment of compensation moneys to former Australian prisoners of war of Japan. Could the right honorable gentleman ask the Prime Minister to arrange, while he is in London, for an investigation of appropriate methods of expediting the conclusion of this most unfortunately prolonged business ?
Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP
– I have been waiting an opportunity to make a statement on this matter, and I shall make it now. I assure the honorable member that the Prime Minister intends to look into this matter while he is in London. As to the general question of prisoner of war payments, I would like to state that last March the Prime Minister indicated to the House that a distribution of money for ex-prisoners of war would not be made by the International Red Cross before mid-1956 at the earliest. The Prime Minister also pointed out that last year the Japanese Government had paid £4,500,0C0 sterling to the International Committee of the Red Cross in full settlement of its obligations under Article 16 of the Japanese Peace Treaty. In addition to this sum, the Red Cross also holds 2,500,000 United States dollars which were paid to it by Thailand under an agreement on Japanese assets in Thailand between that country, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The Red Cross cannot distribute these moneys to national agencies, as it has not yet completed its check of the lists of forme;’ prisoners of war submitted to it by the countries concerned. Australia, in common with other nations, is rendering the Red Cross all possible assistance to ensure that there is no avoidable delay. The Government has no later advice which would pin-point the possible time of distribution, but I assure honorable members that there will be no avoidable delay on this Government’s part.
page 3123
QUESTION
SOCIAL SERVICES PAYMENTS
Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– I desire to ask the Treasurer a question that I wish to divorce entirely from politics. I can only assure the right honorable gentleman that under similar circumstances I would feel it incumbent upon myself to direct such a question to whoever was the responsible Minister of the government of the day. South Australia, like the rest of the Commonwealth, is experiencing an unprecedently cold and wet winter, and in the City of Port Pirie at the present time the lady members of benevolent societies are distributing warm clothing among the unfortunate ones. In view of the forthcoming recess, and the time that it takes to get the necessary machinery working after the House meets once more, will the right honorable gentleman ask his Cabinet to consider the immediate need to increase social service payments? Will he also instruct the departments affected of the advisability of eradicating the repulsive term “ pensioner “ and of using in lieu thereof a more acceptable definition such as “ retiring allowance “ ?
Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP
– The subjectmatter of the honorable member’s question will obviously receive consideration during the course of the preparation of the next budget.
Mr Calwell:
– And as obviously turned down.
Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
– If it weiranything like your record, it would he.
page 3124
QUESTION
ATOMIC WEAPONS
Mr DAVIS:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA
– Has the Minister for Supply seen a report of the British Government’s Medical Research Council on the question of genetic dangers from radiation, arising from nuclear tests? If so, what is the purport of the report and to what extent does it support, or otherwise, the views of other scientists which he has quoted in this House?
Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– Yes, that report was released in London very recently. It is the result of an entirely independent study by eminent British scientists, and is very reassuring indeed on the genetic effects of fall-out from nuclear explosions. Lt therefore adds great weight to the views of Sir John Cockcroft and others whom I have quoted in this House. The report says, in effect, that the risk of genetic harm to future generations from nuclear weapons tests is negligible. It says that, even if these tests were to continue indefinitely at the present rate, an individual would, over a period of 30 years, receive only 1 per cent, of what he would, in any case, receive by way of radiation from natural sources. Indeed, the report makes some recommendation about dealing with every-day radiation from such sources as X-rays and radio therapy. The report does issue a warning of some possible health risks, nothing to do with genetics, which could arise from repeated hydrogen bomb explosions resulting in the release of radio active strontium. It says, “ At its present level no detectable increase in the instances of ill effects is to be expected “. But it says further that at the present rate of firing, “ We could within the lifetime of some now living be approaching levels at which ill effects might be produced in a small number of the population”. I think I should point out that only a few days ago. in the House of Commons, Sir Anthony Eden reaffirmed the British Government’s willingness to discuss methods of limiting test explosions and be said, “ This remains the policy of Her Ma jesty’s Government, and we would seek every opportunity to put it into effect “. Needless to say, this is also the policy of the Australian Government.
page 3124
QUESTION
AIR POLLUTION
Mr KEARNEY:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been directed to reports of intense air pollution in some areas of Sydney, Newcastle and Port Kembla arising from various industrial manufacturing processes? If so, is it a fact that the density of pollution from the smog fall is, by test, claimed to average 25 tons monthly per square mile in central Sydney; 20 to 30 tons in parts of Newcastle; and 60 tons at Port Kembla ? Is it also a fact that the highest reading at Port Kembla compares with 160 tons in some districts of Pittsburgh. United States of America? Has the Government, of which the Minister is a distinguished member, taken action or incurred direct expense in investigating this major problem and serious health hazard to both the workers within most of the industries and the residents of the areas mentioned? If so, what is the nature of the action taken to date and what amount of money has been expended by the Government on this problem ?
Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP
– I have seen, in general terms, reports similar to those mentioned by the honorable member. Whilst, of course, the Government would be able and willing to make available all the information and assistance it has available for the purposes of meeting this difficulty, 1 should point out to the honorable member that this is primarily a responsibility of the New South Wales Government and that no approaches have yet been made by that Government to the Commonwealth.
page 3124
QUESTION
WOOL
Mr ANDERSON:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES
– My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the right honorable gentleman’s attention been directed to the fact that wool, the sale of which is urgently needed to augment our overseas funds and maintain our balance of payments overseas, is being held up in country railway stations in Queensland and New South Wales because of the refusal of railway workers to handle it? Does the failure to export wool jeopardize the living standards of every Australian citizen?
Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP
– Inability to export wool, or to export any of our exportable surpluses that play such an important part in respect, not only of our balance of payments position, but also our general economic position, must obviously have a detrimental effect on the incomes and, indeed, the living standards, of every man, woman and child in Australia.
page 3125
QUESTION
SOCIAL SERVICES OFFICE IK NEWCASTLE
Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Will the Minister for Social Services inform me whether it is the intention of the Department of Social Services to proceed with the plan, previously approved by his predecessor, to build premises at Newcastle for a new regional office of the department? If so, is it proposed to extend the duties of the officer in charge of that office by keeping records in, and making the payment of pensions from, that office? Is the Minister aware that, by having such an office in Newcastle, reviews of pensions, answers to the inquiries of pensioners, and many other social services matters, will be able to be expedited considerably? ff it is proposed to erect a new building, what progress has been made with the plan to do so? Has land been acquired, have plans been prepared, and have renders been called ? If not, is the Minister able to inform me when it is expected that a new building will be proceeded with and social services facilities at Newcastle be thereby improved?
Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP
– Lot me say, first, that I know that the offices of the Department of Social Services in Newcastle are at the moment unsatisfactory, that the department is functioning in two buildings, and that the arrangements do not lend themselves to either the quantity or quality of service that we believe the people deserve. It is the policy of the Government to carry out a vigorous programme of decentralization, and to that find the magnificent plans and purposes of my predecessor are being carried out in Newcastle. An area of land has been acquired in Hunter-street, on which it <s proposed to erect a three-story building which will enable us to give to the people of Newcastle, and of the surrounding part of New South Wales, the service that we believe is richly deserved.
page 3125
QUESTION
AUSTRALIAN EX-PRISONERS OF WAR
Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA
– I desire to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will make an approach to the Prime Minister, who is at present overseas, on the basis of a question asked by the honorable member for St. George about payments to ex-prisoners of war of the Japanese. I understand that the Prime Minister may visit Indonesia durng the course of his trip overseas. If that be the case, will the Acting Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister to confer, on the spot, with the Government of Indonesia - which i3 one of the two countries, the other being the Republic of the PhilipDines, which has not completed the necessary formalities to enable the payments to be made to ex-prisoners of war of the Japanese - with a view to having this matter expedited?
Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP
– 1 shall certainly submit the observations and the request of the honorable gentleman to the Prime Minister, with a view to having attention given to them in the direction that the honorable gentleman desires.
page 3125
QUESTION
POSTAL DEPARTMENT
Mr J R FRASER:
ALP
– My question, which is addressed to the PostmasterGeneral, is prompted by a concern which I have felt for some time, and which has been heightened by recent happenings in Canberra. I refer to the employment by the Postal Department in this city of youths aged fifteen and sixteen who come here many miles from their homes, and who, I believe, are subjected perhaps in their boarding establishments, to influences which would be absent in their homes. I ask the Postmaster-General whether it is necessary to employ youths of such tender age at such great distances from their homes, and whether it is true that youths may be employed in post offices at fifteen years of age but may not receive the adult wage until they reach the age of 21, whereas girls may be employed in post offices at fifteen years of age, and, after two years’ service and -after obtaining a certificate of competency, may receive the adult wage.
Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP
– I think I know the circumstances which have prompted the honorable gentleman’s question. I realize that it is a subject to which more attention could probably be given, particularly with, the object of providing recreation facilities in the hostels where youths, who, of course, are employed not only by the Postmaster-General’s Department but also by other departments, are accommodated. As a matter of fact, there is in existence already a scheme designed to provide facilities for directing their activities along beneficial lines outside working hours, but, sometimes, the arrangements made have not been followed. The department finds it difficult to obtain sufficient adult staff for the essential work of letter delivery and similar duties, and it is necessary to employ youths. It is not desirable to employ lads of fifteen years of age at any great distance from their homes, and that is not common practice, although I know it has prevailed in the Australian Capital Territory. The wages paid to junior postal officers are determined, first of all, by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and these officers are paid under the relevant scale of the Public Service Board in accordance with the award. Therefore, that matter is not really within my field pf administration. However. I assure the honorable member that, in the last day or so, I have given some attention to the problem he has mentioned, and that, if I can improve conditions, I shall do so.
page 3126
QUESTION
INTERNATIONAL LOAD LINE CONVENTION
Mr FREETH:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
– I wish to ask the Minister for External Affairs a question. How many countries have ratified the agreement for the proposed Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization? If something like the requisite number, which, I think, was fixed at 21, have ratified the agreement, will the Minister consult with the Minister for “Shipping and Transport on the possibility, of obtaining some modification of the present International Load Line Convention as it affects the port of Albany in Western Australia?
Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP
– I know that the honorable gentleman is concerned about this matter because of the very great importance it has for the port of Albany. I think it is at least five years since he brought the problem to my notice first, but, unfortunately, although we have done all we could do in the years since in an effort to stimulate other countries to join the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultive Organization, only seventeen of the required number of 21 nations have yet ratified the agreement. Until the organization comes into existence, the International Load Line Convention cannot be brought into international operation. We shall continue to do what we can to influence individual countries to join the organization, and, when it becomes effective, I shall most certainly cooperate with the Minister for Shipping and Transport in an endeavour to have the present international load line arrangements altered, technically and generally, as we believe they should be altered. This would be very largely to the advantage of the port of Albany.
page 3126
QUESTION
THE RIGHT HONORABLE J. B. CHIFLEY
Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES
– My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It is five years to-day since my predecessor, the late J. B. Chifley, who was the war-time Prime Minister of Australia, passed away. I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, as Leader of the Government, he will consider taking steps to honour the memory of this great Australian who served Australia so diligently, faithfully and well in war and in peace. The people of Australia will remember him gratefully, and it would be their wish that something of the nature that I have put to the House to-day be accomplished. The late Jack Curtin is remembered in the School of Medicine at the Australian National University and it would be appropriate, fitting and proper if this House, by action agreed upon unanimously by all sections, were to establish some monument or memorial so that the people whom my illustrious predecessor served might remember him an the years that lie ahead. I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will give consideration to the request that I make here to-day.
ARTHUR FADDEN.- Of course will give consideration to the request that has emanated from the successor of that great Australian, the late J. B. Chifley.
page 3127
QUESTION
NATIONAL SERVICE
Mr DRUMMOND:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether his attention has hean drawn to the grave concern over delays that occur in settling claims by national service trainees. Can the right honorable gentleman inform the House whether these delays are due to the Department of Labour and National Service, the Department of the Army or the Treasury, as some suggest, or can ho say what is the cause of the failure to -expedite even simple claims from these -trainees ?
Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP
– My sympathies are with the persons to whom the honorable member refers. The complaints in the direction that he has indicated have caused the Treasury and myself a good deal of worry and anxiety. I hasten to assure the honorable member and the House that such delays, or the apparent neglect in connexion with them, are not caused by the Treasury nor are they its responsibility. I am personally engaged in an effort to have arrears -cleaned up. Those arrears are caused by bottlenecks and delays in the handling of these claims by other departments that are concerned, and departments that are only too happy to pass the buck and the blame on to the Treasury.
page 3127
QUESTION
WEATHER FORECASTING
Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES
– My question is directed <o the Minister for the Interior. In view of the very great importance of accurate weather forecasting and the present very inefficient forecasting, will the Minister give consideration to the appointment of more efficient forecasters or alternatively the appointment of some successful tipster from the newspapers to carry out this function?
Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for the Interior · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– I think I should deny that the responsibility for inaccurate weather forecasting lies entirely with the forecasters of the Department of the Interior. I am sure that the honorable member is well aware that in a large country such as ours, meteorologists mustdepend on weather information supplied by all sorts of casual observers throughout the country. Weather reports that come in from the seaward directions are completely inadequate. Our forecasters are obliged to do their best with inadequate information, and I am bound to say that they do very well with it. The honorablegentleman, and, I think, the House, will be pleased to know that better technical aids to weather forecasting are gradually being developed and installed in this country, particularly on the east coast. Everything possible is being done to provide better meteorological instruments, and to extend reporting services so that more information may be provided for the forecasters. For instance, we are encouraging ships at sea to give us fuller information, by promising awards for such information. In general, we ar<striving to do our best, within the resources available to a government department in a big country like Australia, to achieve the sort of results that the honorable member hopes for.
page 3127
QUESTION
POLIOMYELITIS
Mr WIGHT:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND
– Can the Minister for Health inform the House whether all State governments have notified their intention to co-operate in the scheme initiated by this Government to provide free immunization against poliomyelitis to the Australian people by the use of the Salk vaccine? To what extent has the Australian Government asked the State governments to accept responsibility in providing this free service to the community?
Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP
– The arrangement is that the Commonwealth shall bear the entire financial responsibility for the production of the Salk vaccine. That means that the Commonwealth has the responsibility of importing monkeys, setting up special laboratories and paying the salaries of scientists who work in them, and the financial responsibility for. safety testing, both- at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and at the Fairfield laboratories. The Commonwealth also bears financial responsibility for delivery of the finished product to the States. The Australian Government has asked the State governments to administer the inoculation campaigns within their own borders. All the States have agreed to give free treatment, with the exception of New South Wales, where a small charge will be made to all recipients of the vaccine.
page 3128
PAY-ROLL TAX
M>. L. R. JOHNSON. - Will the Treasurer consider alleviating the difficulties experienced by the States in mainwining transport services, by exempting such services from their heavy commitments to the Commonwealth in the payment of pay-roll tax? I point out to the right honorable gentleman that New South Wales transport services, for example, last year contributed £1,100,000 in pay-roll tax, and “Victorian services contributed £700,000, while Commonwealth transport services were entirely free of this imposition. Does the Treasurer agree that relief from this extortionate tax would assist the States to continue to provide adequate transport services, in the face of the upward spiralling of costs and the general inflationary situation that has developed during this Government’s period of office?
Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP
– I point out to the honorable member that this Government, during its term of office, has assisted the States to an unprecedented extent, on a completely honorary and voluntary basis. The fact that the States pay pay-roll tax must be considered in conjunction with the fact that the States receive very generous reimbursement grants from this Government under the uniform income tax legislation. On every occasion since this Government has been in office those grants have exceeded the legal entitlements of the States under the agreement entered into between the States and a former Commonwealth Labour government.
Mr Calwell:
– That is all due to inflation.
Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
– They are paid with the same £1 notes as we receive.
page 3128
QUESTION
NEW SOUTH WALES DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS
Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Has the Treasurer’s attention been drawn to the recent announcements that the accounts of the New South Wales Department of Railways in this financial year will show a deficit, and that great hardship has been caused to the people by consequent increases in fares and freights? Does the Treasurer realize that the adverse balances in the New South Wales Government railways’ finances will affect this Government, which will have to provide the money to make good the deficit? Is he aware that that deficit would largely have been avoided if, since the war, the New South Wales Government had used the moneys that it has spent on obsolete steam engines for the purchase of economic diesel-electric locomotives? Is he also aware that if, in addition, loan moneys that have been made available to that State since the war had been suitably allocated, the New South Wales railways would now be out of the red? If he is aware of these things, will he, at the forthcoming meeting of the Australian Loan Council, bring this matter to the attention of the Treasurer of New South Wales and perhaps discuss with him and the Treasurers of the other States a proposal to use part of their loan moneys for the purchase of diesel-electric locomotives? The purchase of these locomotives, which save up to 40 per cent, of their capital cost every year, would enable the aggregate loan moneys made available by the Commonwealth to the States to be kept within reasonable bounds if, particularly in New South Wales, there were some sanity in railway administration.
Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP
– I have little doubt that the obsolescence of locomotives and the run-down condition of the State transport system, particularly the railways, have been a contributing factor in the financial difficulties experienced by the New South Wales Government, which has been assisted to a very generous degree by this Government. I have little doubt also that the State governments will have to give very serious consideration to railway deficits, which unfortunately, in the form of reimbursement grants made by this Government to the State governments, are a burden on the taxpayers of Australia.
page 3129
QUESTION
NATIONAL INSURANCE SCHEME
Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Services. In answer to a question asked by the honorable member for Gwydir on the 6th June, the Minister stated that, if a contributory scheme, free of the means test, were introduced in Australia, and if the additional contribution were determined on a flat rate covering all incomes, that rate of contribution would be lOd. in the fi, the calculation being based on the rate of pension prevailing at present. Will the Minister state what would be the additional contribution required, based on a flat rate of contribution covering all incomes, (a) if the means test were abolished at the age of 70 years and the present means test were retained under that age; and (b) if the means test were abolished at the age of 65 years and the present means test were retained under that age?
Mr ROBERTON:
CP
– Assuming that the nationality and residential qualifications remained unchanged, a national contributory insurance scheme designed to abolish the means test at the age of 70 years would require an additional contribution of 3 1/2 d. in the £1 covering all taxable incomes. A scheme designed to abolish the means test at the age of 65 years would require an additional contribution of 7£d. in the £1 covering all taxable incomes. That, of course, assumes that the relationship between those persons who are employed and those persons who are in receipt of such benefits remains more or less constant.
page 3129
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) - by leave - agreed to -
That, in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Australian National University Act 1046-47, the House of Representatives elects Mr. Joske and Mr. Beazley to be members of the Council <if the Australian National University from the date of this resolution until the 30th June, 19S8.
page 3129
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AVIATION
Report of Public Accounts Committee
Mr BLAND:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES
– On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, I lay on the table the following paper: -
Twenty-fourth Report - Department of Civil Aviation.
The House will remember that the committee brought down a progress report last October in which it indicated thai evidence in relation to the Department of Civil Aviation had been taken during August, September and October, but that it had not had enough time to draw up a full report. In the progress report, the committee merely pointed to the fact that it had collected all the evidence, and said that that evidence would be available to the new committee. Honorable members will recall that, shortly afterwards, the Parliament was dissolved and, with it, the Public Accounts Committee. Activities could not be resumed until late in the following February, when a new committee was elected. But then, owing to the exigencies of parliamentary business and other factors, the new committee found it difficult to concentrate its attention on the report on the Department of Civil Aviation. That matter had to be put aside while the Supplementary Estimates were being considered. A report on supplementary Estimates was presented later. This is the final report on the Department of Civil Aviation, and the committee presents it unanimously.
At this stage I should like to pay a tribute to the honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) for the way in which he piloted the report, through the committee during long sittings when I was unavoidably absent. Last night, the committee placed on record its appreciation of the services that the honorable member rendered to the committee - and, therefore, to the House - in ensuring that the report should be presented in the -way in which it has been presented.
Ordered to be printed.
page 3130
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Precedence
Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) pro posed -
That Government business shall take precedence over general business to-morrow.
Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne
.- In all human probability, this is tbe last time that the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Sir Eric Harrison) will submit this motion to deprive honorable members of their right to propose motions standing in their names. He will not have another chance to deprive the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) of an opportunity to deal with floods and other things, or to deprive the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) of an opportunity to deal with war’ service homes. During the last few years the right honorable gentleman has been in the habit of pushing the members of this Parliament around a good deal. In Mayfair, where he is going, he will have an opportunity, if he cares to take it, of applying similar treatment to the nobility of England. ‘However, that is all by the way.
I want to wish him well. In spite of Ids tergiversations, his eccentricities, his peculiarities, his idiosyncrasies, his lack of tolerance and all the other things that I could say about him, I have worked very well with him. All that I am afraid of is that we might go further and fare worse. I am waiting to see the list of final acceptances for his position. I understand that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) is a starter, and so is the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey), and even the Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale), I am told, has prime ministerial ambitions. Having said so much, the Opposition places no objection in the way of carrying the motion to deprive themselves of the opportunities to debate these matters to-morrow. Finally, I assure the right honorable member for Wentworth that this place will never be the same without him.
Sir ERIC HARRISON (WentworthVicePresident of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production) ings that I rise at this moment, butI merely wish to assure the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), who isthe Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that he is not getting rid of me quite so easily as that. I shall return ! When the House resumes after the next recess, I hope to have an opportunity of continuing the good work on behalf of democracy. Sometimes I am even amazed at myown tolerance in putting up with the machinations of the honorable gentleman, but’ we have worked very successfully together. I can assure him that if I get into difficulties on the other side of the worldI shall be only too grateful for any advice ho can give me, and indeed I have no doubt that he would make quite a hit himself on the Strand or in Mayfair. I thank the honorable gentleman for his nice words.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 3130
STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1956
In committee: Consideration resumed from the 12th June (vide page 3101).
Clause 20- (3.) For the purpose of sections one hundred and nine, one hundred and thirty-eight and one hundred and eighty-eight of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1956, an order of the Authority shall be deemed to be an award of the Commission.
Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– The Opposition opposes the adoption of this clause. We do so because it is a penal provision, and we do so with emphasis because the clause proposes to impose penal provisions of a dual character. We believe that this constitutes a set of circumstances that should’ not be tolerated by a free parliament in a free country. I remind the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) that when we were dealing yesterday with clause 17 we endeavoured to obtain from him a very clear indication of the powers that would be held by the authority during a period when it was acting under the direction of the Minister. We sought to obtain from him then some clue about whether or not clause 21 (6.) did in fact cut down the powers of the authority to the point where, even in circumstances of emergency, the authority could not issue an order that was -contrary to an award of the commission. The Minister, for reasons best known to him or his advisers, did not indicate very clearly to this committee the real position in respect of that condition. We did gather from the Minister that a shipping stoppage would be regarded as an emergency, at which point the Minister could issue a direction to the authority.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– I do not say it would he regarded as an emergency; T say it could be so regarded.
Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– lt could be. I do not put it any higher than that. Let us look at the situation where a stoppage occurs somewhere and the authority, in the words of the Minister, could be put completely in control. An order then made by the authority under those special powers might well cut across or affect matters already contained in an award of the commission. We have directed attention consistently to the dual control over this industry. We now come to the crux of the situation. Will the Minister or those persons in authority later decide which course to follow? The authority may move in, and, because an order is not obeyed, impose a penalty of £250 on an organization, or the other course may be followed under the new industrial arbitration legislation and a fine of £500 may be imposed by the Industrial Court. Before the Minister asks the committee to adopt this clause, will he give us a clear line of demarcation and show us where we are going in matters of that description? We are entitled to know, and the committee as a whole is entitled to know, where the line of demarcation is to be drawn between these two authorities and by whom judgment is to bc passed for the imposition of penalties. [ ask the Minister quite frankly whether -sub-clause 6 of clause 21 wrote down the power of the authority to the point where it could not cut across an award of the arbitration commission. He would not indicate clearly yesterday that that was so, and preferred to say that if there were -a strike there might be a situation where the authority would be given the power as a result of the ministerial declaration. Who will decide whether it is a matter that should rightly be dealt with by the authority under this provision, or whether it is a matter that contravenes the award and falls within the penal provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill? This throws into light very clearly the situation that must arise when we have two authorities which can deal with the one matter. If the Minister would only look for a moment at the definitions of the two powers he would be more enlightened. We have, for instance, the presidential commission with powers to deal with all matters or things affecting, or relating to, work done or to be done. This is set out in paragraph (a) of the definition of “ industrial matters in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. If we look at the functions of the stevedoring authority as set out in clause 17 of this measure, and relate paragraph (a) to paragraph (/), we learn that the authority may regulate the performance of stevedoring operations and - make arrangements for allotting waterside workers to stevedoring operations so as ti> ensure, as far as practicable, a fair distribution of work in stevedoring operations amongst registered waterside workers
This must affect the provisions of paragraph (o) of the definition of “ industrial matters “ in section BS of the arbitration act. Paragraphs (i), (;) and (le) of that definition set out further powers of the commission. Paragraph (i) empowers the commission to deal with the “mode, terms and conditions of employment “. Then paragraph (k) reads -
The preferential employment or the non employment of any particular waterside worker or class of waterside workers.
We can put that beside paragraph (d) of clause 17, which reads -
To ensure that sufficient waterside worker? are available for stevedoring operations at each port and that their labour is used to the best advantage.
If a dispute arises in respect of either one of these matters - say, in respect of ensuring that sufficient waterside workers are available for stevedoring operationssome one must decide whether or not it is affected by paragraph (j) of the definition of “ industrial matters “ in the arbitration act, which states -
The employment of any waterside workers or class of waterside workers.
The Minister will need a special authority to decide ‘ whether the Stevedoring Industry Authority or the Arbitration
Commission is to issue an order or impose a fine in relation to workers in this industry.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– The honorable member is speaking now of an emergency ?
Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– First of all, in respect of an emergency, and secondly, in respect of the contravention of an order of either the authority or The arbitration commission. We shall find that the arbitration commission and the authority will be dealing with issues conjointly to such an extent that the decision of one will cut across that of the other.- That can happen even when emergency conditions do not exist. In that situation, the authority is empowered to impose a penalty of £250, and the Industrial Court is empowered to give a direction that such and such shall be done. On top of that, there is the contempt penalty of £500. A direction can he obtained under this provision. As a matter of fact, in almost every dispute, that will logically flow from the very conditions of the waterside workers. In the main, the disputes on the waterfront occur not over margins or wages, but conditions. We shall have situations in which the order of one authority will cut ti cross that of the other, and one of them will be made to look foolish in respect of either the provisions of this clause, or the powers conferred upon the arbitration commission and the Industrial Court.
I cannot imagine, of course, that the Industrial Court or the arbitration commission will lightly forgo any authority that they might possess. I cannot imagine that the Industrial Court will tolerate the authority moving in on territory that it feels belongs to them.
I put it to the Minister that whatever the reasons that he may have put forward for bringing into this industry the powers of the arbitration commission in conjunction with those of the Industrial Court, there is no reason why he should allow dual powers in respect of penalties to operate so far as the waterside workers are concerned. Honorable members may analyse the position in any way that they wish. There is no division in respect nf many of the things that are side by side in the powers of both authorities. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to explain the real situation clearly, before we are asked to adopt the clause. The Minister tried to indicate that a certain provision would act in one way and another in another way. I hope he will let us know now what power the authority has in respect of the imposition of fines when its orders are disregarded. H<* might also deal with the matter of contempt and the issuance of orders by tb.6 industrial authority under the other powers that are also contained in th» same measure.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
f3.22], - ] move -
That, after the word “ Authority “, the following words be inserted: - “which was made after a hearing under sub-section (2a.) of section eighteen of this Act “.
This is another instance in which I have set out to meet views put to me by representatives of the Australian Council of Trades Unions, and of the federation. It was argued that when the statutory authority could make an order without a proper hearing, it was not proper for its order to be subject to the imposition of a penalty, and further, that where a penalty may be imposed, it should be in respect of an order made following upon a hearing, as is provided in the amendment. I do not propose to chase all the real or fancied difficulties that have been suggested by the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison). Where two authorities operate in the same genera) area, it is possible to conceive of all sorts of problems and difficulties arising, but I remind the committee, as I did much earlier, that this bill is partly an attempt to avoid the overlapping of functions thai has occurred in the industry in the past.
The existing Stevedoring Industry Board has had no clear picture of where its responsibilities began and ended so far as the arbitration tribunal was concerned. Difficulties of a hypothetical kind may doubtless still be raised, but at least we have sought to clarify the respective roles of the two authorities - the arbitral tribunal and the stevedoring authority - and I believe that, in practice, it will work out much more satisfactorily than it has in the past. As I have said more than once in the course of this debate, we must surely assume that the men who will be appointed to the arbitral tribunal and the statutory authority will be men of good sense and sound judgment. If we find that assumption reasonably well based, much of the difficulty to which r.he honorable member for Blaxland has referred will be found in practice to have disappeared.
Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo
.- Like my colleague, the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison). I desire to put some of the views of the Opposition in respect of this clause. First of all, let me stress once again that overlapping is admitted so far as this legislation is concerned. The difficulty, of course, is that this amending bill does not remove the overlapping but, if anything, makes it more pronounced and more certain. T think that the suggestion that I made last evening is the only way in which this difficulty can be overcome. That suggestion was to leave to the presidential commission the question of fixing hours, the minimum or basic wage, and long service leave, and to leave all other questions to the Stevedoring Industry Authority. As it is, the legislation provides that both the commission, in the arbitration sphere, and the Stevedoring Industry Authority, in its sphere, can make awards. Those awards could clash and, as the bill shows, where they do clash, the authority remains predominant, and even the commission cannot change any decisions of the authority without consultation with it.
I fear that as the consequence of this bill there will be complicated legislation that will be difficult to interpret both on the part of the stevedoring companies and the Waterside Workers Federation, apart from the difficulties which the bill, in turn, will cause to the Australian Council of Trades Unions, which is invariably brought into these disputes. So, although [ appreciate the far-t that the amendment which the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) has moved is an attempt to make this clause a little clearer and that it makes it clear that the provisions of clause 20 will only operate after a hearing carried out- in accordance with clause 18 of the bill, it still does not make this clause a good clause from the stand-point of either the trade union movement or the Opposition.
Let me point this out: Notwithstanding the amendment which the Minister has moved and which. no doubt, will be carried, there still remains clause of> of the bill which, as the Minister knows and I think the committee now knows, means that whether the authority carries out the provisions of clause IS or not, to the extent that it omits to carry out those provisions, everything that ii does is still legal and enforceable. So the persons who are covered by clause 20 and upon whom penalties can be imposed can have the penalties imposed upon them notwithstanding the fact thai clause 18 (2a.) has not been carried 0U in its entirety. I further point out that we are up against this difficulty: In this particular clause the penalty is £2fin the case of a. waterside worker and £250 in the case of anybody else.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– They are maximum penalties.
Mr CLAREY:
– Quite so. But as the honorable member for Blaxland has already pointed out, the contempt provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act must be taken into consideration in addition to the penalties imposed in clause 20 of this bill. But what I find most* remarkable is the fact that in clause 20 the maximum penalties are £25 and £250; but in the very next clause, which deals with a state of emergency that can be declared by the Minister and which one would assume would be declared only under the most extraordinary circumstances, the fines are £10 in the case of a waterside worker and £100 in any other case. The Opposition fails to see why there should be a differentiation in the penalties with respect to offences of a similar character. The first penalty is to be imposed under clause 20 in connexion with the disobeying of an order and the second penalty, provided in clause 21, is to be imposed also for disobeying an order, on this occasion an order given under the authority of the Minister.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– Does the honorable member think that we should increase the penalty in the next clause?
Mr CLAREY:
– No. I think that the penalty in clause 20 should be reduced. That is the obvious thing to dounless, of course, defiance of the Minister is a less venial offence than a defiance of the authority.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– It would appear so.
Mr CLAREY:
– It would appear so. But I point out the inconsistency of the particular fines. As the Opposition has pointed out on more than one occasion, there is a double-barrelled power of fining, and these fines, in these circumstances, must be regarded as excessive. In any case, the Opposition thinks that the clause is a bad clause and that it should be opposed.
There are one or two other factors that could well be pointed out in respect of this clause. This clause makes the authority, from the stand-point of any order made by the authority, equivalent to the conciliation and arbitration commission. Whether the wording of the amendment, or the wording of the clause, is intended to imply that the equivalent of the commission is a commissioner or the commission as defined in the interpretations of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is not clear. If the equivalent is the commission, then the commission consists of one presidential member plus two other persons. The commissioner, both from the stand-point of status and powers, has less responsibility and less power than the commission.
One of the things about which we have to be very careful in legislation of this description, particularly when penalties are imposed, is to ensure that everything we do is very clearly stated. It is not the intention that we express in debate in this chamber that determines the matter; it is the wording that we use in the measure itself that determines what is to be imposed by a tribunal. Because of that fact, one is rather concerned about the hearings which are provided for under clause18 of the bill because there are certain things in connexion with the powers and procedures that could mean that persons would not have a fair hearing in respect of any matter upon which an order was made. I just point out to the members of the committee that clause 18(2b.)(c) provides that the authority may determine the periods of time in which a case may be presented; and if that period of time does not enable the parties properly to present a case, then clearly their case will not be properly heard. The same objection can be raised to clause 18 (2b.) (e), which reads -
The Authority may require evidence or views, to be presented in writing and may decide the matters upon which the Authority will hear oral evidence or views;
The application of that paragraph may prevent the cross-examination and, generally, the oral examination of persons who have made statements; and if that were the case it might mean that the case had not been properly heard or that the witnesses had not been properly tested. So one sees that we need to be very clear in regard to this legislation, particularly in view of the very high penalties that may be imposed. From every standpoint the Opposition feels that this clause is not a good clause and, because it is not a good clause, it should be opposed and should be rejected.
Amendment agreed to.
Question put -
That the clause, as amended, bo agreed to.
The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)
AYES: 56
NOES: 32
Majority . . . . 24
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 21 (Directions of the Authority).
Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo
.- The Opposition will certainly oppose this clause. For the benefit of the committee, I point out that the clause deals with something that is entirely new in industrial legislation in Australia. The clause will permit the Minister to make a declaration that a state of emergency exists in respect of a port, whereupon the authority may - for the purpose of the performance of its function under paragraph (6) of sub-section (1.) of section seventeen of this Act, give such directions as it thinks fit.
So, for the first time in Australian industrial legislation, we have a power conferred on a Minister to declare a state of emergency. Under this legislation one can naturally expect that there will be such trouble industrially that the declaration of a state of emergency will probably be necessary. The point is, I repeat, that here is power, for the first time granted under industrial legislation in Australia, which can have farreaching consequences. I reiterate that I know of nothing in Australian industrial legislation that permits the making of such a declaration by a Minister. The bill does not state the grounds upon which such a declaration may be made. One does not know whether the declaration would be made in the event of a strike at one port or a strike at more than one port, or whether it would come as a consequence of storm, flood, tempest or something else. The position is that a declaration of emergency can be made,, and that immediately it is made therights of the parties, as provided under this legislation in respect of orders, go by the board. There is no necessity, under this clause, for the carrying out of” the provision in clause 18, that the authority shall consult the parties affectedbefore making an order. Under theprovision in clause 21 the parties simply need not be consulted. It is possible for the authority, without consulting anybody, to make such orders as it may think necessary. These orders may be conveyed to the parties either orally or in> writing. If they are conveyed orally they must be immediately complied with.
ITo period of time is fixed in respect of the currency of a declaration of emergency. The declaration can have effect for a week, six months, twelve months - indefinitely. It can remain in force for any time that the Minister deems necessary. The rights of the parties are not safeguarded in any direction. Whatever order is given by the authority must he obeyed, and obeyed immediately. Theparties will have no legal power to protest, no power to advance a case for the withdrawal of the declaration of emergency, or for the moderating of the declaration in any way. In other words, it will be possible, under this clause, to establish, a dictatorship on the waterfront - a dictatorship that can giveorders and, if those orders are not complied with immediately, either the waterside worker or the organization or other body concerned is subject to very severe penalties. In addition to the penaltiesimposed in clause 21, the matter could go before the proposed Commonwealth Industrial Court for an order to be ma.de- by the court, and, if the order was not observed, the contempt provisions could be put into operation. Here we see again the effect of double-barrelled penalties in respect of an offence.
The remarkable thing about this clause is the silence of the Minister for Labour and National Service. On more than oneoccasion Opposition members have asked: for information about what a state of” emergency means. Although the Minister has given us that famous courteous smile of his, he still has not responded to even the most reasonable and courteous request for information. That makes us feel that this clause must be regarded with more than ordinary suspicion, and, therefore, I put the views of the Opposition on this matter before the Minister. The clause is a bad one, and there is no justification for it. The Minister has given us no indication why it should be included in the bill, and he has not given us any illustrations of things that have happened in the past that have made it necessary to provide for. a declaration that an emergency exists. As I have stated, for those reasons we think the clause is a bad one, and it should be omitted from the bill. The Opposition will oppose it.
Mr. HAROLD HOLT (Higgins- Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration) f 3.47”) . - It is extremely interesting to hear these emotional protestations about the provisions in this bill from Opposition members who, apparently, have forgotten that the Labour Government introduced in this Parliament legislation dealing with the same subject-matters as those with which this bill deals. Anything the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) has said in criticism of the provisions of this bill could have been said with much greater force against the very much wider and more sweeping provisions included in the Stevedoring Industry Act which the party to which he belongs fathered in 1949. All that the present Government has done in this bill is to trim down very considerably the wide powers which the Labour Government conferred on the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board in 1949, and to make it clear that these wide powers are to be used only in an emergency. So far as Labour was concerned, it was an open go, and the powers could be used at any time without anybody being bothered about the matter. Let us have a look at the provisions of the 1949 act, which apparently commended itself to the present Opposition members who were then in the Parliament. The most sweeping functions were given to the Stevedoring Industry Board by section 13 of that act. I do not need to go beyond the functions set out in paragraph (a) of the section, which gave the board a general power to regulate and control the performance of stevedoring operations.
Mr CLAREY:
– There is no provision for the declaration of a state of emergency.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– Of course not. There is no need for it. Under the Labour act, any state is good enough for action against any one in respect of whom the Labour government may have wanted to take action. Paragraph (a) of section 13 of the 1949 act gave the board the wide power of regulation and control, and, following on that power, all the other functions are set out in the section. Section 16 of the 1949 ad reads -
For the purpose of the exercise of ltpowers and the performance of its function*under this Part, the Board may make BnC orders, give such directions and do all such other things as it thinks fit.
That gave the board an open go in the exercise of the most sweeping function? conferred upon it. Section 17 of the 1949 act gave the board power to make orders, and provided that any person who contravened, or failed to comply with, any provision of an order madeby the board was guilty of an offence. Sub-section (1.) of section IS states -
A direction given by the Board may be given orally or in writing.
I ask the committee to contrast the most sweeping powers that one can conceive which were conferred on the board by the 1949 act with what this Government has done in the present bill. First of all, as to functions, we have trimmed down the regulation and control function so as to make it clear that control can be exercised only in an emergency Opposition members say, in effect, “ You could declare martial law. Define what you mean by ‘ an emergency ‘.” I shall not attempt to define an emergency at this point of time. That will be a matter for the Minister of the day to determine at the appropriate time. We say that, whereas, under the Labour measure, there was no limit to the exercise of the power of control, under this bill that power of control can be exercised only in an emergency. That is a very considerable trimming down of the sweeping power which at present exists. Secondly, we have reduced the occasions on which the proposed Australian stevedoring industry authority may give these directions which will give rise to offences. We go even further. We do not merely provide that the direction, contravention of which attracts a penalty, may be given either orally or in writing. We provide that a copy of a direction given in writing shall be served personally or by post on the person to whom the direction is a;iven.
Mr Clarey:
– Sub-clause (3.) of clause 21 states -
A direction given orally shall be given to the person required to comply with the direction and thereupon that person shall comply with the direction.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– Yes. Subclause (4.) reads -
Where a direction is given orally, the Authority shall, within twenty-four hours thereafter, record the direction in writing and, as soon as practicable, serve personally or by post a copy of the record on the person to whom the direction was given.
Again we get back to what one must keep saying, apparently almost interminably, to Opposition members: Why do they wish to create a straw man every time they discuss a. clause of this bill? Why do they imagine that the responsible people will act in such an unreasonable way that all these hypothetical dangers to which they refer will develop? If there are valid criticisms “of the provisions in this bill on the ground that they go too far, they are criticisms that members of the present Opposition might very well have directed against the much more sweeping provisions embodied in a measure introduced by the Labour government. We believe the provisions included in this clause to be necessary for the effective operation of the measure, and I ask the committee to endorse them.
Mr R W HOLT:
DAREBIN, VICTORIA · ALP
.- The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt), in effect, has given two reasons for the inclusion of this clause in the bill. His first reason is that, according to his own reasoning, similar provisions were included in an earlier measure, and his second reason is that, for unspecified reasons which he is not prepared to state at this moment, he deems it desirable that the clause be included in this bill. His first reason would not be valid, no matter which side of the committee supported it. It does not matter very much whether a mistake has been made once in the past, assuming that it was a mistake.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– Was it a mistake?
Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– No.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– This is the first time members of the present Opposition have criticized what was done by the Labour government, if it was a mistake, although, since 194.9, they have had ample opportunity to do so.
Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– The Minister’s argument is faulty so far as he comes to a conclusion by criticizing section 13 and section 16 of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1949. If I may use his own argument in reverse, his criticisms apply with equal force to clause 17, clause 22. and other clauses of this bill. The powers conferred on the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board by section 13 and section 16 of the 1949 act are proscribed by the provisions of the act as a whole. I am quite happy te concede to the Minister that the same argument applies to this clause and that the extent of the powers which he seeks to include in the bill in this clause are, or should be, proscribed by the other provisions of the bill. It is just one of those things on which w* may choose to disagree. The Opposition believes that the powers contained in thi? bill are too wide.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– You were saying earlier that they did not go far enough and you wanted a complete regulation and control power.
Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– That is not so. If by “ you “ the Minister means the members of the Opposition and he includes me as one of them, as I sincerely hope he does-
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– I was paying the honorable member that compliment. Of course, recent events may have altered the situation.
Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– I accept the Minister’s soft rebuke and explanation. I think. the Minister must admit in all fairness that the power contained in clause 21 is far wider, if exercised, than any power contained in the 1949 legislation.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– Of course it ls not.
Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– What I have said is fair comment. When we were considering clause 18 and the amendment to it, I pointed out that it was affected by the emergency power in clause 21, taken in conjunction with clause 17 (1.) (6), and clause 55 of the bill. The very safeguards that the Minister sought to insist upon by his amendment to clause 18 are eliminated by clause 55. There was no such removal of the safeguards in the 1949 act. The result is that to-day the Minister says that he is not prepared to explain the circumstances in which clause 25 will be brought into operation. Subclause (6.) of clause 21 reads -
A direction under this section, to the extent that it is inconsistent with an order of the Authority or an award of the Commission, is of no effect.
I should like to know just what interpretation the Minister places on that subclause. There again, the authority has power to override its own decisions. If an order of the authority made under the emergency powers conflicted with a previous decision of the authority, the authority would be supreme in any cast. Any purported safeguard, which is supposed to be included in sub-clause (6.) of clause 21, is taken right out of the bill. It means nothing, unless the Minister can explain why sub-clause (6.) is included in clause 21. Previous clauses give priority to the decisions of the authority over those of the commission, and I cannot see why sub-clause (6.) is included unless it has some application to which the Minister has not yet referred.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– It is obvious enough, is it not ?
Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– It is obvious to me, but if I draw the obvious conclusion, the Minister accuses me of being partisan and of reading something sinister into the hill that is not there, though it is there all the time. To me, that provision gives no safeguard at all. The authority is supreme, especially in an emergency when it is not required to consult with anybody nor to refer any of its decisions to anybody else. That clause is nugatory; it has no effect whatever. In the face of the Minister’s adamant refusal to explain the circumstances in which clause 21 would become operative, we are forced to the conclusion, for instance, that had the Minister had this power, he would have invoked it in January last. It is because of that very circumstance that we are jealous of the executive, whether in the form of the Minister or the GovernorGeneralinCouncil - in this case, the Minister - taking powers that are absolute and that could be used arbitrarily. I am not suggesting that the Minister would necessarily use them arbitrarily, but somebody else may in the future use them in that way. They could be used arbitrarily, and could have been so used last January, had they existed then. For that reason, clause 21 is repugnant and objectionable and we reject it. It is useless for the Minister to say that a similar power existed in the 1949 legislation.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– It was not similar; it was much stronger and wider.
Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– Though sub-clause (6.) purports to provide some safeguard, by interpretation no safeguard exists. Where one clause qualifies another clause, for the sake of clarity and for the sake of the people who will interpret the bill when it becomes an act, these qualifications on the various sections should have been included when the bil was drafted. I do not blame the Parliamentary Draftsman. It is a matter that should be insisted upon by the Minister. For those reasons we cannot accept the amendment. The Minister, in my opinion, is not correct when he says a similar power existed in the 1949 legislation.
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– The purpose of sub-clause (6.) of clause 21 is to ensure that in the exercise of the emergency powers the authority does not go outside the orders that it had previously made to regulate stevedoring operations generally. I thought that would have been clear enough. I move-
That the question be now put.
The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)
AYES: 56
NOES: 33
Majority.. 23
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Question put -
That the clause be agreed to.
The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)
AYES: 57
NOES: 34
Majority.. 23
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Progress reported.
page 3140
TARIFF PROPOSALS 1956
Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 5); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 6)
In Committee of Ways and Means:
Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Evans · LP
– I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment No. 5.]
- That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1956, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the fourteenth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-six, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory,Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1956 as so amended.
- That, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1 of these Proposals, the Governor-General may, from time to time by Proclamation declare that, from a time and date specified in the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of any British or foreign country specified in the Proclamation.
- That on and after the time and date specified in a Proclamation issued in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British or foreign country specified in that Proclamation.
- That any Proclamation issued in accordance with paragraph 2 of these Proposals may, from time to time, be revoked or varied by a further Proclamation, and upon the revocation or variation of the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall cease to apply to the goods specified in the Proclamation so revoked, or, as the case may be, the application of the Intermediate Tariff to the goods specified in the Proclamation so varied, shall be varied accordingly.
- Thatin these Proposals, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates, namely : - 16th May, 1956; and 7th June, 1956 ; “ Proclamation “ mean a Proclamation by the Governor-General, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette ; “ the Intermediate Tariff “ mean the rates of duty set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, in the column headed “ Intermediate Tariff “, in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used.
[Customs Tariff Amendment No. 6.]
LP -- I lay on the table reportsof the Tariff Board in respect of the following subjects: - >Artificial silk piece goods - By-law admission. > >Coated paper. > >Colours and dyes. > >Portable electric band tools. > >Record changing devices. > >Syntheticpaint resins. > >Toys classified under Tariff Item 310 (b). > >Tractors and rotary hoes, up to and including 10 belt-pulley-horse-power. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 3144 {:#debate-23} ### CHOKES, LOW POWER FACTOR {:#subdebate-23-0} #### Tariff Board Report {: #subdebate-23-0-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
LP -- I lay on the table the report of the Tariff Board on the following subject: - >Chokes, low power factor (Industries Preservation ) . I should like to state that I agree with the general tenor of this report of the Tariff Board under the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921-1936. However, the board has expressed an opinion regarding the fair market value of the goods in the country of export. This opinion does not accord with the view held by my departmental advisers, for the reason that the price suggested by the board is that at which apparently inferior-quality chokes are sold by Smart and Brown (Engineers) Limited, and such chokes are used mainly in fittings for export. My advisers have recommended, and I agree, that the fair market value should be assessed at 9s. 3d. sterling each, this being the lowest price at which chokes are being sold for incorporation in fittings used in the United Kingdom. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 3145 {:#debate-24} ### STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1956 *In committee:* Consideration resumed *(vide* page 3139). Clause 22 (Orders and directions of Authority not to be challenged). {: #debate-24-s0 .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE:
Moore -- I should like to hear from the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** an explanation of clause 22, because it involves a principle vital to the democratic parliamentary system f,f government. The clause states - >An order or direction of the authority shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question, or be subject to prohibition mandamus or injunction, in any court on any account whatever. That is a far-reaching power. The functions of this authority are set out in clause 17. Then, in clause 18, the authority is given power to issue orders, but it is provided that, before it issues an order under the provisions of that clause, it shall consult with the appropriate people - the representatives of the union or of the employers' organization concerned - in connexion with the making of the order. By clause 21, the authority is given power to issue directions when a state of emergency exists. Before issuing such directions, it is not required te consult with any one. In an emergency, the authority will act of its own volition. It will issue directions either orally or in writing, but if a direction is issued orally it must be confirmed subsequently in writing. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Tt is provided that a direction shall not be inconsistent with an order of the authority or an award of the commission previously made. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- I shall come to that point later. If the authority issues a direction, that direction must be obeyed. Sub-clause (6.) of clause 21 provides that a direction given by the authority under that clause shall not be inconsistent with a previous order of the authority or an award of the commission, yet by clause 22, nobody will have the right to challenge a direction by the authority on the ground that it is inconsistent with a previous order or an award. Provisions similar to clause 22 have been inserted in all kinds of legislation passed, not only by this Parliament, but also by a number of other parliaments. A vital principle is at stake. I believe that this is a matter which affects the rights of the individual. To support the case that I am making, I cannot do better than quote from a journal called *The Liberal,* which publishes news and the views from Liberals for Liberals. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- With a capital "L" or a small "1"? {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- The honorable member can have it both ways, if he likes. In the issue of that journal published in June, 1956, there was an article entitled " Why I am a Liberal ", written by **Mr. W.** H. Anderson, the federal president of the Liberal party. He stated - >The truth is that Parliaments in this and other British countries have consistently gone about circumscribing and undermining the independent type of citizen by statutes which determine what he shall do and what he shall not do. Is it possible that Parliament is intolerant of the free man ? The role of the Liberal is to watch and work so that the law is confined to those things necessary for an orderly society, and that the rights of the individual do not perish in the process. > >The most potent modern menace to freedom in a democracy is the gathering power of bureaucracy. After all, the Parliament is elected and can be called to account at the next election. A government corrupted by power can be changed for one of more liberal views. But the bureaucracy goes on, not subject to popular elections, becoming more firmly entrenched in the knowledge it acquires and on which the less knowledgeable personnel of a governmert depends. The Socialist regards this as a desirable and inevitable part of the State, for which, he believes, the individual exists. The true and active Liberal fights' to remove the bureaucrat's hands from the throat of the citizen, and to keep the public service to its rightful function - service to the public. I should like, also, to quote from a book entitled *The New Despotism,* written by Lord Hewart of Bury, when he was the Lord Chief Justice of England. On page 43, under the heading " Administrative Lawlessness ", Lord Hewart, speaking of the United Kingdom, stated - >It is not, but it ought to be, common knowledge that there is in this country a considerable number of statutes, most of them passed during the last twenty years, which have vested in public officials, to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law, the power of deciding questions of a judicial nature. Usually the power is given nominally to the Minister or other head of a government department, sometimes to the department itself, and it is commonly provided that his or its decision shall be final and conclusive. > >When it is provided that the matter is to be decided by the Minister, the provision really means that it is to be decided by some official, of more or less standing in the department, who has no responsibility except to his official superiors. The Minister himself in too many cases, it is to be feared, does not hear of the matter or the decision, unless he finds it necessary to make inquiries in consequence of some question in Parliament. The official who comes to the decision is anonymous, and, so far as interested parties and the public are concerned, is unascertainable. Ho is not bound by any particular course of procedure, unless a course of procedure is prescribed by the department, nor is he bound by any rules of evidence, and indeed he is not obliged to receive any evidence at all before coming to a conclusion. If he does admit evidence, he may wholly disregard it without diminishing the validity of his decision. There is not, except in comparatively few cases, any oral hearing, so that there is no opportunity to test by cross-examination such evidence as may be received, nor for the parties to controvert or comment on the case put forward by their opponents. It is, apparently, quite unusual for interested parties even to be permitted to have an interview with any one in the department. When there is any oral hearing, the public and the press are invariably excluded. Finally, it is not usual for the official to give any reasons for his decision. > >To employ the terms administrative " law " and administrative " justice " to such a system, or negation of system, is really grotesque. The exercise of arbitrary power is neither law nor justice, administrative or at all. The very conception of " law " is a conception of something involving the application of known rules and principles, and a regular course of procedure. From so high an authority as Lord Hewart we have strong condemnation of a practice which is increasing, not only in this country, but also in other countries. I am aware that a provision similar to clause 22 was incorporated in the conciliation and arbitration legislation that was passed by this House recently. Unfortunately, I was engaged on official business elsewhere when that provision was agreed to. If I had been here then, I should have challenged it. because I think it is wrong in principle. I agree that, if an emergency arises, something must be done to meet it, but I think it is wrong to give to individuals the sweeping power specified in clause 22 - power to issue orally and then in writing a direction which will be beyond challenge to anybody, even though it might be inconsistent with a previous direction or award. Tho saving clause which wo approved a little while ago does not provide the opportunity for anybody to say, " I cannot obey that direction, because it is not consistent with your previous decision ". The authority would say, " I do not care. You must carry out the order ". It is like being in the Army, where the last order given by the commanding officer is the order which is obeyed, whether or not there is rhyme or reason in it, and whether or not it countermands a previous order. There is no appeal whatsoever against it. In essence, this provision removes from the individual his right of freedom. Throughout the debates of this bill and the amending arbitration legislation we have argued the merits of a right of appeal and whether there should be provision for appeal against decisions given. {: #debate-24-s1 .speaker-KZW} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lawrence:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA -- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-24-s2 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- 1 enter the debate at this point, because, although a most imposing structure has been erected by my friend the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie),** it is - 1 shall not say unfortunately for him, because I am sure he will agree with me that it is fortunately for him - based on a foundation which is not stable. Perhaps it is the fault of the curious system, which we have adopted in our drafting, of excluding some of those provisions which operate as a matter of course under the Constitution. The provision to which the honorable gentleman refers does not exclude the normal constitutional right to take proceedings in the High Court for mandamus or prohibition where there has been action in excess of jurisdiction or something of that kind. Although clause 22 states that an order of the authority cannot be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called into question, and so on, that exclusion is subject to the provisions of the Constitution which enable the taking in the High Court of action of the kind I have mentioned. Occasionally clauses of this kind do include the words " subject to the Constitution ", but I gather that in modern drafting practice it is not considered accessary to include those words, because it follows as a matter of course that the constitutional right prevails. The sentiments expressed by the honorable member for Moore would commend themselves to us all, but here we are dealing first with a practical situation. Orders will be made by an authority, which will be the statutory authority of the Parliament. It will not be an irresponsible body. Similar provisions have appeared, not only in the earlier legislation affecting the stevedoring industry, in the acts of 1947 and 1949, and in this bill, but also in the current conciliation and arbitration legislation and the amending bill recently approved in this chamber. I can give the honorable gentleman the assurance that nothing which appears in the provision takes away from the rights which exist under the Constitution to take proceedings in the High Court. {: #debate-24-s3 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- If this bill does not take away the right of appeal to the High Court, that is not the fault of the measure. The reason is that this Parliament cannot make an enactment which takes away the right of appeal to the High Court. I am well aware that this provision is a verbal repetition of section 52 of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1949, but I should like the Minister to explain a point, if he would be so kind. What he has indicated, I think, in his reply to the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** is, very simply, that if the Parliament sets up an authority which issues orders, obviously the Parliament cannot confer on the authority powers which it does not itself possess. But while the bill cannot prevent a man from appealing against the constitutionality of actions, if they are constitutional, we seem to be trying to prevent appeals on the question of their justice or rightness in themselves, and even whether they conform with the law. I should like the Minister, if he would be so kind, to explain this clause. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Where does the honorable member propose that questions of substance should be determined? {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- I was about to ask the Minister to explain that in connexion with another clause of the bill. Clause 20 (1.) states- >Orders made by the Authority - > >shall be' in writing; > >shall not be deemed to be Statutory > >Rules within the meaning of the Rules Publication Act 1903-1939; and That provision, I take it, means that they will not be reviewed, like ordinary statutory regulations, by the Parliament. The sub-clause continues - {: type="a" start="c"} 0. shall have the force of law. Parliament proposes, by means of this provision, to enact laws about which the Parliament knows nothing. We do not know what orders this authority will issue. We do know that we cannot confer upon it any powers higher than those which the Parliament itself possesses. Therefore, all its powers are subject to the Constitution. But it seems to me that in relation to clause 20 a question of justice is raised within the framework of the orders issued by this rule-making authority. The rather fearsome provision that an order of the authority shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question, or be subject to prohibition, mandamus or injunction, in any court on any count whatever, seems to me to be a gage thrown down to the courts. While I recognize that a gage has been thrown down before, I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to express an opinion on the fate of such a provision if it were challenged in the High Court. {: #debate-24-s4 .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE:
Moore .-I was aware of the fact that, as the Minister has explained, there are constitutional powers which are available to the individual. He has his normal constitutional rights, but I should hardly expect that issue to be raised in connexion with the point I make, which is that the element of simple justice might enter into the matter. It is not a question of whether the Parliament has power to make a law on any matter, and therefore whether the authority has power to issue a direction. The Parliament's powers are limited in that connexion. It is a question of pure, simple justice - the rights of the individual and the justice of the case. Clause 21, by its very nature, would be applied more to the employer than to the employee. I can hardly conceive of the authority going to the extent of issuing an oral or written instruction to every one of its several thousand employees. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- It has not to do that, though- {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- No, but it may issue a direction. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- If that provision is read in conjunction with clause 18 (3.), it will be seen that that is not within the authority's powers. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- I am discussing clause 21, which deals with the matter of an emergency and gives to the authority special powers to deal with circumstances which arise. The authority may decide to issue a direction - not an order; an order is challengeable - without consulting anybody. When it issues an order it may consult with anybody, but if the Minister says, " I declare an emergency ", the authority may say, "Good! In that case I have complete power to do what I jolly well like without consulting anybody. All I need do is issue a direction and that, direction must be obeyed." {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr Clarey: -- The honorable member should have opposed clause 21. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- I am not averse to the provisions of clause 21. I do not mind the authority having such power, but I object to its having the power without there bring the right to challenge the decisions that it reaches. We say to the authority, " We give you the power. Whatever you do you are your own master. You are answerable to no one and your decision cannot be upset". {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- How is the challenge to be taken? We have here the practical problem of running a waterfront organization that stretches around the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- I appreciate that there are difficulties and I might quote the Minister's own statement that it is our job to see that the law is confined to the things necessary for an orderly society, but that the rights of the individual shall not perish in the process. I am fearful that that will happen here; that we shall be so concerned about seeing that this machine runs properly that we shall overlook the rights of the individual to receive common, ordinary justice. I am concerned that the Minister is prepared to rest on the fact that this has been done before. It has been done in the United Kingdom, and has been challenged there. Of course it has been done before. If we go through the statutes of this Parliament we find that the power of Ministers to make decisions has been handed over wholesale to various departments. It is time that a halt was called to this process, and that the members of this Parliament, who are here as the protectors of the rights of the individual, rose in their places and said, "We will not continue to hand over these powers for the sake of our own convenience, or to make our own task a little lighter ". {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- But the honorable gentleman does not object to a court making an award. This has precisely the same effect. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- I do not mind a court making an award, because it first receives evidence from both sides. I am even prepared to say that there should be no appeal from its decision, because it is up to the court to decide what is just, and one should accept that decision. But under this clause nothing like that will happen. The Minister can declare that there is an emergency, and the authority can then give a direction from which there will be no appeal. That direction might be inconsistent with an order of the authority, or an award of the commission, but until such time as it can be challenged - where I do not know - it must be obeyed. Clause 22 removes any doubt about this. If I, as an employer of labour on the waterfront, receive a direction from the authority and say, " I know chat a state of emergency has been declared, but this is inconsistent with an order that you issued previously", the authority may reply, " We do not give a damn about that. We do not consider nhat it is inconsistent. Regardless of what we said earlier, we consider that it is workable. Under clause 22 we are telling you to go ahead and do the job or you will be subjected to the penalties provided ". *No* right of challenge is given there. The words of the clause are clear and distinct - in any court on any account whatever. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr Clarey: -- This would not have arisen if the committee had rejected clause 21. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- Clause 21 is all right, [t gives the authority power to operate, but clause 22 provides that even though the authority may make a mistake, its order may not be challenged. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- It can be challenged if it goes beyond the powers conferred in the act. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- I agree, but those powers are so sweeping that I cannot see the authority going beyond them. T am happy to see that they are so sweeping. They are set out in clause 17, paragraph (a) of which empowers the authority " to regulate the performance of stevedoring operations ". Why, bless my heart and soul, the authority could pluck the moon down from the sky and put it on the wharf, saying, " We require this here in order to regulate stevedoring operations". The authority's power is unlimited. I have no objection to it exercising that power, but I do object to its decisions being removed from the field of challenge. Of course, they can be challenged on constitutional grounds, just as could the decisions of this Parliament. That is fundamental, and I am aware of it, but I am concerned that ordinary, common justice should be preserved. In the past we have, unfortunately, been too prone to hand over our powers to other bodies. The report of the Department of Civil Aviation has just been presented to the Parliament. That department has statutory power to make laws in accordance with the power of the Parliament itself. The department can go ahead and do what it likes. That, of course, is the easiest possible way out for the Parliament. It is much easier than sitting down and working out for ourselves what should be done. It is quite possible that the stevedoring authority, in time of emergency, may do what it considers desirable ; but it is what this Parliament considers desirable and just tl at should be done. I cannot see bow we can continue to agree to this sort of thing. We must not accept any provision which gives to an authority the power to take away from the individual his right to question its decision. That is what is being done here, and has been done in so many of our laws, lt is time that we put an end to it, and I hope that this will be the beginning of the end. {: #debate-24-s5 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- I take it that the Minister will be making further comment on this clause. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I will not be making any more comment upon it. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- If this provision had not existed- {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- It has been in two acts that the Labour party supported and passed. It has been in two other acts which have either been passed by this Parliament or which this Parliament has been working under without challenge by any one over a period of years, so far as I can recall. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- I am not at all concerned about that. I have made plenty of mistakes, and I will doubtless make plenty more. So, too, has the Labour party, and I would like to hear from the Minister what is intended by this clause, to which he must have given some consideration before its insertion. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I adopted the clause precisely as it stood in the previous act. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- I have said that myself. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- If the honorable member is looking for mysteries, he will not find them. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- The Minister happens to he a lawyer, and a responsible Minister putting a bill through the Parliament. The fact that this provision was in previous legislation does not matter. My withers are unwrung because he has quoted it as having been section 3S in our 1949 act. That is not in dispute. If it is a mistake, then the Labour party has made it also, but I would like the Minister to explain what would happen if the clause did not exist. That would then tell us why successive Ministers have included it, and against what they are safeguarding the country. If clause 22 did not exist, what would happen to the legislation, and to the practical administration of the situation on the waterfront? {: #debate-24-s6 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- 1 would say that in the absence of this provision any order of the authority could be called into question, and administration on the waterfront would be completely chaotic. There would be no source of authority for orders relating to the waterfront, and it would be just the same as if there were no authority for an award of the court. If orders of the authority could be subjected to challenge, or appeal, or review, or could be called into question, it would be the beginning and the end of the story so far as those orders were concerned. There must be a source of authority somewhere. These powers have been found necessary by others who have been called upon to deal with this problem, in order to maintain practical administration, both in relation to this industry and to industry generally, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. {: #debate-24-s7 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- If the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** had not on three occasions strongly emphasized the opinion that this clause was identical with one which had been adopted in an act of 1949 and that, therefore, there was no nigger in the woodpile, as it were, I would not have risen to my feet. But the Stevedoring Industry Authority that will be set up under this act will have completely different functions to those of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board under the act of 1949. I think that the Minister has made it clear that, in many respects, because of the report of the committee that was set up by this Parliament, brand the Government felt that it was desir-able that changes should take place. But I consider that we should be excused for referring consistently to this dual authority. The Minister has stated thai section 52 of the act of 1949 used the same words and bestowed the same power.on the board as are contained in this hill. If the Minister were to look at section 51 of the 1949 act, he would find that the board possessed those powers in quite a different field. Section 51 made the position quite clear. It reads a1follows : - >The Hoard may intervene in any matter before the Court under this Act and may be represented in such a manner as the Court allows. 1 noticed that the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie),** who raised this question, referred to the fact that he had no opposition at all to court orders or court decisions because the parties had to bc heard before the decision was arrived at. The answer of the Minister is not quite sufficient to the query that has been raised. Section 51 of the act of 1949 makes it clear that, in respect to those matters before the court, the board ha* power only to intervene in relation thereto. But clause 19 of this bill, which deals with inconsistencies, says - >Subject to sub-section (4.) of section eightyfour of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1958, an order of the Authority has effectnotwithstanding anything inconsistent there with contained in an award of the Commission (whether made before or after the making of the 'order by the Authority) and the award of the Commission is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no effect. In relation to the 1949 act, there wa.« a completely different situation. In relation to those matters that affected the powers of the court, which is to become the commission, the powers of the board were clearly defined. The board had no authority to intervene in the matters that were rightly controlled by the court. The honorable member has rightly raised a question at this point. He has raised the very question that we have been hammering for hours in order to try to get the Minister to say what was intended in clause 21. Nobody in this committee yet knows the powers that are to be bestowed on this authority under clause 21. That is the very thing about which the honorable member has complained in connexion with clause 22. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr Leslie: -- How is that? The powers are unlimited. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- But are they unlimited under clause 22 in relation to clause 21? I presume that clause 22 can only mean that decisions given by the authority have this allpowerful application, provided they are not inconsistent with an award or decision that has been made by the commission. I think that the Minister would agree with that statement. Sub-clause (6.) of clause 21 reads as follows: - >A direction under this section, to the extent that it is inconsistent with an order of the Authority or an award of the Commission, is of no effect. Clause 22 follows immediately upon that provision. I do not think that there can he any doubt upon one point made by the Minister, that this authority, as was the -case with the conciliation commissioners under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1947, has to have powers in relation to the settlement of problems that confront it against which there should be no appeal. I do not think that anybody can disagree with me when I say that this is a power which, in some respects, despite all that may be stated in another field, is essential if proper control of industry is desired. The honorable member for Moore, who is interjecting, should have come to that argument a long time ago, because that has been one of the problems in this bill. The Opposition would still like the Minister to say, insofar as it is physically possible for a Minister to say, what this provision means, having regard to all the other provisions of the bill. Does it mean, in effect, that in relation to those matters which are properly covered by the commission, this clause would not have effect, even if the authority were to give a decision that was contrary to or inconsistent with an award decision already made by the commission in relation to matters on the waterfront? {: #debate-24-s8 .speaker-KDY} ##### Mr JOSKE:
Balaclava .- There has been a great deal of confusion and bother about what is meant by a very simple clause, which relates to an order or direction of the authority. An order or direction of the authority must be an order or direction of the authority which is valid. If it is valid, it cannot be challenged in any court; if it is not a valid direction, of course it is open to challenge on the ground of invalidity. The position is very simple indeed, and I cannot understand at all why there is so much confusion and bother about it. As I understood from an interjection by the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** when the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** was speaking, the Minister takes the same view - that this relates only to a valid order or direction of the authority. Clause agreed to. Clause 23- (2.) The duties of an Inspector are - {: type="a" start="o"} 0. to advise employers and waterside workers on the meaning and application of orders of the Authority and awards of the Commission; {: #debate-24-s9 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP , - I move - >That paragraph (c) of sub-clause (2.) be omitted. This was the provision which gave as one of the duties of an inspector that of giving advice to employers and the "Waterside Workers Federation on the meaning and application of orders of the authority and awards of the commission. When we came to look at this matter, we felt that what was desired was amply covered by paragraphs (fe) and *(d)* ; and, further, we felt that there was some danger that if an inspector were given this responsibility of advice and, arising out of the advice, some damage or loss occurred, perhaps a claim for damages might be made against him. However, there is nothing more significant to the proposed amendment than I have put to the committee. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-24-s10 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo -- I believe that inspectors should have greater powers than are conferred in this clause. [ express that view because it has been the practice in the past, and is still the practice, to blame on the watersiders all the difficulties and problems on the waterfront, and this clause gives me an opportunity to point out that a good deal of time lost on the waterfront is lost because of faulty stevedoring operations. If the inspectors were given power to control operations less time would be lost, and the turn-round of ships would be quicker, and the work of loading and unloading vessels would be done much more expeditiously than is the case to-day. I have here some examples given to me of recent occurrences on the waterfront during which a great deal of time was lost, and a great amount of trouble caused, because of faulty stevedoring operations and an obvious lack of knowledge in the persons in charge of such operations. Men were employed for a longer time than was necessary, or were employed on work that was completely unnecessary, so that there were delays in the movement of shipping. One such case concerned SS. *Whakatane,* at Sydney, on Monday, the 21st May, 1956. Four hundred and fifty cases of canned meats were stacked in the shed on the wharf. Instructions were given to the men to load this cargo into No. 5 hold. On the completion of loading, instructions were given for the cargo to be discharged. The work took approximately three hours. Inquiries established that the cargo was not for shipment overseas, but was consigned to a military depot at Marrickville, a suburb of Sydney. The cargo was later delivered by truck. Another case concerned the same ship. On the 24th May, 1956, thirteen kegs of a powder preparation were loaded into No. 3 hatch, hut were later discharged and re-loaded into No. 2 hatch. Later in the day, wool was discharged from No. 3 hatch and stacked in the shed at the berth. This took approximately three hours. It is understood that it had been loaded in Melbourne and, due to some error, it was found necessary to discharge and stack it in the shed for future disposal. This vessel was approximately a week at the berth, employing, on an average, three gangs throughout that period. The necessary work could have been easily done in three days. The vessel was loaded for America and east coast ports. Another case last month concerned the SS. *Colundra.* On the 10th May, 1956, men working No. 2 hatch were ordered to load a 15-ton lift, and stow it 'tween decks. After the lift was slung and taken aboard, it was found it was too high for the deck. The company then ordered the men to put it back on the wharf, where it was left. The ship sailed that night leaving the lift behind. Another case concerned the SS. *Eastern Star,* which was berthed at 24 Pyrmont on the 23rd May, 1956. Two gangs and 22 extras were engaged. The gang in No. 3 hatch, which subsequently went to No. 2 hatch forward, spent from 5.30 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. awaiting the arrival of wool. The actual statement of the situation may be put as follows: - >Time lost - 2 hours 30 minutes. > >Man-hours lost (1 gang - 11 extras) -65 man-hours. I could give many illustrations of men having been called upon to perform unnecessary work. Men have been picked up, but the cargo they were to handle has not been available, or a ship has not arrived, or something of that kind hae happened, so that money was paid out for no work, or for work that was unnecessary. I think that inspectors should have some authority in matters of that kind. So I repeat to honorable members on the Government side of the chamber that the whole of the responsibility for difficulties and delays on the waterfront does not rest on the watersiders. Much of it rests on the persons in charge of stevedoring operations. The stevedoring employers have engaged labour without having made appropriate preparations, or have given wrong instructions so that cargoes have been loaded into the wrong holds, and have had to be transferred to other holds. I oan assure the committee that the three examples I have given are only a few of those that indicate the necessity for inspectors to have some control over these matters, and particularly the necessity to give the stevedoring authority power to control the operations of stevedoring companies. If my recollection of the Basten report is correct, one of the things it pointed out was that wool sometimes failed to arrive on time to be loaded on ships. Many examples were cited in the report of wool failing to arrive, and of ships being delayed as a result. Generally, the excuse given for the holding up of ships in such cases was that the waterside workers were not loading as much in the same time as they used to load fifteen or twenty years ago. It would be just as well for us to realize that there are two factors involved in the handling of cargo. One is the men who do the work; the other is the people who have the power of direction. If the employer falls down on the job, his failure to organize and manage things properly drives up costs, and it is not fair for people to say in this chamber that the whole of the responsibility for the chaos and confusion that at times exists on our wharfs lies with the waterside workers, who are said to be not playing the game. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 24 agreed to. Clause 25 (Determination of port quotas and establishment of registers of employers and waterside workers). **Mr. £.** JAMES HARRISON (Blaxland) [5.13". - This clause concerns the main- " tenance of waterfront quotas. I do not want to spend much time on it. "We had a measure before us about two years ago, which was supposed to solve our problems in respect of waterfront quotas. I can recall that we had what might be termed a first-class disagreement with the Government on that point. That legislation gave to the employers authority to nominate men to fill quotas not met by the Waterside Workers Federation in a particular port. I know that there have been difficulties in relation to this matter, and I think that this is a most appropriate occasion, and this is the best place, for me to discuss how the new authority will act in relation to it. We remember that a great deal of bitterness was engendered as a consequence of this Government's legislative action two years ago over quotas. All sorts of threats were uttered by the waterside workers about what they would do to the shipowners, while the shipowners made threats about what they would do if the waterside workers did not meet their responsibilities. The upshot of it all was that, when both parties finally realized their great problem, conferences were held in an attempt to resolve the difficulty. The Australian Council of Trades Unions played a rather important part in those conferences. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Clause 26 provides for consultations. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- 1 know, but clause 25 provides for port quotas. I have finished with clause 26. Paragraph *(d)* of clause 25 provides that the proposed Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority shall from time to time determine, by instrument in writing, the quota of waterside workers at each port. I suggest that the sort of arrangements worked out between the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and the Australian Council of Trades Unions, on the one hand, and the shipowners, on the other hand, fifteen months ago, which resulted in a good deal of satisfaction, may well be favoured by the proposed authority. If, as the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** has suggested, the Government will appoint reasonable men to the authority. I am hopeful that, despite what some honorable members have said about the present leaders of the Waterside Workers Federation, we shall achieve more conciliation, particularly on this matter, because it involves a fundamental principle on which the waterside workers depend, and the problem is a very important one. I think I heard some one say in this chamber only last week that 1,100 waterside workers at the port of Melbourne were paid attendance money in one day. That is the sort of situation that no nation can afford to allow to continue. I am hopeful that the proposed authority will forget some of the things that have been said in this chamber abou t the leaders of the Waterside Workers Federation and will understand that we must have conciliation between the employers and the workers on the waterfront, and that, as a first step towards that conciliation, it will adopt some of the principles that were adopted fifteen months ago. That would be a first important step towards peace on the waterfront. Clause agreed to. Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to. Clause 28- Where - {: type="a" start="c"} 0. the registration of that person as an employer has not, within the preceding period of one year, been cancelled under section twenty-three of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1949-1954 or under section thirtyfive of this Act, the Authority shall register that person as an employer at the port. {: #debate-24-s11 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I move - >That paragraph (cj be omitted with a view to inserting the following paragraph in place thereof: - " (c) a previous registration of that person as an employer has not been cancelled under section twenty-three of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1949-1954 or under section thirtyfive of this Act or, if a previous registration of that person as an employer has been so cancelled, the Authority is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the cancellation of the previous registration and such other matters as are relevant, it would be proper to register that person as an employer,". This amendment, and the amendments to clause 20 which I shall move, are purely for drafting purposes. As clause 28 has been drafted, a person who had been deregisterpd as an employer could automatically be re-registered after twelve months. The amendment will not prevent the proposed Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority from re-registering a person whose registration has been cancelled for disciplinary reasons, hut will allow the authority to take into account the nature of the offences which resulted in de-registration and the likelihood that the person applying for re-registration will conduct himself properly in the future. It was not intended that rein statement should be automatic. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 29 - (1.) Where {: type="a" start="c"} 0. the registration of that person asa waterside worker has not, within the preceding period of one year, been cancelled under section twentyfour of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1040-1954 or undersection thirty-six of this Act, the Authority shall, subject to the next two succeeding sections, register that person asa waterside worker at the port. (3.) The Authority shall, before registering a person as a waterside worker at a port (including a person to be registered by virtue of sub-section (2.) of the next succeeding section or sub-section (5.) of section thirty-one of this Act), consult with the association of employers at the port as to the competence and suitability of the person for work in stevedoring operations. {: #debate-24-s12 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP . -I move - >That paragraph (c) of sub-clause (1.) be omitted with a view to inserting the following paragraph in place thereof: - " (c) a previous registration of that person as a waterside worker has not been cancelled under section twenty-four of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1949-1954 or under section thirty-six of this *Act* or, if a previous registration of that personas a waterside worker has been so cancelled, the Authority is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the cancellation of the previous registration and such other matters as are relevant, it would be proper to registerthat person as a waterside worker,". I do not need to add to the explanation that T have already given in respect of clause 28. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-24-s13 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP . -I move - >That sub-clause (3.) be omitted with s view to inserting the following sub-clause in place thereof: - "(3.) Before registering a person as a waterside worker at a port (including a person to bo registered by virtue of sub-section (2.) of the next succeeding section or subsection (5.) of section thirty-one of this Act), the Authority shall - > >consult with the association of employers at the port as to the competence and suitability of the person for work in stevedoring operations ; and > >if the association of employers informs the Authority, in writing, that it objects to the registration of the person - consult with the Union in relation to the port, or, if there is a branch of that Union at the port, with that branch, and with the association of employers, with respect to the objection of the association of employers.". This amendment is designed to meet requests made to me at the recent discussions, which I mentioned earlier, between representatives of the Australian Council of Trades Unions, and of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, and myself. It will more satisfactorily declare our intention thatthe provisions of the agreement made in February, 1955, should be observed when names proposed by the union are submitted to employers and the employers object. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 30 (Registrations in excess of port quotas). {: #debate-24-s14 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo -- The Opposition opposes this clause and will certainly vote against it. It is one of the most controversial clauses in the bill, and, with the exception of one other, it is probably the most likely to cause conflict on the waterfront. It provides for registrations in excess of port quota's. Rub-clause (1.) states - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . the Authority shall not register a person as a waterside worker at a portif, by so doing, the number of waterside workers registered at the port would be increased to a number in excess of the quota for the port. Sub-clause (2.) then provides - >Where the Authority declares, in writing, that, in the opinion of the Authority - > >the demands for the performance of stevedoring operations at a port specified in the declaration during a period specified in the declaration, being a period not exceeding six months, will not be mct unless such number of waterside workers in excess of the quotafor the port as is specified in the declaration is temporarily available at the port for the performance of those stevedoring operations; and > >the circumstances are not such as to warrant that quota being increased, the authority may, . . . This provision authorizes an increase of a quota that has been fixed by the proposed Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority.' Apparently, the intention is that, for a period, which may be less than six months, but which certainly shall not exceed six months, that quota may be exceeded, and it is provided, also, that the persons registered in excess of the quota are to become members of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia. For the time being, the ranks of the union are to be considered to include more than the number of waterside workers which past practice and experience have shown to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the port. The committee should realize that, when we are dealing with a casual industry that is so essential as is the stevedoring industry, and when we are endeavouring to fix a quota of workers for a port, whether there be a rush period or a slack period to be met, we must give the workers concerned greater security than this clause will give them if we want to keep them on the waterfront as skilled and competent waterside workers. Remarkable statements are made now and again about the earnings of men on the waterfront. If the actual records could be secured, it would be shown that the turnover of labour on the waterfront is greater than the turnover in any other industry in Australia. The number of persons who work on the waterfront because they believe they will get good wages and constant work - so far as work of a casual nature can be constant - is remarkable. Many people, who have become members of the Waterside Workers Federation, find in a very short time that the employment is not as constant and the earnings not by any means as great as they believed. As a consequence they leave the organization and others are enrolled. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson: -- There is still a long waiting list of people who want to come into the industry. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- That is true, but only because of the misleading propaganda of the honorable member and his colleagues about good earnings on the waterfront. Once people realize the position, they quickly leave the industry. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- That is not proved by the facts. There is a smaller turnover in this industry than in most others. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- I do not know whether there is a long waiting list, as stated by the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Howson),** but I know of many people who have joined the "Waterside Workers Federation and have left it because employment is not as secure and earnings are by no means as great as they thought they would be. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The court has held that there is a smaller turnover than elsewhere. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- I do not know what the court has decided, but I know from my own experience that people leave this industry. This proposal seeks to expand for intervals the number of persons who can work on the waterfront. But after the flush period is over, those persons are t>o be discarded. They are to go out of the industry, and will have to find employment elsewhere. If the intention of the Government is to bring about more constant employment than there is to-day, it will not do so by putting into operation a provision that will encourage the temporary enrolment of men in order to cope with a sudden increase in the requirements of the waterfront so that when those demands have been met, the additional labour can he put off. That system will bring into operation the worst of seasonal conditions. The men who follow the waterfront for their livelihood will not feel happy about that proposal; nor will the persons who give their services and find that, as soon as the demand slackens they are sacked and have to look for work elsewhere. I have had a good deal of experience of seasonal work and I know of the difficulties that constantly arise when a lot of men are suddenly pushed in, and then suddenly put off. The stevedoring authority has been in operation for some years and has some knowledge of the arrival and departure of ships. It has its graphs of employment and knows the times when there is a requirement for extra men, and a falling-off in the requirement for men. With all that information available, it should be possible to fix a quota that can be regarded as fairly stable and as reliable as any port can expect with work of this description. For those reasons, I feel that this nev and novel proposal must be rejected. Ii will not bring about a better feeling on the waterfront and will not be conducive to more efficient and better organized stevedoring operations than those existing at present. If an employer knows that he is able to get a special quota because a number of ships arrive, he will not try to organize his labour force correctly. But if he knows that the quota, having been fixed, will stay at that figure for a certain period and that he has to make it meet all the requirements of the port, he will be more inclined to organize the work in such a manner as to make sure that the labour in the port is utilized in the most efficient manner. Any provision that enables people to escape the requirements of efficient management and proper organization of work by endeavouring to force men on to the waterfront for brief periods is against the best interests of the industry itself. In these days of full employment, it is undesirable that people should be enticed away from an industry that may want them and is giving them constant employment in order to meet the peculiar difficulties that may be found upon the waterfront at various times. That causes a bigger turnover in productive industry because men leave jobs, and their positions have to be filled. {: #debate-24-s15 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- As no other honorable member has risen, I shall take my second period now. Instead of bringing about regularity of employment in industry generally, this proposal will introduce a new disturbing factor in the whole process of employment. On many occasions in the past, we have heard in this oil amber a good deal about the unfortunate turnover of labour and how it is affecting industry. The labour turnover means that persons who are trained to do a certain class of work and have become valuable in that industry because of their particular skill and " know-how ", leave the industry and go somewhere else, and the process has to he repeated. That has been pointed out as one of the causes of increased costs of production and of some of the frustration that industry is experiencing because labour is constantly changing. This proposal will aggravate those difficulties in industry. It will not only aggravate them but will add to what can be shown very clearly to be a good deal of mismanagement in the stevedoring industry. I shall take this opportunity to give some further illustrations of how the labour force is mismanaged at present. These are cases that have happened recently. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- We accept the honorable member's word that he can justify these instances. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- Yes. I want to give some idea of the tremendous number of hours that are lost. The first instance relates to the ship *Circus,* in Sydney, ft was loading at No. 21 wharf, Pyrmont, on behalf of the Darling Island Company. These facts were given to me. At 4.4.5 p.m. the foreman ordered the truckers to bring in five bales of chemically treated and highly inflammable wool, which should have been deck cargo. The truckers, who told the foreman that they had finished the wool for that particular port, obeyed the foreman's instructions and put the wool into No. 2 hold. The company then loaded wool on top of it on Saturday morning and until 11.30 a.m. on Monday, when the company discovered that the bales were missing. The company, having no record of the bales, assumed that they were in No. 5 hatch and discharged 200 bales from No. 5 hatch before it discovered that they had been placed in No. 2 hatch. The loss of time discharging and loading in No. 5 hatch was six hours. At 11.30 a.m. on Monday the company commenced discharging No. 2 hatch in order to find the five bales, and found them at 3.40 p.m. after 251 bales had been discharged. The loss of time in No. 2 hatch was approximately eight hours. The total loss of hours was fourteen. The total man hours lost for 23 men - fifteen in the gang, six truckers and 2 loading up - was 322 man hours ; that is, 23 multiplied by 14. I do not propose to give any other illustrations, but many examples of this sort of thing can be cited. I want to stress, and stress as strongly as I possibly can, that if labour is to be made available in any quantity that may be doomed necessary by those employing the labour because a number of ships have entered port and they feel they will not have sufficient men, then mistakes of that description, which are being made by the stevedoring companies, will increase instead of diminish. I am sorry that provisions for control of the industry have not been included in this bill, because *we* must ensure not only that sufficient men are available, but also that those men are used to the best possible advantage, so that the best possible return is gained from their labour during their hours of employment, and that the organization of the industry is such that every moment of a man's time that is paid for gives a productive result. My experience of people being brought into the industry in circumstances such as are envisaged in the bill leads me to the firm conviction that these provisions can result only in an aggravation of the troubles that already exist. These provisions will not be conducive to peace on the waterfront. They will be strongly resisted by the Waterside Workers Federation, and instead of bringing about the better conditions that the Minister hopes for, they are more likely to aggravate the present problems, and to cause a good deal of hostility and antagonism. {: #debate-24-s16 .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide -- 1 agree with the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey),** that this clause will increase our industrial difficulties. I was interested to note the illustration given by the honorable member of loss of time resulting from bad administrative practices. It is obvious that if those who conduct stevedoring activities run their businesses in such a way, a much larger number of men will be used on the waterfront than is actually required. I shall give honorable members another illustration of inefficient organization of stevedoring activities. On the 5th June last, at Port Adelaide, the vessel *Port Phillip* commenced discharging at 9 a.m. Gang No. ±4 started at No. 5 hatch discharging a deck cargo consisting of bags of asbestos. This operation was completed by 4 p.m. The gang then proceeded to discharge bags of asbestos from the 'tween-decks, working until 5 p.m. The gang resumed work at S a.m. on Wednesday, the 6th June, and worked until 5 p.m. on the asbestos cargo. It resumed work at 8 a.m. on Thursday, the 7th June, and worked until 11 a.m., when the discharging of asbestos was completed at this hatch. The gangs at other hatches were also discharging asbestos. It was a cargo consigned to Melbourne and Devonport, but it had to he discharged to enable the cargo for Adelaide to be removed. At 11 a.m. on Thursday, the 7th June, nearly two and a half days after the joh commenced, gang No. 44 commenced discharging general cargo for Port Adelaide. This was completed by 5 p.m. on Friday, the Sth June. The asbestos cargo then had to be reloaded on the vessel, and this work was not completed until 12 noon on Tuesday, the 12th June. The operation of discharging and reloading the asbestos required 34 hours' working time, whilst the unloading of the Port Adelaide cargo occupied only thirteen hours. The Government complains about the slow turn-round of ships, while that sort of mismanagement is allowed to occur. If the Government intends to provide that the authority may register extra men if it is of the opinion that more men will be required than are provided by the port quota, the waterside workers already registered at that port must feel resentment. I have been told by waterside workers themselves, not by officials of the union, that some of the men who are admitted to the federation do not last a day in it. After a short experience of working conditions on the wharfs, they say, "If this is waterside work I will have no more of it ", and they walk off the job. The Government is mistaken if it thinks that it can build a bigger labour force on the waterfront simply by increasing the port quota. I do not want to labour the question, but I did wish to put on record the facts that I have just cited to the committee. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- Where was the vessel loaded in the first place? {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- I do not know where it was loaded. It came into Port Adelaide on the 5t.h June, and it left on the 12th June. It was in the port for a week, and 34 hours of working time were used in unproductive labour. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- Who gave the honorable member his information ? {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- This information was sent to me from Port Adelaide. 1 do not normally give the names of people who provide this kind of information, because some of them might be penalized. It may be that my informants would not object if I made their names known, but at present I do not propose to do so. I have given the committee the number of the gang, the relevant dates, and the name of the vessel, and the Minister can easily check those facts and refute them if he finds them incorrect. This is the sort of inefficiency that we see every week in our ports. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr Leslie: -- That is because of dual authority. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- It may be dual authority. I do not know which authority is responsible. The honorable member for Bendigo has just given the committee particulars of another such case, when it was necessary to remove a few bales of wool that had been wrongly stowed, and the stevedoring company did not know in which hatch the wool had been loaded. I am concerned with the feelings of the men regarding the oft-repeated claim, that more men are needed on the waterfront because of the slow turn-round of the ships. The waterside workers are not to blame for that state of affairs. Very often the delays are caused by the shipping companies or the stevedoring interests, or by the officers in charge of the various vessels. I agree entirely with the attitude taken by the Opposition in regard to this clause. {: #debate-24-s17 .speaker-KDY} ##### Mr JOSKE:
Balaclava .- In *the* 1949 legislation, section 27 gave very wide powers regarding the employment of persons as waterside workers at a port at which a sufficient number of registered workers was not available. The provision that the committee is now debating is part of an attempt by the Government to provide, in certain circumstances, that an additional labour force shall he available. There are other clauses in the bill which are designed for the same purpose. These provisions are very precisely limited. They are not in the general form of the provisions in the 1949 legislation. The section that was inserted in the .1949 act for this purpose has been a failure. Enforcement of its provisions has not been possible. The Tait committee's report states definitely that a supplementary labour force could not be obtained under the 1949 legislation. The report of the Tait committee makes it clear that, as a result of the threats of the federation to bring about strikes and stoppages of work, it was not possible to enforce the provisions of the 1949 act. That committee said that the federation has enjoyed what is in effect a monopoly of the right to supply labour in the industry. What the Opposition is really fighting against in regard to these clauses that deal with the supplementary labour force is the fact that its own provision was unworkable and that it suited the Waterside Workers Federation. In fighting the battle for the federation, the Opposition is fighting for that organization to have a monopoly of the right to supply labour so that it may have supreme control of the waterfront. That is what the Government is endeavouring to prevent. In 1949, it was fully realized by at least one person who described himself as being a Labour man that the effect of the 1.949 legislation would be to place the waterfront under the complete control of the Communists. Let me quote from *Hansard,* volume 203, page 1977, what the then honorable member for Reid **Mr. Lang,** had to say about the 1949 legislation. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- He was not a Labour man. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr Leslie: -- The Australian Labour party was glad to have him at one time. {: .speaker-KDY} ##### Mr JOSKE: -- As soon as his name is mentioned there is a howl. Honorable members opposite know what is coming, and they do not like it. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- The honorable member said he was a Labour man. {: .speaker-KDY} ##### Mr JOSKE: -- I said he was described as being a Labour man, and he describes himself as being a Labour man. What is more, one of his hirelings on his newspaper is a member of the Opposition, and he has a not very pleasant name for the honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr. Calwell).** {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- That proves that he is not a Labour man. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- That is unfair, particularly when it com.e3 from a lawyer. {: .speaker-KDY} ##### Mr JOSKE: -- It may be unfair, but the honorable member does not deny it. If I may have a period of peace after that interlude, I shall read what **Mr. Lang** had to say. He made a very interesting analysis of the 1949 act. He said - >This measure started off as the Government's answer to the challenge of the Waterside Workers Federation under the Communist control of **Mr. Healy** and **Mr. Roach:** but now that the bill is here, it turns out to be a measure framed with the connivance and consent of those gentlemen. Probably they were within the precincts of the House, just as **Mr. Healy** has been within the precincts of the House on occasions during this sitting. **Mr. Lang** further said - >We have heard a great deal about " my good friend Jim Healy " from Labour party members. **Mr. Healy** appears to have the "Indian sign " on the Government- That is, on the Labour Government. To-day he has it on the Labour Opposition. He continued - >He gets what he wants. We have seen the marionettes on the other side of the chamber dance to the strings that he has been pulling during this debate. **Mr. Lang** further said - >When the Government- That is, the Labour government - had a choice between a Labour man and the Communists, it backed the Communists. It allowed Healy and Roach to declare a blockade of the Dutch Government in Indonesia. It allowed the initiative on an important issue, affecting this country's relations with a friendly power, to pass into the hands of the Communists. This bill represents another step on the road of appeasement. **Mr. Healy** is delighted with the bill. He is opposing the measure that is now before the committee for all he is worth, because he wants to retain the bill with which he is delighted. **Mr. Lang** knew what he was saying. Later **Mr. Lang** said - >The Government's present policy- That is, the Labour government's present policy - is only consolidating the positions of Healy and Roach. How true that was! This man was certainlya prophet - a true prophet, too. He also said-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! I remind the honorable member for Balaclava that we are dealing with clause 30. {: .speaker-KDY} ##### Mr JOSKE: -- I am dealing with the fact that clause 30 is aimed at the very thing that the Labour party's legislation was aimed at. Labour's legislation did not succeed, but this legislation will succeed. 1 am showing why the Labour party's legislation in relation to this matter did not succeed. **Mr. Lang** also said - >When the Government wants to do anything on the waterfront, or when the board wants to know something about waterside conditions, it will still have to go through Healy and Roach. It is the intention of this Government that Healy shall not have absolute control of the waterfront any longer. The Government intends to carry out these provisions and to have additional labour, as provided for in clause 30 and other clauses, without **Mr. Healy** being able to exercise complete control of the situation as he does to-day. {: #debate-24-s18 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- **Mr. Temporary Chairman--** >Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) put - >That the question be now put. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 54 NOES: 33 Majority . . 21 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put - That the clause be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. g. j. bowden.) AYES: 56 NOES: 33 Majority . . . . 23 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. *Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m.* Clause 31 (Applications for registration to be submitted through union). Question put - That the clause be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. g. j. Bowden.) AYES: 49 NOES: 28 Majority . . . . 21 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 32 - (1.) Where {: #debate-24-s19 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I propose three amendments to clause 32. First, I move - >That, in sub-clause (1.) (c) (i), the word " twelve " be omitted with a view to inserting the word " six " in place thereof. The purpose of the three proposed amendments is to make quite clear that we are covering in the legislation the agreement which currently exists between the Waterside Workers Federation, the shipowners, and the stevedoring companies, that no request will be made for the application of the redundancy provision within twelve months after the determination of a quota. Proposed sub-clause (1a.), for the insertion of which I shall move later, makes the position quite clear. This group of amendments is being moved to meet the request put to us from the meeting of the Australian Council of Trades Unions and the Waterside Workers Federation.' The view which we put to the representatives of those organizations at that time was that the matter was sufficiently covered by the existing paragraph (b). In view of the proposed new provision, to make it clear that action should not be taken within twelve months after the fixation of a quota, a further amendment is necessary. Moreover, even where there is a request twelve months after a quota has been determined, the authority will not act if it believes that wastage will bring the number registered down to the quota within a period of six months. I think that honorable gentlemen opposite will find that this meets the request which was put to us, and I hope that they will be able to give their support to the amendment which I have moved. Amendment agreed to. Amendments (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) agreed to - >That, in sub-clause (1.), after the word'. " may " the following words be inserted : - ", subject to the next succeeding sub-section,". > >That, after sub-clause (1.), the following sub-clause be inserted: - " (1a.) Where the Authority has determined the quota for a port under section twenty-five of this Act and, before the expiration of a. period of twelve months after the date of that determination, the Authority makes a further determination under that section reducing the quota for the port, the Authority shall not, before the expiration of that period, exerciseits powers under the last preceding sub-section so as to reduce the number of waterside workers registered at the port to less than that first-mentioned quota.". Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to. Clause 35- (1.) If the Court, on the application of the Authority, is satisfied . . . the Court may order the Authority to cancel the registration of the employer, or to suspend his registration for such period, or at such times, as the Court directs, and thereupon the Authority shall cancel or suspend the registration of the employer accordingly. {: #debate-24-s20 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I move - >That, in sub-clause (1.) the words "for such period, or at such times," be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: - "until the expiration of such period ". The purpose of my proposed amendments to clauses 35 and 36 is to perfect the intention of clause 35 (2.) and clause 36 (2.). The practice of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board has been to provide that suspension shall have effect only on days on which a port is normally working. Previously, when the board suspended, work at the port sometimes stopped, and the consequence was that the suspensions really amounted to no punishment at all. This is one of the sanctions which have been provided in the legislation. The amendment will confirm existing practice. There was soma doubt -whether the previous section authorized the practice that has been in vogue up to the present. The same explanation is true of clause 35. Sub-clause (1.) reads in part - the court may order the Authority to can cel the registration of the employer, or to suspend his registration lor such period, or at such times, as the Court directs, and thereupon the Authority shall cancel or suspend the registration of the employer accordingly. The amendment strikes out the words for such period, or at such times ", and substitutes the words, " until the expiration of such period". {: #debate-24-s21 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .-- I wish to oppose the amendment because I oppose the clause in either its early form or its amended form. This clause is a distinct change from the corresponding section of the 1949 act. It is also at variance with the recommendations of the Tait committee. Honorable members will recall that the 1949 legislation provided that waterside workers and stevedoring companies should be disciplined in a similar manner for inefficiencies or breaches of their duties under the act. Section 23 reads - (1.) Where, after such inquiry as it thinks fit, the Board is satisfied that an employer - (a) is unfit to continue to he registered as an employer; the Board may cancel his registration, or may suspend his registration for such period as it thinks fit. Section 24 reads - (1.) Where, after such inquiry as it thinks fit, the Board is satisfied that a waterside worker - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. is unfit to continue to be registered as a waterside worker; the Board may cancel his registration, or may suspend his registration for such period as it thinks fit. Honorable members will notice that the method of dealing with the faults, breaches of duties and inefficiencies of the employer and the waterside worker is the same in each case. I turn now to the Tait report. At paragraph 83 the committee points out - unanimously, as the Minister would say - that it is necessary to have discipline in the hands of the authority for employers as well as employees. I shall read the sentences upon which I rely. It states - >The Committee finds that it is necessary that the Statutory Authority should have power both to discipline registered workers and to discipline registered employers. In the case of employers, this should extend to such matters as failures on the part of supervisors and foremen, properly and adequately- And I emphasize the next phrase - in the opinion of the Statutory Authority, to control and supervise the men allotted to them. In addition to deregistration of em plovers which is a power which obviously should be retained, a power to suspend or to fine would be proper to be included as part of the system and would make for efficiency. The Government proposes, under this bill, that the method of dealing with waterside workers who fall down on the job, or breach their duties, shall be the same as it was under the 1949 act; that is, they are to be deregistered by the authority just as, under that act, they were deregistered by the board. If they are dissatisfied with that decision, they can appeal to the Commonwealth Industrial Court, but it is up to them to decide whether they will appeal. In the meantime, of course, they will be without their jobs and will have been dealt with summarily and, if you like, clandestinely, by the authority. Honorable members should note the different treatment which will.be accorded the stevedoring companies. It displays quite markedly the tender treatment which the Government seeks to give to the one side, and the unmitigated rigours of the treatment which it preserves for the other side. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The honorable member has a suspicious mind. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- My suspicions have been confirmed by the bill. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The honorable member should look at the fines that are to be imposed upon offending employers. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- The Minister knows quite well that the clause does not follow the recommendations of the Tait committee. Further, it departs quite notably, significantly, and tenderly from the provisions of the 1949 act. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- That is not so. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- The Minister can shake his head if he wishes, but let him compare clause 36, which sets out the summary treatment to be given the waterside worker by the authority, and the proceedings that have to be taken under clauses 34 and 35 for the disciplining of a stevedoring company. Under clause 34 the stevedoring company is only to be fined by the court. That may be fair enough and I do not cavil at it. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- There is no corresponding system of fines for the employee. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I agree, but, after all, it is surely the comparison between the talent and the widow's mite. A fine of £100 and not more than £1,000 might well be a bagatelle to a stevedoring company, but utterly ruinous to a waterside worker. The Minister has not mentioned at any time during the second reading or committee stages, the fact that the Waterside Workers Federation imposes consistent and rigorous discipline upon its members - a practice that the stevedoring companies have notoriously failed to adopt with employees and officers who have failed to carry out their duties. To return to clause 35: If the authority is of the opinion that a company should be deregistered it cannot act on its own motion, as it can in the case of a stevedoring worker. It must bring the matter to the court. The clause states that - >If the Court, on the application of the Authority, if> satisfied that an employer registered at a port- is inefficient, it may deregister that employer. That is not carrying out the Tait committee's report which, of course, stated that it was necessary that employers who, in the opinion of the statutory authority had, through their supervisors and foremen, failed, should be deregistered. Here the Government is not permitting the opinion of the statutory authority to take effect, but is leaving it to the court to decide whether the statutory authority's opinion is satisfactory. That is a most marked, unjust and unjustifiable departure from the practice followed after the 1949 act. and from the recommendation of the Tait committee. Let me point out that the Government has, for over three years, allowed the Stevedoring Industry Board to remain powerless to deal with employers. The powers to deal with employees have, of course, never been challenged. They have been effective, but in the case of *The Queen* versus the *Australian Stevedoring. Industry Board, ex parte Melbourne* *Stevedoring* *Company Proprietary Limited* - probably the most notoriously inefficient of the vast number of inefficient stevedoring companies in Australia - it was held by the High Court that the word " unfit " did not apply to the company where only its stevedoring foremen had been inefficient. The Minister will remember that, as a result of that decision, which was given on the 30th April, 195& - more than three years ago - the board was deprived of its power to discipline the stevedoring companies. It was *a* notorious case. The stevedoring company did not know that some of its employees had gone off to an hotel and had been arrested before they could get back to the ship. The company did not know of the condition of the men or even of their absence. The board, because this was only the culmination of a series of inefficiencies and irresponsibilities on the part of the Melbourne Stevedoring Company Proprietary Limited, deregistered that company. The company went to the High Court, as it was entitled to do. The High Court said in effect, " The sectionas at present phrased does not enable the board to do this thing ". Despite that decision, despite the comment made and* the impotence revealed in. the board'? fourth report for the year ended the 30th June, 1953, the Government did not amend the section for over three years. It has perpetuated this one-sided form of discipline on the wharfs. For the last three years, the board has been able to discipline employees and has been unable to discipline employers. Hereafter, the authority will still be able to discipline the waterside workers, and still be unable to discipline the waterside companies. All that it will be able to do will be to go to the Commonwealth Industrial Court and ask the court to discipline the companies. The clause changes the intention of the 1949 act. It leaves the authority as impotent as it previously was and it does not effectuate the recommendation of the Tait committee. Question put - >That the amendment **(Mr.** Harold Holt's) be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 51 NOES: 33 Majority . . 18 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put; - That the clause, as amended, he agreed to. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 54 NOES: 33 Majority . . 21 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 36- (2.) The suspension of the registration of a waterside worker under the last preceding subsection has effect for such period, or at such times, as the Authority directs. {: #debate-24-s22 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I move - >That sub-clause (2.) be omitted with a view to inserting the following sub-clauses in place thereof: - " (2.) The suspension of the registration of a waterside worker at a port under the last preceding sub-section has effect until the expiration of such period, or of such number of working days at the port, as the Authority directs. " (2a.) For the purposes of the last preceding sub-section, ' working day in relation to a port, does not include a day declared by the Authority, in writing, to be a day on which there has been a concerted failure by all or any of the waterside workers registered at the port to comply with a provision of this Act, an order or direction of the Authority under this? Act or an award of the Commission.". As I indicated during the debate on clause 35, my amendment to this clause follows the same general pattern as the amendment to clause 35. I take the opportunity to reply to what the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam)** had to say regarding the excess of tender.ness which, according to him, members of the Government have displayed in this measure towards the shipowners and the stevedoring companies. Of course, that is a statement easy enough to make, but very much more difficult to prove; and [ think the best answer that I can give to that charge is that had the Government wished to show any special tenderness to shipowners and stevedoring companies we should not have, at this time, a measure of this sort before the Parliament. My reason for saying that is that here we are setting about constituting, in a permanent sense, a. waterfront authority, a government authority, when it is well and widely known that at all times the shipowners have been opposed to the existence or the continuance of any authority of this sort. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: **Mr. Ward** *interjecting,* {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** may be sceptical about that statement, but I can assure him, as the Minister who has to weigh representations which come from a variety of quarters, that there has been very strong and consistent pressure, for years now, in favour of the abolition of any government authority to deal with stevedoring operations. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- It means that this is the pay-off. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I do not know what the honorable member for Werriwa means. I gather that the phrase that he has used has rather more currency in New South Wales than in my own State of Victoria, if some of the revelations which go round Parliament House, Sydney, are any guide. Here we have,, weighing the matter quite objectively and fairly, gone ahead to institute a waterfront authority under government auspices. The second comment I wish to make isthat it is true that we have not followed precisely, in this matter, the recommendations of the Tait committee of inquiry. But that has not worked to the disadvantage of the employees in this industry, because the Tait committee recommended a system of fines to be applied to waterside workers. We found, on examining: the matter, that it was not practicable to institute a system of fines, imposable on employees, which would work satisfactorily; but that has not inhibited u* from instituting provisions for substantial fines ranging from £100 to £l,00f> which may be imposed on employers. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Such amounts of money do not mean anything to the employers. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- That is the honorable member's view of the matter, but, when we included in another measure, in the pa3t, a provision that a union could be fined, an amount rangingfrom £100 to £500 for contempt of court,, we were not told by honorable gentlemen opposite that that was nothing to moan about - we were told that it was the end of the world. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- A trade union cannot pass the cost of such a fine on to the public in charges. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The union can collect it in fees. After all, a trade union can levy, for Labour party purposes, on people who have never had any intention of voting for Labour candidates, but who happen to be members of that particular union, which subscribes to the funds of the Labour party. There are other circumstances which, I suggest, indicate that what has been done here is the proper way to go about meeting the practical problems that we have bad to face. First, the very fact of instituting proceedings against a stevedoring company is itself damaging to the reputation and the commercial goodwill of that company. It is an important decision for the authority to make and, even if proceedings were unsuccessful, they could hardly fail to be damaging to the company or the employer concerned. The next point is that the act of suspension of a stevedoring company, if it were to run over any period of days or weeks, would not have a direct effect only on the company concerned, and be damaging to it. We are not so much worried about that, but we are concerned about employees of that employer who might be quite guiltless in the commission of the offence. However, it would be hard to imagine a situation in which most of the employees were not entirely guiltless of the alleged offence. Yet, if an employer were suspended for a period of days, in all probability the employees in turn would be suspended by him, and so lose their employment. So we say that, whilst an argument can be based on the way in which these clauses appear in the bill, if the practical test be applied of what is a satisfactory way to go about dealing with the problems which have been posed for the authority, I think that most sensible people will say that this is about the best, working result that could be produced in the situation. I have no hesitation in recommending the amendment to the committee. {: #debate-24-s23 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo .- Now that the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** has moved his amendment and has entered into a general discussion of the clause, I think that the general debate on the clause might well take place on the amendment. The question of the adoption of the amendment can then be put to the committee, and the clause then be dealt with as a whole. The Opposition strongly objects to the differential treatment meted out under this bill, particularly through clause 36, to watersideworkers as compared with employers. Clause 33 dealt with the obligations of registered employers, clause 34 with thepunishment of offences by employers, and. clause 35 with the cancellation or suspension of the registration of employersClause 36 deals with the cancellation or suspension of the registration of waterside workers. A comparison of the wording of this clause with that of clause 34r and clause 35 makes it very clear indeed that much more regard is had for the ordinary practices in these matters in. dealing with employers than in dealingwith. waterside workers. The employer must be taken to court, and that guarantees him a hearing of the whole of the facts in relation to the offence he if alleged to have committed. If the court recommends to the proposed Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority that his registration should be cancelled, the authority can act on that recommendation. But, first, a charge must be made. Secondly, a hearing must take place and5 a court must be convinced that an offence has been committed. Thirdly, if the employer is convicted, a penalty is then, imposed upon him. His rights as an employer and as an individual are safeguarded by the court proceedings. However, in relation to waterside workers, the whole of this machinery is eliminated. It is not necessary that a charge should be laid against him, or that a court hearing should take place before a decision on the suspension or cancellation of his registration is made. Sub-clause (1.) of clause 36 merely states - >Whore, after such inquiry as it thinks fit, the Authority is satisfied . . The inquiry is limited to what the authority thinks fit. It has been found in the past that when, for some reason, a dispute has occurred on the waterfront, almost as soon as the men have ceased work they have been suspended. It is apparent that their side of the case hasnot been heard. In fact, in sub-clause (3.). the power to suspend before inquiry is conferred upon the authority. Nosuch provision is made with respect to employers. An employer may not he- suspended until a court has inquired, has convicted him, and has recommended that the authority suspend him. But subclause (3.) provides - >The Authority may, before holding an inquiry under this section in respect of a waterside worker, suspend the registration of the waterside worker and may at any time revoke that suspension. The suspension can take place before an inquiry has been held, and the right of the waterside worker concerned to earn his livelihood at his accustomed employment will be taken from him. It is true that a fine may be imposed upon an employer, but the waterside worker may suffer the worse punishment of being deprived of his right to continue his occupation. Until such time as the suspension is lifted, he will have no right to work upon the waterfront and will not be entitled to a call-up, to a pick-up, or to attendance money. In effect, he will be punished by the loss of his wages throughout the entire period of suspension, and this could be a very serious matter for him. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The same provision was embodied in a Labour measure. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- That may be so. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- It applied also to the employer under the Labour act. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- That is so. The point I want to drive home is that, here, again, we have a division of power between a court and the proposed authority, which will make the position more confusing than ever. Because the employer must be taken before a court, he will have a protection not afforded to the employee. The employee can be suspended without an in nui ry, and immediately he will lose his livelihood, whereas the employer, on. the other hand, must first be charged and taken before a court for a hearing. The court must convict him before a penalty can be imposed. But the penalty would not mean the loss of his business as a. stevedore, because he may be fined and mav continue his business, whereas the waterside worker will suffer immediate cancellation of his right to employment upon the waterfront. While his suspension continues, he will not be able to nam a livelihood. The point raised .by my friend the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam)** is quite correct. The loss of the right to pursue his livelihood is a much more severe punishment than a fine of £100 imposed on an individual employer or of £1,000 imposed upon a stevedoring company. Such a fine would be neither here nor there to the employer. I repeat that we have thi.division of authority which provides one form of trial for the waterside worker and an entirely different form for theemployer. It confuses every one and will prevent the authority itself from exercis- ing the control it ought to have. If provision is to be made for the suspension of persons engaged in stevedoring work, suspensions should be imposed in like manner, and with like force, upon both employer and employee by the proposed authority. For the reasons that I have stated, the Opposition proposes to vote against the clause. It is a bad one, and it. should not have been included in the bill. {: #debate-24-s24 .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON:
Hume .- The honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** made a very impassioned plea on behalf of the waterside workers. He said that this is an iniquitous clause which will deny the worker the right to work by depriving him of the right to a trial before a court. . I cannot see why the honorable gentleman objects to the clause, because it accords with union practice. When unionists declare a man a scab, they debar him from his work for life. I have mentioned this matter several times in this chamber. Unionists at the present time are declaring shearers who are willing to shear at the award rates scabs, and denying them the right to work at their calling for the rest of their lives merely because they are willing to observe the terms of a legally made award. Time and again, Opposition members have been told in this Parliament that their union practices do not stand examination in the light of day. Opposition members make a plea now on behalf of a man who may be suspended by the proposed Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, although his case will be tried by the authority. But they would force workers to join unions, and would then deny them, for the rest of their lives, the right to work at their calling. 1 cannot see any ground for the Opposition's objection to the amendment. {: #debate-24-s25 .speaker-KHQ} ##### Mr R W HOLT:
DAREBIN, VICTORIA · ALP .- I do not wish to emphasize the points that have already been made by the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam)** and the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey).** Nevertheless, I wish to be constructive. From time to time, we hear Government supporters make references to the equality of all before the law, and to the maintenance of the rule of law. But this measure makes a very great distinction between, on the one hand, what I shall call the leisurely justice accorded to the employer, and on the other, the rough justice meted out to the worker, who may be deregistered summarily by the proposed Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, and who will then be out of a job until his appeal is heard by the court, if he wishes to appeal. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The employer may be fined, but the employee will not be fined. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr Clarey: -- The employee will be deprived of his livelihood. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The two things must be balanced up. If the honorable member for Darebin is fair, he will put r.he whole story. {: .speaker-KHQ} ##### Mr R W HOLT:
DAREBIN, VICTORIA · ALP -- I shall come to chat shortly. As the honorable member for Bendigo has said, the employee will, in effect, be fined by deregistration, whereas a stevedoring company will be able to continue its operations pending the more leisurely process before the judicial court. I should have thought that the fair thing would be to provide for summary suspension for both the employer and the employee and to provide that deregistration in either case would be effected by the court. I should have thought that the fair thing would have been to require summary suspension for both the employer and the employee and chat before either could be deregistered that an application should be made to the court. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I have already pointed out that in the case of the employer there may be other people affected, which would make it desirable to have the matter go before the court. A later section will show that where the employee has been susepnded without good cause he can appeal and, if his appeal succeeds, his pay dates back to the time of suspension. {: #debate-24-s26 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- I have observed that. In effect, the onus is placed upon the employee to prove that he is innocent. He is penalized until such time as he proves his innocence, and that is undesirable. I take it that the Minister says he has departed in this clause from the Tait report because of the difficulty of imposing a fine. That is another undesirable feature so far as natural justice is concerned. If a dispute arises *over* a small matter, an *ad hoc* decision is made, an inspector reports it, the matter is referred to a board of reference and the board of reference reaches a decision. Any appeal would be against that decision, so the board of reference takes off its coat as a board of reference, puts on another coat and becomes the authority. The appeal is from Caesar to Caesar. . That is another undesirable aspect of this measure. I still cannot understand why there should be a distinction in these two provisions merely because the Minister and his advisers cav tot work out a system of fines, and a diferent system is applied to the employer, which in the main is a company. This bill perpetuates the difficulty, to which attention was directed by the Tait committee, that the employer is not responsible for those acts committed by his foremen or such people to the same severe degree and on the same conditions as apply to the employee. It continues the unjust system that has existed for the last three years, since the Melbourne stevedoring case was decided and to which specific attention was directed in the Tait report. I do not see why provision could not he made for summary suspension for a short period by the authority of both the employer and the employee, pending an appeal to the court. That would avoid the objectionable features so far as natural justice is concerned and would have the effect of bringing both the employer and employee into line. It would avoid the penalty that is imposed upon the employee during the period of suspension. It would mean that the employee would not be presumed guilty until he proved his innocence before the authority. If an amendment were adopted along those lines, he would be presumed innocent until he came to the court. If the court found to its satisfaction that his conduct warranted deregistration, then that would come into force, but the employee would not be unduly penalized by the loss of income, which is the big distinction in these two clauses. I ask the Minister in all sincerity to consider the question of a summary suspension applicable to both employer and employee with deregistration not becoming effective until an appeal to the court had been heard. {: #debate-24-s27 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- The- more the Opposition examines this bill the more satisfied it is that its reference to the measure as a shipowners' bill was fully justified. Every time the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** finds himself in a bit of a jam, where it can be shown that he is discriminating in favour of the employer, he immediately retreats and says, Xi This may appear to be favorable to the employer, but it is done in the interests of the worker ". When we examine the bill we can see how much it favours the worker - according to the Minister. It is perfectly true that the authority has the power to suspend the licence or permit of the employee to work on the waterfront, and that he has the right of appeal if he feels that he is aggrieved by the decision. Then, if the court decides that his appeal is justified and upholds it, the Minister said that the worker is paid back to the time of the suspension. But the Minister did not intimate that the pay that the worker receives for his lost time is not the normal pay received by a waterside worker when employed, but is the attendance money. According to the Minister that is meting out justice to the employee, although the court upholds his appeal. The worker gets 24s. a day back to the date of suspension, hut to-day a waterside worker on the present rate of pay can earn the equivalent of attendance money in two and a half hours. Yet the Minister argues that it is dealing fairly with the worker to give him two and a half hours pay for each day on which the suspension lasts. That is rather a peculiar attitude to adopt. My colleagues have drawn attention to the discrimination between the employer and the employee. Again the Minister says, " If we took action to suspend the licence of the stevedoring company to operate on the waterfront, it would mean the loss of employment for some waterside workers ". Everybody knows full well that a waterside worker is not always employed by the same company. There is a rotation system operating on the waterfront. If it were possible to suspend the licence of a stevedoring company, it would not necessarily mean that the waterside worker would be out of work for any period. He could transfer to another stevedoring operator, as would be the case with the operation of the rotary system. It is rather interesting to note that the Minister laid great stress on the fact that these companies could be heavily fined and that the fine ranges from £100 to £1,000. If that fine were imposed upon an individual, it would be regarded as severe, but the stevedoring operators would only laugh at such a penalty. It would not impose any hardship upon them at all. As a matter of fact, lie stevedoring operator is not the real employer of the waterside worker. He acts as the agent for the shipping companies because the stevedoring operator is allied to or is a subsidiary of the big shipping cartel that operates around the Australian coast. Everybody knows that the profits that the shipping companies are making at present amount not to just a few thousands of pounds, but to millions of pounds. Those profits are extorted from the Australian producer and the Australian consumer. If a shipping company is penalized under the provisions of this measure, and if it finds the penalty in some sense burdensome, all it has to do is to increase its freight rates to recoup the amount of the fine. This Government will not object to that. It says, " We must not interfere with profits, and we must not control freights. We must not make the shipowners and stevedoring operators prove a case for the imposition of higher rates, because that would be interfering with free enterprise". The result is that in reality the employer will not be penalized at all. It is idle to suggest that a penalty of £100 to £1,000 will deter a stevedoring operator from engaging in some practice that will probably result in his making a profit much greater than the amount of a fine that might he imposed upon him, even were he judged guilty by the court of a contravention of the provisions of this legislation. Another point is that no individual person connected with a stevedoring company, or dependants of such a person, will suffer as a result of the imposition of a fine upon the company. If, however, a waterside worker is penalized, his family immediately suffers. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- He can appeal immediately against his suspension. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- The Minister says he can appeal immediately. What happens if he does? The Minister has said that if the court upholds the appeal he will be paid for the period of his suspension. [ ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that if a waterside worker has been suspended for a period, and his appeal is then upheld, he will be paid only the attendance money for the days on which he was suspended, being equivalent to payment for two and a half hours work each. day. Does the Minister regard that as just and fair treatment? If a man's licence to work is suspended, which is really what will happen under the provisions of this legislation, and if the court subsequently upholds his appeal, then in order to do justice to that man he should be recompensed for any pay that he may have lost during the suspension period. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Let us at least know what we are arguing about. As I understand it, if the waterside worker appeals immediately against his suspension, the practice will be to defer the suspension until the appeal is heard. He can, therefore, continue to work until the appeal . is heard. Then, if his suspension is not confirmed by the court, he has not suffered any loss, hut if it is confirmed, the suspension then operates. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- Let us consider what the Minister has said. For a start, he did not say with any certainty that that is the position. He said that it is what he believes to be the position. Furthermore, does the Minister suggest that the court works so rapidly in these matters that a man can appeal immediately? To whom does he appeal? He would even have to lose time in order to lodge his appeal. He would not be able to lodge it at his place of employment, where he is suspended from work. No matter how expeditiously the appeal is dealt with, he must suffer some loss of time. So I say that if his appeal is upheld subsequently by the court, he should be recompensed so that for the whole period of his suspension he is paid at the rate at which waterside workers in employment are normally paid. That is the only just and fair way of dealing with the situation. To show that it is no exaggeration to suggest that the stevedoring companies are agents of the shipping companies, we have only to refer to an address given on the 29th January last by **Mr. A.** G. Lowndes to the Australian Institute oi Political Science at the summer school of that institute in Canberra. I understand that this gentleman is the chairman of that organization. Dealing with the transport problem in Australia he said - >The shipowners themselves, especially in the major ports such as Sydney and Melbourne, own the stevedoring companies and there is little question that the standard of managerial control and discipline leave much to be desired in many cases. That gentleman is one of the employers' own authorities. If that is the position, why does not the Government give power to the proposed stevedoring authority to deal with the stevedoring companies? Why is the authority not empowered to. deal with them summarily, as it is in the case of waterside workers, and to suspend the rights of those companies to operate on the waterfront if they are deemed to be guilty of some offence? Let us reject this stupid idea that the imposition of a fine of between £100 and £1,000 is a fair penalty, when compared with the penalty imposed upon a waterside worker by suspending his right to earn his living. This is undoubtedly a shipowners' measure and the Minister is merely the agent of the shipowners in this Parlia- ment. No matter what provision of this legislation we examine, we find that the wishes of the waterfront employers are granted in every respect, while the claims of the workers are completely disregarded. Question put - >That the amendment **(Mr.** Harold Holt's) be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 51 NOES: 30 Majority . . . . 21 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put - That the clause, as amended, be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - MR. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 51 NOES: 32 Majority . . 19 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 37 to 39 - *by leave* - taken together. {: #debate-24-s28 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- I do not suggest that the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** has deliberately misled the committee, but if he cares to look at clause 37 he will find that it is not in conformity with the information that he furnished to me when discussing an earlier clause. The Minister said that, if a worker were suspended, he could appeal immediately. The suggestion was that his case could be determined immediately and that he would be paid attendance money. Clause 37 (1.) reads - >Where the registration of a person as a waterside worker is cancelled or suspended under the last preceding section, that person may, within fourteen days after the date of the cancellation nr suspension or within such further period as the Court allows, appeal to the Court, by filing a notice of appeal in the prescribed form with the prescribed officer of the Court, against the cancellation or suspension and, upon consideration of any such appeal, the Court may confirm, vary or set aside the cancellation or suspension. In the first place, the appeal must be made on a prescribed form, and I assume that the form must he obtained at the court. Then it must be filed with the prescribed officer. That all takes time. Sub-clause (2.) then provides - >Where a person appeals to the Court against the suspension of his registration as a waterside worker, the suspension shall, subject to the next succeeding sub-section, continue in operation. The next sub-clause reads - >The Authority may postpone the operation of the suspension . . . I direct attention to the fact that the word used is " may " and not " shall ". Whether or not the suspension is postponed is at the will of the authority, so that, if the authority does not feel disposed to postpone the suspension of the registration, it still operates and some days may elapse before the appeal is heard by the court. Even some weeks may elapse, because there is nothing to suggest that the court will set aside other matters with which it may be dealing so that these appeals may he dealt with expeditiously. The worker may lose weeks of work as a result of the suspension of his registration. I cannot find in this measure any provision whereby, if his appeal is upheld, a worker may be recompensed to the extent even of being paid attendance money for the period of his suspension. Even if the Minister is able to show that, under the terms of this measure or some other legislation, the worker may be recompensed by the payment of attendance money, I still say that he is not being given just and fair treatment. Before 1 conclude, let me say that the Minister implied that, if the man appealed, the authority would automatically suspend the cancellation of the registration; but the bill now before us does not say anything of the sort. The word used is "may". If the Minister wants to make it clear that the operation of the cancellation of registration shall be postponed automatically, he ought to substitute the word " shall " for " may ". That would make the provision accord with the statement that he made in the discussion of the previous clause. {: #debate-24-s29 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I do not think that this provision will operate unjustly in practice. I am certain that, on reflection, the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** will agree with me on that, especially if he recalls that he was a member of the Government which inserted this provision in the legislation in the first place and saw it in operation for a considerable time. It is true that in this instance no mandatory duty is imposed on the authority, but no such duty was imposed on the board by the legislation which the honorable gentleman supported. I assume that he and his colleagues had the same considerations in mind then as we had in framing this provision. We can conceive of cases where an appeal would be of such a frivolous and vexatious character, designed to interfere with the orderly operation of the system, that the board - or, in this instance, the authority - would feel justified in not entertaining it. But if we have regard to the good sense of those who will handle this job, we can assume that what I understand to be the present practice will be continued. The honorable gentleman has challenged my statement in that connexion as a mere statement of my understanding. If I find that I am wrong in that understanding, I shall try to have the matter corrected by this committee or in another place. My understanding is that, provided a genuine appeal is lodged, the practice is to defer forthwith the operation of the suspension, and then to deal with the appeal. If, when the appeal is heard, it is found that the suspension was improperly awarded, there is no question of any loss hy the appellant, unless he has delayed the lodging of his appeal. While I am on my feet, I should like to mention another provision, for the information of the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam).** When we were talking a little earlier about the question of differential treatment - it could be argued that that is continued in this provision - I stressed that, in the case of the suspension of a stevedoring company, there is involved, not only the company, but also the employees - perhaps entirely guiltless employees. But I did not stress that the people whose goods were being handled by the stevedoring company might be put to quite serious loss if , as a result of action taken against the company, the despatch of their goods were delayed for any length of time. So I take the liberty to mention that fact now in passing, because I think it shows that although, on the surface, there may appear to be differential treatment and a lack of balance of justice, what has been done provides a practical answer to the kind of questions with which the authority will have to deal. {: #debate-24-s30 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- We object to clause 37, despite the fact that the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** says that it reproduces section 25 of the 1949 act, which was enacted by the Chifley Government. The honorable member for Canning **(Mr. Hamilton)** interjects to say that the clause re-enacts that section word for word. It does not re-enact it word for word. Most of the words of the section are re-enacted, but the words that have been altered are the significant words. True it is that the words " may ", " suspension ", " cancellation ", and other words are re-enacted, and that the discretion which was in the hands of the hoard will, under this clause, remain in the hands of the authority. But the point is that section 25 of the- 1949 act applied alike to employer and employee, whilst clause 37 of this bill applies to employees only. In case you have not the 1949 act before you, **Mr. Temporary Chairman,** let me remind you that it provided that a person aggrieved by a decision of the board could appeal against the decision. Sub-section (2.) stated - >Where a person appeals to the Court against the suspension of his registration as an. employer of waterside workers or as a water side worker, the suspension shall, subject tothe next succeeding sub-section, continue in. operation. Sub-section (3.) provided that the board could postpone the operation of the suspension. The word " person " in the section thus applied to both employer and employee. In our discussion of clause 37, we make the same complaint as we made in our discussion of clause 35 and clause 36. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- In the earlier legislation, we had an unworkable provision. The honorable gentleman knows that that is so. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- The Minister says that the provision was unworkable. It was unworkable only because, when the High Court gave its decision on the 30th April, 1953, the Government took no steps then to make it workable. Presumably the Government is taking step? now which it believes will make the provision workable. Those steps could have been taken in the budget session of 195S or in any session after that. In fact, they should have been taken by a Government which read the decisions of the High Court or the reports of the Stevedoring Industry Board. On page 9 of the fourth report of the Stevedoring Industry Board for the year ended the 30th June, 1953 - I admit that that report was not presented to the Parliament as promptly as it should have been - it is made quite clear that, as a result of the decision of the High Court, the system of discipline against employers broke down and that the whole of the disciplinary procedure was thrown into disbalance. The Government has known for three years that this provision is unworkable, but only now is it taking steps to insert workable provisions in the legislation. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 **Sir Eric** *Harrison interjecting,* {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I shall not repeat what I have said, even for the benefit of the Vice-President of the Executive Council **(Sir Eric Harrison),** who has just come out of his torpor. He comes into the chamber only to sleep. His slumbers will reverberate more resoundingly through Whitehall shortly. The Government cannot take refuge in the fact that the provision was unworkable. The High Court said that it was unworkable insofar as it did not make it specific that a company could be disciplined, deregistered, fined, or whatever you like, because of its failure to supervise employees. The High Court said that the word " unfit " as applied by the 1949 act to a company applied to the company's financial capacity, not to its managerial responsibility. So, as I have said, the Government cannot take refuge in the fact that the provision was unworkable, because it could have been made workable at any time during the last three years. Now we point out that the Government, in the first action that it has taken to make the provision workable as regards discipline for employers, has differentiated between employers and employees. In clause 37, it has retained those provisions of section 25 of the 1949 act which applied to employees and it has disregarded those which applied to employers. As the honorable member for Darebin **(Mr. R. W. Holt)** argued so convincingly, there will be no equality before the law in the stevedoring industry. Employers and employees will not come before the new Commonwealth Industrial Court in equal positions. If the registration of an employee is cancelled or suspended by the authority, he may then appeal to the court. If he appeals, the authority may suspend, hut is not obliged to suspend, the operation of the cancellation or suspension of the registration. If the court decides that the registration has been improperly suspended or cancelled, the employee may go back to work on the waterfront. But the Minister has not yet succeeded in pointing to any provision for the payment of compensation to the employee in respect of the period of wrongful suspension. On the other hand, under clause 35, the employer may be brought before the court, but until and unless the Industrial court says that the employer shall be de-registered, he suffers no penalty whatsoever. The Minister has now suggested that it will be unfair to penalize or suspend an employer because of the hardship imposed on other people. He does not suggest that there will be any hardship to the shareholders, because, after all, they are shipping companies; he does not suggest that there will be any hardship to the waterside workers, because, after all, they are allotted by the authority to the stevedoring companies, and if the number of those companies is reduced, there are still other companies available. And surely it is not necessary to give immunity to the stevedoring companies in order to protect the rights of consignors and consignees. They have their remedies, and the stevedoring companies would not he precluded, by de-registration, from delivering goods which have already been delivered into their hands. They would be precluded only from continuing stevedoring operations, from putting things into ships and taking things out of ships, but if goods are already in their warehouses they can and should, of course, complete the delivery of them. Therefore, we point out that clause 37 continues this differentiation which was introduced in clauses 35 and 36. It will ensure that there is a. penalty on the employees pending the hearing of an appeal against a suspension. No penalty or handicap will be imposed on employers pending proceedings by the authority before the court. Accordingly, we cannot support such differential proceedings as regards the two sides of this particular industry, and differential treatment of them before the court. {: #debate-24-s31 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- If I understood the Minister correctly - and I wish to get this matter straight because it. will solve our problem - he said he thought that if a waterside worker were suspended and an appeal were pending, his suspension would be lifted until the determination of the appeal. It seems to me that this is a question upon which we should be clear. While the debate was continuing, I examined the amendment to the industrial arbitration legislation, which was mentioned this evening, and it does not touch upon this question at all. That amendment provides that the commission shall determine the attendance money. The authority may suspend it. Application for lifting of the suspension may be dealt with by the court, but the court may not then make retrospective its decision on attendance money beyond the date of the lodging of the application for its restoration. That is quite a different matter altogether. If the Minister says that he will deal with this matter in another place in such a fashion as to give effect to the point of view which he has put to the committee, I think that that will meet our objections. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I said that we are not proposing to make it mandatory upon the authority, because there may be what I would call vexatious or frivolous appeals. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Who decides that - the authority? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Yes. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- The body which suspends the registration. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- It will not have powers nearly as extensive as those that the Government of which the honorable member was a member was prepared to entrust to a board. Clauses agreed to. Clause 40 - ( 1 . ) Where the Authority is of the opinion - {: type="a" start="b"} 0. that the circumstances are not such as to warrant an increase in the quota . . . the Authority may declare, by instrument in writing, that, until the declaration ceases to be in force, the employment of unregistered waterside workers at the port is, in the public interest, permitted in accordance with this section. (2.) Subject to the next succeeding subsection, where a declaration under the last preceding sub-section is in force ... a person may, . . . engage a person . . . 1. at any time on any other day which is not a holiday for waterside workers at the port. (11.) If- 2. in respect of any period of seven days in the period of twenty-eight days immediately following the revocation of a declaration made in respect of a port under sub-section (1.) of this section, . . . {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- On a point of procedure, I suggest that we deal with the five proposed amendments, which we shall not oppose. We shall then discuss our opposition to the clause as a whole. {: #debate-24-s32 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I propose to move a number of amendments to the clause. It will be quite apparent from the discussion which has taken place earlier that this is one of the key provisions in the legislation. It provides for the engagement in special circumstances of unregistered waterside workers, and it raises what we have come to describe as the supplementary labour provisions. The first amendment which I shall propose is in the nature of a rather pleasant surprise packet to honorable gentlemen opposite. Strong criticisms have been voiced by them of the supplementary labour provisions. When I met in Melbourne recently the representatives of the interstate executive of the Australian Council of Trades Unions and of the Waterside Workers Federation, great emphasis was placed upon this clause as one of the objectionable provisions in the bill. I pointed out at the time that what we propose in relation to supplementary labour follows closely the recommendations of the Tait committee of inquiry and includes, so far as we have been able to contrive, the safeguards which that committee suggested should a system of supplementary labour bp introduced. It was put to me that two principal objections to these provisions are held by the trade union movement. The first is that they appear to violate the strongly held Labour principle of one-man-one-job. An objective examination of the provisions in the measure and a consideration of their intention, should quickly dispose of any argument in that regard. We have already made clear that these provisions are to come into operation only in abnormal circumstances where there is a bankup of cargo in a particular port and it appears that more than five days will elapse before that bank-up of cargo can be cleared. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; LANG LAB from 1932; ALP from 1936 -- Is the force to be used in the case of an industrial stoppage? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- lt could be. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Then it is a scab force. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- We shall como to that. That is the second barrel of objection. Having regard to the fact that we propose to provide specifically that this work force may be used only at week-ends and after five o'clock in the evening, its use can hardly be said to violate the principle of onemanonejob. Certainly more casual employment would be available to persons in other jobs, but I should he surprised to learn that there is any serious trade union objection to that, because it is common knowledge that tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands, of trade unionists take casual work of one kind or another, either at week-ends or in the evening. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- They must do so in order to survive under this Government. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- That is a lot of poppycock. The honorable member knows that there has never been a higher average of weekly earnings in the history of this country than applies under this Government. The second objection is the one to which the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** has given voice. It is the fear that this supplementary work force will be used as a strikebreaking force or, as he puts it, as a scab force. There are two quick answers to that proposition. One is that, by statute, these persons will be precluded from working other than at the times I have mentioned, so they could hardly be an effective substitute work force. The other is that we shall make provision in the legislation for the Waterside Workers Federation- to take these persons in as members of the union. So, on the one hand, there will be a lack of capacity to use them during regular working hours, and on the other, an opportunity for the union to include them amongst its members if it so wishes. I shall not elaborate those answers, because I have given them to those persons who put to me the other point of view. However, it is at the moment quite apparent that whatever might be the logical strength of the answers to the fears that are held, concern is felt outside the Waterside Workers Federation itself. On Monday, I had a further conference - though I suppose it was really in the form of a deputation - with representatives of the Australian Council of Trades Unions, led by the President, the Senior Vice President and **Mr. Gil** Hayes. I was informed that they had been in touch, on this particular point, with a number of other members of the interstate executive. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- How did they go? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- They went pretty well, as the honorable gentleman will find out if he has the patience to hear me. These gentlemen proposed that the Government defer the operation of this supplementary labour provision until such time as the Minister shall declare, but not earlier than the beginning of next year. The reason given was that the trade union movement was concerned about these unusual provisions; that we were setting up a new authority which would not become familiar with the conditions in the industry until some time had passed; and that we were taking power in other parts of the bill to do various things in relation to waterfront operations which might have the effect of reducing the need for a supplementary work force, or at least reducing its size. Moreover, it was submitted that there were very good reasons for marking time on the implementation of this particular provision until the authority had a clearer and more realistic picture of the problems ahead. Frankly, I do not believe that the authority would have rushed in with any impracticable proposals, or in such a manner as to damage the interests of members of the federation, but I said that if it would ease the concern expressed by responsible representatives of the trade union movement I would, in keeping with the spirit of the other amendments that I have introduced, recommend to Cabinet the adoption of the suggestion. Having had Cabinet's approval, 1 obtained this morning the endorsement of my colleagues of the Government parties. Therefore, I am now in a position to move the first of five amendments to this clause. I think that the provision is fair enough. Amendment (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) agreed to: >That before sub-clause (1.) the following sub-clause be inserted : - "(1a.) The Authority shall not exercise its powers under this section before such date, being a date not earlier than the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven, as the Minister, by notice in the *Gazette,* determines.". {: #debate-24-s33 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I move - >That, in sub-clause (1.) the words "the Authority may declare " be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof : - " the Authority, after consulting with such representatives as it thinks fit of the union in relation to the port and of registered employers, may declare ". This amendment simply requires that the authority shall consult both sides before declaring that supplementary labour may be used. It was an oversight that this provision was omitted in the first instance because there was, in other relevant parts of the bill, provision for consultation. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-24-s34 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP , -I move - >That, in sub-clause (2.) paragraph (6) be omitted with a view to inserting the following paragraph in place thereof: - " (b) at any time on a Saturday or Sunday ". I think that makes rather clearer our intention that this supplementary work force shall not be used other than as in (a) - between 5 o'clock in the afternoon and midnight on a working day at the port, and at any time on a Saturday or Sunday. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-24-s35 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I move - >That before paragraph (a) of sub-clause (11.) the following paragraph be inserted: - " (aa) the Authority makes a declaration in respect of a port under subsection (1.) of this section and, by virtue of that declaration, persons are engaged for employment as waterside workers under sub-section (2.) of this section;". This amendment picks up a point which was discovered after examination of the bill as originally drafted. As the bill stands, the minimum payment guarantee would operate if a declaration were made that supplementary labour could be used and, in fact, it was not used. That was clearly not our intention. The effect of this amendment, and the next amendment which I shall move, will be that the minimum payment will not operate if, in fact, supplementary labour is not used. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (by **Mr. Habold** Holt) agreed to - >That, in sub-clause (11.) the words "a declaration made in respect of a port under sub-section (1.) of this section," be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: - "that declaration,". {: #debate-24-s36 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- We oppose this clause with all the vigour that we possess because it creates in an industry a supplementary force which will work between 5 p.m. and midnight, and on Saturdays and Sundays. The whole effect of it will he to invite people to do a day's work between 8 a.m. and. 4 p.m., and to work for another employer from 5 p.m. till midnight. Then they will be expected to return to work fresh the next day at S a.m. Some people will do this, not because they want to help the waterfront or the stevedoring industry, but because, in the main, either one thing or the other has actuated them; either they are not getting enough money for the work that they are doing between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., or their greed takes them into an industry such as this where they will supplement their earnings. I cannot understand legislation of this character. To invite-men to work from Monday to Friday in one industry, seek employment in another industry on Saturday and Sunday, and to go back to their own job on the Monday is to destroy efficiency. It is all very well for Government supporters to say that it is done extensively to-day. I do not agree with that statement. There are great government authorities in this country which will dismiss a man who engages in any industry other than that in which he is employed by the government. Let honorable members make no mistake about that. Can a man be expected to work efficiently on Saturday and Sunday if he has worked efficiently from Monday to Friday *in* some other job? Government supporters have spoken in favour of efficiency in industry. If there is one way of killing efficiency, it is by inviting men to come into the waterside industry under the conditions set out in this bill. Under this bill the waterside worker will be required to work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; somebody else will come in and do his job from 5 p.m. to 12 midnight; then the waterside worker will be expected to go hack for the dog watch. 1 do not know anything that is calculated to upset the industry more than is this provision. If we are to adopt this sort of arrangement to meet spasmodic conditions prevailing in this industry, it is time for the remainder of Australian industry to examine carefully what is to be done. Honorable members may have read in this afternoon's issue of the Melbourne *Herald* of the labour situation in the port of Melbourne to-day. According to the report, the number of men in receipt of attendance money was the greatest in the last two years. In fact, 2,035 waterside workers received attendance money at the rate of 24s. a day because work was not available for them. The representatives of the shipping companies explained that the situation was due to the mid-winter slump in trade together with the effects of the import restrictions. More than 1,700 waterside workers were in receipt of attendance money in Melbourne yesterday. As against that, the number of waterside workers who offered for employment in Sydney to-day was 363 less than the requirement. Does any honorable member suggest that 363 additional men should have been engaged in Sydney at 5 o'clock this afternoon to work the ships, when more than 2,000 men were paid attendance money in another port? I hear a Government supporter say that it does not work out that way. Of course, it does! I invite the honorable member to examine the report upon which this bill is based. Obviously he has not read it. The Tait committee made its investigations and found that the question of transfer of labour had been before the court since 1950. An application had been made by both the employers and the Waterside Workers Federation. The committee found that the court had not done anything in the matter since 1950 and stated that for seven years the question of transfer had never been looked at. For many years, I was a leading member of an organization whose members were required to handle seasonal production. The honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** knows something about this matter. He is aware that in the wheat season, we had to provide an additional 300 men in the southern districts. We had also to provide an additional 500 men in the northern districts when the transport of wheat began. What was done? We had the central force from which we drew our men on transfer. It was a wonderful provision. The department met the situation, and provided accommodation at the various points so that the casual labour could be handled at the required centres and shifted from the north to the west, to the south, as required. No one will convince me that we shall get peace in the waterfront industry or satisfactory control of man-power in it until the court lavs down a set nf conditions that will result from the application of employers and employees in relation to transfer conditions and transfer allowances. I nut it to the representatives of the graziers that they would not get their shearing done if it were not for the organized labour of shearers moving from the north to the south. The problem of handling the Tasmanian apple crop is frequently mentioned in this chamber. Could not labour to load the apple crop be organized in the same way as the shearing industry is organized? Could not facilities be provided for waterside workers who were prepared to transfer in the peak season to theTasmanian apple ports? If the men are assured of accommodation when they arrive, I am prepared to say that the Tasmanian shippers would he able to obtain sufficient waterfront labour for their purposes. But until the court lays down a code for conditions of transfer, the labour difficulty will not be solved. The union and the employers must have their award in this field. The Government is making provision for the employment of a supplementary labour force on the wharfs at a time when other great industries are working overtime and the Minister tells us that in point of fact, there are more jobs available than there arc men to fill them. The amendment proposed by the Minister provides that this clause shall not come into operation until the 1st January next. "Why did he not adopt the recommendation of the Tait committee in this respect? Why did he not set this part of the bill aside until the court has determined the claim before it? Honorable members will recall that in its declaration on this subject, the Tait committee laid some blame at the door of the Government for the failure to have this award made. I contend that clause 40 should not be put into operation until the court gives its decision and we force upon the industry - the union and the employers - the responsibility to do the same thing as we have to do in other industries - that is, provide facilities for people who are prepared to transfer for the purposes of employment. When that is done, we shall have no trouble in obtaining labour for Tasmanian ports in the apple season or for Queensland ports in the sugar season. The waterside workers, like railwaymen and everybody else, will meet the labour requirements, provided transport, is offered and accommodation is available on their arrival. The waterside workers are human beings like other workers. I am convinced that this provision should not operate until the court has given its decision on conditions of transfer in accordance with the claim before it. {: #debate-24-s37 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .-I have listened carefully to the speech of the honorable member for Blaxland **(Mr. E. James Harrison),** and although it is well known that I am not an authority on waterside workers I think that even one who does not know anything about the subject would know, on reading the bill, that the honorable gentleman is wide of the mark. He referred to a report in this afternoon's issue of the Melbourne *Herald* to the effect that many waterside workers were paid attendance money to-day because employment was not available for them. He mentioned that matter as if it had some relation to this clause. He did everything hut read the part of the clause that deals with the conditions under which the supplementary work force can be engaged. The clause reads as follows : - (1.) Where the Authority is of the opinion - (a) that, by reason of the sudden occurrence of an unusually heavy demand . . . There is not now an unusually heavy demand for waterside workers in Melbourne. As the honorable member has stated, the mid-winter slump is being experienced and the effect of the import restrictions is being felt and, therefore, there is a surplus of waterside workers. However, I direct attention again to the relevant sub-clause which reads as follows : - (1.) Where the Authority is of the opinion - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. that, by reason of the sudden occurrence of an unusually heavy demand for the performance of stevedoring operations at a port or by reason of interruptions in stevedoring operations at a port, the expeditious, safe and efficient performance of stevedoring operations at the port is likely to be prejudicially affected for a period of at leastfive days; 1. that the circumstances are not such as to warrant an increase in the quota for the port or the registration of waterside workers at the port under sub-section (2.) of section thirty of this Act, the Authority may declare, by instrument in writing, that until the declaration ceases to be in force, the employment of unregistered waterside workers at the port is, in the public interest, permitted in accordance with this section. That means that the circumstances referred to would probably be of short duration only. It is only in such emergencies that the extra work force would be employed. It certainly could not be employed, under this measure, when there was a surplus of waterside workers, as instanced by the honorable member for Blaxland in submitting his case. It has always appeared to me that the honorable member is tremendously fair in the attitude that he evinces in debates in this chamber, and I have appreciated hearing him on various occasions; but on this point he is very wide of the mark. As a person who has nothing to do with watersiders or the waterfront, I think it is only right that I should direct attention to his error. {: #debate-24-s38 .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide -- I am amazed that such a provision as this should be included in the bill. The honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** a moment ago pointed out what a foolish thing this is. The provision is to operate only when there is an unusual volume of shipping in a port, and when there is an insufficiency of waterside workers to do the necessary work, thus necessitating the employment of extra men. The important point I want to put to the Minister for labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** is that this provision is the very thing which will lead to waterfront stoppages. My reason for making that statement is that no waterside worker, any more than a coal miner or any other trade unionist, will concur in a system which means that he will work at ordinary rates of pay during the day whilst men from outside the industry are brought in to do night shifts and week-end work at higher rates of pay. All I can say is that whoever was responsible for this clause has a very poor knowledge of the trade union movement and of the psychology of the workers in industry. As I pointed out during the secondreading debate, this provision postulates that when a port is busy, when there are more ships than can be handled by the normal pool of waterside workers, the waterside workers will work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at ordinary rates of pay and outside workers will take over the night shifts and week-end work at penalty rates. The men who will be brought on as the extra work force will obviously be men who are not accustomed to doing the work of waterside workers, because otherwise they would not offer for such work. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- This kind of provision operates in England and New Zealand, and the Labour government which the honorable gentleman supported operated the same kind of provision during World War II. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- It may operate in New Zealand, but that does not mean that it is a suitable provision for the Australian waterfront, or that it will do the job that the Government thinks it will do. In any event I am not talking about New Zealand, I am talking about the Australian waterfront. A few years ago a contractor was speaking to me about men engaged in the building industry. He said that they worked a five-day week and on Saturdays and Sundays did other jobs at high rates of pay, with the result that when they came back to their normal jobs on Monday they were not able to do them efficiently. And these men were men accustomed to doing the kind of work that they engaged in as an extra source of income on Saturdays and Sundays ! But, in this instance, that will not be the position. The men who will be employed to do the night shifts and the week-end work on the waterfront will not be men who are used to waterside work. They will be outsiders. I can tell the Minister that at least 100 men will be needed to work on the hatches of any fair-sized ship, and I believe that the Minister has another think coming if he thinks for a moment that it will be possible to get sufficient men from outside the industry to handle the work on night shifts efficiently. There is another objection to the provision. The Minister has said that this provision is to operate only in respect of work to be done between 5 p.m. and midnight on a working day. That is to say, the outside workers will not be allowed to work on ordinary shifts. The Minister knows very well that work after 5 p.m. attracts higher rates of pay than the normal, and that work on Saturdays and Sundays attracts still higher rates of pay. So the waterside workers are to be asked to work for the ordinary daily or hourly rates of pay, and, after they have knocked off at 5 o'clock, Monday to Friday, or at noon on Saturday, outsiders are to como in and get the cream in the way of higher wages. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- That is not the effect of the provision, and the honorable member knows it. The extra men are to be engaged only when waterside workers are not available in adequate numbers. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- In adequate numbers! And what does the Minister call adequate numbers? If he knows anything of work on the waterfront, or looks at the newspapers, he will know that on occasions there are not sufficient men for night shifts. Does the Minister mean to tell me that if there are not sufficient men to handle the night shifts the employers will have a ship standing idle during the day, when pay rates are normal, and work it at night when pay rates are high? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- This provision is to apply only where there is a hank-up lasting beyond five days. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- I quite appreciate that. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Then what is tha honorable gentleman's answer to the problem ? {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- My answer is that this provision will make the position worse, not better. I quite appreciate the problem that the Minister faces, but I appreciate also that it is necessary for the quota of watersiders in a port to be such as will ensure that each of them will get a reasonable amount of work, and also that when a big bank-up of shipping occurs extra work will be necessary. But waterside workers will not relish having to work at ordinary rates of pay during the day, when there is a bank-up of shipping, while outside workers receive high rates of pay for extra work outside normal hours. If the Minister thinks that this provision is the only way in which to overcome the problem, I tell him very definitely that this is one of the things that the waterside workers will object to more than anything else. In saying that, I point out to the committee that I am not, and never have been. one of those who advocate stoppages of work. But I know the feeling of the men in relation to such matters as this, and I know that they will object very strongly to this provision. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- Then make a suggestion about what should be done. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- I suggest that the shipowners of this country cannot justly expect men to do the work wanted for the greater part of the year and then, when things are busy for a week or two. when there is a rush of shipping, agree to the employment of outside men at high rates of pay. The waterside workers would not agree to such a situation. We all know that there is a big rush of shipping into Australian ports, with goods from overseas, at times when there are big seasonal cargoes to be lifted for the return voyage. That occurs, for instance, after wool sales and during the wheat export season. But there are periods of the year when there is not a big flow of shipping. In fact, the honorable member for Blaxland **(Mr. E. James Harrison)** told us of the position in Melbourne, where a seasonal slump was the reason why the men were getting only attendance money. These waterside workers are very human persons, and they hold that if they have to suffer during the seasonal slumps, and get attendance money only, when there is no slump the shipowners should be prepared to take a bit of a kick as the men have to take it in the slump periods. The waterside workers do not want the kicks. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The whole comanunity, including the people the honorable member represents, takes the kicks. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- As a representative of the community, I know that, in general, the people never wish to get anything at a price that will give an unfair deal or unfair wages to the man who does the job. Opposition members and Government supporters alike have stated that the community is prepared to pay additional taxes to meet the genuine needs of people who depend on social services benefits. {: #debate-24-s39 .speaker-KSC} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -Order! The honorable member's time has expired. *Several honorable members rising in theirplaces,* Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) put - >That the question be now put. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. J. McLeay.) AYES: 52 NOES: 32 Majority . . . . 20 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put - That the clause, as amended, be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. J. McLeay.) AYES: 51 NOES: 33 Majority . . . . 18 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 41 and 42 - *by leave* - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 43 (Union rules not to discriminate). {: #debate-24-s40 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- It is an outrageous situation when the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** continues to gag the discussion on important provisions in this legislation in order to prevent honorable members on this side fully stating their case in opposition to what the Government is doing. There is no doubt that the Minister and the Government find themselves very vulnerable and do not want these clauses discussed. Mr.Freeth. - I rise to order. Is the honorable member entitled to cast reflection on the vote of the committee that has just been taken? {: .speaker-KSC} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr McLeay: -- Order! The honorable member is in order. . {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- I come now to clause 43. This outrageous clause provides that the Waterside Workers Federation is to he compelled to admit anybody to its organization, even if the rules provide otherwise. The rules are not to operate when they are contrary to the decision of the authority, which is backed up by the Government to compel the Waterside Workers Federation to admit anybody registered as a waterside worker by the authority. It means that anybody around the waterfront of Australia can be registered as a waterside worker by the authority and automatically the Waterside Workers Federation must admit him to membership of the union. Not only must such men be admitted, but the authority will determine what fees they shall pay. That will not be decided by the Waterside Workers Federation. I ask the Minister : Is it not a fact that these men who are to be forced on to the Waterside Workers Federation will be able to exercise full membership rights during the period of their membership? They will be able to vote in ballots. The Government and the authority, which acts on behalf of the shipowners and the Government - because they are both employers' representatives - will be able to determine the future of this union. If fees are accepted from them and they are admitted to membership, they must be given the full rights of membership. This clause provides for supplementary labour. It is a scab force - and the Minister himself admits that - which will be used on the waterfront whenever there is a hold-up or an accumulation of shipping, even if that accumulation should occur as the result of an industrial dispute. An invidious position would then be created. The Minister seems to think that as long as a man is a member of the union, he ought to be permitted to work, even if that is against the decision of the union. Because he is a member of the union, in the eyes of the Minister he does not become a scab worker. That is the Minister's opinion. What a ridiculous situation we are reaching! The Waterside Workers Federation could declare that certain work should not he performed because of some dispute arising on the waterfront, but one section of its members, which has been forced upon the union by the authority could go to work against the decision and the wishes of its own organization. It is an utterly ridiculous position. Therefore, I say to the Minister that, in preventing us from having a full discussion on the preceding clauses of the bill dealing with supplementary labour, he did not give the Opposition and other honorable members an opportunity to examine this clause thoroughly and to show exactly how vicious it is to provide for a supplementary labour force on the waterfront. The Minister knows full well that the reason the employers want a register of supplementary labour is because they want to hold that over the "Waterside "Workers Federation as a threat. In the event of the union striking or holding up shipping, because it has what it regards as a justifiable grievance that has not been rectified, this supplementary labour force will be ready to take over the work. That is the idea of the Government, of the Minister and of the authority. To show how much reliance can be placed on the word of the Government and the Minister in regard to protecting the interests of the waterside workers, why does not the Minister admit that, whilst there is a provision in the bill that for 28 days after the use of supplementary labour, the waterside, workers- {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- I rise to order. The honorable member is not speaking to clause 43 at all; he is speaking to a clause that has already been considered. {: #debate-24-s41 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The honorable member is in order. It is fair comment. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- I was pointing out under clause 43, which we are now discussing, that where the supplementary labour is used on the waterfront, the Minister believes that the Government has done sufficient by giving to the waterside workers, whose employment may be affected by the use of this force, a guaranteed wage for the following 28 days. But what is the guaranteed wage? It is ten times the daily appearance money for four periods of seven days. That means that for four weeks after the use of supplementary labour, the waterside workers will be guaranteed £12 a week. That is 13s. a week less than the prevailing basic wage. Does the Minister regard that as just and fair? Anybody who considered the idiotic proposals put forward by this Government could only come to the conclusion that it was doing so deliberately to cause a head-on collision with the waterside workers and the trade union movement. Anybody who has had any experience in industry would know that the supplementary labour force will never operate efficiently on the waterfront in this country nor will the trade union movement permit it to function. To suggest that the Government can put people on a register, and by putting them on a register the "Waterside "Workers Federation has to admit them to membership--- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! I ask the honorable member to come back to clause 43. He is now drifting away from it. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- You will find I am still on the clause, if you read it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I have read the clause. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- You will find under clause 43 that the "Waterside "Workers Federation is compelled to accept these members. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member is referring to supplementary labour. He should come back to clause 43. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- I shall not refer to it as supplementary labour. I shall refer to it as labour compulsorily included in the membership of the Waterside Workers Federation and registered by the authority as waterside workers, and that inludes the supplementary labour to which you, **Mr. Temporary Chairman,** will not allow me to refer. It is an outrageous proposal and the Labour party naturally, is strongly opposed to it. it will become law by the brutal majority of the shipowners' representatives in this Parliament, but that does not mean it will become an effective law. The ships must still be worked and cargo will still have to be discharged from and loaded on to the ships. If the waterside workers and the trade union movement propose to take any action at all to defeat the will of the Government and the shipowners in this country, the Labour Opposition will support them in every possible way. {: #debate-24-s42 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr, Ward)** finds something outrageous in a provision that a union can be compelled to admit to membership some person that the union itself has not decided to accept as a member. I am interested to hear him say that, and I should be even more interested to learn that that was a point of view held generally by Opposition members, because, unless I am very much mistaken, what this hill provides is precisely what the Cahill Labour Government of New South Wales provided when it introduced the compulsory unionism legislation in that State. It forced unions to take into membership people who were subject to the compulsory unionism legislation. Therefore, whatever gloss honorable gentlemen opposite may care to put upon it, the principle has been established - and Opposition members have not merely accepted it; they have propounded it. The honorable member for East Sydney has suggested that the men who are thus admitted to membership of a union might have a right to vote at union meetings, and might have the same rights as other union members, even though they are (usual employees, temporarily or even rarely engaged. Nothing that this Government has proposed would prevent the union from promulgating its own rules in relation to persons who came into the union as a result, of the provisions of the legislation covering the supplementary labour scheme. Such rules as might In- dmided upon specifically for supple mentary workers could be challenged before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission only on the ground that they were unreasonable, or on some similar ground. There is nothing to prevent the union accepting persons engaged as supplementary workers as members of the union and prescribing reasonable rules as to the rights, privileges, opportunities and responsibilities that the supplementary worker should enjoy or accept. The honorable member for East Sydney took the opportunity provided by his line of argument on this clause to make a general attack on the supplementary labour provisions. I have indicated earlier the reasons why -we believe such a scheme to be both practicable and desirable. I have already pointed out that this scheme is operating, without causing any upset to trade union thinking, in New Zealand, and in the United Kingdom. It operated here, under the blessing of a Labour government, during the war years, when it was felt necessary to supplement the work force on the waterfront. Quite apart from its merits, which need not be argued further at this stage, I have already proposed an amendment to the bill which has the effect of deferring the operation of the provisions until the 1st January, 1957, at the earliest, which will leave an interval during which the authority may consider fully any possible alternatives which may provide a solution to the problem that the supplementary labour scheme is designed to solve. {: #debate-24-s43 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- If the Government wished to see tho Australian Council of Trades Unions ranged behind the Waterside Workers Federation, it could not have done anything more calculated to achieve that, end than introduce a hill containing a clause such as the one that we are now debating. Tho Australian Council of Trades Unions represents every union in Australia, with the exception of the Australian Workers 'Union, to which I shall refer in a moment. If the Government expects the Australian Council of Trades Unions to disagree with the Waterside Workers Federation's opposition to the bill, it must expect the council to agree to- a proposal that will give the Government the right to force unions to accept tol membership people who are not fit to be in the unions. {: .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr Mackinnon: -- Who said they are not fit? {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr Anderson: -- How can the honorable member say that? He and his colleagues advocate compulsory unionism. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The bill makes it perfectly clear that the union will have no say as to the people who will be admitted to its membership. In introducing this legislation, which will force unions to accept, as a member any person engaged by an employer in the industry, it is taking the first step towards introducing the genera] principle that a union has no right to determine who shall be admitted to its membership and who shall not. It follows that it would have no right to expel a member for misconduct or for a breach of union discipline or union rules, or for working at rates of pay less than- those provided in the award. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- What rubbish! {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It is not rubbish. The Minister must know that this is so. It is of no use for the Minister to say, " What rubbish ! " Let the Minister say why he believes the statement that [ make is not correct. An interjection of " Rubbish ! " is not a sufficient answer. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- There is no interference contemplated in this legislation with the power of discipline, that the trade union exercises normally. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- These provisions prevent a union from expelling a member, because the legislation provides that the union shall admit to membership everybody employed in circumstances outlined in the clause. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. wish now to refer to the question of union fees. The Government is asking the Australian Council of Trades Unions, in effect, to stand idly by while the Waterside Workers Federation is used as a guinea pig to determine whether or not every trade union in Australia will allow some outside authority to fix its rates of subscription. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The Government expects the people of Australia to obey a democratically enacted law, and if you are inciting them against that you can take the responsibility for it. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Now, the Minister, who talks about democracy, is threatening me with dire consequences if I dare to get up in the people's Parliament and say what the people of Hindmarsh sent me here to say. Do not think you can intimidate me ! {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I am not trying to do so. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I have a perfect right in this Parliament to say what I think, so long as this is a democratic institution, and don't you sit across there trying to intimidate me! You can call it incitement if you like, but I will not take intimidation from you! {: #debate-24-s44 .speaker-JXI} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Freeth:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- Order! The honorable member for Hindmarsh will resume his seat. I think we shall get on much better if the honorable member for Hindmarsh will address his remarks to the Chair, and if interjections cease. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- 1 shall continue, and the Minister may call ii incitement, or do what he likes about it, but the Australian Council of Trades Unions Congress will not accept this kind of legislation. I shall repeat my remarks, and you can call it incitement to disobey the law if you want to. Rut let me tell you this: This is a law you cannot enforce. You will never enforce it, because the Australian Council of Trades Unions congress must support the Waterside Workers Federation in i> nation-wide stoppage in protest against a law that allows a government to tell a union how much it can charge in subscription fees. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Is the Minister going to tell the Australian Workers Union that because a shearer works for only three or four months of the year he cannot be charged the full annual subscription laid down by that union? There is no provision in the union rules for any subscription but an annual one. If the Australian Council of Trades Unions allows this kind of legislation to be accepted without demur, it will not be long before the meat workers union, some members of which are casual workers in a seasonal occupation, will be told by this Government, with the present legislation as a precedent, that it has no right to fix subscription rates which the Government believes are not reasonable. What right has the Government to tell a union what fees it shall charge? What right has it to say what persons a union will admit to membership? I say, therefore, that the congress of the Australian Council of Trades Unions, which will meet next week, should take heed of the threat to the whole structure of trade unionism in this country that lies behind this legislation, and should rally its members to the aid of the Waterside Workers Federation in order to prevent this kind of legislation being put on the statute-book. The very fact that when such a reference is made, the Minister, sitting at the other side of the table, attempts to intimidate me and to prevent me from saying what he knows is true is indicative of his intentions in relation to the Waterside Workers Federation. If he is prepared to come here and to attempt to intimidate an elected representative of the people of Australia, we have a fair idea of his real intentions towards the people outside the Parliament who have not the protection of parliamentary privilege. In conclusion, I say that, if ever there was a matter on which the Australian Council of Trades Unions Congress should rally wholeheartedly to support the federation in its fight against this iniquitous measure, it is the clause that we are now considering. {: #debate-24-s45 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration! · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron),** who has come here as a member of the Parliament for the purpose of performing the functions of a democratically elected member of a democratic institution, is building up a rather dangerous reputation in this place., because this is not the first time that he- {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Intimidation again ! {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I shall deal with this charge of intimidation as I go along. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The Minister is only wasting his time. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I am not trying to make an impression on the unimpressionable ; I am merely trying to state the facts as I see them. We come to this place, having been chosen to support the institution to which we have been elected. The purpose of a parliament is to prescribe, by a majority decision, the laws that shall govern a democratic society. Of course, not every decision will be acceptable to every member of that parliament, but it will be acceptable to a majority of members. Those members who do not like a certain decision may avail themselves of democratic methods of reversing it, if it is the popular will that it should be reversed. They may campaign against the decision and seek a vote of the people so that they in turn may be in a position of authority and may repeal or amend the legislation in the manner that seems to them to be proper under the circumstances. But if a parliament passes certain legislation, it is a bad thing for one of its members to go out and to incite and inflame people who live in that democracy and encourage them wilfully to disobey what the parliament has, by majority decision, determined. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- This is what Hitler did. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- It is not. Hitler had a rigged parliament, and I do not think the honorable member would say that this is a rigged Parliament. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Of course it is. Look at the electoral boundaries. They are rigged. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The honorable gentleman is entitled to his view. 1 am saying that this is the National Parliament, and that it lays down the laws that govern the people of this country. The committee has before it a measure which covers a very significant and important industry. For the committee to have before it legislation affecting the waterfront industry is not unusual or novel. Such legislation was first introduced into the Parliament by a government that was supported by honorable members opposite. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- But it did not contain these features. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- It contained features that were equally objectionable to other people. There were features of Labour's 1947 legislation which did not work, and which, gave rise to the legislation of 1949. There are features of Labour's 1949 legislation also that have been completely objectionable to important elements in this community, notably- {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- The shipowners. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The shipowners and the stevedoring companies. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Yes, and the Minister represents the shipowners. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I represent the people who have elected me. When *I cease to* do that they will remove me from this place, and there are not that many shipowners. Irrespective of the degree to which the shipowners might have found the existing legislation to be objectionable, they have obeyed the law and we have not discouraged them from doing so. We have not incited them to disobey the law, and I do not see those honorable members whom I regard as being the more responsible members of the Opposition encouraging people outside the Parliament to disobey the law. Let Opposition members state their case as vigorously and powerfully as they can in the Parliament, but once the Parliament has made a decision, we all have a responsibility to see that the law is obeyed. I have rarely heard a more irresponsible statement than that which has been made to-night by the honorable member for Hindmarsh, who has gone out of his way to incite responsible members of the Australian Council of Trades Unions to cast aside the decision of the Parliament when they meet in congress next week. When I said that the honorable member must accept responsibility for his action, I was referring, not to some penalty imposed by this legislation, but to the responsibility that he: as an elected member of the Parliament, has towards those persons whose trust he has wilfully disregarded. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I do not want the Minister to lecture me on what I have to do. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I do not want the honorable member to carry on in this way towards people outside the Parliament, and to encourage a wilful disobedience of what we, as a democratic Parliament, have determined. {: #debate-24-s46 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Let us get things straight. What did the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** say? {: .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr Mackinnon: -- A lot of rot. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- That is the kind of approach that one might expect. What the honorable member said was that this clause represented an intru sion into the management of trade union affairs. Let me tell the committee that this clause just will not work. The honorAble member for Hindmarsh said that the first thing that this clause will do will be to inflame the delegates to the Australian Council of Trades Unions Congress to be held next week - and I shall he one of them - because it cuts across the principles upon which the trade unions first established their organizations. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- What principles does it cut across? {: #debate-24-s47 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- First, the right of unions to determine what their membership will be. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- But the honorable member supported such a provision in New South Wales. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I did not do anything of the kind. That is where the attitude of the Minister cuts right across the principles that mean something to the trade union movement. Let me tell the Minister that such gibes from him do not help a debate of this kind. The New South Wales legislation made no provision for any outside authority to apply to the Arbitration Court to assess the amount of union contributions. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- Is that the honorable member's only complaint? {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Let me deal with them one at a time. I have only ten minutes in which to speak, and if I chase the Minister for Customs and Excise **(Mr. Osborne)** and others, I shall be wasting my time. The honorable member for Hindmarsh said that the Australian Council of Trades Unions will fight this clause. Legislation which the Minister introduced after this Government assumed office, and which the Australian Labour party opposed, provided that the rules of every union should include a provision for the amount of contribution to he paid by members. Those rules must be accepted by the Registrar of the court. Now the Minister introduces legislation in relation to this industry, in which in the future there will be casual employment, to provide that the Stevedoring Industry Authority shall have the right to go to the court to seek a determination in relation to the contribution that shall be paid by casual workers. That was the very thing that the honorable member for Hindmarsh attacked. If the Minister regards as incitement the action of a trade unionist who is a member of this Parliament in urging the members of his union to fight for the things in which, as trade unionists, they believe, there will be a lot of incitement in this Parliament. It is useless for the Minister to use the word. These provisions of the hill will not be able to operate unless the present industrial arbitration legislation is amended. At present, a trade union decides, in its own way, under its own rules and in accordance with the law of the land, what the contributions of its members shall be. That rule is submitted to the registrar of the court. If there is anything wrong with the rule, it is returned for revision. The South Australian branch of my union had a rule referred back to it by the registrar within the last six weeks because it infringed a law passed by this Parliament relating to what a union may or may not do in relation to its own affairs. When those of us who have had long years of experience of trade union leadership find a provision of this kind in the bill, it is understandable that we should object to it strongly. The union that I represent had to spend £600 on a special convention called to amend its rules in order to give effect to a measure brought down by this Government. The Waterside Workers Federation was in a similar position. Now it is proposed that if the rules of a union do not make provision for the emergency envisaged by this legislation, the new authority shall have power to request the court to draw up new rules for contributions by members of the union. When trade unionists on this side of the chamber attack provisions such as this, I hope the Minister will nor. use the word "incitement" so freely. *Several honorable members rising in* Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) put - >That the question he now put. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. Freeth.) AYES: 47 NOES: 32 Majority . . 15 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put - That the clause be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. Freeth.) AYES: 48 NOES: 32 Majority . . . . 16 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 44 (Boycott of waterside workers, &c). {: #debate-24-s48 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo .- The Opposition opposes this clause for somewhat similar reasons to those on which it based its opposition to clause 43. This clause covers the boycott of waterside workers, and makes prohibitions in respect of certain matters, and also makes it an offence for any person to prevent, hinder, or dissuade persons from doing things which are specified in the clause in paragraphs (a) to *(h).* Sub-clause (2.) provides : - >A registered waterside worker shall not, without reasonable cause or excuse, refuse to accept employment or perforin work in stevedoring operations with another person who is a registered waterside worker or is employed as a waterside worker by virtue of section forty of this Act. Apart from any other considerations, subclause (3.) would have received very strong opposition from both the Opposition and the trade union movement. It reads - >Tn proceedings for an offence arising under either of the last two preceding sub-sections, proof of reasonable cause or excuse lies upon the person charged. Therein we have, unmistakably and clearly, a proposed application of the averment clause to persons who are accused of doing any of the things which the cif use prohibits. The Opposition says, first, that the clause is intimidatory and coercive in character. The committee has accepted the provisions contained in clause 40 for the creation of a. supplementary labour force. It was obvious to those persons who drafted the bill that, clause 40 was bound to cause the era vest discontent on the waterfront and that it would bo strongly resisted by the waterfront un;ons. particularly the "Waterside Workers Federation. So, in order tn overcome the expected strong opposition of the Waterside Workers Federation, two clauses have been inserted with the object of coercing and forcing the federation into accepting the supplementary labour force. The first such provision is contained in clause 43, the object of which is to compel the union to accept persons as members at a lower fee than would be ordinarily charged to a member. An attempt having been made to tie up the matter of compulsory membership of the union, nomatter how the union may object, the next step is to prevent any action being taken by the union or any of its members to defeat the organization and employment of a supplementary labour forceFinally, there is to be placed upon the person who is charged with an offence arising under the provisions of the clause the onus of proving reasonable cause or excuse. So, there is to be brought into operation a species of law that one finds generally being applied to workers under conditions that are operating todaySuch a provision is contained in theCrimes Act and elsewhere. Where there is expected to be difficulty in proving a charge against a person, the easy way of overcoming the difficulty and ensuring the greatest possible measure of either persecution or prosecution, is to bring into operation an averment provision, which throws upon the accused the responsibility of proving himself innocent of the charge. The honorable member for Moore **(Mr Leslie)** this afternoon made a very impassioned speech on liberty and protection of a person's rights to British justice. It will be interesting to see how the honorable member reacts to this proposal that persons, who are charged under clause 44, will have to prove their innocence instead of the persons charging them having to prove their guilt. To introduce such a provision into legislation of this description is only to add to the provocation which the legislation is bound to cause. Obviously if the Waterside Workers Federation considers that the creation of a supplementary labour force is detrimental to its economic interest and the maintenance of the living standards and livelihood of its members, it will resist the creation of that force. Because of its resistance it will be prosecuted under clause 44, which provides a penalty, for a body corporate, of £500 - which presumably would be the penalty imposed on the union - and £50 for individual workers. If anything is more likely to create complete disruption of work on the waterfront, I should like to know of it. Clauses of this description «re designed to coerce, blackmail or force the Waterside Workers Federation into accepting legislation which is inimical to the federation's interests. Had the gag not been applied to the discussion on clause 40, we could have said further things on this matter. If one had the opportunity, one could explain very fully how the operation of this clause will disrupt the waterfront. This clause is designed to coerce a worker into a position where anything he does to protect his livelihood and the interests of his organization places him in danger of being charged with an offence, which need not be proved against him. He must prove his innocence. If that sort of condition is to be imposed upon a very difficult and turbulent industry it will result, not in a greater amount of work being done, but in a stoppage at the port where it is applied, and if it is applied at more than one port, a general stoppage throughout Australia. Once again, I feel obliged to remind the committee that coercive legislation cannot produce harmony between employer and employee. Coercion on the part of either the employer or the employee has never improved industrial relations. To use the law to penalize those who resist something that they believe to be an economic evil, and likely to affect their livelihood, merely brings about a condition of affairs that will become more and more inflammatory and, in the end, result not in more expeditious handling of shipping, and a better feeling on the waterfront, but in no ships being handled at all. 1 conclude by warning the committee of the consequences that are bound to flow from the application of clause 44' to the waterside industry. As a trade union official, I would urge my members to fight against such a clause if it were directed at my organization, and therefore I oppose the clause. {: #debate-24-s49 .speaker-JRJ} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bowden:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-24-s50 .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON:
Hume .- The honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey),** indeed almost every Opposition member who has spoken, has said that the bill is likely to foment trouble on the waterfront. As clause after clause is discussed we hear exactly the same thing. Honorable members opposite insist upon forgetting that this country is plagued with the worst waterfront industry in the world, and it is high time that it had a better one. That is why the Government has taken this action. We have plenty of time in which to see whether the proposal will work. It is important that it should work satisfactorily, because every home in this country is affected by conditions on the waterfront - and 95 per cent, of homes are those of workers. The Australian waterfront has held us to ransom for 50 years, but not once have Opposition members had a word to say about the unfortunate individual who owns the goods that are being shipped from this country. Their whole interest is centred on the union, but I remind them that the union is not above the law. We have been cursed by a bad waterfront performance from both sides of the industry. For heavens' sake, let us look at the matter in a new light. Surely the unfortunate individual who sends goods overseas, or imports them, has some rights in this matter. It is time that they were protected in this Parliament. We do noi know what will happen when the bill becomes law, but we should try to achieve some form of control because so far not one government has succeeded in giving us an efficient waterfront industry. {: #debate-24-s51 .speaker-JSS} ##### Mr BRUCE:
leichhardt .- Every paragraph of this clause is designed to force men to refrain from taking action to protect their working conditions. Many people believe that waterside work is confined to that which one sees on the surface, but I remind honorable members that those who work below need years of training, because their work involves a great deal of danger. For that reason, if the men on the job believe that the equipment should be repaired before they use it, they should be able to insist upon it. Under the bill, they would be liable to a penalty for doing so. All honorable members are aware that a number of old ships, which were used during the two wars, and have been registered in Panama by American and British companies, have such rotten rigging that its use would endanger the lives of waterside workers. In a case which I recall recently the men said that they would not begin work until repairs were effected. Under this clause such action would bring forth a penalty. The clause mentions " a person " so that the individual waterside worker is to be affected. On the other hand, there is not a word about the shortcomings of the shipping companies. One cannot blame the Minister, who was too young at the time, for not remembering what happened in the great maritime strike earlier in our history. However, one can blame the Minister for not studying, before bringing forward this legislation, what has happened in the past. The maritime strike was brought about because the employers of the day tried to impose on the waterside workers the conditions that this bill tries to impose upon them now. The whole of the Australian maritime industry was thrown into idleness, because the men would not stand for that sort of thing. I thought that we had become better educated, and more broadminded, than we were in those days. I did not expect that any government would introduce a clause such as this which will render every waterside worker who stands up for his rights liable to a penalty. After all, a man who is not game to stand up for his rights is not worthy of his name. Like the French kings, the Government has never learned the lessons of history. Among Government supporters are a great many whose ancestors landed in this country in the early days and " squatted " so that they might get a title to land. Subsequently they were granted a licence for about 6s. 8d. and eventually founded a wealthy aristocracy, which believed that the workers should have no rights at all. Many first-class citizens were sent out here as convicts because of the surplus population in Great Britain. Later, free men came out to this country to work under the new conditions and get away from those that existed in the Old Country. Employers of the same type also came here. Those people developed and opened up our country, and the ruling class that emerged then is still with us. I have in mind the old school-tie type, who think that the workers have no rights at all. Good heavens, I have lived amongst them! They are, in the main, men of excellent character. Many of them have families and, because of the interest that they have displayed in their children's education, many of their children have entered the professions. This legislation, will cause people outside the WatersideWorkers Federation to think that the members of that organization belong to the criminal class. The restrictions placed on them by this clause will, if they stand up for their rights, make them criminals. {: #debate-24-s52 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr Temporary Chairman: Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) put - >That the question he now put. The committee divided. (The Temporaby Chairman - MR. G. j. Bowden.) AYES: 48 NOES: 31 Majority....17 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put - That the clause be agreed to. The committee divided. ( The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 49 NOES: 31 Majority 18 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 45 to 54 - *by leave* - taken together and agreed to. Clause 55 (Consultations). {: #debate-24-s53 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I move - >That, at the beginning of the clause, the following sub-clause be inserted: - " (1.) A Union, or a prescribed representative of employers, may, from time to time, in writing, request the Authority to regard such person as is, or such persons as are, specified in the request (being a person or persons who may be readily communicated with by the Authority) as the representative or representatives of the Union or of the prescribed representative of employers, as the case may be, tor the purposes of the consultations referred to in sub-section (2.) of section eighteen, paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section twenty-six, sub-section (3.) of section thirty, paragraph (c) of sub-section (1.) of section thirty-two, or sub-section (1.) of section forty, of this Act, or such of those provisions as are specified in the request." The purpose of this amendment is to meet a request which has been put to me by representatives of the Australian Council of Trades Unions that the union ought to be able to nominate representatives whom the authority could consult in relation to the various matters upon which consulation has been provided for. It is to be noted that the clause does not require the authority to consult the people nominated because it could happen that one or other of the parties could embarrass the authority by ensuring that its nominees were not available for consultation when required. I think that that point meets the objection which,I gather, the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** has to the provision. Of course, it must he taken that any responsible statutory authority would meet the wishes of the union or employers by consulting the persons authorized by the union or the employers. I think that the amendment improves the clause from the point of view of those who made their representations to me and I commend it to the committee. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-24-s54 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- This is one provision that the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr.** Harold Holt) cannot say has appeared in earlier legislation. It is an entirely new provision. It is an escape clause which permits the authority to avoid all of the responsibilities that it. has in the terms of the earlier sections of the legislation. If this clause were carried, even in its amended form, it would still mean that the authority need not consult the parties. It could make orders without consultation and those whom the orders would affect could be heavily penalized without their having any consultations with the authority at all. I do not know how the Minister can argue that this is a reasonable provision to put into the legislation. The bill is bad enough, surely, as it is. The bill, in the preceding . clauses, provides for at least some consultation - limited to people whom the authority thinks fit. I take it that the purpose of the amendment is at. least to give the union an opportunity of nominating a representative with whom the authority may confer. Of course, the authority may not deem it necessary to confer. Therefore, it could avoid the provision for consultation. When I refer to this as an escape clause I mean that all the earlier provisions of the bill which have been represented by the Minister as protections for the trade unions viewpoint, being designed to ensure that the union will be consulted, can be torn up as far as the authority itself is concerned. The Opposition can see no merit in this provision at all. As [ have said, we think that this is an entirely bad piece of legislation from cover to cover, and this particular provision makes a bad bill even worse because the trade union representatives, if given the right to consult or confer with the authority, may have been able to influence the authority on occasion. The union representatives may have been able to 3how the authority that some of its orders were ridiculous. But now the authority need not worry about the viewpiont of the organization at all. The members of the Waterside Workers Federation are the men who will have to work under this legislation. At least, that is the intention of the Government but, in my opinion, there will be a cessation of work should the Government attempt to apply this legislation. The aim of the Government is to compel the waterside workers to work under this legislation. All of its provisions refer to waterside workers, yet their organization or their officials who are elected to represent them can be completely disregarded by the authority. I think that this is an entirely bad provision. It is a new provision, which has been introduced by this Government and it does not appear in any earlier legislation. Therefore, I believe that the Opposition is adopting the right attitude in opposing the clause entirely, even with the amendment submitted by the Minister. There is no doubt that the amendment, that the Minister has put forward represents a sort of sugar-coating for the pill. It might appear that the union had some rights - that it could select representatives to confer with the authority. The union can select its representatives in accordance with the amendment carried by the committee but that amendment will only give the union the right to select representatives. The amendment will not give the union the right to see that it is consulted on any orders made by theauthority. I support the attitude of the Opposition in strongly opposing the provision. {: #debate-24-s55 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT:
Wills .- For clause after clause, hour after hour, and day after day, we have heard the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** give reasonable explanations for unreasonable actions. That is the keynote of this whole exercise in parliamentary debate. The Minister has taken what we have offered from this side of the chamber in a very commendable spirit, considering the position in which he has been placed by the drafting of this legislation and the little support that he has received from his cohorts on the back benches. I listened to the view that he put, and it sounded reasonable. But I should again like to make the point that I made yesterday, which is that the Minister cannot expect always to be the Minister for Labour and National Service. At some time, certain of the other people who have expressed sentiments such as those expressed last night by honorable members during the adjournment debate last night and by the honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson),** to-night about the waterside workers may be in a position to enforce this legislation. Here, at the tail end of the bill, we see, finally, the duties and responsibilities that lie on the 26,000 waterside workers who have to face up to their duties to the country by continuing to work on all and every occasion demanded of them; whose union's rights are to be taken away on all and every possible occasion; who will be expected to sacrifice themselves to the community; who will be paid attendance money only when there is a surplus pf labour and there is no work for them to do ; to whom the community as a whole accepts no responsibility; and to whom, finally, the authority to control their destiny accepts no responsibility. I heard the Minister address to the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** a criticism that he was being irresponsible in putting the viewpoint of the Labour movement. We on this side of the House will continue to put that point of view ; and if the Government continues to produce pieces of legislation like this measure, which contains 34 page3, of challenge to the trade union movement - the movement which has a record of 60 years of comradeship and constructive developments of the nation - it will be looking for real trouble. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- Comradeship is the right word. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- I used the word " comradeship " advisedly. Honorable members opposite who served in the Defence Forces will know what it means. The trade union movement has been built on comradeship, and if the Government challenges the trade unions it will look for trouble, and will get it. {: #debate-24-s56 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I have offered no criticism of honorable members who put the viewpoint of the Labour movement. They are here to do that. My only criticism has been against methods by which people outside the Parliament might be encour aged, incited or counselled to disobey the laws which are democratically promulgated by this Parliament. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- How can we put our viewpoint if the Minister continually gags the debate? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The honorable gentleman can make all the buff and puff he cares on this matter, but he and those sitting alongside him know that rarely has a government given so many opportunities for discussion both at the second-reading stage and the committee stage on a hill of this character as this Government has given on this b 11 and on the Concil'ation and Arbitration Bill. Even if the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** does not approve, I assure him that responsible trade unionists outside tho Parliament have indicated their appreciation of the way in which the Government has permitted this free expression of opinion. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Who are they? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I know the sort of use the honorable gentleman would make of that information. All I want to say in respect of this particular provision is that it is what the draftsman would call a saving provision. It is utter nonsense to imagine that any responsible authority would wilfully refuse or omit to carry out the obligations imposed upon it by the rest of the statute and then rely upon this saving provision, in order to validate the action it has taken. This is a saving provision to cover the unforeseeable decision which, by no lack of good faith, but by some unavoidable omission or, perhaps, by some omission which was not brought to notice at the time, has occurred in relation to a particular action of the authority, and under which without a saving provision of this kind the action of the authority might not merely be invalidated and cause inconvenience to the authority itself but might also have the effect of causing inconvenience or loss to people affected by earlier decisions of the authority. The real safeguard that honorable gentlemen opposite have in this matter, I put to them, is that in the composition of this authority the Government hopes to include a responsbile member of the trade union movement. That has been prescribed in the legislation. I am quite conscious of the fact, along with my colleagues, that it is not going to meet our requirements or the very weighty responsibilities which this legislation creates, if the person whom we appoint as representative of the trade union movement carries no respect and no authority so far as the trade union movement itself is concerned. If that were the case and such a. person were included in the membership of this authority is it to be sensibly assumed that he is going to be a party to wilful acts of omission so as to enable this saving provision to take effect? This is the sort of sensible and reasonable provision made in a bill to avoid any omission made in good faith from invalidating orders which might have important consequences for persons affected by the legislation. It is also designed to meet the situation which, as [ said earlier, could arise if one party or the other refused to consult, or deliberately withheld himself from a position of consultation with the authority. That could make the work of the authority completely impracticable. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr Clarey: -- How is this provision going to act in regard to persons who have been prosecuted and fined and the action of the authority is afterwards found not to have been carried out in accordance with the act? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- As the honorable gentleman will see, it relates to the requirement of consultation in the making of an order, not consultation so far as a penalty is concerned. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr Clarey: -- The authority might make an order. Somebody might disobey that order and be prosecuted and suffer a penalty. Then it is discovered that the authority has not carried out the requirement of consultation. Would the person concerned be refunded his fine? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I imagine that in those circumstances the authority would take that into account as one of the important factors bearing on the course it should follow. If it came to the conclusion that had -it gone through the process of consultation it would not have made the order which led to a penalty, then it might very well withdraw the prosecution or remit the penalty, as the case might be. If it found on examination that that was not really relevant to the course which it had followed or had no material bearing on it, then I imagine it would allow tieposition to remain unchanged. This provision was not one that I had sought deliberately to insert into the legislations I consulted the draftsman in relation to it and after hearing his explanation I came to the conclusion that it was desirable to have a saving provision of this kind in the bill. For that reason I am not prepared to accept the request that has been put forward by the Opposition that the clause be deleted. {: #debate-24-s57 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- The Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** in the few remarks he has addressed to this clause implied that the legislation had received the approval of some trade union leaders.. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I did not say that at all. Do not misinterpret me. I said; they had expressed appreciation of the time the Government had allowed to the Parliament for discussion of the legislation. That does not commit them to supporting or opposing the bill. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- It would be rather interesting to know when they expressed that opinion, if it was expressed at all- {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- And who was it? {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- That is what I should like to know. I venture the opinion that the Minister only threw that in to holster up a very weak bill and a very weak, argument. How would the trade union leaders know what time was to he allowed for the discussion of any section of this bill? The Minister has gagged half of the debates that have taken place. Did he tell the trade union leaders that hewas going to gag the debate on important provisions of the bill ? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Has the honorable member ever heard of the guillotine ? {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- The Minister has not used the guillotine. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- But the honorable member's government did more than once on a measure of this kind. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- But we are dealing with this Government's action in connexion with this measure. Now, let us turn to what the Minister referred to as a protection for trade unionists. He said that if one of the parties will not confer, or if one of the persons who are nominated as a representative will not confer, this clause gives the authority the opportunity to proceed. But does not the Minister recognize that no trade union whose members are affected, or are likely to be affected, by an order of the authority, would refuse to confer? That is a ridiculous argument to advance. No responsible trade union would refuse to confer on the making of an order that is going to affect its own members. Therefore, it must be obvious that the intention of the particular clause is not for the purpose of meeting a situation such as that outlined by the Minister, but to give an opportunity to the authority to refuse to confer with the trade union representatives whenever it might desire to do so. Now, the Minister says that there is no danger to the trade union movement because it will have a representative on the authority. He has not told us who has been selected. I understand from my reading of the reports that the Government does not propose to give the Waterside Workers Federation the opportunity to select a representative on the authority, although they are the men who will be directly affected. Why was that decision made by the Government? Has the Government already selected somebody who is ready to move in as the employees' representative on the authority? Surely the trade union concerned ought to be consulted on the matter of who the representative of the waterside workers on the authority is to be! {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- Why? {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- Because the gentleman appointed to the authority is supposed to protect the interests of the workers. According to the Minister that is the reason for having him there - so that he can protect the interests of the employees. If it is the real intention of the Govern ment that this representative is torepresent the employees and to protect their interests, then the trade union movement is the right body to make theselection, especially the trade union whose members are affected. But theGovernment has no intention of consulting the trade unions. It wants to disregard the trade union movement completely. How will the Minister proceed to make the selection of the gentleman to represent the trade union concerned, with the knowledge that he has in a very limited field ? How will heselect a man, outside the union, who will be qualified to occupy the position of representative of the employees? The men able to judge matters that affect the employees are the men who actually work in the industry, who know conditions in the industry. These men know who isqualified to represent them. Why does the Government specifically exclude from membership of theauthority, as the representative of theemployees, any member of the Waterside Workers Federation? It is obvious that the Government has already selected, the members of the authority, and that it i3 waiting for this legislation to be passed, when it will let us know whom it has selected. The Minister should get right out of his head any idea that the trade union movement will be satisfied that because some person has held a position in the trade union movement, or has had some association with the movement, and may be personally approved of by the Minister, he will be acceptable to thetrade union movement. So I say, even at this late stage, that the Government has shown clearly that its intention is not to do anything for the protection of theworkers in the industry. The Minister said, referring to this clause - " This is not the provision I wanted in the legislation." But he is the Minister who introduced the legislation ! When we were in office we went through every clause of bills that were to be brought before theParliament, and we did not have provisions forced on us, as this provision hasobviously been forced on the Minister.. If he did not want clause 55 in the legislation, who wants it included? I suggest that **Mr. Haddy** and' the shipowners want it in. and because the shipowners want it in the Minister has had to accept it. He has no alternative. Therefore, on the Minister's own line of argument, it is obvious why every Labour man has to oppose this provision. Question put - >That the clause, as amended, be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 48 NOES: 32 Majority . . . . 16 *In division:* AYES NOES The. TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.- I suggest that honorable members should return to their places as quickly as possible, instead of walking about the floor of the chamber after the result of the division has been declared. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of bill - *by leave* - taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report *-by leave* - adopted. *Thursday14, June 1956.* {:#subdebate-24-0} #### Third Reading Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) - *by leave* - proposed - >That the bill be now read a third time. {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney -- I oppose the motion for the third reading of this bill because Parliament has not been afforded an ample opportunity to discuss its provisions. Owing to the ruthless use of the gag, numbers of members of the Opposition have not been given the opportunity to express their profound opposition to this antiLabour and anti-working class piece of legislation. For that reason, this bill should not be read a third time. During the discussion of this measure, many members of the Opposition have been waiting for the opportunity to speak, but they have been unable , to get the call, because when one of them rose the Minister for Labour **(Mr. Harold Holt)** who, in your absence, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** talked about a democratic Parliament, resorted to dictatorial and totalitarian methods to prevent proper discussion of this bill. He accusedone member of the Opposition of attempting to break the law of this country after Parliament had made its decision. The Minister attempted to intimidate the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** when he was stating his opposition to this measure. Even the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** was caught out of his place, because he was not given enough time to return- {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- I rise to. a point of order. Is the honorable member for East Sydney in order in referring to incidents which occurred at the committee stage? {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr Peters: -- More or less! {: #subdebate-24-0-s1 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr C F Adermann:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND -- Order! I will watch the debate, and the honorable member for East Sydney may proceed. Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) put - >That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. C. F. Adermann.) AYES: 49 NOES: 32 Majority . . 17 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put - That the bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. C. F. Adermann.) AYES: 49 NOES: 32 Majority . . . . 17 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 3202 {:#debate-25} ### EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1956 Bill returned from the Senate with message intimating that it did not insist on its amendment disagreed to by the House of Representatives and had agreed to the amendment made by the House in place thereof. {: .page-start } page 3202 {:#debate-26} ### NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1956 {:#subdebate-26-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 7th June *(vide* page 2901), on motion by **Dr. Donald** Cameron - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne -- The Opposition offers no objection to this bill. The Minister for Health **(Dr. Donald Cameron)** has explained that it is largely a machinery measure. I suspect that, in the past, some things have been done that should not have been done, and that the Government is putting them right. The doing of those things was probably due to the enthusiasm of the former Minister for Health, the right honorable member for Cowper **(Sir Earle Page).** It is proper that these matters should be put right. As I have stated, the Opposition does not offer any objection to the bill. I hope it will pass quickly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 3202 {:#debate-27} ### CELLULOSE ACETATE FLAKE BOUNTY BILL 1956 {:#subdebate-27-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 8th June *(vide* page 2998), on motion by **Mr. Osborne** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-27-0-s0 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Lalor .This measure is designed to give further assistance to the cellulose acetate flake industry. This industry was established in Australia very largely as a result of the encouragement given to the company concerned by the Chifley Labour Administration, which helped very considerably in the initial stages of the establishment of the industry. The company has been helped substantially since by acts of the Parliament. Honorable members on both sides of the Parliament support the payment of a bounty to enable this product to be produced in Australia at a price that will allow it to compete with similar products sold in this country and produced by big combinations of capital in other parts of the world. Cellulose acetate flake is the material from which another company manufactures rayon yarn. Both the rayon yarn manufacturing company, which depends on the Australian-made cellulose acetate flake, if its price is less than that of the imported product, and the company which manufactures the flake, naturally favour the payment of the bounty. Both companies approached the Tariff Board with a request for assistance to their industries. They have received it in the past. They have now made a further request for help, and the Tariff Board has recommended that it be given by means of bounties. The Opposition supports the measure. Nevertheless,I think we should criticize the frequency with which very large Australian industries seek, through the Parliament, the bounty of the Australian people in the form of financial assistance. In other words, they say to the Australian taxpayers, *en masse, "* Every one of you is expected to pay us something to ensure that our industry will show a profit at the end of the year ". {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- These applications are investigated by the Tariff Board. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- It is quite true, as the honorable member says, that we have a Tariff Board to investigate all these applications. I may say that I am an admirer of the chairman of the board, who has great capacity and great industry. We are lucky to have a man of such outstanding qualities as chairman of the board. We are fortunate, also, that we have a reasonably good board under such a chairman. But, just because we have a very capable Tariff Board to which the captains of very large aggregations of capital can come and state the reasons why the people of Australia should pay them a bounty, it does not necessarily follow that this Parliament should always, meekly and without criticism, either acquiesce in the recommendations of the Tariff Board or accept, willy-nilly, the blandishments and the requests of these concerns. I know that, if Australian industry is to be adequately protected and enabled to help build this great Commonwealth into the powerful nation it is capable of becoming, bounties and duties are, in many instances, inevitable, as they have been in the past. No party has been more generous in providing that assistance than has the Labour party. However, I utter a word of caution and point out that there are in this country many small people who from time to time enter industry and take up all sorts of businesses, but, because in the initial stages of their enterprises they cannot make profits and because the banking institutions controlled by the States and the Commonwealth, as well as private banks, do not see fit to give them the essential financial assistance in the early years of their existence, they topple over by the hundred. Every year hundreds of them go out of business, but their passing is hardly noticed. Yet those who occupy the treasury bench in this House are continually prating about the success of private enterprise. If they were to make an assessment of the number of small people who go into business every year and fail, thereby losing their life's savings, they would be staggered at the result. Such people have no means of obtaining assistance, financial or otherwise. They take risks in entering business and fail. They have faith in their own capacity and they give of their best; but because of the unplanned economy which is part of our system of society, they are forced out of business. They do not go insolvent or bankrupt, but they lose their life's savings, and they generally lose the savings of some of their friends who have advanced money to them without security. No assessment of such people is ever made by Ministers, and yet they continually prate about the failure of socialism and so forth. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- How long is the honorable member going to take ? {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- I shall take as long as I can get away with, and I suggest that my remarks have some significance. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- Does the honorable member desire to be stopped? {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- No, certainly not. I believe that at present I am making a very pertinent point in this debate. There are not only thousands of individuals who have the experience of having to relinquish their enterprises every year and go right to the wall; there are also thousands of small concerns which, over long periods of years, operate with no margin of profit at ali and their net income in many cases is substantially less than that of basic-wage earners. They live in the expectation that some day the fairies will be good to them and they will become financially successful. Great companies, such as the company concerned in this measure, which I believe is the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited, have plenty of assets and can raise capital on the security of those assets. In such circumstances a company could sell, for example, cellulose acetate flakein Australia at a loss for perhaps ten years, and even then ultimately make a success of its business. However, because of their political power, because they employ great numbers of men, because their product is in demand and is important for the defence purposes of this country, and because they are extremely articulate, they get financial assistance. Their circumstances are completely different from those of the small individuals and concerns that I previously mentioned. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- I thought that the honorable member was quite recently commending the Tariff Board for its impartiality. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- Yes, I was doing that, but the people about whom I have been speaking - the small traders - never have an opportunity of going before the Tariff Board, because provision has not been made for them to do so. A man running a small furniture factory, for example, and employing himself and two or three other men, might go to the Minister for Customs and Excise **(Mr. Osborne)** and say, " Look here, my boy, I am having a tough run. I would like you, as a Minister, to help me ". Then the Minister would most certainly say to him, " I am very sorry for you, but there is no chance of my being able to put your case to the Tariff Board because your industry is so insignificant. I, as a Minister, deal only with concerns that employ thousands of workers, have millions of pounds of capital and are likely to become national assets ". No consideration is given to the fact that those thousands of people need help and consideration by the Government. I say that too little consideration has been given to them in the past by any government, and no consideration at all has been given to them by the present Government. In those circumstances, my warning is issued for the reason that I think that not only the Tariff Board but also the Government should take notice of this particular phase of our economic life. Before the Government refers these matters to the Tariff Board, it might make inquiries on its own account to ascertain whether some of these big concerns can stand on their own feet a little longer without approaching the national Treasury to take a dip out of the revenue provided by the smaller people in the community. I want to be generous even to those who desire to be facetious about this matter. If honorable members are anxious to go home to bed, I say to them that it is regrettable that in regard to tariff problems sufficient time for debate is never allowed to the honorable members in this House. Motion (by **Sir Eric** Harrison) put - >That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. C. F. Adermann.) AYES: 45 NOES: 20 Majority . . 25 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 3205 {:#debate-28} ### RAYON YARN BOUNTY BILL 1956 Debate resumed from the8th June *(vide* page 2999), on motion by **Mr. Osborne** *-* >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #debate-28-s0 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Lalor My remarks on the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Bill 1956 adequately cover the principles involved in providing a bounty on rayon yarn. I notice the lean and hungry look on the faces of honorable members on the ministerial benches and I know that supper has not been provided for the staffs. In those circumstances, and in view of the fact that the axe is about to descend on me, I am prepared to allow the bill to pass without further debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 3205 {:#debate-29} ### ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Sir Eric** Harrison) pro posed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #debate-29-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne . -I think that the Leader of the House **(Sir Eric Harrison)** might provide supper for the parliamentary staffs at this late hour. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjournedat 12.35 a.m. (Thursday). {: .page-start } page 3205 {:#debate-30} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers to questions were circulated: -* {: #debate-30-s0 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
Minister for Primary Industry · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answers to thehonorable member's questions are a?f follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. By-law admission of limited quantities -of tomato paste was approved in both years. 2. Prices offered by processors to Australian. tomato-growers varied as between States and were as follows in the main growing States: - New South Wales.- 1954-55- £14 10s. h. ton at grower's gate; 1955-5(1 - £16 10s. a ton at grower's gate. Victoria. - 1954-55 - £13 10s a ton at grower's gate; 1955-50 - £14 10s. a ton. at grower's gate. Queensland. - 1954-55 - £17 10s. 9d. a tonat railway siding; 1955-50 - £17 10s. 9d. a ton at railway siding. South Australia - In 1954-55 growers were paid £10 a ton at grower's gate and the figure this year iB expected to beat least as high. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Due to unfavorable seasonal conditions. Australian tomato-growers were unable to supply processors with adequate suppliesduring , these seasons. Imports were allowed and the duty was suspended under by-law. A proportion of the imported paste was subsequently used in tomato products exported front Australia. {:#subdebate-30-0} #### Australian Shipping Board {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many certified masters, officers and engineers are employed by the Australian Shipping Board? 1. How many other seamen are employed? 2. Is there permanent employment provided for sen men employed by the board, or are they all engaged on a voyage basis and paid off afterwards ? 3. For the " picking-up " of crews, has the Seamens Union authority to determine who may be available for selection and who may not? 4. Does the board require engineers tn engage for any period beyond the period when service as a ship's engineer qualifies for » higher certificate? 5. What is the total number of *(a)* administrative and (6) sea-going employees? 6. What are the names, tonnages and ships owned by the board J {: #subdebate-30-0-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
Minister for Air · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP -- The Minister for Shipping and Transport has furnished the following replies to the honorable member's questions: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There are at present 488 certificated masters, officers and engineers employed by the Australian Shipping Board. Of this total 202 are members of the Merchant Service Guild and 280 members of the Institute of Marine and Power Engineers. 1. There is a total of 1103 other seamen employed by the board. 2. In accordance with the Navigation Act, seamen employed by the board are engaged on articles with a currency of six months but they can always sign new articles for the same vessel with the owner's approval. 3. Members of the Seamens Union are engaged in accordance with the procedure set out in clause 03 of the seamen's award of 1955. This clause prescribes that the employer is required to notify the union and the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office of the number of seamen required for a particular ship. The union is bound to inform its members of the employment offering and to send the required number of men if available to the Mercantile Marine Office for engagement. It is open, however, either to the employer to decline to accept any seamen offering or to a seaman to decline the offer of employment. *II* the objection of either the employer or a seaman is upheld by the superintendent another seaman must be supplied by the union. 4. The conditions of employment of marine engineers ure governed by the Arbitration Court award which provides periods of notice of termination of service to be given by the employee or the shipowner. The required period varies according to the length of service. Provided these provisions are observed an employee may resign or may be discharged at any time. 5. The total shore based staff of the hoard is 140 and the sea-going employees total 1591. 6. The names, tonnages and speeds of the vessels operated by the board are as follows: - >The above figures do not Include the vessel *Lake Eyre* or her crew as the vessel will not be commissioned until late In June.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 June 1956, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1956/19560613_reps_22_hor11/>.