Senate
11 November 1904
2nd Parliament · 1st Session
The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 6849
PAPERS
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON laid upon the table the following papers : -
Summary of negotiations for further extension of mail and other services to the Pacific Islands.
Ordered to be printed.
Progress report of the Royal Commission on the Butter Industry.
page 6849
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
Attorney-General · South Australia · Free Trade
– It will meet the general wish if I take this opportunity of stating that I do not propose to ask the Senate to sit on Tuesday next. I think that satisfactory progress has been made with the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. It is not to be counted by the number of lines, but by the substance of the matters which have been dealt with, and therefore I move -
That the Senate at its rising adjourn until Wednesday next.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 6849
QUESTION
MILITARY HEAD-COVERING
Senator CLEMONS:
for Senator Lt.Col. Neild
asked the Attorney-General, upon notice -
- Has the attention of the Minister for Defence been drawn to the statement made by the London correspondent of the Sydney Daily Telegraph (5th November) to the effect that “ the flattopped, Salvation Army-cum-cook’s cap “ introduced into the British Army some short time since, has been abolished?
- Is it intended to follow the example of the British Army and abolish the similar “ German pattern head covering “ in the Commonwealth Military Forces?
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– No official information has been received with regard to this matter.
page 6849
QUESTION
NEW GUINEA ABORIGINES
Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND
asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -
- Is the following paragraph, which appeared in the Melbourne Age of the 24th October last, a fair statement of the facts : - “ The Prime Minister has under consideration, in his capacity of Minister for External Affairs, a proposal to appoint a natives’ ad vocate in New Guinea for the protection of the aborigines. Last year Mr.Reid’s predecessor, Mr. Deakin, received a resolution from the New Guinea district committee of the London Missionary Society, urging the necessity for the appointment of a qualified Government officer to represent the natives, on account of the large influx of Europeans dining the past year or so, and the rapid development of the country to be expected. The Federal Government was reminded thata similar resolution has been passed six years ago, and that the necessity for a native protector was now more urgent. Mr. Reid intends to deal with the matter “ ?
- Has the Prime Minister dealt with the matter. If so, in what manner?
- Will the Attorney-General be good enough in his reply to these questions, to give the Senate the terms of the resolution received from the New Guinea district committee of the London Missionary Society?
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
- Yes.
- Yes. A copy of the resolution has been forwarded for consideration of the present Administrator of British New Guinea.
- The following is a copy of the resolution passed at a meeting of the New Guinea district committee of the London Missionary Society in March, 1903 : - “ That we beg to call the attention of the Government of British New Guinea to the resolution of this Committee, which we had the honour of presenting six years ago, and which reads : - ‘ That this Committee respectfully draws the attention of the Government to the necessity which has arisen for the appointment of a qualified Government officer whose duty it should be to represent the natives. The large influx of Europeans during the past year or so, and the rapid development of the country, which may be expected in the near future, leads this Committee to feel that some such provision for competent native protection and defence should be provided.’ “ In view of probable changes under the Commonwealth, and possible large immigration, we feel that the subject is more important now (March, 1903) than when that resolution was passed, and the necessity for a native protector greater than it has ever been.”
page 6849
CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL
In Committee (Consideration resumed from 10th November, vide page 6832) :
Clause 55 -
Provided that no such organization shall be entitled to any declaration of preference by the Court, when, and so long as its rules or other binding decisions permit the application of its funds to political purposes or require its members to do anything of a political character. . . .
Upon which Senator de Largie had moved, by way of amendment -
That after the word “ decisions,” line 4, the following words be inserted - “ compel or require any of its members to vote for or subscribe to the funds of any political party.”
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
Attorney-General · South Australia · Free Trade
– I only wish to add three points to what I have already said on this amendment. In the first place, I wish to complete a quotation I made from the speech of Mr. Isaacs in reference to this provision, of which he, in conjunction with Mr. Groom, was the author. In responding to the statement that I quoted from the speech of Mr. Watson yesterday, that he had not seen the phraseology of the amendment, and was willing, to accept the spirit, Mr. Isaacs said, at page 2956 -
I do not commit myself to the phraseology. I wish, as far as I can, to carry out the views I have just enunciated. The spirit of the proposal is as follows : - “ No preference shall be declared to any organization under this Act if its rules, decisions, or practices, or any of them provide for or permit either the application or appropriation of its funds or any part thereof for any political purpose whatever, or any political action on the part of the organization.”
He proceeded to say -
Whenever an industrial organization says, “ We want to gain an advantage over our fellowworkers,” then they should add, “ We drop our political platform.”
The words of that amendment, as suggested by Mr. Isaacs at that time, were subsequently cut down and modified into the proviso which we have under discussion. I now come to my second point. Senator Turley, by interjection, said, “ That amend- ment was carried in another place by one vote, as my honorable friend will permit me to remind him.” That is true.
Senator Turley:
– It was accepted as the lesser of two evils.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– I do not comment on it. My honorable friend put it in that way., and the effect is not appreciated until we realize that the proviso as it now stands, with the amendment as emanating from Mr. Isaacs and Mr. Groom, was carried by the votes of my honorable friend’s party in the other Chamber.
Senator Turley:
– Because it was not as bad as Mr. Glynn’s amendment.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– I make no comment. I am sure that my honorable friends realize that I am merely mentioning a simple fact, that this proviso to preclude preference in the case of’ an organization which is political as well as industrial, and which they are now attacking here, was carried by the votes of their own party in the other Chamber, and by a majority of one against those who wanted something which they considered more drastic.
Senator McGregor:
– Did the honorable and learned senator, in his reading, see any words about a bridge?
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– I do not wish to enlarge the consideration of the matter beyond the point we have under discussion. I think it is a simple fact j its significance I leave to my honorable friends. I now come to the third matter about which I wish to say a few words. Senator McGregor asked a question in regard to clause 62, and I promised to refer to it. This is the first of a series of three clauses under which, in a case of special emergency, the GovernorGeneral has power to- proclaim any association as an organization under the Act. It will only be brought into force in a case of great emergency, in which, owing to the extension of a trade dispute from one State perhaps to all the States of the Commonwealth, at any rate to another State, it has assumed the dimensions practically of a national industrial revolt - whether this is due to employers or employes is not the question - and where it is necessary that the arm of the Executive should’ be brought into play.
Senator Turley:
– When it is necessary to cite one party to the dispute who would not otherwise go to the Court.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– As- my honorable friend puts it, it is practically only applicable in the case of a party defendant. Of course a provision of that kind is drastic, and interference by the Executive in that way is only conceivable in the event of a crisis of a very alarming character, affecting the objects to be met by the general provisions with regard to conciliation and arbitration. But these provisions do not in any way affect the view which I took the liberty of submitting to honorable senators last night. I am anticipating a little, sir, with a view to explaining its relevance to the very important matter we are considering, as suggested toy Senator McGregor. In the first place, it is greatly safeguarded, because the proclamation may limit entirely the organization -
For such of the purposes of this Act as are directed by the proclamation or as prescribed.
Senator Guthrie:
– The “ purposes “ may go outside the Act.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– No ; the organization as proclaimed must be one for some of the purposes within the four corners of the Act. But still that is not the point I wish to submit for the consideration of honorable senators. Clause 63 says -
The power of adopting rules conferred by section 56 shall apply to any proclaimed organization.
It has been argued by my honorable friends that when an association becomes an organization under this measure, or is proclaimed an organization it is a new organization for the purposes of the measure.
Senator Pearce:
– Nothing of the sort.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– My honorable friend puts his difference strongly.
Senator Pearce:
– I feel strongly
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– The power of adopting rules conferred by clause 56 would apply to any proclaimed organization. Under clause 56, when an association itself applies for registration, it adopts rules. The old organization is governed by its own State rules, which are untouched!; but when it registers under this measure it adopts rules.
Senator Pearce:
– Does not that , mean that if the rules are contrary to clause 56, and the organization does not alter them, the Governor-General may provide new rules ?
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– My honorable friend is anticipating what I was going to say. This clause does not in any way lessen the force of the argument as to the changed status so to speak of the organization. “The measure does not interfere with existing trade unions in a State. Because when a union becomes an organization under this measure, it does so under a new set of rules applicable to, and for the purposes of this measure. If it is a proclaimed organization, great care has been taken to make the same principle apply. The proclamation of an association does not deprive it of the power to make its own rules. The second paragraph of clause 63 says that if it does not make rules in conformity with the measure, the Court may prescribe or frame the rules. But in every case they must be new rules under the new legislation.
Senator Pearce:
– What becomes of the old rules?
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– They remain in force.
Senator Pearce:
– Then there must be two organizations.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– Surely my honorable friend sees that’ new rules have to be adopted.
Senator McGregor:
– The AttorneyGeneral is coming round to my theory.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– I do not understand the honorable senator’s theory now. Attention has been called to clause 62, which does not in any way affect the difficulties we are discussing in connexion with clause 55, and it leaves untouched the position that when an association registers, or is proclaimed under this Bill, provision is made so that rules applicable to the new state of things may be adopted, and if not adopted, shall be framed and applied by the Court.
Senator McGregor:
– The honorable and learned senator is not saying that the old organizations with their old rules cannot register under the measure.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– I never said anything else. I dissented from my honorable friend’s view in this respect : He put it, as I understand”, that you could not have a new organization under this Bill unless it was a national organization for the whole of Australia.
Senator McGregor:
– I say so still.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– I do not agree.
Senator McGregor:
– That is what it must develop into.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– No doubt my honorable friend has arrived at that conclusion after careful consideration. I have arrived at the contrary conclusion, but I respect his view, as I am sure he respects mine.
Senator McGregor:
– Of what use would it be to register as a State society ?
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– Not as a State society, but as an organization under this Bill.
Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia
– The Attorney-General, with a view to influence those honorable senators who did not anticipate this difficulty when they brought forward1 their objections to our former amendment, has now anticipated the point that he conceived that we were going to raise, and which must have a considerable effect upon their minds. It was Senator Matheson who first introduced to the notice 11 d 2 of the Committee the point that there could be an organization for the purpose of this measure only. I must say that when Senator Matheson first brought forward that point, it appealed with very great force to me, and it seems to me that it was a perfectly logical view for the honorable senator to take, that without in any way endeavouring to influence or interfere with existing organizations in respect of their political rights, you could put into this Bill very sweeping words barring the organizations from taking political action. But I pointed out to Senator Matheson, by way of interjection, that I believed that he had entirely overlooked the fact that while that was possible with new organizations, something else might occur. That was this - that the Governor-General could proclaim an existing organization as an organization’ within this measure. Then Senator Matheson’s .theory -entirely fell to the ground. For this reason, that when the Governor-General proclaimed an existing organization as an organization within this measure, then that organization could be forced into Court as a defendant. I will instance a case.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– There must be new rules first.
Senator PEARCE:
– Not necessarily new rules.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– The Bill says so.
Senator PEARCE:
– But let me point out a phase of the case which the honorable and learned senator entirely ignored. Take the Seamen’s Union. Suppose that that union takes (the advice which Senator Guthrie says he will give them if this clause is passed in its present form, and that they do not register under the Bill. Suppose that the ship-owners do register. Suppose that, later on, a dispute arises between the two parties - no matter who starts it. Suppose the seamen demand an increase of wages, and determine to go on strike, as the coal-trimmers of Newcastle have gone on strike in defiance of the law. Here would be a maritime strike which would lay the whole of our shipping idle. Do not honorable senators think that that would operate as a powerful inducement to the Government of the day to advise the GovernorGeneral to use the power given to him In clauses 62, 63, and 64, to proclaim the Seamen’s Union an organization within the meaning of this Bill ?
Senator Clemons:
– No.
Senator PEARCE:
– Would the GovernorGeneral remain idle in such circumstances while he had this power?
Senator Clemons. The rules of the organization would have to conform to this measure.
Senator PEARCE:
– Before the rules are touched the union has to be proclaimed an organization. The Governor-General, when proclaiming a union an organization, would not say, “ Let me see your rules.” He would proclaim it first, and the organization would have to bring its rules within the meaning of the Act. If it did no1:, the organization could not evade the law by having one set of rules to meet the provisions of the Act, and another set to evade it. The organization so proclaimed would be the Seamen’s Union. Its rules would go with it. Its funds would go with it, and its officers would go with it. Its members would go with it also. They could not retire from it while the dispute was pending. Neither could they retire their funds while the dispute was pending. The Governor-General would have proclaimed the Seamen’s Union, whose members were on strike, or who would be about to go on strike, as an organization under clause 62. What would happen then ? The power of adopting rules conferred by clause 56 would apply to any proclaimed organization. The Seamen’s Union have rules which, if they were adopted, would debar them from getting preference. They would, therefore, have to bring their rules within clause 56. They would have to draft new rules or to have a separate set of rules, as provided by clause 56. If they did not do that, what would happen? The Governor-General would do it for them. And remember - this is my point - ‘that no matter if they say, “ We will still maintain our old rules as a separate set,” their funds, which are the life-blood of their union, would go with the rules and with the organization. They could not take the funds of the proclaimed organization, and give them to the organization carried on under the old rules. Therefore, the old organization would practically have to frame rules in accordance with this measure. What would happen then? They would have to appear as defendants in the Arbitration Court, because the ship-owners had cited them to appear. Now see what their position would be.. Having been cited to appear as defendants, they would have to make out a case before the Court. Has it not been contended by Senator Playford, Senator Matheson, and Senator Smith that unions have a right to preference
Senator Playford:
– On certain conditions.
Senator PEARCE:
– Still, the honorable senators hold that the Judge has a right to give them that preference. If, in their position as defendants, they asked that a term of the award should be preference, every provision in their rules relating in any way to political action would have to be eliminated.
Senator Playford:
– They need not apply for preference.
Senator PEARCE:
– But the honorable senator and others, by their votes, have said that preference ought to be given. Otherwise I cannot understand their votes. If preference is not a good thing, I cannot understand that the unions would ever apply for it. Why did the Government, of which Senator Playford was a member, put in the preference provision if it was not a good thing? Every union, if this limitation were ‘taken out, would apply for preference. They know its value in safeguarding their officers from the boycott. Now, Senator de Largie’s amendment strikes at party political action. Honorable senators opposite have contended that they do not object to trade unions, even when they are organizations under this measure, taking political action, if it is not of a party character.
Senator Clemons:
– We have not said that.
Senator PEARCE:
– A number of cases have been cited by honorable senators on this side to show that some political action on the part of the unions is absolutely necessary. Action in regard to accommodation for seamen and accommodation for shearers is not of a party character. Action in regard to Employers’ Liability Acts is not of a party character. T say that these are not party matters, because they are questions upon which politicians of all parties are agreed, and are willing to take action. They are questions which affect trade unions as trade unions, and there is every right to take action regarding them ; indeed, trade unions would not be representing and acting in the interests of the trades, unless they did take such action. Senator de Largie’s amendment is that after the words “ or binding decisions,” there shall be inserted the words “compel or require any. of. its members to vote for or subscribe to the funds of a political party.”
Senator Clemons:
– The honorable senator ought to say what the amendment really means. Is it not proposed to strike out all the rest of the clause?
Senator PEARCE:
– That is so, and the clause would then read as follows : -
Provided that no such organization shall be entitled to any declaration of preference by the Court, when and so long- as its rules and other binding decisions compel or require any of its members to vote for or subscribe to the funds of a political party.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– The clause is thus left permissive, and the whole of the funds of the organization may be applied to political purposes-
Senator PEARCE:
– It is not permissive. Any member may bring the union before the Court for illegally using the funds.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– The object of the clause is to compel, not to permit.
Senator PEARCE:
– Do not the words “ binding decisions “ compel ?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– Consistently with the amendment, the whole of the funds might be applied to political purposes.
Senator PEARCE:
– Not if even only one member objected ; but if no member objected, that would certainly be the effect. Honorable senators opposite declare that in their opposition to the amendment they are trying to safeguard the liberty of the minority, it may be of only one member of an organization. But if the members of an organization unanimously desire to spend their funds in a certain direction, where is the coercion or interference with liberty ? The Attorney-General certainly lets the “cat out of the bag,” when he contends that even if the members are unanimously in favour of a certain political action, they should be prevented by law.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– Certainly.
Senator PEARCE:
– It is a mere sham to say that the desire in supporting the clause as it stands is to safeguard the interests of the minority. Honorable senators opposite have shown that even if a union were unanimous, they would still prevent it from taking political action.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– Unanimity does not alter the fact that such an organization would be political.’
Senator PEARCE:
– But what has been the reason animating the action of honorable senators opposite? Those gentlemen say that because trade unions are given preference, they shall not have power to politically coerce men who, under the Bill, are forced into unions.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– No, no; that they, shall not coerce them to join unions.
Senator PEARCE:
– But if the whole of the members of the union are willing to spend their funds, or act unitedly in a certain direction, there can be no coercion ; and, therefore, there is no real sound objection to the amendment.
Senator Fraser:
– The minority will be coerced into being unanimous, or else, God help them !
Senator Turley:
– That is not so.
Senator Fraser:
– I pity the minority if it consists of only two or three.
Senator Turley:
– They could apply to the Court.
Senator PEARCE:
– If I may say so, with all respect, Senator Fraser does not appear to grasp the point. The minority are safeguarded by the amendment.
Senator Fraser:
– What would their lives be worth?
Senator PEARCE:
– That is not the question ; the question is what would a union’s. life be worth if it disregarded the provisions of the Act ? The Registrar has a whip, which he can hold over a union, and which no union can afford to disregard. The registration of a union may be cancelled, or the union may be sued for breach of award, involving the confiscation of the funds, and - the fining of individual members. I ask honorable senators who hold the view that separate organizations could be formed for the purposes of this Bill to remember that the Governor-General may proclaim an existing organization; and it is a mere evasion to say that after proclamation an organization could divide itself. The organization proclaimed is the organization which owns the funds, and which has certain rules ; and it is those rules - and not any new rules, as the AttorneyGeneral attempted to show - which have to be brought into conformity with the Bill. An organization, having- come under the Bill by proclamation, is then placed in a position to get preference, and it has to alter its existing rules by eliminating all reference to political action. It is admitted that it is necessary for unions to take political action apart from party politics.
Senator Gray:
– That has been done in the past.
Senator PEARCE:
– Those honorable senators who intend to vote against the amendment say that, while it may have been necessary on the part of unions to take political action in the past, unions shall under this Bill be debarred from the advantage of preference, unless they cut themselves off from political action in the future - political action, not only of a party character, but of a general character, an industrial character, and even of a municipal character. It was pointed out by Senator de Largie that the Amalgamated Workers’ Association of Western Australia has on many occasions taken part in political action not of a party character, and that certain honorable senators have co-opera:ed with that association in such political action. Then we were told by Senator Turley that the branches of the Australian Workers’ Union in the back blocks of Queensland take part in municipal and political affairs, though not of a party character, in the interests of their members. Then again the Seamen’s Union takes action in the interests of masters, officers, and men iri matters purely associated with the trade, but at the same time of a distinctly political, though not of a party political character. There is no defence left for the clause as it stands ; and all honorable senators may consistently support the amendment, which prevents party political action either in the direction of coercing members, or in connexion with the funds. The only time when political action of a party character can be taken is when there is absolute unanimity in the union - when every member is willing to take action, and spend the funds on party political lines. In such a contingency there is no coercion, and, therefore, there is no necessity for a clause to prevent men carrying out their unanimous wish. I hope that with these fresh considerations before them, the Committee will see that the clause as it stands is far too sweeping. There is no honorable senator who is prepared to say how far it may operate.
Senator de Largie:
– It is the greatest outrage ever perpetrated.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– It is a most excellently framed provision.
Senator PEARCE:
– The words “or require its members to do anything of a political character “ are as wide-
Senator Trenwith:
– As the universe.
Senator PEARCE:
– Yes.; they cover any possible action on the part of a union. On the other hand, the amendment is perfectly cleary and could be easily interpreted by any Court It would enable an organization to. know what disability it incurred when an application was made for preference, and, in the interests of moderation, I appeal to honorable senators to vote for a proposal which is definite and clear, and which meets all possible objection.
Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia
– I must say that I have to a certain extent been struck with what Senator Pearce has said in connexion with clauses 62 and 64. I do not propose, however, to deal with those clauses in the first place, but to confine myself to the amendment actually before us. Both Senator Pearce and Senator de Largie insist that the amendment leaves no scope for party political action on the part of an organization, and on that ground simply, we are asked to vote for the amendment. It is said that party political action is barred, and that all that is asked for by the amendment is freedom to take part in other classes of political action. What we have to do is to analyze the clause as it stands, and see how far it is affected by the amendment. The clause as it stands provides two separate, and entirely distinct conditions - a fact, which Senator de Largie appears to have overlooked. First of ail, the rules must not permit the application of the funds of an organization to political purposes. The second distinct proviso is that an organization shall not require its members to do anything of a political character. We must keep these two provisos entirely distinct in our mind when we discuss the amendment, and immediately we begin to apply the amendment to the clause, cut up in that way, we find that it would have been just as effective if Senator de Largie had proposed to strike out the words from “permit” to “purposes.” In fact, if Senator de Largie had moved to strike out the words “ permit the application of its funds to political purposes, and to leave the balance of the clause subject to trifling verbal amendments, his object would have been achieved.
Senator Pearce:
– Not at all, because the unions may require members to do something of a political character, though not of a party political character.
Senator de Largie:
– Could the Amalgamated Workers’ Association of the goldfields of Western Australia have taken the part it did in the separation movement had there been in existence a law of this kind ?
Senator MATHESON:
– I am inclined to think that the Amalgamated Workers’ Association could not have done so; I do not mince matters. But, on the other hand, there would have been nothing to prevent each individual member of the association taking the part which the association took.
Senator Trenwith:
– Could there have been any harm in that organization taking a part?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– That has nothing to do with the matter.
Senator MATHESON:
– It has nothing to do with the matter as it affects this Bill.
Senator Trenwith:
– But the clause proposes to prevent such action.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– No, it does not ; it merely takes away preference from an association which takes such action.
Senator Trenwith:
– It prevents an association taking such action unless it be taken evasively.
Senator de Largie:
– The separation movement was conducted by representatives of municipal councils, road boards, trade organizations, and other bodies, and not by individuals, as Senator Matheson has suggested.
Senator MATHESON:
– The movement to which Senator de Largie alludes was one by the whole of :he people of the goldfields, without exception, through their representative bodies - it was a great national movement. It was one which affected the life of the whole of the people of the goldfields, from the highest to the lowest.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– And the honorable senator was fortunately one of the leaders.
Senator MATHESON:
– I happened accidentally to be one of the leaders.
Senator Pearce:
– A petition was sent to Parliament; was not that political action?
Senator MATHESON:
– I do not think so. The petition was sent direct to the Queen. We passed by Parliament, because we knew it would be ineffectual to send a petition to Parliament in that case.
Senator Pearce:
– Was not the Queen a part of Parliament?
Senator MATHESON:
– Yes, the head of Parliament in that sense ; but the sending of that petition to the Queen did not make the movement a political one. All this argument is entirely beside the question, because we are dealing with organizations formed for specific purposes under the Bill. One of the primary objections I have is to the using of pressure to force persons into an association, the funds of which may be used for political purposes. I am asked by honorable senators opposite to bring pressure to bear upon persons to compel them to join unions. Senator de Largie’s amendment cuts out the restrictive part of the proviso so far as its first contingency is concerned, that is to say, the use of the funds of the association for political purposes. I cannot agree with the contention that any one member of an organization who objected to the use of its funds for political purposes could appeal to the Court to prevent that, if the rules permitted it.
Senator Pearce:
– He could secure the cancellation of the registration of the union if it were working under a preference award.
Senator Dobson:
– Suppose the organization had obtained preference?
Senator Pearce:
– Then it would lose it.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– Then why object to the organization being refused it, if it takes political action?
Senator MATHESON:
– Honorable senators must face the fact that if we have a preference provision at all, men to get employment on equal terms with unionists must join their union. They may be men of an absolutely conservative turn of mind, and with no sympathy whatever for democratic principles. I have met many such men, and are they to be debarred on that account from joining the union?
Senator Pearce:
– Certainly not.
Senator MATHESON:
– But under the amendment such men when they join the union would have funds to which they contributed controlled by the democratic majority, always to be found in these unions, and used to support political principles to which they were absolutely opposed.
Senator Pearce:
– Not party political principles.
Senator MATHESON:
– There is nothing to prevent it.
Senator Pearce:
– -The amendment would prevent it.
Senator MATHESON:
– I know that I have not convinced honorable senators opposite, but I hope I have made it clear that I cannot support any amendment which leaves out the words to which I have referred. I now deal with Senator de Largie’s variation of the terms of the last condition of the proviso - because that is all that the amendment amounts to. The words of the proviso are - require its members to do anything of a political character.
Senator de Largie proposes to vary those words in this way - compel or require any of its members to vote for or subscribe to the funds of any political party.
I do not see that the amendment would make any material variation in the proviso as it stands.
Senator Trenwith:
– If it makes no material variation, and pleases a number of people, why not adopt it?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– The proviso as it stands pleases a number of people.
Senator Pearce:
– The amendment leaves the trade unions free.
Senator MATHESON:
– Then the honorable senator practically admits my contention that the effect of Senator de Largie’s amendment is merely to strike out the first condition of the proviso - the reference to the application of the funds of an organization to political purposes.
Senator Pearce:
– It would also prevent the members doing anything of a party political nature.
Senator MATHESON:
- Senator de Largie merely adds the word “compel “ to the word “require,” as at present used, and does not vary’ the terms of the proviso.
Senator Pearce:
– Will not the proviso prevent the members of an organization from doing anything of a political nature? Senator de Largie’s amendment would allow them to do some things of a political nature, but nothing of a party political nature.
Senator MATHESON:
– I should never dream of defining municipal action as party politics.
Senator Findley:
– The honorable senator is not the Court, and it is the Court that must decide that.
Senator Gray:
– Hear, hear ! “ Trust the Court !”
Senator MATHESON:
- Senator Pearce has objected to clauses 62 to 64, and it seems to me that those clauses would have the effect which Senator Pearce represents. “Under them the Governor-General would be able, in cases of emergency, to compel such a union as the Seamen’s Union to become an organization under this Bill, and, in doing so, the members of that union would undoubtedly lose their rights of preference. I quite agree with Senator Pearce that it is impossible to split hairs, and say that a union on one side of its face has political objects, and on the other has not. But I also agree with what the Attorney-General has said, and that is that these clauses could only be brought into operation in exceptional circumstances.
Senator Pearce:
– That does not alter the hardship.
Senator MATHESON:
– I looked into the matter carefully yesterday, and I arrived at the same conclusion as did the AttorneyGeneral, that it is only in the very last resort that any Executive would dare to use the power given under these clauses. I go a little further than the AttorneyGeneral went, and I say that if it became necessary for the Executive of the Commonwealth to take advantage of these clauses, the condition of affairs would be such that the Bill would become inoperative. I consider that these three clauses are practically useless, and I am prepared to support honorable senators opposite in striking them out.
Senator Pearce:
– Then the honorable senator can have the Bill out.
Senator MATHESON:
- Senator Pearce objects to the clauses, and still insists upon having them. I do not think that they are in the least necessary. They would be operative only in extreme circumstances, and as they interfere with what, in my opinion, is an essential part of the Bill, I am prepared to have them struck out.
Senator GUTHRIE (South Australia).I have listened with attention to Senator Matheson, because I know that the honorable senator has given this question a great deal of consideration. However, I think that he has not given it all the consideration necessary. I desire to draw his attention to a case which occurred only the other day, which will show the injustice which might be done if the course suggested by the honorable senator were adopted. There is on the statute-book of Queensland an Income Tax Act which compels every one who earns any money whatever during the year, if it should be only one shilling, to pay an income tax of10s. per year to the Queensland Government.
Senator Givens:
– If you do not earn anything at all during the year you must pay that tax.
Senator Walker:
– Is the honorable senator aware that a Bill has recently been introduced into the Queensland Parliament to deal with the matter?
Senator Turley:
– Senator Guthrie is referring to a case under what is known in Queensland as the “ Poll Tax Act.”
Senator GUTHRIE:
– Members of the Seamen’s Union require occasionally during the year to enter Queensland ports, and the
Queensland Commissioner of Taxes insists that every one of them is liable to pay this tax of 10s. a year.
Senator Givens:
– He is made to pay, because it is stopped out of his wages.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– The Liability to pay this additional Queensland tax is strongly objected to by members of the Seamen’s Union who are domiciled in the other States, and have to pay the taxation demanded of them in those States. As a consequence a number of men ha.ve refused to pay this tax in Queensland, and have refused to accept their wages in a Queensland port. But under the Queensland Act the employer is proclaimed a collector of income tax under the Act, and he is compelled to collect the tax in every case, under a penalty of £5. A number of the seamen have said, “ We will only accept our wages in the port where we signed our articles.” The Peregrine is one of the ships on which a difficulty in this connexion took place, and the ship-owners said to the men, “ We shall pay you in Melbourne, but we will make this deduction.” The laws of Victoria would not allow them to make the deduction, but the employers said, “We are not going to pay this money ourselves.”
Senator Walker:
– Why should they ?
Senator GUTHRIE:
– They were quite right from their point of view. They say, “ If we are compelled to pay, you will have to go out of our ship.” The result in the case to which I refer was that the men were discharged. Cannot honorable senators see that there are here the makings of a maritime strike? It is possible that before long not a single man will agree to the deduction from his wages of10s. a year for the Government of Queensland, and will refuse to go to Queensland ports. We took counsel’s opinion on the point, and found that the law was against us. Yet honorable senators on the other side would not allow the Seamen’s Union to spend a penny of their funds for the purpose of bringing about an alteration of the law.
Senator Gray:
– It can be done by the local union.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– The Queensland branch is prepared to pay this income tax. It is no hardship for its members to pay an income tax in a State in which they get all the protection they desire. But it is a hardship upon men who are domiciled in New South Wales or Victoria, and who pay a State income tax, to be compelled to contribute to a second State which virtually does nothing for them The seamen who are domiciled outside Queensland have not a vote, in that State, and therefore it is a case of taxation without representation. It has been held by the Courts that persons who have invested their money in Queensland debentures, with the interest payable in London, are not liable to pay income tax. We are advised, on the best legal authority, that even although the wages accrue in Queensland ports, and are payable in. another State, the seamen have to pay the income tax. Yet honorable senators would give the Seamen’s Union no preference if they had a rule on the subject, or passed a resolution for the purpose of distributing literature or publishing advertisements asking the people of Queensland to remove ‘this disability from the seamen who visited their ports. The case of the captains ought, I think, to convince honorable senators that they are doing a gross injustice in adhering to the position they have taken up. Would it not be a legitimate thing for the masters to combine for the purpose of protecting the interests of their profession, and seeing that laws were not passed to their detriment?
Senator Pearce:
– They could not send their officials before a Royal Commission.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– No.
Senator Gray:
– Does the Labour Party in Queensland support that tax?
Senator GUTHRIE:
– I do not know.
Senator Walker:
– It was repealed this session.
Senator Pearce:
– Even if the law has been altered this session, it does not destroy the argument.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– At the present moment the Commissioner of Taxes is collecting income tax from the seamen.
Senator Pearce:
– Perhaps he is collecting arrears.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– The Act was to continue in force until the end of 1906.
Senator Turley:
– It is the tax for last vear that the Commissioner is collecting.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– Surely honorable senators do not wish to take away from captains the privilege of safe-guarding their interests as far as they may be affected bv legislation, and in expending a reasonable portion, of their funds for that purpose? If a master makes a mistake - if it is thought by some person that he has made a mistake, he is brought before a Court of Marine Inquiry, and called upon to defend himself. In different. States regulations are being passed requiring shipmasters to possess certain physical qualifications, and to have their eyesight tested every year. There is no class which is so much hampered by legislation as the seafaring class, yet honorable senators oi> the other side would absolutely debar seafaring me;; from combining and establishing a fund to look after their special interests.
Senator Staniforth Smith:
– Is there anything to prevent them from establishing a Political Seamen’s Union to deal with all such matters?
Senator GUTHRIE:
– Yes.
Senator Staniforth Smith:
– No. There is a Political Labour League in each State, and it could be used.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– Suppose that we had a Political Seamen’s Union and a Seamen’s Union. What questions could the latter deal with? It could deal with only one question, and that would be wages,’ because every other condition under which a seaman has to live is regulated politically.
Senator Staniforth Smith:
– That could be attended to by the Political Seamen’s Union.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– What was the primary cause of the great maritime strike? It was the food which was supplied to the men. The trouble originated on a Tasmanian boat, and developed until it threw the whole of Australia into a turmoil. The food, which is part of the wages, is; regulated by law. The accommodation for the men and the payment of their wages are also regulated by law. It is suggested that the seamen could have two unions. But under clauses 62 and 63 even a political union could be proclaimed. We are told that it would only be as a last resort that the Government would proclaim a union. But we know from bitter experience that during the heat and turmoil of a strike or lock-out a Government will take pretty strong action for the purpose of quelling the strikers.
Senator Matheson:
– Omit those clauses.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– What would be the value of the Act without them? It would be reduced to the same position as the South Australian Act, which merely provides for voluntary conciliation and arbitration.
Senator Matheson:
– Not at all.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– That is what some honorable senators are working for; but those who are in favour of doing away with industrial warfare will retain these clauses, and at the same time will not cripple the existing unions to the extent I have mentioned.
Senator TURLEY:
Queensland
– I do not think that Senator Matheson quite realizes what his proposal to omit clauses 62 and 63 means. The senators for New South Wales would be only too glad to support such an amendment, because it would leave the Act without any compulsion. Suppose that the Seamen’s Union or the Shearers’ Union had a dispute extending beyond the borders of the State, and wished to appeal to the Court, with a view to preventing disaster overtaking, not only themselves, but the commercial interests of the Commonwealth. Without those provisions in the Act no power would be available to make the employers appear before the Court. A strike would take place, and then people would want to know why legislation was passed which was absolutely ineffective, since it applied to only one party. It has been urged by the Attorney-General and Senator Matheson that it would only be as a last resort that an organization would be proclaimed. But very strange things have been done by a Government during a strike. In Queensland the military were called out, and camped all over the place. In many cases men were brought up and imprisoned for doing things which, I believe, were not against the law. In cases where men were charged the Executive sent special men to the districts with the object of manufacturing bogus evidence to secure their conviction. Not only were those things done in Queensland, but the Government forced through Parliament an Act to enable their officers to stop any man on the road in proclaimed districts, take him back 20 or 30 miles, examine him there, and if he had in his possession nothing which would incriminate him, so far as his connexion with an organization was concerned, turn him loose on the road. Men who were camped on the road were aroused in the middle of the night by troopers who were going round with the avowed object of seeing that the law was being observed. Yet we are told that a Government will do nothing of this sort, except as a last resort. During the maritime strike in 1891 things were done which I believe no Government would attempt to do in calm moments. In New South Wales a warrant was written out for the arrest and imprisonment of every man who was taking part in that strike as a responsible official. Is that an action that would be done by men in cool and calm moments? It was only because of the turmoil of a strike that the Executive at that time scarcely knew how to deal with affairs, and were prepared to resort to any measure, with a view to quell a possible disturbance.
Senator Gray:
– State what the men did ?
Senator TURLEY:
– I will let the honorable senator state what they did.
Senator Gray:
– They prevented other men from doing what it was their lawful business to do.
Senator TURLEY:
– They did not prevent any man, and the honorable senator cannot mention any place in Sydney where at that time any shipping was interfered with. The gates were closed, and the men were taken to their work over the water.
Senator Gray:
– I can speak of instances where men were absolutely debarred from working ; the traces were cut in the drays.
Senator TURLEY:
– The honorable senator is talking of the demonstration from Darling Harbor.
Senator Gray:
– I am talking of what the unionists did to the non-unionists.
Senator TURLEY:
– If they did that, they rendered themselves liable under the ordinary law, and could have been taken up and punished, just as they could if they did the same things at any other thime.
Senator Gray:
– At that time the law was almost powerless.
Senator TURLEY:
-The law was not powerless at all. In nearly every case the men were most law-abiding. There might have been a few cases where men went to extremes. That is usually so. But the Government were prepared to take action in the heat of the time which they would not have considered for a moment if they had been cool and calm, and had reasoned out what the results would be.
Senator Gray:
– That applies to bothparties.
Senator TURLEY:
– I admit that. A fair statement of our case has been put before the Committee by Senator Pearce. It is all very well to say that the organizations will not register under the measure. They may say, “ We do not want your Act, and do not desire to have anything to do with it ; we prefer to keep in our hands the power to strike when there is a dispute between ourselves and our employers.” The proviso we are considering might become one of the greatest engines of oppression ever passed by a Parliament to deal with trade unionists. In the event of the members of a union wishing to keep clear of registration altogether, because they cannot refrain from political action in matters affecting their trade, or matters of State politics, or municipal politics, this measure enables the Executive - which, as I say, may act under an impulse - to compel the organization to register, or to proclaim it as an organization, and force it to alter its rules and regulations, and even to confiscate every penny of its funds which the men have been subscribing ro for years with the object of securing soma; amelioration of the conditions under which they work. At bottom, this is a deliberate attempt to retain in the hands of the Executive the power to break up organizations, whenever a dispute may be pending, or actually taking place. Senator Smith said that there is no need for these organizations to take political action - that they can form other organizations outside for political purposes. We have had a great deal of talk at one time and another about the strength of political organizations. I contend that the strength of political organizations outside the industrial organizations, is not worth a snap of the finger. Any person who has ever been acquainted, not only with political organizations of employers, but with political organizations of workmen, must realize that they have absolutely no strength apart from industrial purposes. Employers’ organizations in times of strife are able to command enormous sums of money, with the object of defeating trade unions. But these same employers’ organizations, when they endeavour to work together to take political action, are comparatively weak. In Queensland, just before the last general election, there was a tremendous blare of trumpets about the effort that was to be made on the part of the employers. There was a great meeting in the Centennial Hall, at Brisbane. There was to be no whisky or anything which might inflame the passions and the utterances of men. It was to be just a tea party. They wanted £10,000 as a fighting fund, and many thousands of pounds were promised by the people who assembled.
Senator Pearce:
– Who called the meeting?
Senator TURLEY:
– The chairman of the Pastoralists’ Association, and the chairman of the Employers’ Union. They wanted to form a fund distinct altogether from their funds for industrial purposes. I believe that the whole amount that they were able to get. throughout Queensland was a little over ^2,000. If there had been an industrial dispute, they would have b,een able to raise two or three times that amount for the purpose of defeating the organizations, of workmen. But when a question of politics was concerned, men said, “ We are nor prepared to make any effort to help you. We will find money for you for industrial purposes, but in political matters we prefer to retain our own freedom.” Then take the political organizations of workers. It is of no use to blink the fact. We are told that the workmen are splendidly organized, and are able to command the services of numbers of helpers. But, as a matter of fact, the political organizations outside the industrial unions are very weak. I myself know of political organizations of workmen that consist of twenty -five or thirty members. These men are prepared to work at all times, with the object of creating political feeling, but they have never been able to do much, apart from the industrial organizations. What they have been able to do is this : By their consistent work they have been .able to point out to the great majority of workers in the labour unions that their interest lies in a certain direction. The drift of opinion amongst the members of organizations runs in the direction pointed out, because they realize that their interests lie in that direction. When an election comes round it is difficult to induce them to subscribe to the funds of a political organization, though, at the same time, their votes will be cast in the direction advocated by the members of the political organizations. That has been the case in Queensland, at any rate. When we are told that we have powerful political organizations, we reply that their power depends principally upon the strength of the labour organizations. Our industrial unions would be fifty times better off if this Bill were thrown into the waste-paper basket rather than passed in its present form. It is not only absolutely useless - it not only gives no protection whatever to the men . who have been carrying on organizations for a number of years - but it can be used” as a positive engine of oppression to crush out of existence industrial organizations as they already exist. What is the use of honorable senators saying, “We believe that trade unions have done a great deal of good, and that because this Bill is based upon organization the members of organizations should have preference,” if at the same time they’ are prepared to vote for a clause which will practically destroy those organizations? Why vote for giving them preference, and at the same time put into the Bill a clause which not only precludes them from getting preference, but which, in the event of a dispute being engineered by employers, would enable ,the Executive to coerce the unions? I should also like to point out this further danger. I believe in agitation being open and above beard. When there is any dissatisfaction, if you attempt to stifle it you merely force it underground. You do not kill it.. Byandby you will have a far greater disaster than you would have had by allowing the discontent to come ‘ to the surface. Every one knows that coercive measures have the effect of making men resort to actions which they would never dream of taking under other circumstances. Honorable senators have again and again pointed that out with regard to political affairs in European countries. Yet here we are endeavouring to compel the members of industrial organizations to resort to fraud and subterfuge, with the object of securing their funds and enabling them to be used in the way that the people who subscribed them intended. If the unions desire to take action in connexion with municipal, State, or Federal politics, it would be far better for the community to give them an opportunity to do so rather than force through a clause which will practically have the effect of driving discontent underground, where even the Executive of the day, with all the force they are able to command, will not be able to check it.
Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania
- Senator Pearce seems to think that if, after men have practically been compelled or induced to come into unions, they are unanimous as to political or any other matters, political action should not debar them from claiming preference. But when men are practically compelled to join unions, they are practically compelled to surrender their liberty. I presume that about two-thirds of the workers, or, at all events, a large number, remain outside the unions. Some do so because, as Senator Matheson pointed out, they are conservatives, ‘ and do not believe in all the methods of the
Labour Party, or of the unions, and prefer to mind their own business ; some, because they have a little cottage, or some property, and believe that trade unions are too aggressive ; some because they are indifferent, and have no loyalty to their own class; and some, because they prefer to spend on themselves the shilling which would otherwise be required for the weekly subscription. But when all classes of workmen find that under the preference clause they cannot get work, so long as there is a unionist idle, they will be induced or compelled by legislation to join a trade union; and it is then they surrender their freedom and liberty. And when they have been compelled to join, I should not be at all surprised if they all, lamb-like, did: what the committee of management told them, and sat passively by while the unionfunds were being used for political or any other purposes. I do not agree with the argument of Senator Pearce, who has not got rid of the objection which he perceives, namely, that the compulsion and surrender of liberty occur when, in order to get employment side by side with unionists, men have to join organizations.
Senator Turley:
– The honorable and learned senator brands trade unionists as a bad lot, with very little principle !
Senator DOBSON:
- Senator Turley has made a very interesting speech, which, however, had nothing to do with the provision before us. The honorable senator describes this legislation as most oppressive; but I do not think that any such language can be fairly used. I reminded the Committee a night or two ago of the reason why this proviso was inserted ; but the Attorney-General has dwelt upon that point at much greater length. Having given preference to unionists - a preference to which many of us utterly object, and to which all’ of us see some objection - this proviso forbidding unionists to take political action is a natural consequence. When we come to consider clauses 62, 63, and 64, together with the schedule which provides for rules, we shall find that we have got ourselves into a very complicated position. Every union will have to set to work to frame new rules before it can become an organization under the Bill.
Senator McGregor:
– How does .the honorable and learned senator know that?
Senator DOBSON:
– By reading schedule B. That schedule declares that -
The affairs of the association must be regulated by rules specifying the purposes for which it is formed, and providing for the following matters : -
The mode in which industrial agreements and other instruments may be made by or on behalf of the association;
The manner in which industrial disputes may be submitted by the association to the Court;
The manner in which consent of the association shall be given to any submission to the Court.
The manner in which the association may be represented before the Court.
No union in the Commonwealth, supposing the Bill be passed, could register without setting to work to frame new rules.
Senator Turley:
– The union could amend the rules.
Senator Givens:
– The Governor-General may proclaim an existing, organization.
Senator DOBSON:
– Then that association would have to begin to make new rules for the purposes of the Bill.
Senator Givens:
– Yes.
Senator DOBSON:
- Senator Turley says that a union, under the circumstances, would have to amend their rules ; but, as a matter of fact, new rules would have to be framed for the purposes of the Bill.
Senator Turley:
– That is, if the union wanted to register.
Senator Pearce:
– The honorable senator knows that all the unions will wish to register.
Senator Turley:
– Oh, no !
Senator DOBSON:
– Supposing a union does not register, what is going to happen in that most unlikely contingency? The honorable senator forgets that if some of the unions do not register they proclaim the Bill to be an unmitigated failure.
Senator Turley:
– Hear, hear ! It would be a failure with this provision in it.
Senator DOBSON:
– And if it is a failure, unions will not register, and we are talking here to no purpose.
Senator Turley:
– That is so.
Senator DOBSON:
– I am glad the honorable senator agrees with me in that Schedule B declares that unions which register must have certain rules, and I am driven back to the opinion which I have held from the first, namely, that the amendment suggested by Mr. Glynn in another place represents the only proper way in which to deal with this matter, and that all organizations should be compelled to register for the purposes of the Bill only. I cannot accept the amendment of Senator de Largie, because, rightly or wrongly, I think that compelling men to join unions in order to get work side by side with unionists-
Senator McGregor:
– The honorable and learned senator is against preference altogether.
Senator DOBSON:
– I am. We have no business, in any shape or way, to compel men to join a political association. The desire of honorable senators opposite is to get rid of this sweeping provision, but the provision was intentionally made sweeping. Another place has said, and I believe rightly, that if unionists are to have the great advantage of preference, they must have nothing to do with politics.
Senator Turley:
– What about organizations which do not want to register, but which are proclaimed by the GovernorGeneral in Council?
Senator DOBSON:
– I say that this Bill will be incomplete unless it contains the provision now before us. Every well-drawn Bill searches about for plaintiffs and defendants ; the whole meaning is that this Bill must be worked by organizations of employers on the one hand, and organizations of employes on the other. If an organization of employers wished, as may happen once in fifty times, to invoke the Court, and the employes’ union disbanded or declined to register in order to avoid meeting the employers, the Act would be very badly drawn if it did not give the Court power to name a defendant or some person to represent the union.
Senator Turley:
– But the honorable and learned senator would drive unions to subterfuge.
Senator DOBSON:
– No.I am dealing with circumstances under which, there being no union of employes, the Court has power to proclaim one. But I agree with the honorable senator that, all through this Bill, unionists will be driven to subterfuge, simply because they want priority, and, at the same time, desire to expend their funds for political purposes. And no Bill will prevent them doing so.
Senator Turley:
– The honorable and learned senator wants to drive the discontent underground.
Senator DOBSON:
– I do not, but what I say is that we ought to leave the unions alone with all their powers and political organization and machinery. That machinery has been perfected, and has worked with the greatest success; and I suggest that we should not detract from their power in any way.
Senator O’Keefe:
– But this Bill will not leave the unions alone.
Senator DOBSON:
– It is a most improper use of language to say that this Bill presses the unions in any way. As I say, preference has been given on the one condition that the unions give up politics, and there ought to be unions for the purposes of this Bill only.
Senator Turley:
– Define “politics.”
Senator DOBSON:
– The portion of the schedule which I read’ shows most conclusively that the only proper way to make the Bill workable is for every set of men who wish to have advantage of its provisions, to set to work and frame new rules - in point of fact, to form a new union.
Senator Turley:
– Define “ political character.”
Senator DOBSON:
– I do not desire to define those words, and I shall not do so. Unions ought to have nothing to do with politics, so long as they claim priority. Let them give up priority ; and if then they like, they may kill themselves by an undue use of the political machine. It is only a piece of subterfuge on the part of Senator Turley, to ask whether the presenting of a petition to Parliament would, under this clause, be “ political “ action. It is not relevant to the matter before us to answer such a question. The clause is perfectly plain - the intention of another place is perfectly plain. The unions are to have nothing to do with politics - they must not spend their funds for political purposes, or do anything of apolitical character, so long as they claim preference. Senator Trenwith and others declare that this clause presents great complexity, but, as a matter of fact, it is as plain as the sun at noonday - give up preference, and the unions may go on with their politics. Schedule B shows that unions register for the purposes of the Bill only, and a. similar remark may be made as to the funds. If the subscription to a union be one shilling a week, I suppose the . funds necessary for the purposes of this Bill could be represented by a halfpenny. There ought to be rules drawn up for the purposes of Schedule B, and the subscriptions to the special organization should be ear-marked and kept separate from the other money, which could be spent as the unions please. All this, to my mind, is perfectly plain, and we have complexity, simply because unions desire to have preference, and to exert as much political power as they can get.
Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania
– We might well have expected that the AttorneyGeneral, with his legal knowledge, and as leader of the Chamber, would have taken at least some trouble to define what is meant by the words “political purposes.”
Senator Dobson:
– The words are perfectly plain; I read them as meaning no political action whatever.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– We might also have expected some little unanimity amongst the legal members of the Senate, in guiding us laymen out of the darkness in which we are struggling in attempting to find the meaning of the words. Last night Senator Best, who is a lawyer, freely and frankly admitted that the words were as vague in meaning as it was possible for words to be, whereas now we have . Senator Dobson declaring that their meaning is quite plain. Time and again we have, by way of interjection, asked the Attorney-General to define the meaning for the satisfaction of the Committee, or at any rate, for the satisfaction of honorable senators on this side. The Attorney-General, however, has, I shall not say deliberately, evaded the question, but he has not treated the Commif.ee with quite that amount of courtesy we might expect from one in his position. Senator Best last night went to the length of telling those who are in favour of Senator de Largie’s amendment how the provision could be evaded. What is the use of fooling the public or ourselves? Either the proviso is a good thing or a bad thing ; and why should we pass it as it stands, and at the same time acknowledge to ourselves, and declare to the world, that we know perfectly well how it may be evaded? That is not the spirit in which to approach important legislation of this character.
Senator Turley:
– Senator Dobson has told us how the provision may be evaded.
Senator O’KEEFE:
- Senator Dobson is a consistent opponent of the Bill. ‘
Senator Dobson:
– Did not Senator Tur- ley tell us that we were compelling unions to resort to subterfuge ? That is what unions will be driven to if preference is given.
Senator O’KEEFE:
- Senator Turley’s remark was, I think, drawn, and rightly drawn, from him by the observations of Senator Best last night. It is not right to pass a provision of this importance, and at the same time declare, as it has been declared, that it is a farce and a sham. It has been suggested that the members of an organization may, by a little subterfuge, form themselves into another organization, and do exactly what the provision seeks to prohibit.
Senator DoBSON:
– But schedule B has to be observed.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– As to the merits or demerits of the amendment, I say at once that I am, if anything, more in favour of it than I was in favour of my own amendment which was defeated. I am as anxious as any member of the Committee or as any man in the country, that no non-unionist or any one else shall be compelled to do anything of a political character against his conscience. But this clause, as it stands, is too farreaching and too drastic, and I cannot understand how democrats like Senators Playford and Matheson, who are heartwhole in their desire to see this legislation made useful and effective, can be led away by the arguments of the other side. I think that even Senator Matheson, who has given some thought to the matter, will, on fuller consideration, prefer the amendment. Senitor Matheson is not like Senator Dobson, who would like to crush out trade unionism.
Senator Dobson:
– The honorable member has no right to say that 1 war : to crush out trade unionism.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– I do not wish to be unfair.
Senator Dobson:
– I would not lift a finger to crush out unionism.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– We need only consider the honorable and learned senator’s actions and words. On last Friday he made one of the bitterest speeches that has ever been delivered against any section of the community in any legislative chamber in Australia.
Senator Dobson:
– I simply quoted Mr. Macgregor, of New Zealand.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– The honorable and learned senator’s speeches generally have shown his desire to crush out unionism.
Senator Dobson:
– The honorable sena- , tor should leave me alone if he is only going to misrepresent me.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– Senator Dobson should leave trade unionists alone. The honorable and learned senator should not traduce and revile them, as he did in his speech last Friday. I refuse to sit here in silence to be slandered as a supporter of trade unionism, especially by a representative of my own State.
Senator Dobson:
– I did not traduce or revile the trade unionists, and the honorable senator should know it. He ought to keep to the clause.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– It is the duty of the Chairman to keep me to the clause, and Senator Dobson does not happen to be in the chair at present. I repeat that I refuse to allow the honorable and learned senator to slander me as a supporter of unionists.
Senator Dobson:
– I have never slandered the honorable senator.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– Indirectly, the honorable and learned senator has slandered those who are supporting the preference clause; because he has said that we are trying to starve non-unionists. I think that every one will be able to judge at its true value the new-born tender regard for the non-unionist section of the workers of Australia which the honorable and learned senator has displayed. I am satisfied that the non-unionists and every other section of the workers of Australia know to whom they should appeal if they desire fo have justice done to them. They will not appeal to the Dobsons in the Parliaments of Australia, but to those who support preference to unionists. The workers generally will set at its true value all that has been said by Senator Dobson and those who, with him, have repeatedly reviled and slandered in the most unfair way all who are supporting preference to unionists.
Senator Gray:
– All the arguments of honorable senators opposite are against nonunionists. The preference asked for ds against non-unionists.
Senator O’KEEFE:
- Senator Gray is one of those who do not want this Bill.
Senator Gray:
– I can tell honorable senators straight that I do not want this Bill.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– The honorable senator does not want arbitration of any kind.
Senator Gray:
– The honorable senator has no right to say that.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– The objection to preference to unionists which has been urged by honorable senators opposite is that it will compel non-unionists to enter unions, a certain portion of whose funds can be devoted to propaganda work in the interests of unionists, and also compel them to do something of a political character which is against their conviction. Senator de Largie’s amendment meets that objection completely, and I should like to know what those who object to preference Vo unionists can urge against it. In the absence of the Attorney-General, I would ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to say whether he does not think that either the Attorney-General or himself should clearly define what is meant by the words “ anything of a political character.” It is very possible that we shall have a miners’ organization extending throughout the Commonwealth, and a mining dispute may be brought before the Court under this Bill. We know that the ventilation of mines in (Australia, and especially of our deep mines, is in many cases very bad. It is so bad, even in many of the shallow mines, that a large percentage of miners working in them die of miner’s consumption in a very few years. I take the case of a mine, the ventilation of which is very bad, and in which unionists and non-unionists are working side by side. The unionists pass a resolution, which would be a binding decision, that in their interests they should approach the member for their district in the State Parliament to secure legislation for the improvement of the ventilation of mines. The resolution is carried at a meeting of unionists, and of course the non-unionists take no part in the matter. Later on a dispute arises in connexion with the mine, in which non-unionists and unionists alike are involved. Will Senator Drake say that, in such a case, when the dispute is brought before the Court, the unionists involved in it will be denied preference because under this proviso it will be held by the Court that they took action of a political nature ?
Senator Stewart:
– Of course they will.
Senator O’KEEFE:
- Senator Drake has not replied, and I think I might reasonably expect a reply to that question.
Senator Drake:
– The honorable senator might go on until the end of next month supposing cases.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– I do not suppose that, the honorable and learned senator wishes to evade my question, but that is not quite a fair reply to it. We have so far never found him disposed to evade a straightforward question.
Senator Drake:
– Not if it has to do with immediate practical politics.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– The question has surely to do with immediate practical politics. It is a question which is most likely to arise under this Bill. We have agreed to a clause granting preference to unionists under certain conditions. In the case which I have put I think there can be no doubt that political action will have been taken by the unionists to secure the better ventilation of the mines, in the interests of unionists and non-unionists alike. A small portion of the funds of the union will have been devoted to carrying out that action, and later on, when a dispute occurs, in which unionists and non-unionists take part, the mine-owners, if they are inclined to be tyrannical, will have an opportunity to “ get back on” the unionists who took this political action. According to our experience of some employers, it is likely that they will be disposed to vent their spite upon the unionist miners who took action to secure the better ventilation of the mine, and thus put the owners to extra expense. If they desired to discharge any men, the men whom they would discharge would not be non-unionists, but the unionists who, by their action, had put them to additional expense, and in the settlement of the dispute the Arbitration Court, under this proviso, would not have the power to grant preference to unionists, and that means that they would have to go. They would have to suffer for the action which they took to secure better conditions for the nonunionists in the mine, as well as for themselves. It is clear that such action as I have indicated would be political action, and, although the Committee have declared for the principle of preference to unionists in this Bill, honorable senators who assisted to carry that principle are now prepared to nullify it in a great measure by supporting the proviso to this clause. .
Senator Playford:
– The Labour Party in another place agreed to this proviso unanimously.
Senator O’KEEFE:
- Senator Playford is well aware that the exigencies of party government sometimes compel men to make a choice between two evils. The honorable senator is also aware that the members of our party in another place do not favour this proviso, and would have it made less drastic if they could. I am more strongly in favour of the amendment moved by Senator de Largie than I was in favour of my own amendment to strike out the whole proviso. I did not think it was necessary, and for that reason I moved that it should be left out. I say with the utmost earnestness that I believe we shall do great injustice to trade organizations if we allow the proviso to remain as it is. If this amendment is not acceptable, can the leader of the Government or any other honorable senator suggest other words which, while they will prevent the danger which is feared, will still to some extent meet the desire of those on this side who do not like the words “ anything of a political character”?
Senator Drake:
– Is it not better to ac.cept the words which have been agreed to by the other House?
Senator O’KEEFE:
– I do not think that the honorable and learned senator would always be in favour of adopting that course. If we do not like any words in a clause our duty is to substitute other words which we do like.
Senator Drake:
– There is an amendment proposed now.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– If the amendment is not carried I trust another amendment will be moved to make the wording of the clause less drastic and far-reaching. I think that even the Attorney-General should be willing to meet the wish of a large number of honorable senators who are willing to assist him to take out of the clause any danger of the kind he perceives. He might well show a little spirit of compromise, and meet us in the direction of making the clause less drastic. When Senator de Largie rose last night and moved his amendment the Attorney-General was going to accept it.
Senator Drake:
– The honorable senator is mistaken there.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– I maintain that I am not mistaken. When the AttorneyGeneral first read the amendment he was inclined to accept it. With his keen legal mind he would immediately have noticed if it contained any danger. He studied the amendment for a little while, and the very words with which he commenced his speech led me and others to believe that he was going to accept it. Practically he said, “What a pity we have lost a day and a half in debating the amendment to strike out the clause when we were going to have this amendment moved.”
Senator Drake:
– Yes ; why not have gone on with that amendment at once?
Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA · ALP
– Is the honorable and learned senator always prepared to accept a half -loaf in the first instance? The words which the Attorney-General used last night led me and others to believe that hp was going to accept the amendment. But two or three honorable senators at once came along, and influenced him to some extent. Of course, he was quite within his rights in not accepting it. But as we on this side have shown a large spirit of compromise by moving the amendment, he ought to unbend now, and submit a proposal which might be acceptable to those who consider that the clause-is too far-reaching and binding.
Senator Drake:
– His proposal is to adopt the clause as it stands, and as it was agreed to in the other House.
Senator O’KEEFE:
– Honorable senators on the other side, including the AttorneyGeneral, urge that the clause should be adopted as it stands, because they wish to prevent the danger of unionists compelling non-unionists to spend money or do something of a political character against their will. Every fair-minded man, I think, will admit that the amendment would prevent that danger. Because it says - so long as its rules or other binding decisions compel or require any of its members to vote for or subscribe to the funds of any political party.
I trust that the amendment will be carried, and that if it is not carried another amendment will be moved to take away from the clause its far-reaching character.
Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia
– I am sorry that the attendance of honorable senators is so meagre. (Quorum formed.) The clause as it stands is the worst clause that has ever been submitted to the Senate, for the simple reason that it seeks to interfere with trade unions in the exercise of an undoubted right. We should not curtail the political rights of any constitutional society, and undoubtedly that is what the clause aims at. If it is not ultra vires, my idea of what is unlawful or unconstitutional is somewhat defective. It is an outrageous attempt to rob trade unions of political rights which they have exercised so long for the benefit of the working classes.
Senator Gray:
– Individually trade unionists will continue to have the same rights as they have always possessed.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– We are ‘not dealing with individuals, but with organizations, whose political, rights are sought to be taken away by clause 55. I believe that if that were attempted to be done in any other way it would be condemned at once by all and sundry. I am satisfied that if trade unions were robbed of their political rights by this provision another kind of political organization would be brought into existence which might be less satisfactory to its opponents. In every country where an attempt has been made to put down constitutional agitation, public feeling has been expressed in other ways. Secret societies have been formed for the purpose of removing political tyrants, and have acted in such a way as to disgrace humanity. Trade unionists are neither better nor worse than the rest of humanity. Under similar circumstances we should have similar results in Austra lia as in Russia or America, or in any of the other countries where assassinations have taken place.
Senator Gray:
– The honorable senator knows differently from that.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– I believe that if an attempt were made to crush the Australian worker, and to prevent the expression of his political feelings in an open constitutional manner, he would be driven into secret societies with results similar to those which have occurred in other countries. I am opposed to the introduction of secret societies into trade unionism, or Aus tralian politics. An attempt was made a few years ago to organize the Knights of Labour on the gold-fields of Western Australia. Being president of one of the biggest organizations in the State, I was asked to join this secret society. I set my face against the formation of any such association on the gold-fields. I replied that I believed in constitutional methods, and intended to continue to exercise my rights as a citizen in an open, straightforward manner. I said that I declined to be a member of the Knights of Labour, because it was an attempt to carry on in a secret mariner the work which trade unions had always conducted in an open way. If, however, we had a law which prevented trade unions from giving public expression to their feelings, I should certainly agree to join a secret society. Human nature is the same the world over, and if clause 55 were successful in accomplishing the object of its framers, trade unions would find other means of carrying on their work.
Senator Turley:
– Worse means, probably.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– Worse means probably, so far as our political opponents were concerned. I believe that the greatest sufferers in the long run would be the opponents of trade unions. They might inflict much oppression and hardship, while they restrained the people from expressing their views in a constitutional way. But just as the despot has his hour of victory, so he has his hour of suffering.
Senator Turley:
– In Queensland, the effect of the Coercion Act was to increase our strength by 50 per cent.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– In every country, such legislation has had that effect, as no doubt it would in the Commonwealth. I have to complain of the manner in which my amendment is being treated. When the Attorney-General rose last night and said it was a pity that so much time had been wasted in discussing the amendment of Senator O’Keefe, I naturally concluded that he was going to accept my amendment.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– The honorable senator could not have concluded anything of the kind.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– I did from the demeanour or bearing of the honorable and learned senator.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– Before the honorable senator moved his amendment, he heard me say “ no,” when Senator Trenwith asked, me if I proposed to accept it. He knows perfectly well that there is no foundation for his statement.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– Forming that impression as I did, from the honorable and learned senator’s demeanour, I was ready to comply with his suggestion.
Senator Gray:
– The honorable senator ought to accept the denial of the AttorneyGeneral.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– If the AttorneyGeneral thinks that I am doing him an injustice in expressing what was in the mind of myself and every one on this side, I am quite willing to apologize to him.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– I am quite sure of that.
Senator DE LARGIE:
- Senator “ Gray has gone out of his way to interfere when the honorable and learned senator is quite capable of taking his own part.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– It seems to me to be impossible .that the honorable senator could have thought anything of the kind. When a question was distinctly asked, “ Do you approve of the amendment”? I said “no.”
Senator DE LARGIE:
– I can assure the honorable and learned senator that Senator McGregor and Senator Pearce both said to me, “ Yes ; take him at his word ; alter your amendment in the manner he has indicated.”
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– The honorable senator did not alter the amendment at all.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– I certainly altered it by the inclusion of the words that the Attorney-General suggested.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– The honorable senator put it in a different place, but he did not alter it. But he can put it wherever he pleases, and it will be equally vicious.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– There is no necessity for any heat, and if I misunderstood the Attorney-General’s demeanour, I am sorry.. All through the debate the cry had been that minorities would be placed in a dangerous position if we insisted on forcing them to comply with the general wish of the unions - that is to say, that they should have no control over the funds of the unions, or over the manner in which they should vote at election times. I hold that my amendment reasonably safeguards the rights of minorities. Having defined what political action means, I do not see why my amendment should be objected to. Of course, if Senator Symon contends for the total abolition of the political influence of the unions, I can understand his position. But he has shifted his ground very considerably if he takes up that attitude.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– I do not contend anything of the kind.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– I am pleased to know that, because the unions would never consent to .their political influence being taken away. That political influence is of greater value to them than any advantage that a compulsory arbitration law can give them. In the past the political influence of trade unions has been of the utmost service. At the time of the maritime strike in Sydney, such men as Senator Walker ‘ and Senator Gray, said that the unions did not go about their work in the proper manner. They said, “ Why bring about these industrial upheavals? Why punish the innocent as well as the guilty by these strikes? Why do you not send some men into Parliament, and endeavour to get your grievances redressed in a reasonable and constitutional manner “ ? We took them at their word, and I think they are very sorry that they ever gave the advice ; because the unions are to-day at the back of the most powerful political party in Australian politics. I can assure honorable senators opposite that if they think they are going to stem the .tide of the labour movement in Australia by these provisions, they are entirely mistaken. We are anxious to see this Bill placed upon the statute-book in a shape that would be of advantage to the industries of Australia. We do not wish to pass it for any political purpose. But apparently honorable senators opposite wish to use the Bill for the purpose of crushing the labour movement. There is always one consideration that should be remembered, and that is that honorable senators opposite are politicians of the Manchester school. They hold laissez faire principles. Therefore they can logically and conscientiously assume their present attitude. The great “ joss “ and founder of their school, John Bright, was the most bitter opponent of trade unions in England. So was Cobden, their other “ joss,” who said that he would rather live under the rule of the Bey of Algiers than under trade union influence.
Senator Gray:
– The working people of England worshipped John Bright.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– A considerable section were humbugged by him and by Cobden. The Manchester school, with its tricky politics, was able to dish the prospects of the most powerful trade union movement that has ever arisen in the old country - the Chartist movement. To-day the Manchester school is the most discredited of all schools of political thought.
Senator Gray:
– Absolutely untrue.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– I rise to order. Is the honorable senator justified in saying that the statement made is “ absolutely untrue “ ?
Senator Gray:
– I withdraw the remark, and say the statement was absolutely incorrect.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– I should like to draw attention to some of the influences which trade unions have exercised in the past. I do not wish to quote a partisan authority. I will not read the opinion of Tom Mann, John Burns, Ben Tillett, or Senator McGregor. I will quote the opinion of a writer who is looked upon as one of the greatest authorities in political thought of recent times - a man who in respect of political research has done more, perhaps, to throw light upon the industrial history of England than all the writers who went before him. I refer to Professor Thorold Rogers, at one time a member of the House of Commons, and Professor of Political Economy in the University of Oxford. No one can say that his works are of a partisan character. In his Six Centuries of Work and Wages, at page 523, he refers to the work that has been done by trade unionists - a good work which they could not possibly do in the future if this clause were carried in its present form. Professor Thorold Rogers says -
My reader will observe that I set great store by the reparative energy of labour partnerships or trade unions in improving the material prospects of the working classes. These institutions were repressed with passionate violence and malignant watchfulness as long as it was possible to do so. When it was necessary to relax the severities of the older laws, they were still persecuted by legal chicanery whenever oppression could on any pretence be justified. As they were slowly emancipated, they have constantly been the object of alarmist calumnies and sinister predictions. I do not speak of the language used by newspapers and reviews which merely take the capitalist side of the question, and give anonymous utterance to the passion of the hour. Far graver were the allegations of such persons as Senior and Thornton, economists whom I knew and respected for their clearness of sight and the excellence of their intentions. Even my friend, Mr. Mill, treated these forces of industrial life with a strange indifference. I confess to having at one time viewed them suspiciously ; but a long study of the history of labour has convinced me that they are, not only the best friends of the workman, but the best agency for the employer and the public, and that, to the extension of these associations, political economists and statesmen must look for the solution of some among the most pressing and the most difficult problems of our own time.
The opinion of Professor Thorold Rogers as to the good which has been done by trade unionism in the past, not only for the workers, but for the progress of all countries in which it has been permitted to operate freely, and for civilization generally, ought to carry some weight. I never yet met a really good employer of labour, who did not admit that trade unionism had promoted the interests of his particular industry ; and, while we may do some good by passing an Arbitration Bill, we shall certainly take away from the total benefit if we do anything calculated to lessen the influence and power for good of trade unions in any direction. There is scarcely a public question in the settlement of which trade unionism has not had a hand ; and I make bold to say that no society, no organization, no .institution, not even the church, has done so much good for suffering humanity as has trade unionism. We ought to consider well before we put the clock back merely for the sake of gaining a little political capital for the time being. That is really all that can be gained - party politics may benefit, but certainly politics will not benefit. The amendment has been proposed in order to prevent the exercise of party political influence by industrial organizations registered under this Bill. Surely that should be sufficient for any reasonable person ; and we on this side ought to be asked to make no further concession. People must be very short-sighted if they for a moment think it possible to thwart the aspirations of the working classes by crippling the political influence which has been used so well in the past.
Senator Dobson:
– Does any living soul want to do so?
Senator DE LARGIE:
– I fail to understand clause 55, if that is not its meaning.
Senator Pulsford:
– It is wasting time to say such a thing.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– I am sure we ought to be sympathetic with such a rapid, fast-living man as Senator Pulsford appears to be, when he objects to time being wasted. But a gentleman who has been responsible for a six-hours’ oration in this Chamber ought to be the last to complain on that score.
Senator Pulsford:
– I never speak unless I have something to say.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– It is wonderful the time the honorable senator can occupy even when he has nothing to say. Trade unionism has lifted the masses out of the state of thraldom and semi-slavery in which they were steeped’ a few generations ago. Indeed, it is not necessary to go back generations ; I need only cast my mind back to the beginning of my own industrial life, and I am still, comparatively speaking, a young man. Such has been the vast improvement in the coal -mining industry, which I have followed since I was ten years of age, that when we contrast the conditions which prevailed in the early seventies in the west of Scotland with the conditions which prevail to-day, it is hard to realize that we are contemplating the same country or the same people. Just before the passing of the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1872, the shocking state of ventilation in the mines of the old country was such that explosions were an every-day occurrence.
Senator Dobson:
– What has that to do with the question before the Chair?
Senator DE LARGIE:
– I wish to show reasons why we should not in any way lessen the beneficent influence of trade unionism. At the general election in Great Britain in 1873, Alexander MacDonald, a native of my own town of Airdrie, was returned for an English constituency, along with Tom Burt, from the North of England, and these were the two first labour members who went to the House of Commons. They introduced a Coal Mines Regulation Bill, which, I am glad to say, Mr. W. E. Gladstone assisted in passing. Had it not been for years of agitation and organization on the part of the miners throughout Great Britain, that Bill would never have passed. When we remember the grievances under which miners formerly worked, we can easily see (he good which has been effected by political effort.
Senator Gray:
– Surely the honorable senator does not mean to say that all the improvement was due to trade unions?
Senator DE LARGIE:
– Undoubtedly it was the efforts of the trade unions which brought about reform - the miners had themselves, and only themselves, to rely on. I grant that we had sympathetic friends in other classes of society, such as Lord Shaftesbury, Mr. Gladstone, and other reformers.
Senator Pulsford:
– Other men of the “Manchester school.”
Senator Guthrie:
– Lord Shaftesbury, was not of the “ Manchester school.”
Senator Gray:
– He was.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– No man hated the “ huckstering of the labour market, “ as he called it, so much as did Lord Shaftesbury. Considerably prior to the time to which I am now referring, Lord Shaftesbury had shown that the vast wealth which was being accumulated by individuals was due to the slavery imposed on women and children in the mines and factories of the Old Country. In my time women had been excluded from working below in the mines by Act of Parliament, but children were allowed to begin work almost at any age. I passed my tenth birthday in a coal-mine, and my case was not an unusual one; as a matter of fact, it was a general thing. Although I entered the mine very early in the morning, I never returned to the surface until very late a.t night, with the result that, in the winter, for week after week, and month after month, I never saw God’ s daylight, except on Sunday. I was in the mine long before the sun was up, and was still in the mine long after the sun had set. That is a condition of affairs which has been remedied by political influence. I may be told that all those grievances have been removed, and that ground for com plaint no longer exists ; but that is not so. Even in Victoria, as I mentioned last night, the ventilation and the sanitary conditions in the deep mines are almost as bad as thev were in the Old Country in the early seventies. Considering the improvement that has obtained elsewhere it is a disgrace - to the people of Victoria that such conditions should be permitted in the mines. If this Bill were in operation in the form honorable senators opposite desire, and the Amalgamated Miners’ Association of Victoria petitioned Parliament on the subject, or sought to return a member - and; they are suffering now, because they have not done so - they would cut themselves off from the operation of the measure, so far as preference is concerned. I have no wish to make statements which cannot be proved, and I should like to refer honorable senators to articles which appeared in the Bendigo Advertiser on the subject of “miners’ complaint “ or consumption, which is a disease brought about by bad ventilation. The pamphlet from which I quote is entitled “ Miners’ Complaint. The Primary Cause. How it may be combated. - A Reprint of Articles published in the Bendigo Advertiser in February and March, 1903.” I find this stated -
That dreadful scourge generally known as “miners’ complaint,” but described in the medical world as “ tuberculosis in miners,” is a subject upon which much has been spoken and written in Bendigo during the last twenty years, in fact, ever since our mines have penetrated deep down into the earth’s treasure chest.
So that, according to the Bendigo Advertiser, this grievance has existed in Bendigo for the last twenty years.
And it is a subject which will continue to crop up for discussion until sufficient light is thrown upon it to show the way by which the community may effectively combat the ravages of the disease. To what extent Bendigo has actually suffered no one can tell. Accurate statistics are wanting. But the painful story need not be written in black and white, for it unfolds itself throughout the city and suburbs in all its painful details. We would fain close our ears to it, but the cry of men, aged in what should be their prime, of wives deprived of their husbands, of children in need of their bread-winners, is too piercing to be shut out. The facts are too glaring to escape our attention ; they intrude themselves upon us with a persistency which compels sympathy, and should compel practical assistance. Thanks to Dr. B. Stewart Cowen, who last year read a most interesting paper on this subject to the Eaglehawk branch of the A.N.A., we have abundant proof that that occupation is the most important factor in the case of Eaglehawk, at any rate, in causing a high mortality from tuberculosis. Dr. Cowen has gone into figures, showing that during the twenty years, ending 1901, the total number of deaths at Eaglehawk from tuberculosis was 318, as against 51 fatal accidents. These are convincing figures. They show that in Eaglehawk there are six times as many deaths from tuberculosis as from mining accidents.
Senator O’Keefe:
– And the butcher’s bill from mining accidents is big enough too.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– Every one knows the dangers to which miners are exposed from accidents in shafts and drives, from explosions, and so on, but Dr. Cowen has shown that at Eaglehawk the mortality due to bad ventilation is six times greater than that which can be attributed to fatal accidents in mining. It is further said -
Dr. Cowen has prepared an analysis of the ages of these tubercular victims, as follows : -
The large majority of these men were miners. The rest included five blacksmiths, seven publicans, nine cab-drivers, and fourteen mine managers. Many of the publicans and cab-drivers had been miners. To use Dr. Cowen’s own words, “ This shows in a remarkable manner the enormous death-rate among men (principally miners), after the age of forty-five years, being at the rate of thirteen to one as compared with women.
As the mortality in Bendigo must be at least equally as high as the mortality at Eaglehawk, if not higher, it is apparent that the scourge is one which must be actively combated, not only for the sake of the men themselves, and those dependent upon them, but for the sake of the field, and for the sake of the State.
The pamphlet is a very lengthy one, but I have read sufficient to show that there exists in Victoria at the present time the very grievance which the unionists of a generation ago sought to redress in the old country., and it must be redressed here in the cause of humanity. But if the miners of Victoria were to enter upon work of that kind, they wouldbe told by the Court that they must be deprived of preference under this Bill. I could understand the attitude of the Government if its members were making any attempt to overcome the difficulty that this proviso, if passed as it stands, will prevent unionists continuing the good work in the cause of humanityin which they have taken so prominent a part in the past. The representatives of the Government in the Senate will not attempt to define what is “ anything of a political character.” They have not shown any desire to limit the scope of the proviso as it presents itself to us. The Attorney-General has not minced matters. He says that unionists must not interfere in politics., and that their total exclusion from politics is the meaning of the proviso. If that be so, how can honorable senators opposite expect us to permit such a law to be passed without protest? I remind honorable senators that the work of trade unions is not confined to industrial matters, whether they be unions of employes or employers. Manufacturers’ associations do not confine themselves to the consideration of patents and improved methods which will enable them to increase the output of their factories. They take a hand in shaping politics where they consider their interests are involved.
Senator Walker:
– They must not do so under this Bill.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– They will continue to do so, and honorable senators opposite cannot prevent them. We know that the members of farmers’ unions, when they meet, also take a turn at politics. Every organization, whether of employers or employes, enters more or less into the political field, and it is nonsense to suggest that we can have an organization that will not do so. For the same reason that organizations of employers take a hand in politics we say that unions of the working classes have a right to do likewise. We shall have nothing left to hope for in the future in the way of reform unless we continue to exercise our political power as a class for the betterment of working people. This is the course which has always been followed by trade unionists, and I am at a loss to understand what our place in the community would be if we did not continueto follow it. I hope that honorable senators who are disposed to vote against the amendment will give some reason for doing so. They should not vote against it unless they are able to show that there is no force in our contention that under this proviso as it stands our political influence will be curtailed. No attempt has been made to justify the proviso, except by saying that we are endeavouring to force men into organizations with the members of which they will not be in agreement politically. We have provided in the amendment a safeguard against anything of the kind, and I therefore trust that honorable senators opposite wil make some attempt to justify the attitude of opposition which they have assumed towards the amendment.
Senator GIVENS:
Queensland
– The attitude which honorable senators opposite, and especially the Attorney-General, have assumed towards the amendment would be entirely inexplicable were it not for the fact that they have fold us that they are opposed to any form of preference. That is a full explanation of their objection to the amendment. The House of Representatives and the Committee of the Senate have decided in favour of preference to trade organizations for their own protection, and yet honorable senators opposite are now trying to nullify the provision to which we have agreed. The fact that this proviso is an afterthought is conclusively proved by the fact that it is made an addition tq clause 55, instead of being included in the clause dealing with preference. It is made an addition to a clause dealing with registered organizations, and any one who examines the Bill for a moment must see that it is out of place where it is, and must have been put there as an afterthought. I have no doubt that this proviso was introduced in another place, and is sought to be retained here, with the express intention - and I might even say with the avowed intention. - to nullify the decision that preference should be given. In view of what has already been done, I point out to honorable senators that it is quite conceivable that the rights of organizations and trade unions might be bitterly assailed in the future, and if this proviso is passed as it stands those organizations as such will be deprived of the power to take any political action whatsoever to prevent the political rights which they already have being taken away from them. It is within the bounds of possibility that men like .some of the honorable senators opposite may be disposed to go even so far as to take from trade unionists their votes.
Senator Pulsford:
– Nonsense !
Senator GIVENS:
– They did it in Victoria only a short time ago.
Senator Findley:
– Hear, hear ; by the brutal Coercion Act.
Senator GIVENS:
– They did it when they passed the Act by which the State Parliament of Victoria disfranchised every man in the Public Service of the State. I believe- that if they thought thev had any possible hope of succeeding they would to-morrow gladly try to deprive every trade unionist of his vote. I point out that this proviso is only an insidious and disguised attempt to do exactly the same thing.
Senator Findley:
– The railway servants of Victoria were disfranchised on the ground that they had identified themselves with trade unions.
Senator Walker:
– They were given an electorate of their own.
Senator Findley:
– The bankers were not given an electorate of their own.
Senator GIVENS:
– If I were a railway servant in Victoria I would not register a vote, in order to show my utter abhorrence of such a rotten principle as that.
Senator Stewart:
– And of . the rotten men who passed it.
Senator Pulsford:
– I should like to say that I disagree with what was done with regard to the representation of Victorian railway servants. I think it was a mistake. ‘
Senator GIVENS:
– I am glad to hear the honorable senator say so. I am stating what has been done only to show what those who are opposed to trade unionists might do in the future, and it ‘is only what their adherence to this proviso seems to indicate some honorable senators would like to do in the present. Just as railway servants have been deprived of effective votes in Victoria, at some future time attempts might be made to deprive trade unionists of their votes. I have already stated that this proviso is an insidious attempt in that direction. If it were passed trade unionists would be absolutely powerless, as organizations, to protest even against an attempt to deprive them of their ordinary rights of citizenship. From the attitude of the Attorney-General last night, when the amendment was moved, I, in common with other honorable senators, was of opinion, that he was inclined to accept it as a reasonable compromise. But, having since heard his disclaimer, of course I know that I was wrong, and that he had no such intention. If he was right in the reasons he gave for opposing the amendment of Senator O’Keefe, undoubtedly we were justified in expecting that he would accept the amendment of Senator de Largie. The whole ground taken up by him then was that under the provisions already passed, the tendency would be to compel men to join unions, and that therefore, it was not right or fair that any action could be taken by a trade union which would coerce any individual member to subscribe funds for political purposes, or for any political action. He applauded a similar statement when it was made from this side by Senator Playford. We wished to meet our opponents to the fullest possible extent, and, therefore, we proposed to put in a proviso which would not allow any individual to be coerced in any way. Having heard his previous arguments, it was only reasonable that we should expect the Attorney-General to accept this amendment. But what sort of attitude did he take up when it was moved ? He objected to the use of the words “ compel or require” in the amendment and urged that the word “permit” should have been used. In making those statements he was merely throwing dust in the eyes of the public, because if the clause is read it will be found that whereas he wanted compulsion, we wanted freedom. Senator de Largie wishes to amend the proviso to read as follows : -
Provided that no such organization shall be entitled to any declaration oi preference by the Court when and so long as its rules or other binding decisions compel or require any of its members to vote for or subscribe to the funds of any political party.
We wish to provide that these men shall be free from all coercion and compulsion on the part of a union. In this amendment we have been asking and fighting for the freedom of the individual. But what does the Attorney-General want? He wants us to substitute the word “ permit,” so that the proviso would read in this way -
Provided that no such organization shall be entitled to any declaration of preference by the Court when and so long as its rules or other binding decisions permit any of its members to vote for or subscribe to the funds of any political party.
According to that provision a union could not even permit a man to vote. There is compulsion, indeed !.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– But, read “permit” with the words that are in the clause at present.
Senator GIVENS:
– We were not fighting the words which are in the clause ‘at present, but the words “ compel or require “ in the amendment, to which the AttorneyGeneral was objecting, and in which he said we should have used the word “permit.” He would have a set of rules drafted for the approval of the Court, so that a union should not even permit a man to vote to give a subscription towards the funds of any political party if he so desired, or to vote for any particular party. I have proved my contention that the AttorneyGeneral and those who think with him wish to deprive trade unions and trade unionists of their votes. They would go to that length straight away if they could; and this proviso is an insidious attempt in an underhand way, if I may use that expression, to accomplish the same purpose. We have done everything which is reasonable to meet their objections. If they were in earnest when they said that they did not want political organizations to be made mere organizations for party purposes ; if they were in earnest when they said that they did not wish individuals to be dragooned, or controlled, or driven into contributing to party funds, or voting for any particular person, we have met them to the fullest extent. If they can suggest a way in which we can go further to meet their views, we shall be prepared to go that much further to accomplish that particular purpose. But they were not in earnest in what they said, as is shown by their attitude towards the present amendment. They object to all political action on the part of unionists. Time and again during this debate it has been shown that almost everything which a union does may sometimes have to be given a political colour, but entirely apart from party politics. Let me state a case which often occurred in Queensland before there was a Labour P.arty in its Parliament. On many occasions the Minister of Mines, in response to agitations, attempted to amend the regulations, which concerned ‘the well-being, safety, and comfort of workers underground. In order to meet the wishes of the miners, and the mine-owners who were most interested, the Minister sent along a draft of the regulations to the Miners’ Union, and the MineOwners’ Association. As a member of the Miners’ .Union, on one occasion I acted with Senator Dawson, and on other occasions when I was in different parts of the country, I acted with other men. Night after night we sat considering the proposed amendments, drafting suggestions for adoption by the Minister, and preparing a statement of our reasons for making them. Sometimes we had a conference with the Mine-Owners’ Association, in order to see if we could arrive at an amicable solution. Undoubtedly that was political action. Yet honorable senators opposite would deprive the unionists of the right to take part in such proceedings, or to do anything to insure a better set of regulations being adopted in that or any other industry .’ For what purpose are mines regulations chiefly designed ? First, to insure the safety of the lives of the people engaged in the industry]; secondly, .to insure that the working conditions shall be as safe as possible, so as to protect the health and the limbs of the men from injury ; and, thirdly, to insure that the miners shall get as much as possible of the health-giving elements which are necessary, and which can be obtained underground. Very rarely is a Bill introduced for regulating the work which is done on the open fields. Why? Because the same necessity or danger does not exist. In the free open air, of course, there is no necessity for regulations regarding ventilation. A man is not then in a place where hundreds of tons of rock might fall upon him, or his comrades, and therefore there is no necessity to make any regulations in that regard. The Miners’ Union, whose safety, health, and well-being depend upon efficient political regulations being made for the management of the industry would be absolutely powerless to take any action, or to do a single thing in order to insure that any defects in the regulations would be remedied, or even that good regulations would be maintained. That is the position in which honorable senators would place us. Is it fair? We are willing to meet them more than halfway, in order to remove their main objection, if it was not put forward for some other reason. If, however, their objection is that the provision was only made to prevent men being forced into unions for political purposes, we have more than met them, because we are willing to put in the most drastic provision they can name, which will absolutely destroy any power that a union may have to take part in party politics. Will honorable senators meet us at all ? Do they possess any of that spirit of compromise about which they often talk to us so nobly?
Senator Gray:
– This Bill is all compromise.
Senator GIVENS:
– I am glad for once to be able to agree with the honorable senator; but the Bill does not go nearly as far as it ought to.
Senator Gray:
– It goes too far.
Senator GIVENS:
– I agree with the honorable senator that it is all compromise, because we are compromising all along the line. We are giving up the most powerful weapon which is known to modern times for the sake of getting peace. But what do we get in return? Honorable senators will not accept the decision, of the Committee. With one hand, they gave prefer ence to us, and with the other they desire to take it away. That is a mere playing with words. They should not be imbued with that unreasoning spirit. We, on this side, are quite willing to meet them, but when an amendment ,to accomplish their expressed desire is moved, they immediately become silent. Their expressed desire does not find further utterance. Has a single reason, ‘ worthy of a moment’s consideration, been given why this amendment should not be accepted? To unionists, nonunionists, and everybody else, we are giving the fullest possible freedom regarding political action in this amendment. That is what honorable senators opposite asked for and contended for. By this amendment, we say that no individual shall be either compelled or required to do anything of a political nature, to contribute to the funds of a political party, or to vote for any particular party.
Senator Turley:
– As a matter of fact, he never is.
Senator GIVENS:
– Of course, he is not. Under our ballot system, no member of a trade union could be compelled to vote for a particular party, because it was impossible for his mates or anybody else to know how he would vote. Honorable senators who say that it could be done, are, to use a vulgar phrase, merely “ talking through their necks.”
Senator Turley:
– Many of their mates are our strongest opponents at election time
Senator GIVENS:
– I know that many trade unionists have voted against me, as they had a perfect right Jo do. I believe I owed my defeat on one occasion to a number of votes having been bought from trade unionists by the person running my opponent. I never growled at any member of a trade union voting in any way he pleased. Honorable senators cannot point to a single instance in which any real attempt has been made to compel trade unionists to vote in a particular direction. Indeed, the ballot system would not permit any compulsion to be used. As Senator de Largie has pointed out, the amount of good that has been accomplished by trade unions in the past cannot be disputed. The highest authorities on economic and social affairs, admit that trade unions have accomplished more for the salvation and emancipation of the workers than all other forces combined. The same is admitted by the leading statesmen in England to-day. Why then should an attempt be made to emasculate trade unions, and take away from them their power to accomplish similar work in the future? Do honorable senators opposite think that all that it is desirable to accomplish, has been done? I believe that there is still a great deal for trade unions to do for the betterment of the workers of Australia. The question of preference continually enters into this discussion. We are told that this is the price we have to pay for preference. I hoped that that question had been fully decided. Both Houses have agreed that preference shall be conceded. It has been fully shown to be absolutely necessary. Senator Trenwith has shown from an instance regarding himself, and I have shown from my own case, that without preference, compulsory arbitration would be absolutely useless, and would simply result in victimizing the men who took a leading part in bringing cases before the Court. The secretary of the AntiSweating League of Victoria, Mr. Mauger, has stated that, when the Wages Boards were first introduced in this State, the men who took a prominent part in the movement were systematically victimized. But preference being necessary, why give it with the one hand, and take it away with the other? A trade union as such can do nothing without a political colouring. All the good work which the unions have accomplished has been mainly in the direction of legislative action.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– We are told that the unions should ak for benefits, and not seek to secure them for themselves.
Senator GIVENS:
– I suppose that it is expected that we should beg of the high influential men to grant benefits to the workers. We should go down on our bended knees to those who control the money bags, and the bosses of the financial institutions, and say, “ Will you please help us a little bit in carrying out these little ideas of ours.” But we ask for no favours for the workman. It is not favours that we want, but rights, and if it takes us a hundred years, or a hundred decades, we shall get them. When I say “ we,” I do not mean the representatives of labour in this Senate. I am speaking of “ we “ the workers of Australia; and, by-and-by, the workers of the world will be with us. Federation is in the air, and the time is not far distant when the organized employers of the world will have to face the organized workers. When that time comes, I have no doubt as to which side will secure the victory. Because, with all their boasted power and influence, and all their boasted wealth, the great capitalists and captains of industry would starve in a week if it were not for the workers. These people have to be spoon-fed, and they want to keep .a class in subjection and subservience to minister to them. It seems that honorable senators opposite are immovable on this question. No matter how faT we go to meet their wishes, we cannot satisfy them. I should have thought that they would gladly accept Senator de Largie’s amendment. We have gone the full length to meet the objections they have expressed, but they will not agree to what we propose. If they could suggest any further drastic proviso which would absolutely prohibit the unions as such from taking party political action or using the funds of the unions for the benefit of a party, I venture to say that honorable senators on this side would meet them to the full. But what they want is to clip the wings of the unions altogether. We are justified in saying that all this talk about the objections which honorable senators have to unions being allowed to exercise political power is hollow. If I were speaking in another place, I should say that it was so much arrant hypocrisy. I can understand the attitude of those who, like Senator Walker, object to any preference. The Attorney-General himself said at one time that he objected to preference. But, as the leader of the Government in this Chamber, he does not propose to excise the provision relating to preference from this Bill. His Government father the measure, and yet it contains provisions to which they are totally opposed ! Why do not honorable senators opposite frankly accept the decision of’ the Committee that preference must remain in the Bill ? Both Houses of Parliament have agreed to the principle, but in the other House, at the instigation of a certain party, this proviso was inserted as an afterthought to nullify preference. The very fact that it was inserted in clause 55 instead of in the clause dealing with preference shows that it was an afterthought. Are we to be bound by the decision of another place, forced on parties there by political exigencies? We know the sort of fighting that has been going on there, and the necessity which sometimes compels parties to adopt provisions in which they do not altogether believe. But, at any rate, both Houses have affirmed the principle of preference, and! to nullify ‘that principle afterwards by a subterfuge is unworthy of honorable senators. I shall vote for the amendment with the greatest of pleasure. If it is not carried, I shall be prepared to move another amendment in order to see whether we cannot meet honorable senators opposite. But I am afraid that they are mostly opposed to .preference altogether, and are doing their best to nullify it. No compromise will satisfy them. They are not amenable to reason. But we can accomplish one object, in showing to the country the sort of opposition that has been given to this Bill. We can let the public see that we are not the wild unreasoning party that honorable senators like Senator Walker and Senator Gray represent.
Senator Walker:
– I have not said a word about the Labour Party being unreasonable.
Senator GIVENS:
– It is the chief stock in trade of the party opposite, and of their newspaper paragraph writers that we are unreasonable.
Senator Walker:
– I have a great admiration for the organization of the honorable senator’s party.
Senator GIVENS:
– No language is too strong for honorable senators opposite and their press writers to use in denouncing us. This debate has shown that we are willing to meet our opponents in compromise to the fullest possible extent. But without preference this Bill would be useless, and preference with this provision attached would make the measure mischievous. The unions are being asked to give up a power, and are offered a stone in exchange ; because without preference the Bill would’ merely enable the employers to victimize every man who took any action to bring a case before the Arbitration Court.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– I regret that as usual I am struck with a run of hard luck. When this principle of preference was under discussion formerly, 1 propounded one or two questions to the legal light of the Government, but there was such a rush of eager talkers that the AttorneyGeneral was not allowed to answer them’. I believe that he made portion of an answer last night and another portion this morning. I had no opportunity to deal with his replies at the time, and now that I have an opportunity the honorable and learned senator is not here.
Senator Givens:
– The other legal light of the. Government is here.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– But he is asleep.
Senator Drake:
– No, wide awake !
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– The idea seems to have got possession of the minds of some honorable senators opposite that any facts that may be adduced or any arguments that may be based upon those facts are a waste of time. Senator Pulsford commented severely upon the action of Senator de Largie, and seemed to think that for that honorable senator to make a speech was a matter of great and grave importance. Sentor Pulsford ought to be the last member of this Chamber to taunt any other senator, who feels it to be necessary to make a statement, with wasting time. That honorable senator owes us a very deep debt of gratitude. ic was exceedingly painful to members of the last Parliament, who endured, quite heroically, the honorable senator’s six-hours’ oration on the Tariff - the recollection of the. infliction pains me now.
Senator Walker:
– Did the honorable senator not receive a very valuable work on the subject from Senator Pulsford?
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– I have not read that book, but I have had it in chapters from the author himself in several speeches in this Chamber. The attitude of the Government, and that of some honorable senators who are supporting the Government, is very difficult to understand. I have heard it suggested that honorable senators like Senators Walker and Gray are enthusiastically supporting the Government, not because they are antagonistic to trade unions, or because they have any deep designs on the Labour Party. but because of pure love and affection for trade unions. They know that prior to the introduction of the purifying influence of the Labour Party in the political arena, politics were very corrupt, and their regard for trade unions is such that they would prefer them not to dabble in politics, lest they lose their purity in the operation. It is quite possible that that is the motive; but those honorable senators could attain their end in a very much better way by using their influence to increase the number of the Labour Party, and thus insure pure politics. The contradictory attitude of some honorable senators has already been referred to. By one clause it has been decided to give preference to unionists, and now, by the clause before us, it is .proposed to take away that preference. I want it to be clearly understood that if the intention of the honorable senators who voted to give unions preference was genuine, their support of the Government on this clause is not genuine, and vice versa - that they merely allowed the preference clause to pass, keepingup their sleeve the provision now before us,in order, by its means, to take away the advantage previously conferred. It is said that unions are not entitled to preference, if they have any connexion as an organization with politics - if they do anything of a political character.
Senator Givens:
– Everything has a political character of some sort.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– I presume that anything which has a political bearing, or the slightest semblance of politics, is banned by this particular provision. In maintaining that position,honorable senators seem to lose sight of the double-barrelled nature of this particular provision. One part of this proviso deals with the matter of union funds, and if the provision ended there, it would be well ; but it proceeds to place under a ban any union which requires its members to do anything of a political character. These are two different matters altogether, but they are dealt with in the one proviso. There is no one on this side of the Chamber who is not willing to assist the Government to provide as many safeguards of a drastic nature as may be desired in connexion with the distribution of trade union funds. But when it is sought to deny trade unions the advantage of the Bill, because they do anything of a political character, or anything which has a political bearing, or any relationship to politics, that is going far beyond what any reasonable man expects.
Senator Guthrie:
– And a purely industrial matter might be involved.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– Of course. By the way, “ trade unions “ is not a correct term, because the organizations of to-day embrace all trades and occupations. “ Trade union “ to a large extent indicates a particular class or kind of work, whereas unions, as we understand them now, embrace all classes of work. From that point of view, I should like any honorable senator to indicate any action which has been taken in the past, or is likely to be taken in the future by any industrial organization, which could not be said to have a political bearing. Can any honorable senator mention such a case, either in this, or any other State of the. Commonwealth? If my view is correct, what is the value of all this talk about political dominance in our industrial unions? If unions are to be denied preference because they enter politics - if they are to be denied the right of political action, and are to organize, as has been suggested, and alter their rules and constitution so as. to specifically state what are the objects of the organizations - all I can say is that we are weakening the structure which we have for years been building up, and the value of which we have proved.
Senator Guthrie:
– And sacrificing our vested interests.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– Honorable senators on the other side are very eloquent on the rights and protection to be accorded by the community through Parliament, to vested interests of a particular kind, of which they have almost a complete monopoly. But when thevested interests are those of the greatbulk of the working people, those interests seem to lose a great deal of their glamour and brightness in the eyes’ of honorable senators opposite.
Senator Walker:
– Does the honorable senator remember Henry George’s definition of “ capital “ ?
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– I am not sure that I do.
Senator Walker:
– The definition of Henry George is “stored up labour,” so that, after all, capital is labour.
Senator Guthrie:
– Senator Walker ought also to give Henry George’s definition of “ capitalist.”
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– Henry George did, I believe, give that definition of capital, but long before he had a tongue to utter it, the definition had been given by others.
Senator Walker:
– Capitalists, after all, are men who have “ stored up labour ‘ ‘ - they have worked for the capital in days gone by.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– On that ground, Senator Walker would, I presume, be inclined to vote against the Government and support the amendment. I presume that Senator Walker does not mean only capital over a certain amount?
SenatorWalker. - Workers are capitalists, but they do not know it.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
-What I do know is that all capitalists are not workers. Vested interests, in the particular sense in which we regard them, mean a marketable commodity, and if capital is “ stored up labour,” the trade unions, under the new organization, have, as a result of their labour, become possessed of capital. And whatever the intention may be, the direct result of adopting the clause as it stands would be to filch from the labour organizations of to-day the capital which they have stored up by means of hard labour over many years. If Senator Walker is a lover of -fair play - if he is really a champion of vested interests, regardless of the class which possesses them - his plain duty is to vote for the protection of the stored-up capital of the labour organizations, which is jeopardized by the Government proposal. The representatives of labour are asked to deliberately undo the work of years, and to weaken the industrial organizations, simply because of sheer timidity or “ blue funk ‘ ‘ on the £ait of honorable senators on the other side, who fear that we may sweep them off the face of the earth, or catch them by the heels and wipe the atmosphere with them. If this Bill is to have any solid effect - if it is to command the respect of the people of the Commonwealth, particularly those who stop to read and think, and who have intelligence enough to come to something like a sound judgment - there must be preference to unionists. Without preference, ‘ the Bill is not worth the paper or ink employed in its printing. Honorable senators, both last night and to-day, have argued that this proviso represents a bargain - that they voted for preference as a concession to the Labour Party, and that, in return, they have a right to demand from us the sacrifice of anything of a political character in connexion with the unions. I venture to say that not one of the honorable senators who take that ground now, ever uttered a word in that direction when the preference clause was under discussion. Can Senator Walker remember any suggestion, much less a statement, that there was anything in the nature of a bargain?
Senator Walker:
– This Bill is for the registration of industrial and not of political unions.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– I have in vain asked the Attorney-General to define what is action of a political character, and I now ask the other leader on the opposite side, Senator Walker, to say what the members of his party consider action of a political character.
Senator Walker:
– I think that the object of this Bill is the registration of organizations of employers and employes, and it will then be only a- matter of settling disputes arising between them.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– I point out to the honorable senator that there is nothing which either of these organizations can do” which will not have some political character.
I deny absolutely that there was ever a hint or suggestion of any understanding whatever that the granting of preference to unionists was to carry with it the concession from them that they would do nothing of a political character. There was no such bargain at all. Under this proviso we cannot get preference if we take any part in politics. If we are to eliminate politics from our organizations we shall to a large extent destroy all the work of the past, whilst, if we are not to have preference under this Bill, it will be absolutely useless to us.
Senator Turley:
– Could the Pastoralists’ Association carry on an agitation for the destruction of rabbits, under this Bill?
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– That is a very important case in point. Could the members of the Pastoralists’ Association take action, not as individuals, but as an organized body, to approach a State Parliament to pass a Bill to provide for the destruction of rabbits? Would that not be action of a political character by men in combination ? We know that members of that organization represent various electorates, and they would approach the members of Parliament for those electorates to support their demand for legislation to exterminate the pest with which they have to contend. Whilst we are on this matter of preference and price - and I deny the price; it was never asked foi, never offered, and, so far as I am concerned, it will never be conceded - I may say that the Attorney-General and others who have spoken on the amendment have said, “ Now that you have got preference for unionists, it is only a fair thing that you should give up politics.” I remind the Committee that the Attorney-General and Senators Walker, Gray, Clemons, and Mulcahy were not willing to give us preference, and for those honorable senators to say that they are supporting the proviso to clause 55 on the ground that it is only fair that trade unionists should concede something for the grant of preference, on which they were beaten, and which we obtained in spite of them, is a piece of chilledsteel impudence.
Senator Clemons:
– I say that honorable senators opposite can have as many unions as they please, and I think they would be foolish not to make them political, but they cannot have political organizations under this Bill.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– What I referred to was the audacity of honorable senators who denied us preference under this Bill, and who, when we got it in spite of them, now say, “ In gratitude to us, because you beat us, you should ‘be prepared to give up something which you already have.” Honorable senators on the other side who have voted with us to secure preference to unionists might legitimately ask us for some concession in return, because they did something to assist us. But for honorable senators who, on the question of preference, fought us tooth and nail, and were prepared to die in the last ditch before they gave it, to say that what we are asked to do under this proviso is but a reasonable concession which we should make to them, is a piece of audacity which will take a lot of beating, even in this Committee. It is just as well, not only that this discussion should have taken place, but that it should have taken the particular and peculiar turn it has taken. It will enable the electors to know precisely where certain honorable senators are, though I do not think they know very well themselves. With that knowledge they will know, when the opportunity presents itself, where they should put them. Some of them need a rest, and I am. inclined to think they will get it. The majority here may be able to carry a certain provision, but they are not the final court of appeal. There is the little ballotbox ; and I can assure honorable senators opposite that if I am alive and well at the time, with lungs in good order, the public will be likely to hear something from me on the subject before their votes are cast.
Senator Mulcahy:
– I hope the honorable senator will let us down lightly.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– In all probability I shall be in Tasmania next January.
Senator Mulcahy:
– Don’t, please ; we are a peace-loving people over there.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– I shall have a double object in view at the time. I have found that even union men in Tasmania are a long way behind the times. The union that is powerful and effective to-day, and is a real union in the broad and proper sense of the term in the rest of the Commonwealth, is not established in Tasmania, and as one of the founders of the new unionism, I shall be delighted1 to extend my missionary work to that little island. I shall have another object in view, and that will be to carefully explain to the unionists of Tasmania exactly what the attitude of my honorable friend, Senator Mulcahy, has been on this particular question.
Senator Mulcahy:
– The honorable senator will not be able to get them to do anymore than they did -on the last occasion, for they voted against me to a man.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– Senator Mulcahy must remember that he has to count not only on the men whose names are down on the union registers, but on the men whom they will influence. Honorable senators sometimes speak lightly of the percentage of working men following a given- occupation who belong to the union of men engaged in it, but it should be well known that the number of men on the trade union registers does not give anything like an adequate indication of the real strength of the political Labour Party.
Senator Gray:
– The honorable senator will not leave out New South Wales ; will he not visit that State also?
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– I am free to confess that I do not know New South Wales, and so far as I can judge from the honorable senators that State returns, I do not understand it. I believe there is a fine field there for a few missionaries.
Senator Trenwith:
– The honorable senator does not mean that the electors of New South Wales should return other persons to the Senate?
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– Well, the honorable senators they have returned have time to recant and repent. There is a penitents’ stool to which they might come. We are told of the small number of men who are really members of trade unions, and honorable senators leave out of consideration the fact that the trade organizations actually represent a very much larger number of men. I venture to say that in Queensland every man registered in the unions represents more than one outside of them.
Senator Trenwith:
– As a matter of fact, all non-unionists believe in the unions. The bulk of them are outside of the unions through thoughtlessness, whilst some remain outside through meanness.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– In some instances men refuse to join a union because they do not like the chairman, or because the secretary is objectionable to them. From my experience, as a member of a union, and one who has held official positions in unions, I am able to say that immediately any industrial trouble arises men flock into the unions to assist them. I know that at one time an effort was made in the mines on Charters Towers to increase the hours of labour. It 1 was sought to compel men to go in at 12 o’clock on Sunday night, and to continue to work until 1 2 o’clock on the following Saturday night - six shifts all round. That was objected to by the miners. They wanted the well-recognised .miners’ half-holiday on the Saturday afternoon continued. The Miners’ Union was 600 strong. The intimation of increased hours was given to the men on the pay day, Tuesday, the new condition was to come into force the following week, and I can assure honorable senators that that union before Saturday night was somewhere about 2,800 strong. The condition was declined, and the mine-owners withdrew their demand. The first time I stood for the State Parliament of Queensland the number of nominations for the seat exceeded the number of candidates required. When those who were nominated went to the selection ballot, I topped the poll with a total vote of 220, but when the actual polling took place I topped the poll with a vote of 2,240. It must be clear to honorable senators that the 220 who voted for me in the organized union actually represented the political opinion of the great majority of the electors of Charters Towers. In his speech, Senator Best pointed out that we could suffer no very great hardship, because we should still have our State rights. I understood him to mean that we ought to dissociate ourselves as an industrial union from anything of a political character for the purposes of the Act so far as the Commonwealth was concerned,’ but at the same time we should still have our unions, and could use them exactly as they are now used in the States, and that, therefore, in his view, with that fact in front of him, we were really not asked to surrender anything. That appeared to me to be a most extraordinary proposition. His main contention was that the association of politics with a union was bad, and, therefore, should be prevented. He proposes to remove this evil thing only for the purposes of the Act, and with regard to the Commonwealth as a whole. He would allow the evil thing which he denounces to continue its existence in every State. What kind of a mind must he have?
Senator Walker:
– The States are sovereign, and’ we have no right to interfere with them.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– Subject to certain limitations, the States are sovereign, and we have no right to interfere with them ; but is not the honorable senator trying to interfere? . If any organizations were to come under the Act, surely they would be the existing organizations in the States ?
Senator Walker:
– Not necessarily.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– Among others would not existing organizations come under the Act?
Senator Walker:
– Not necessarily.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– It is idle for the honorable senator to try to fence in that way. Surely it is fair to assume that if any organizations were to come under the Act and register, they would be the existing organizations. When honorable senators on the other side say that these organizations cannot come under the Act unless they get rid of their political character, are they not interfering with the rights of the unionists in a sovereign State? What else are they doing ?
Senator Walker:
– I am not a lawyer, and the question should be addressed to the Attorney-General.
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– The honorable senator is the leader of a very important party, and in the absence of his comrades he can speak authoritatively for the party. There has not been very much evidence of political morality shown in the Senate. I am sorry that Senator Dobson has left the Chamber, because some time ago he had something to say about the morality of trade unions. I read very carefully the quotations which he made from the pamphlet of Mr. Macgregor, and though he denied that he used the term “morality” in the sense in which it was taken by us, the quotation can bear no other interpretation, and when the proper time comes he is likely to hear about it. While Senator Best denounced politics in connexion with unions as being bad and vile, he was quite willing that it should remain in active operation in the States, and saw no harm in it, still he was very careful to point out that by a little piece of ingenuity, even in the Commonwealth, for the purposes of the Act, trade unions could evade this very provision for which the Government are fighting so hard. “Make a pretence,” he said, “of obeying this provision, but at the same time take other steps, in a round-about sort of way. Practice some deception. Deceive as much and as cleverly as you can and you will be as right as ninepence. Bulldoze the authorities.”
Senator Clemons:
– Hoodwink the people !
Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP
– Yes. “ For the purposes of the Act,” suggested Senator Best to us, “ do away with your politics, and you will get your Bill and your preference, but be hypocritical and deceitful enough to take the necessary steps to protect yourselves in a political sense, and go on exactly as you are.” The difference between, the honorable and learned senator and the Labour Party is that we wish to go on as we are, but in a straightforward way and without resort to subterfuge, deception, or hypocrisy. Following in his wake, the Attorney-General not only took up that attitude, but went a little further. Although he did not make a plain statement, still he gave us an idea as to how easily the Act could be evaded. We are exceedingly thankful to him and our other opponents, and we shall endeavour to make the best possible use of his Valuable suggestions if necessity should compel us to do so. But in the meantime we are not prepared to go under without making a struggle and letting the people know who are responsible for this provision. Although it would be possible to have in each case a separate organization, purely political and composed of the same persons, with the same president arid secretary, still it would be necessary to adopt a different set of rules, keep a different set of books, levy a special fee for membership, and meet separately. All this could be done, but it would be exceedingly awkward and inconvenient. At one time the Associated Workers’ Union was confined strictly to industrial matters, and alongside that body we had the Workers’ Political Organiza-. tion. The two bodies met separately, but, actual experience demonstrated that it would be more convenient, more economical, and more effective to have only one body. By turning these two bodies into one union we saved much expense, and got everything into good working order; indeed, so much so that all the tricks which our opponents had learned from a long; parliamentary life did not enable them’ at any time to catch us asleep. We are required now by this provision to go back to that state of things. We have no desire to retrace our steps. We prefer to remain as we are. At the present time each Associated Workers’ Union is limited to a State, but we are gradually paving the way for the establishment of one Associated Workers’ Union to represent workers. The Employers’ Federation ‘is moving in a similar direction, and instead of having an Employers’ Federation for each State, we shall have soon an Employers’ Federation for- the whole Commonwealth.
Personally - and many of my old trade union friends agree with me - I welcome the formation of employers’ unions and federations. I hope they will in time embrace the whole Commonwealth, having a central executive, representing the whole of the States, and operating in behalf of the whole of the employers of Australia. The same kind of organization will then be formed to represent the. workmen. Such organizations will be the best guarantee and safeguard of peace and harmony that we can have in the industrial world; and if at any time there should be an outburst of obstinacy on either side, they would lead to the dispute being settled rapidly in a peaceful way.
Progress reported.
page 6881
ADJOURNMENT
Conciliation and Arbitration Bill : Pair
Motion ‘(by Senator Sir Josiah Symon) proposed: -
That the Senate, do now .adjourn.
Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania
– I wish to make a personal explanation. Last night in arranging pairs iri the’ division upon my amendment on the provision under discussion in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, I inadvertently paired Senator Keating in favour of the amendment. I have received a telegram from him this morning, informing me that his authority to me to pair him was in favour pf .the amendment that has since been moved by Senator de Largie. He had been told that an amendment would be moved to modify the wording of the proviso, but he was not in favour of the proviso being struck out.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 4.45 p.m. ii e
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 November 1904, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1904/19041111_senate_2_23/>.