Senate
8 December 1904

2^nd Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPER
PAPUA (BRITISH NEW GUINEA) BILL
CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL
APPROPRIATION BILL

The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 8020

PAPER

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON laid upon the table the following paper : -

Copy of correspondence with the Government of India relative to the relaxing of the provisions of the Immigration Restriction Act so as to permit Indian merchants, students, andtourist travellers to visit Australia under passports granted by the Indian Government.

page 8020

PAPUA (BRITISH NEW GUINEA) BILL

In Committee - (Consideration resumed from 7th December, vide page 7941) :

Postponed clause 21 -

No intoxicants or opium shall be imported into or manufactured in the Territory, except by written permission of a person duly authorized by the Lieutenant-Governor, and under regulations and conditions to be prescribed. . . .

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia).I move -

That the blank in the clause be filled by the insertion of the following words : - “A poll of the adult white inhabitants of the Territory shall, within twelve months from the passing of this Act be taken in accordance with regulations to be made by the LieutenantGovernor tr> ascertain whether or not intoxicants may be imported into, manufactured in, and sold in the Territory for commercial purposes generally. “ Such regulations may prescribe the mode in which the poll shall be taken and the form in which the ballot-papers shall be framed, and may define the powers and duties of the officer and his deputies conducting such poll, and may provide generally for all matters whatsoeverrelating to the taking of the poll. “ No vote shall be disallowed by the officer ap- pointed to conduct such poll for informality so l ong as the intention of the voter is expressed actually or by reasonable intendment. Provided that at any election one-third of the white inhabitants shall record their votes in order to constitute a poll. Before the taking of such poll a notice shall be inserted in the official Gazette by the Lieutenant-Governor, stating as correctly as possible the number of the adult white inhabitants of the Territory, and such number shall be taken as the number of the adult white inhabitants of the Territory for the purposes of the poll.”

I hope Senator Pearce will submit the subsequent amendment, which I regard’ as even of more importance. Whether, in New Guinea, or elsewhere, the people are generally in communities, however small, and there should be no difficulty in taking a vote. When the people of Papua are given self-government will be the time to leave these matters entirely to them. We do not pass this legislation in the pessimistic belief that the white population is going to remain at 400. Our desire is that this shall be a successful Dependency, and’ ultimately become a part of the Commonwealth. If we establish proper laws dealing with the liquor traffic, the result will not only be beneficial from a State point of view, but will secure to the individual drink that cannot be described as “chain lightning.”

Senator Mulcahy:

– Would the honorable senator apply that principle to Victoria or to South Australia?

Senator McGREGOR:

– I should be prepared to apply that principle anywhere.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– I have listened to the debate with considerable interest, and with a desire to obtain information. Up to the present time I have not heard any honorable senator contend that the existing system in force in New Guinea for the regulation of the liquor traffic has been a failure, that it has produced evil results, or that an alteration is desirable. We are all very much indebted to Senator Smith, who has visited New Guinea, and has given us the benefit of his experience ; but even that honorable senator has not pointed out any ill effects attending the present system. There may be abuses here and there, as there always will be in. connexion with the conduct of such a business; but I think that on all hands it is admitted that the present system in operation in New Guinea is working admirably. It is stated that the native population have not been injured by its operation ; they have not acquired a taste for drink, and they are an exceedingly sober race. All this goes to prove that no one can fairly say a word against the present system, and I therefore ask why we should attempt to alter it? Where is the necessity to interfere with a system which has been in operation for many years with very good results? I have had an opportunity to speak to a gentleman who has had immense experience in New Guinea as an official, and he has informed me that one of the worst things we could do would be to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors in the Territory. I am happy to say that we have prevented that. Senator Pearce is proposing to give the white population an opportunity to exercise local option, and decide whether the sale of intoxicating liquors should be allowed in British New Guinea. But the honorable senator also proposes to impose certain conditions. If the white population decide that the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be allowed in the Territory, the honorable senator proposes that it shall be only upon the condition that the sale shall be through the Government and through Government officials. It would be one of the greatest mistakes we could commit to provide for the sale of intoxicating liquor by Government officials throughout such a Territory as British New Guinea. Those men would be placed in a most improper position, because they would be given an incentive to make money in a very improper way. In my opinion, it would be very . dangerous to place in the hands of Government officials, without let or hindrance, the sale of intoxicating liquor throughout such a Territory. Their interest might be to secure the sale of as much intoxicating liquor as they could possibly sell, and it might be also that if they had not that interest they would take very little trouble in the matter, and injury to the public would follow in either case. In my opinion, the safest and best thing for us to do is to leave this matter entirely in the hands of the Legislative Council and the Executive of the Territory. It will thus be dealt with by people who are on the spot, who will understand the local conditions, and who will be acquainted with the working of the present system. They will know how the present system may be altered with advantage to the community, and they will be far more likely to take the right course in the interests of all concerned than we can possibly be. I believe that it will be found most injurious to give the sale of intoxicating liquors into the hands of Government officials. I am, therefore, prepared to vote against the proposal, and in support of leaving the matter to be dealt with bv those who will be in charge of the Territory.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I have heard several arguments on this question to-day, but only one which is in any way likely to affect my vote. Senator Mulcahy has reproached’ Senator Pearce for not calling the right thing by the right name.

The honorable senator objects to Senator Pearce’s proposal on the ground that it is local option by name, and not in reality.

Senator Mulcahy:

– What I said was that prohibition is always understood to be a very different thing from local option as we understand it.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I entirely disagree with Senator Mulcahy’s argument. What is proposed ‘ is local option, because it will give the white residents of New Guinea the option of saying whether intoxicating liquors shall be manufactured in or imported into the Territory. I am prepared to admit, if that will satisfy Senator Mulcahy, that as we understand it, local option is usually applied to the closing of public houses.

Senator Givens:

– Under local option, as we know it, there are Several alternatives.

Senator Mulcahy:

– That is what I said.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The form in which it is ordinarily presented to us is that of a poll taken to decide whether certain public houses shall be closed, but the object is the same as the intention is to interfere with the sale of intoxicants.

Senator Mulcahy:

– There is a difference between that and prohibition?

Senator CLEMONS:

– Under this proposal the white residents of New Guinea will have the option of saying whether intoxicating liquors shall be manufactured or imported into the Territory; but Senator Pearce frankly admits that if the result of their poll be a decision that intoxicants may be imported and manufactured, the importation and manufacture will be placed under State control. The only difference between the proposal and local option, as we understand it, is that in New Guinea, as a result of the exercise of local option in a certain direction, it is proposed that the manufacture and sale of intoxicants shall be under State control, whereas, in the Commonwealth it is usually merely a question of the number of publichouses that shall be licensed to sell liquor. I do not pose as a teetotaller as I am not one, but I hope that I am not a fanatic on this question. I must disagree with Senator Playford, when he says, with an air of extreme confidence, that we cannot possibly improve upon the present system in force in New Guinea.

Senator Playford:

– I did not say that. I said that the people there might be able to improve upon it.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The honorable senator said that the present system was working admirably in New Guinea, and could not be improved upon.

Senator Playford:

– I did not say that it could not be improved upon.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The honorable senator referred to a very high authority - and we know that the reference was to the late Administrator ofNew Guinea, for whom we Have a very great respect - in support of his statement that the present system is working admirably. I differ with the honorable senator. I say that the present system of selling liquor throughout the world does not work admirably. I object to the licensing system, and I am disposed to take advantage of this opportunity to prevent its continuance in New Guinea. Senator Playford has referred to the extreme danger of allowing intoxicants to be sold by Government officials. I do not exclude the element of risk wherever humanity is involved, but I believe that, in the opinion of most people, there will be far less risk in handing over the sale of liquor to Government officials, who will have no personal interest in selling it, than in permitting its sale by the ordinary persons to whom licences are issued, and whose interest it is to sell it in large quantities, and of bad quality. I listened with some amazement to Senator Playford’s endeavour to emphazise the tremendous risk we should run by placing the conduct of this traffic under State control. That senator contended that that would lead to a worse state of things than exists at present. He has suggested that a Government official is a far more dangerous person to have the control of liquor than is the ordinary man who applies for a licence and looks to make his living out of the sale of liquor. The argument is preposterous, and I am astonished that Senator Playford should have used it. There is one objection which has raised a serious doubt in my mind, but I hope I shall be able to overcome it. We are giving a Constitution to British New Guinea, and it may be fairly contended that it is not desirable that by our enactment we should impose limitations upon the power of that small community to govern itself under the Constitution, such as it is. I should be more impressed with that argument if we had proposed to give a wider Constitution, and if I could not see in this Bill very many limitations which could never have been im- posed, for instance, upon any of the selfgoverning States of this Commonwealth prior to Federation. In half-a-dozen ways we have already agreed to impose limitations upon the people of New Guinea.

Senator Pearce:

– Inconnexion with eleven different subjects.

Senator Drake:

– The honorable senator refers to clause 43, dealing with the matters withheld for assent?

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– All their ordinances mightbe disallowed.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Without desiring to in any way introduce that wholly forbidden topic, the Tariff, I must refer honorable senators to clause 39. In that clause we propose a limitation upon the powers of the people of the Territory to regulate their own Tariff laws. It is unnecessary for me to remind the Committee that a limitation upon the rights of the American Colonies to do what they choose with their own Tariff led to disastrous results. I admit that the limitation there was not the same as it is here. It was different in detail, but so far as the essence of limitation and interference is concerned, it was the same. It was an interference which the American Colonies resented, and which, as we know, produced the American War of Independence. We know, also, that it was an interference which the Imperial authorities subsequently avoided in giving constitutions to Crown Colonies in Australia. There was no such limitation imposed upon the Crown Colony of Western Australia by the Imperial authorities as that which had been imposed upon the American Colonies. I admit that clause 39 appeals to us, but we have here taken it upon ourselves to say that the people of this Territory shall not do certain things with regard to their Tariff. As regards the interchange of goods, this Territory will not be in the same position as a State. I understand that Parliament is determined to impose Customs duties on any imports from the Territory. Therefore, in that respect, it can never stand in the same relation towards the Commonwealth as one State stands towards another State in the Commonwealth. Although that privilege is denied to the Territory, still we have limited its power to impose Customs duties. The Bill contains innumerable limitations upon the power of the Legislative Council to be constituted, and such as have not, to my knowledge, been imposed by the British Parliament in the Constitution for any Crown Colony. If we had not imposed so many limitations in the Constitution, much as I should like to see local option established in the Territory, I should have reluctantly found myself compelled to vote against Senator Pearce. But I have given the matter grave consideration, and finding that so many limitations are imposed upon the self-governing powers of the Territory, I intend to do what is to a certain extent an unconstitutional thing, and that is to vote for the amendment.

Senator DRAKE:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Queensland · Protectionist

– It strikes me that local option was a misnomer for the proposal of Senator Pearce. The idea conveyed to my mind by the phrase is that the people who live in a locality are allowed to restrict the sale of liquor without any regard to . the opinion of the people who reside in other localities. It is a matter of locality. It is the negation of a uniform system. It is adopted in order to enable a diverse policy to be carried out in different localities according to the wishes of the inhabitants. There is nothing of that kind proposed to be done in the Territory. It will be noticed that the term “ local option,” is not used in the amendments or in . the marginal notes. A more appropriate term to use would be “ referendum.” What Senator Pearce proposes is. a referendum of the white inhabitants for the purpose of deciding as to a uniform policy for the Territory, which is exactly contrary to the idea conveyed to the minds of most persons by the expression. It is not merely a matter of phrase, it is really a matter of substance, and the danger is that any honorable senator, who may be strongly in favour of local option, as I have always been in Australia, may be inclined to think that he is bound to vote for this proposal, because it is called local option.

Senator Pearce:

– Is it a poll of the white inhabitants ?

Senator DRAKE:

– For the reason I gave it cannot be properly called a local option poll. I should say that it is a referendum.

Senator Pearce:

– I withdraw the term, if it is objected to.

Senator DRAKE:

– Is not the honorable senator losing sight of the consideration which has been uppermost in the mind’s of honorable senators, and that is the welfare of the natives? Prohibition is chiefly opposed here on the ground that it would be injurious to the coloured race. We ought to continue to look at the question from that point of view. At the present time this Parliament is the guardian of. the natives. It is now proposed to give a sort of limited constitution to the Territory by creating a Legislative Council with power to make ordinances for its peace, order, and good government. Why should we not leave the determination of this question to the future guardian of the welfare of the natives? If Senator Pearce thinks that prohibition would be injurious to their welfare, why is he not prepared to leave the determination of the question to that body instead of requiring that a poll of the white residents shall be taken, and therefore giving a double chance of a line of policy being adopted which he considers would be injurious to the natives? The most important consideration with honorable senators should be the welfare of the natives. I am still in favour of local op..ion. but. in this case, apart from all difficulties in connexion with the practicability of the proposal, it would be inadvisable to take the settlement of this question out of the hands of the Legislative Council.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I cannot understand how any one who believes in the first principle of democracy - that is, rule by the will of the majority in a community - can consistently oppose the amendment.

Senator Mulcahy:

– If a majority were to rule that the honorable senator should not have salt, would he be prepared to bow to their decision?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I do not suggest that the will of the majority should be applied to every phase of life, but in municipal and political questions I think it should be followed as closely as possible. The amendment will give the people of the Territory an opportunity to express their will. Surely when their will is ascertained it will be the duty of the Legislative Council to carry it out ?

Senator Drake:

– Why not ascertain the will of the people on other subjects as well as the liquor traffic?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– If the honorable and learned senator will submit a proposal to take a referendum on any subject on which we can legislate he will receive the heart v co-operation of honorable senators sitting on this side. But for the remarks of Senator Playford, I should not have risen to address the Committee. He seemed to entertain a doubt as to the advisability of trusting a Government official with the sale of drink.

Senator Playford:

– It is absurd to ask’ a policeman on a gold-field to retail liquor in addition to discharging his ordinary duties.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The honorable senator is at a disadvantage in not having had any experience on the conduct of this traffic through the agency of Government officials. In Western Australia, where we have experimented in a community exactly similar to the communities in this Territory, we have solved the liquor question as far as it is capable of solution in our present state of civilization.

Senator Playford:

– But the men who are employed at the Government hotel have nothing else to do. They are not Government officials.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I believe that the experiment could be carried out quite as satisfactorily in Papua as in Western Australia. All that is necessary is to be careful in selecting a manager, and .to pay him a reasonable salary. The manager of the State hotel at Gwalia, 700 miles from Perth, is responsible to the Government for its good management. It is conducted on such lines that the most scrupulous persons cannot find any fault with the manager. The only complaint against the State hotel is that it has not been a financial success. We all know how successfully public houses can be run on gold,-fields. The man who does not care a fig as to how his house is conducted is generally most successful, because he descends to questionable tactics which would not be tolerated in the manager of a Government institution. We may take it for granted that a Government official in Papua would do his duty. At Gwalia we have a manager who has performed his duty in such a way that no fault can be found with him. It was alleged that the establishment of a State hotel would lead to bribery and corruption, but the predictions have not been realized. So long as it is conducted as a hotel should be conducted, the manager retains his position, whether the place is paying or “ not. He has not decended to the ordinary tactics of the publican in endeavouring to make the place pay. But, notwithstanding that fact, last year the hotel paid a profit of ^588, which under the circumstances was very good. If the hotel- keeper ha-d descended to the practices” that obtain in some public-houses in the backblocks no doubt a very much greater profit would have been earned. If the State put a man into the occupation of an hotel, he would understand that the moment he misconducted it, or any questionable thing occurred in it, his occupation would be gone. He would see then that it was conducted in ,a proper manner. But in public- houses, as usually conducted, where every man is trying to make as much as he can, not necessarily for himself, but for the brewer, it is no wonder that questionable practices take place. Unfortunately, it is the brewer and the property-owner who have to a very large extent assumed control of the publichouses in Australia. In the back-blocks of Western Australia the public-houses are often kept open night and day. As long as there is a customer in the house no one is asked to depart. The publican and . his wife are little better than slaves. For almost the whole twenty-four hours of a day they are .perhaps working to get a living for themselves; but the people who reap the greater part of the benefit are the brewer and the man who has put his money into the building and has sublet. The moral effect of the establishment of State public-houses is worth thousands of pounds to the country. Any one who knows the place to which I have referred is aware that before the State public-house was established things were very different from what they are now. Crime of every kind was frequent. Brothels were everywhere. Sly-grog shops were the rule. But when the State hotel was established, these places had to give up business, because any one who wanted to get a glass of spirits or beer knew that he could get it pure at the State establishment, whereas at the other places the poison dispensed to the customers was of the kind often designated as “ chain lightning,” rather than the real liquor that any one could take with the idea of preserving his health and his palate. At the present time, the State hotel is so conducted ihat at eleven o’clock, the time fixed for closing, -no more drinks are served’ out. At five minutes past eleven every light is extinguished. But two miles and a half away, at the town of Leonore, there are six or eight public- houses that keep open till three or four o’clock in the morning, or perhaps until daylight.

Senator Matheson:

– What are the police doing? I

Senator DE LARGIE:

– It would take a regiment of police to look after these establishments.

Senator Matheson:

– Has the honorable senator ever been to Leonore?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I should rather think I have.

Senator Matheson:

– Why could not two policeman look after the hotels ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Half-a-dozen policemen could not manage them properly, and for various reasons it would’ be foolhardy for them to attempt to do so unlessthey had the assistance of the publicans. At the State hotel, there is no night drinking, and if one goes into the bar, he hears none of the bad language that, as a rule, so offends; the ear in public-houses. These facts cannot be surprising to Senator Matheson, who knows the state of affairs that prevails on the gold-field’s of Western Australia. I have been there too often not to know what takes place in a mining community. It is impossible to alter it as long as private enterprise conducts the hotels, and as long as it is to the interest of the private individual who is running a “ pub.” to take advantage of every opportunity’ to earn “an honest shilling,” as it is called. We can remedy this state of affairs by the establishment of State hotels. Senator Playford has expressed some doubt about the matter. That is pardonable in any one who has not had experience of State hotels. But the Western Australian experience is sufficient to justify any one in supporting this proposal.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I think this debate tends to show that the system which we ought to adopt is to allow the importation of liquor so long as it is controlled by the Government, and so long as the sale is also controlled by them. Therefore, I must differ from the remarks made by Senator Playford with regard to what would be the result of allowing Government officials to control the liquor trade. It must be perfectly obvious that under the present licensing system men who sell liquor practically appoint themselves. They have to go before a magistrate, and most of them can, get a character. It is simply the waifs and strays of society who take to hotelkeeping in some quarters. In the case of Government control every hotelkeeper will be a selected man. If personal interest in the sale of drink is eliminated, a better state of things is bound to be brought about. The question before us is whether we shall adopt the referendum clauses which have been suggested by Senator Pearce. The whole contention has arisen about this matter. But honorable senators have spoken about the first principles and the spirit of democracy. Even the AttorneyGeneral spoke about interfering with the self-government of the people of British New Guinea, and of how wrong it would be not to let them work out their own destiny. That point of view would be all very fine if the Attorney-General were asking us to grant to the white people of British New Guinea a democratic Constitution. But there is nothing democratic about this Bill. It is absolutely opposed to democracy. These people are simply to be governed by us, that is, by our LieutenantGovernor, and by a Legislative Council whom the Governor-General may appoint at pleasure. I would lay down in this Bill a policy with regard to the drink traffic. I altogether deny that 500 whites have the right to say what is the best system in the interest of 500,000 natives. In this Bill we impose restrictions upon the whites in many directions. We say, for instance, that 10 per cent, of the receipts from the leaseholds of Crown lands shall be devoted to a fund for the benefit of the old, infirm, and sick natives. Why not let the people of British New Guinea say whether 5 or 50 per. cent shall be devoted to that purpose? But Ave recognise that we have a perfect right in this, the most complicated question which any Legislature can discuss, to lay down the principles upon which we think the government of the Dependency should be based. It is not only the 500 whites whom -we have to consider. It is also the black men. British New Guinea is a black man’s country, where alcohol is injurious to the human system.

Senator de Largie:

– Some of the best authorities say that it is necessary.

Senator DOBSON:

– We have been told by Sir William MacGregor, who is a doctor, and by others who speak with authority, that those in tropical countries who take no stimulants have far better health than others. I firmly believe that that is an absolute fact, i deny altogether that we have any right to allow 500 white people, some of them miners, to have absolute control over this question. I hope the clause will be knocked out,- and that we shall- seriously consider the possibility of putting the whole liquor traffic under State control.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland:

– I am in favour of State control, and opposed to prohibition. Senator de Largie says that he does not see how any democrat can refuse to give to the people in New Guinea the right to say whether liquor shall or shall not be imported. This amendment does not propose to give the people a choice as to what they shall or shall not do.

Senator de Largie:

– It gives them an opportunity to express their will.

Senator GIVENS:

-It does not, except to an exceedingly limited degree. The amendment proposes to give the white people a choice between two alternatives - prohibition or State control. I do not propose to go into the question of State control at this stage, but when Senator Pearce moves his amendment, I shall give him my ardent support. In this Bill we are not dealing merely with 500, 600, or even 1,000 people who may be in New Guinea now or next year, but we are legislating for the enormous black population. We cannot relieve ourselves from the responsibility of seeing that the interests of those coloured people are looked after. The responsibility of seeing that no great evil befalls them rests upon this Parliament. I am of opinion that State control of the liquor traffic in New Guinea presents the only means of safeguarding the black population from the necessary evils of uncontrolled sale. I have lived a long time in tropical countries, and am acquainted with a great many people who are resident in New Guinea, and I have at various times discussed New Guinea matters with them. In addition, I have met large numbers who were absolute physical wrecks owing to ravages of fever ‘ contracted in the Possession. I have read all the evidence which has been placed before us, and, taking that together with what I learn privately, there seems to me to be a universal consensus of opinion - an almost absolute agreement - that the introduction of liquor is necessary for the white population. My own experience proves that, when the system is run down in tropical countries, spirits are an excellent tonic, and afford the very best preventative of fever. Fever is exceedingly prevalent in New Guinea, and its effects on the human system are sometimes disastrous.

Senator Gray:

– The effects are exaggerated.

Senator GIVENS:

– Excuse me, that is not so. I have seen the effects of the fever last intermittently for years. A man may be walking down the street, apparently quite well, and two minutes afterwards trembling and shaking like an ivy leaf in the wind.

Senator Gray:

– People who have lived many years in New Guinea, tell a different story.

Senator GIVENS:

– I have lived on the track to New Guinea, and I have seen strong men of magnificent constitution return from the Possession absolute physical wrecks. The evidence is too strong for us to come to any other conclusion than that intermittent fever is a serious drawback to settlement in New Guinea. There was exactly the same experience when the tropical ports in Northern Queensland were first opened up. The first year I lived in Cairns I had malarial fever no fewer than three times, whereas now the sickness is almost unknown. It would appear that the fever is very prevalent at first, but afterwards disappears, and now, in New Guinea, there are the same conditions - though in an intensified degree - that prevailed in northern Queensland. There is a consensus of opinion that a drop of good spirits is a very good preventative of fever; and I cannot see why, under the circumstances, we should enforce prohibition. Even if I were in favour of die local option proposed - and I am not, because it is too limited, and to that extent a mere pretence - I should still sav that we have no right to give the control pf the liquor traffic to the small white population. We have no right to let a small number of people decide how there shall be controlled a traffic which may affect the interests of nearly half-a-million of black population. Bearing in view our enormous responsibility, which we cannot remove from our shoulders, to see that the coloured population are not cursed by an uncontrolled traffic in intoxicants, as the Australian aborigines unfortunately were, we have sought to lay it down as a hard and fast rule that the trade shall be conducted in such a manner as will safeguard the interests of the natives. I have no sympathy with milk-and-water, goody-goody people, who sa.y that a man shall not be allowed to take a drop of drink. Sometimes drink is not only good, but exceedingly necessary. It is the abuse and not the use of drink which brings about all the disastrous results of which we hear. The proper use of drink never did any harm, and I have no sympathy with those who say that, because one man cannot get through life without the moral crutch of total abstinence, every one else shall be compelled to carry a crutch in order to keep him in countenance. I shall vote against this amendment of Senator Pearce, but I shall be exceedingly glad to support the subsequent amendment in favour of State control.

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

– I am not in favour of the amendment proposed by Senator Pearce, because I believe that liquor in such countries as New Guinea is very injurious. I admit that liquor in moderation may be beneficial to a slight extent, but my experience in Queensland, in the years 1865 to 1867. when I had malarial fever very bad, led me to the conclusion that but for my sobriety I should have suffered a great deal more.

Senator Givens:

– The honorable senator cannot say that.

Senator FRASER:

– I knew heavy drinkers who were engaged on the same property, and they were made perfect wrecks by the fever. I, myself, was so bad . that, as sure as 3 o’clock in the afternoon arrived’, I had to lie up..

Senator Walker:

– Did the honorable senator find quinine any good?

Senator FRASER:

– I found quinine infinitely better than brandy for the fever.

Senator Givens:

– As a fact, hard drinkers rarely suffer from malarial fever. Senator FRASER.- It is an absurd proposal that officialsshallbe ‘created to retail liquor. This is the thin edge of the. wedge towards securing State control of everything. I do not believe in State management of the liquor, or any other industry. If the liquor sold is bad, as I believe, in many cases, it is, let there be a law that all drinks shall be wholesome and sound. Indeed, that is already the law, and it ought to be enforced.

Senator Givens:

– Is that not State control to an extent?

Senator de Largie:

– Has that law been a success?

Senator FRASER:

– I think so; bad liquor is not allowed to be sold in Victoria.

Senator Givens:

– But some retailers do sell bad liquor.

Senator FRASER:

– I think that the liquor sold is good on the whole, though I remember when much of it was poison. We have not to be so careful now as to what we drink, as we were forty or fifty years ago.

Senator de Largie:

– It is comparatively easy to control the traffic in a community like that of Melbourne.

Senator FRASER:

– Yes ; there would be much more difficulty in a country where the State officials would live by the trade. A large percentage of the white residents of New Guinea now live by the trade, and yet it is proposed to increase the facilities for the sale of drink. State control does not succeed, except in suchcasesas that of the Post and Telegraph Department and so forth.

Senator de Largie:

– State management of the liquor traffic has been an unqualified success in Western Australia.

Senator FRASER:

– That may be so. If the population be large enough, and there is a State hotel, I do not say that success may not follow, seeing that there is no inducement to push the sale.

Senator de Largie:

– That is the kernel of the whole affair.

Senator FRASER:

– Are we to create a number of public servants to vend liquor to a sparse population like that of New Guinea? Under clause 22, no liquor can be supplied to the natives; and that is a matter with which we are ‘more concerned than we are with its sale to the whites. The few whites may legislate for themselves, through their Council, and this Bill is not like the law of the Medes and the Persians, but can be altered if it does not work well. To some extent, I agree with Senator Playford that we might leave well alone. The present system has worked very satisfactorily, and we ought not to rush to extremes. We are taking over the whole of this country; and, in regard to land legislation, it is not too much to ask that 10 per cent, of the land revenue shall be devoted to providing, as it were, oldage pensions for the natives. I hope that Senator Pearce’s amendment will not be accepted.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 13

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - I move -

That the blank in the clause be filled by the insertion of the following words: - “Intoxicants may be purchased, imported into, manufactured, and sold in the Territory only by the Lieutenant-Governor, or by officers, duly appointed in that behalf, and under regulations and conditions to be prescribed by the LieutenantGovernor relating to the purchase, importation, manufacture, and sale thereof.

– There seems to be some confusion of thought as to the working out of the details of this proposal. But, as I have previously pointed out, there has been an experiment in Western Australia where a State public-house, has been a working concern for over twelve months. Surely we can benefit from the experience thus gained. It has to be remembered that the revenue cannot suffer from the adoption of this proposal. In Western Australia the keeper of the State hotel has to pay the ordinary duty on his liquors, and the ordinary licence-fee. He pays ,£70 per annum for his licence, and no concession is made to him in the way of duty. . I am speaking as one who for some days lived in the Gwalia hotel, and while there took advantage of the opportunity to learn how it was worked. Before the establishment of the Gwalia hotel the place was a source of considerable expense, owing to the police force that had to be maintained. There were sly grogshops in all directions, from which the Government derived no profit, except, perhaps, in the way of revenue duties on liquors. Indeed, my own opinion is that the liquor consumed paid scarcely any duty whatever, because it was made on the premises. Surely in the face of this experience it cannot be doubted that a State experiment in British New Guinea will be a success. Let me give some account of the financial results of the Gwalia hotel for the first year. The total profit was .£588. It would have been considerably more, except that there was a loss on the domestic part of the establishment, due, I believe, to the .fact that the requirements were not quite as great as the hotel manager thought they would be. A very lavish building was erected, and the furnishing of the place was on a scale not equalled in any hotel out of Perth. Indeed, very few hotels in Perth are furnished on the same lavish scale as is this hotel. Consequently a staff of servants has to be maintained to look after the establishment. The .following paragraph shows the financial results for the first year: -

On the profit side the total receipts from the sales of wines, beers, &c, amounted to ,£5,416 is. id. Deducting from this amount - Expenditure, £4,369 15s. 3d. ; less stock on hand, ,£360, us. id., and there remains a balance profit of £1,415 16s. 11d. The total profits on billiards amounted to £24. 3s. 8d., making a total profit on the sale of wines, beers, spirits, and billiards of £1,440 os. jd. Deducting from this the loss on the house account, £851 4s. 3d., and there remains, as previously stated, a balance of profit, exclusive of depreciation, of£588 16s. 4d.

Senator Playford:

– Do they pay rent?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– They pay interest on capital. The same price for drinks is charged to customers as is charged in other hotels. There is no unfair competition in that respect. But there is another aspect of the question to be considered apart from£ s. d. We must remember that the moral effect upon the community has been of far more value than is represented by the profit. There has been a great saving to the Government in respect of maintaining “men in blue” to keep order in the town. We need have no doubt as to the wisdom of carrying out this experiment.

Progress reported.

page 8036

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives, with a message intimating that it had disagreed to the Senate’s amendments in clauses 4 and 40, and agreed to the Senate’s amendment in clause 55, wilh an amendment.

Motion (by Senator Sir Josiah Symon) agreed to -

That the Standing Orders ‘be suspended to enable the House of Representatives’ message to be considered and all consequent action taken.

In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message) :

Clause 4 -

In this Act, except where otherwise clearly intended …” Industrial dispute “ means a dispute in relation to industrial matters . . . but it does not include a dispute relating to employmentin any agricultural, viticultural, horticultural, or dairying pursuit. “ Industry “ means business, trade …. excepting only persons engaged in domestic service, and persons engaged in agricultural, viticultural, horticultural, or dairying pursuits;

Senate’s Amendment. - Leave out - “but it does not include a dispute relating to employment in any agricultural, viticultural, horticultural, or dairying pursuit.”

House of Representatives’ Message - Amendment disagreed to, because -

Rules which could be applied by an Arbitration Court in the case of organized trades working under similar conditions, though in different parts of the Commonwealth, could not be applied to rural industries, whose conditions vary widely, not only in the same branches of rural industry, but also in different localities throughout the Commonwealth.

The likelihood of industrial disputes extend ing beyond the limits of any one State in the case of such industries is remote.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia - Attorney-General).- I feel sure I may take it that we shall approach the consideration of this message with the earnest desire, which I think prevails on all sides, to see this Bill, if possible, placed on the statute-book this year. If we do approach the matter from that stand-point, there will not be any very great obstacle to- the course which I intend to suggest to the Senate. Nor do I think it will be necessary for me to make a long speech, because, so* far as regards the amendments which were made by the Senate, and as regards the provisions; of the Bill with which they are associated,, the subject was fully and exhaustively debated by us with an earnestness, and, I think I may say, an absence of passion or heat, worthy of the subject and of the Chamber. It would serve no good purpose, to my mind, to re-open those questions which: were then so thoroughly dealt with; and, therefore, I propose to confine myself toone or two short reasons for the course T propose to commend to the Senate. In the first place, I may shortly remind honorable, senators of the position. The Senate made, four amendments in the Bill, the first of which is the one immediately under consideration. For shortness, we may refer to that amendment as that which excludes employes in rural industries from the operation of the Bill.

And provided further that no such preferenceshall be directed to be given unless the application for such preference is, in the opinion of the Court, approved by a majority of those affected by the award who have interests in common with the applicants.

The fourth amendment was in clause 55, and had reference to the proviso that no preference should be given to any organization which permitted its funds to be used for political purposes, or which required its members to “ do anything “ - I think those were the words - of a political character. The amendment which was moved by Senator Pearce, was to insert the following proviso : -

And further provided that no organization shall be entitled to appear before the Court to oppose an application for preference by any organization, 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.

That amendment was accepted by the House of Representatives, which, however, attached a further amendment dealing with the definition of “ political purposes.” The amendment made by the House of Representatives in the form of an addition to the Senate’s amendment, was the insertion of the following: - “Political purposes” in this section does not include obtaining or maintaining provisions applying to all persons in any particular industry, whether discrimination as between those who are and those who are not members of an organization, with respect to the regulation of the following matters : -

Preservation of life and limb.

Compensation for injuries or death.

Sanitation.

The sex and age of employes.

The hours of labour.

The remuneration of labour.

Protection of salaries and wages.

Other conditions similarly affecting employment.

That is a very large concession.

That the amendment be not insisted on.

General what our position is on the amendment of clause 40. We have not yet exhausted the machinery of Parliament, and it is unreasonable to ask us to give way until we have exhausted that machinery on a point which we consider to be so vital to the Bill. The Attorney-General tells us that the amendment agreed to by another place in connexion with clause 55 concedes so much to our side that we ought to be able to take anything else that is put in the Bill. That is like telling fifty hungry men on the far side of a great chasm that if they cross over they will find plenty to eat, when there are no means by which they can cross. That is our position. Clause 55, as amended, goes a long way in the direction at which we have been aiming, but we want to secure full political liberty in connexion with all matters. The Attorney-General must recognise that every Arbitration Act in existence in these States embodies the principle of preference. No one attempts to deny that organizations not only benefit the men who organize, but the community to which they belong. It must also be admitted that those who strive for their betterment by means of organizations should not be penalized, as they would be by those who have always been their enemies. If the Senate does not insist upon its amendment that will be the position in which unionists will find themselves, because this is a direction to the Court. The Court is bound to satisfy itself that there is a majority in favour of preference. It is asking the Court to do a thing which is far more difficult than to take a poll in Papua, in connexion with local option. If the Attorney-General and the Government were prepared to assist us in giving’ more power to the Court, it would be satisfactory. We do not want unconditional preference. We want the Court to be seized of all the facts. If the Court sees that some of those belonging to an organization may be prejudiced by the refusal of preference, it will be granted. If the Court sees that the’ granting of preference to a section of the workers will be injurious to any other section, it will be refused. That is the kind of preference we want. We wish to leave the determination to the Court. If the AttorneyGeneral could assist us by proposing an amendment that would have that effect, we should not’ need to insist upon the amendment which the Senate made in the Bill. Otherwise there is no other course open to us. The Senate is in the peculiar position that this Bill was introduced in another place. It was sent up to us. It has been returned to us. According to our rules, usages, and Standing Orders, we have no right to ask for a conference in connexion with a Bill introduced in another place. Let us send back the amendment on clause 40, seeing that we have backed down on two amendments, and accepted a third. Let another place ask for a conference, and give us an opportunity to put something into clause 40 that will make the Bill workable. It will never be of any use to the industrial classes or the community otherwise. For these reasons, I hope that the AttorneyGeneral will not oppose us in our insistence on the amendment submitted by the Senate in clause 40.

Motion agreed to.

Senate’s Amendment. - Leave out - “ excepting only persons engaged in domestic service, and persons engaged in agricultural, viticultural, horticultural, or dairying pursuits.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment disagreed to, because -

Rules which could be applied by an Arbitration Court in the case of organized trades working under similar conditions, though in different paris of the Commonwealth, could not be reasonably applied to the conditions of domestic service.
The likelihood of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State in the case pf domestic service can scarcely be seriously regarded.

Motion (by Senator Sir Josiah Symon) proposed -

That the amendment be not insisted on.

Senator GIVENS:

– Not at the present time, but I hope that before we have finished the Bill will be effective. In its peregrinations between the Chambers the Bill may ultimately assume the form we desire. If the Bill be a bad one, it should be abandoned. My hope is that in a very short time we shall be able to remove the invidious distinctions which press on domestic service and other classes of labour at the present time.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 40 (Minimum wage and preference for members of organizations).

Senate’s Amendment. - Leave out - “And provided further that no such preference shall be directed to be given unless the application for such preference is, in the opinion of the Court, approved by a majority of those affected by the award who have interests in common with the applicants.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment disagreed to, because questions of preference in employment are of such vital importance to the people of the Commonwealth that they demand some such safeguard as that contained in the provision removed from the Bill.

Motion (by Senator Sir Josiah Symon) proposed -

That the amendment be not insisted on.

Senator McGREGOR (South Australia). - I have no intention to repeat the arguments which have been used here so many times. I hope, however, that honorable senators will insist on this amendment, and thus afford another place an opportunity to reconsider a question which for the last six or eight months has been before another place, and there discussed in what, I am afraid, was an unreasonable way. In my opinion, too much heat and party feeling were exhibited in another place for there to be any hope of a reasonable conclusion. There are honorable senators who hesitate about insisting on this amendment, there being a fear on their part that the Bill may be thrown aside. But I do not anticipate the slightest danger from that quarter. I believe that if the Bill be sent back our amendment will be reconsidered’, and that if an agreement is not come to, another place will ask for a conference of the two Chambers. Those of us who have had parliamentary experience know that Bills are sent backwards and forwards repeatedly, and that conclusions are arrived at which give satisfaction to both sides. We remember what was done in this Chamber in connexion with the Tariff.

Senator Pearce:

– And at the instigation of the present Attorney-General.

Senator McGREGOR:

– That is so. I am sure that if the Attorney-General were in my position, he would do all he could to have this Bill reconsidered by another place ; and it is to that end that I ask those who have hitherto supported the Labour Party in this matter to continue their support. I am sure that if they do so the final decision will prove satisfactory. I move as an amendment -

That the word “not” be left out.

– I am aware that that clause provides that the Court shall be guided by good sense, but I. repeat that it will be held that not less than 501 is a majority out of 1,000. The task set to the union is first to ascertain how many men will be affected by the award, and, secondly’, to prove that it has a majority in favour of preference. But, on the showing of Senator Fraser, it is impossible to carry out that task. Those who insist upon departing from our previous vote are prepared to make preference an impossibility. I ask them to recognise that this is not the last stage in connexion with this measure, and that something may still be done by a Government and a Parliament which profess to be in favour of compulsory arbitration. I appeal to them to exhaust every possible means before they give their consent to the passing of a Bill which will not allow preference to unionists.

– Undoubtedly the Government have ; but what right have we to expect that they will give way after the trouble which they took with this special clause? This is an eminently contentious question, which has wrecked one Government. I advise my honorable friends to be reasonable. They have given up two points, but they have won an immense concession, against which I voted. Onno less than three or four occasions the Senate would have nothing to do with the concession, but it has been made, I think, mistakenly.

SenatorGivens. - We do not know yet that it has been obtained.

Senator PLAYFORD:

State? There would be appeals to Parliament on the subject, because the organizations would realize that, so far from improving the present State Act, such an amendment would render it a very much worse measure than it is at the present time. That should be sufficient to induce every member of the Committee who agrees that Federal legislation should be as advanced as State legislation, to vote for the omission of this proviso. It may be said that some honorable senators believe that the measure will work equitably, and since they desire to have it placed on the Statutebook, they are prepared to swallow this proviso. In common with other members of the Labour Party, I have received communications from the organizations throughout Australia that will be most affected by this measure if passed. Senator Guthrie has stated that, so far as the Seamen’s Union is concerned, its members, if this proviso is retained, would prefer that this Bill should be thrown under the table. I am satisfied that the organizations of men working in the back-country, who are likely to bc seriously affected by this legislation, will not accept a measure containing this proviso, unless under absolute compulsion. It is not proposed that a majority of the members of an organization shall be favorable to an award of preference. This proviso goes far .beyond that, and as has been pointed out by Senator Guthrie, it would be absolutely impossible for the waterside workers to satisfy the Court that there was a majority of those affected by an award of preference on their application in favour of that award, for the simple reason that there are so many persons casually engaged in waterside employment who leave that work when they can find employment at their own trades, but who would be as much affected by an award of preference in that industry as the men continuously engaged in it. The very same thing applies to men engaged in the industries of the back country. There are men who follow regularly the occupations of shearers and rouseabouts ; but if we consider the number of men in the Shearers’ and Rouseabouts’ Unions, we shall find that they do not include half the total number of persons employed in any given year in the shearing industry. Thousands of men come out from the towns to seek casual employment in the industry. Other men who are settled on small areas of land of their own, take part in the shearing, and this is done to a greater extent in Victoria than perhaps in any of the other States. It must not be forgotten that this measure deals with Inter-State disputes., and that all these men must be reckoned with. It will be of no use for the shearers’ organization to assure the Court that throughout Australia during shearing time, so many thousand men belonging to the organization have been engaged in the industry. They must under this proviso, satisfy the Court that all who would be affected by an award of preference in the industry, are in favour of the grant of such an award. With all their organization it is impossible for the organized workers in this industry to state that a majority of those affected are in favour of an award of preference. Men working on the coast in Queensland, men working in the sugar districts yearly, and men employed along the coast in the fruit season ; from Brisbane, as far north as Rockhampton, may be affected by an award of preference in the shearing industry, because they are often compelled to go into the pastoral districts to seek employment, when none is to be had on the coast, and under this proviso, all persons who may be affected by the award must be accounted for. Under the Bill as it stands, before an award of preference can be given, the whole of the conditions surrounding the industry must be put before the Court. This Bill is professedly given to the workers of Australia in good faith, with the object of securing industrial peace, and yet some honorable senators desire to retain a proviso which will have the effect of . preventing labour organizations securing the benefits for which they have worked for so many years. And more than that, if at any time they should be compelled to come under this legislation, this proviso will have the effect of breaking up those organizations altogether.

Senator de Largie:

– Still, the intention of the Bill is to foster organizations.

Senator TURLEY:

– That is the professed intention of the Bill. Honorable senators opposite admit that trade unions have done good work, that they have improved the condition of the workers engaged in the various industries. They say, “ We believe it is necessary to enact legislation which will prevent strikes such as the shearers’ strike and the maritime strike, which extended from one end of Australia to the other. ‘ ‘ At the same time, by insisting upon the retention of this proviso, they are not only taking away from the -workers of Australia the opportunity to secure industrial peace ; but they are placing them in such a position that they must resort to subterfuge to obtain any benefit from this legislation, or run the risk of having their organizations broken up. Some honorable senators opposite have admitted that they are absolutely opposed to the principle of compulsory arbitration, and, so far as I represent labour organizations in Queensland, I am prepared, if I am unable to secure the passage of a Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, without a proviso of this sort, to give honorable senators opposite a hand when the opportunity presents itself, in throwing the Bill under the table. They have said that in their opinion, the Bill is bad, and they are prepared to vote against it on any consideration.

Senator Gray:

– We did vote against it.

Senator TURLEY:

– I am almost forced to say that I am sorry that I did not vote with Senator Gray to throw the Bill out, when the attempt is made to carry such provisions as the one to which I have referred. If this proviso is retained, and honorable senators opposite are prepared at the report stage to vote for the rejection of the measure, I shall vote with them.

Question - That the word “ not ‘ ‘ proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 15

AYES

NOES

Majoritv…… … 2

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the following words be added : - “ but that the Senate’s amendment be amended by inserting after the word’ given.’ the following words : - ‘ if in the opinion of the Court the members of the organization applying for preference are in such a minority of those affected by the award that the granting of such preference would prejudice the interest of the majority,’ “

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– I do not know whether my honorable friend can move to amend that particular paragraph.

It seems to me that he can only move an amendment consequential upon the rejection of the Senate amendment.

Senator Givens:

– There are other alternative!.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Besides the alternative I mentioned, ‘ the Senate may -

Agree to the House of Representatives’ amendment on its own amendments, with or withour amendment, making consequent amendments to the Bill if necessary.

Under that standing order Senator McGregor submitted an amendment to leave out the word “not,” and that amendment was negatived. Senator Pearce now desires, under this standing order, to add certain words to the motion proposed by the AttorneyGeneral.

Senator Playford:

– And to strike out the greater portion of the clause.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Pearce desires to amend the motion, by striking out certain words and by adding others. It appears to me. that that is the most convenient and proper method of dealing with the rejection of the Senate’s amendment by the House of Representatives. If Ave carry the motion proposed by.’ the Attorney-General, Ave shall, in my opinion, have disposed of that particular question, and I cannot see how, having accepted the House of Reoresentatives’ decision Avith regard to that amendment, Ave can deal Avith the question again. Standing order 277, which has been quoted, states that the Senate may -

Insist on its amendments.

Certain members of the Committee do not propose to insist on the amendment, which Avas that Ave should leave out the second paragraph. Some honorable senators say, “ We will not insist on that, provided we can insert certain words in the paragraph.” I take it that Senator Pearce, who proposes the amendment, is entitled to do so under this provision of the standing order - or may make further amendments to the Bill consequent upon the rejection of its amendments.

Consequent on the rejection by the House of Representatives of our amendment to leave cut certain words. Senator Pearce takes certain action. The honorable ‘senator proposes that Ave should not insist on our amendment for the retention of these words. except in so far ar, a portion of there is concerned, and we should’ submit to the-House of Representatives a modification of our first proposal. I. therefore, rule that Senator Pearce is in order in moving his amendment.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– I respond to your invitation, sir, and hand in an objection to your ruling in order to obtain the opinion of the President. / n the Senate :

The Chairman of Committees. - Sena tor Pearce having moved an amendment to the question -

That amendment No. 3, disagreed to by the House of Representatives, be not insisted on. and’ the honorable senator’s amendment being as follows : -

To add to the motion the words “ but that the amendment be amended by inserting after the word ‘ given ‘ in the first line, the words ‘ if in the opinion of the Court the members of the organization applying for preference are in such a minority of those affected by the award that the granting of such preference would prejudice the interests of the majority,’ “ and leaving out the rest of the words Senator Symon raised the point that the amendment is not in order. I gave a ruling that Senator Pearce Avas in order, because under standing order 227 the Senate might insist on its amendment, might not insist on its amendment, or might make further amendments to the Bill, consequent upon the rejection of its amendment. It appeared to me that if Ave disposed of the question proposed by Senator Symon, honorable senators would not have an opportunity of moving an amendment.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– I am aware sir, that you have fortunately been in the Chamber during the discussion, and I do not therefore propose to deal with the point of order at length. I point out that there are two questions, one more or less of form, and the other of substance. As to the substance, I invite your attention to what the amend-, ment is. It is a direct negative of the Senate’s amendment to which the House of Representatives has disagreed. The amendment disagreed to by the House of Representatives Avas the omission by the Senate of the words -

No such preference shall be directed to be given unless the application for such preference is, in the opinion of the Court, approved by a majority of those affected by the award who have interests in common with the applicants.

That is the principle of the majority - that no preference shall be granted unless it is approved by the majority.

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator Croft:

– The honorable and learned senator objected before Senator Pearce had stated his amendment.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– That is so ; but Senator Pearce would not have that. He insisted upon readinghis amendment, and upon moving it. Iam very much obliged to the honorable senator, because we do not desire that there should be halfadozen discussions about it. The amendment disagreed to by the House of Representatives was the striking out of the proviso which I have read. The amendment moved by Senator Pearce is in direct conflict with that. The honorable senator proposes to insert after the word “ given “ these words - “ if, in the opinion of the Court, the members of the organization applying for preference are in such a minority of those affected by the award that the granting of such preference would prejudice the interests of the majority.”

That is a direct negative.

Senator Pearce:

– The Attorney-General has seen fit to strengthen his position by taking up new ground. Evidently it is a clear indication that he has found his first premises to be wrong. In Committee, he was content with the one point, namely, that the amendment was inconsistent with standing order 227 ; but he now finds that a further point is necessary in order to strengthen his weak position, and, therefore, he submits that the amendment if any amendment is permissible, is out of order because of its substance. The first amendment, which was rejected by the other House, provided that a union applying for preference must prove to the Court that it had a majority. That precaution was taken, it was said, to safeguard the interests of the majority. My amendment does hot go so far as that, but it is in the same direction, in that it gives a certain instruction to the Court. The same prinTciple is involved in each amendment; but my amendment is not so drastic as the previous one. If the Attorney-General’s statement is correct, what is the meaning of these words in standing order 227 - or propose new amendments as alternative to the amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

If the earlier portion of the standing order means what the Attorney-General has said, the portion I have just quoted is not required. If the second alternative means that having disposed of the motion of the Attorney-General, I should have to propose my proposition as a new amendment, the latter words of the standing order are not required. I take it that the second paragraph is meant to fit such a case as this, and that the third paragraph allows a new amendment to be moved as an alternative to the amendment to which the other House has disagreed.

The PRESIDENT:

– Before giving a decision, I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the theory which underlies Bills in their passage through the two Houses, and particularly to the theory with reference to amendments. It is a well understood law of every Parliament that any clause, or part thereof, which has not been agreed to by both Houses, is open for discussion. We should construe our standing order with that theory in our mind. In this case, the Senate left out a proviso > the other House disagreed to our amendment, and, therefore, the proviso is still open for discussion. The AttorneyGeneral moved that the amendment be not insisted on, and referred to standing order 227, to show that on that motion Senator Pearce cannot move an amendment which would in effect substitute for the proviso which the Senate struck out, another proviso. If we look at standing order 227, we shall see that it applies to this case -

The Senate may -

Insist or not insist on its amendments;

This amendment will get overthe objection that this course may lead to the rejection of the Bill, because if it is carried there must be an interchange of messages.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Senator Pearce’s proposal is absolutely contradictory, and I must ask for the ruling of the Chairman upon it on a point of order.. The motion is that the Committee do not insist on its amendment. That means that the proviso stands in the Bill. To that

The CHAIRMAN:

– I see very little difference between this point of order and the point of order raised previously. Senator Pearce, in response to an invitation from the President, asked leave to withdraw his amendment, with a view to an alteration. The amendment was altered by the addition of the words “ as an alternative proposal to,” and by the omission of the words “the amendment.” Personally, I think it would have been better to leave in the words “ the amendment,” because there would then have been a clear indication of what is proposed. But, as I say, there is little difference between the amendment before us and the amendment which ‘Senator Pearce withdrew. Senator Pearce proposed to add to the motion of the AttorneyGeneral the words - but, as an alternative, proposes to insert after the word “ given,” in line 1, the words, “ if in the opinion of the Court the members of the organization applying for preference are in such a minority of those affected by the award that the granting of such preference would prejudice the interests of the majority.”

Senator Pearce then proposes to omit the remainder of the proviso. The alteration may possibly affect the vote which may be cast either way, but I must say that I think the amendment is in order.

Senator Playford:

– The words “ proposes to insert” are objectionable; we do insert.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - The amendment is governed by the first words, in which it is declared that we propose an alternative, and we must indicate to the other House what the alternative is. We say that we do not insist on the amendment to omit the proviso, but propose, as an alternative, that after the word “ given,” certain words should be inserted, and the remainder of the clause struck out.

Senator Playford:

– We do not propose to insert, but do insert.

Senator PEARCE:

– I cannot see the meaning could be differently expressed.

Senator Clemons:

– If we use the word “proposes,” we practically ask the other House if we may insert the words.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The other House might send back the message, “ As you propose to do this, you had better do it.”

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Pearce. It has been contended all along that it is necessary that there should be a majority in favour of preference before an award of preference is made. We have pointed out that that is a provision with which it is impossible to comply. We have shown that it would be impossible for organizations to submit evidence which would convince the Court that a majority of those likely to be affected by an award are in favour of preference. The AttorneyGeneral has urged, by way of interjection, that this is only “ in the opinion of the Court.” That argument has also been used in another place. It is natural to suppose that under the provision in the Bill the Court would require to be satisfied by evidence that a majority of those who are likely to be affected by the award are in favour of the grant of preference. I am convinced that honorable senators who have read the report of cases tried in the New Zealand and New South Wales Arbitration Courts will admit that awards have been given in numbers of cases where it would have been absolutely impossible for the organizations applying for them to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that a majority of the persons interested in those awards were in favour of preference. Yet that has not prevented the New Zealand and New South Wales Courts from granting awards of preference to unionists where it has been shown that unionist workmen as competent as persons outside their organizations are available for employment. The amendment now proposed will give the Court greater scope to decide in favour of the men who all along have had to bear the brunt of the battle in forming organizations sufficiently strong to secure registration under this’ Bill. They would under this amendment be able to secure preference for the work they have done, without prejudice to the interests of those outside their organizations. When any award is given to an organization connected with an industry, it must be remembered that persons engaged in subsidiary industries will be affected by that award. For instance, if the members of the Seamen’s Union were to take part in such a strike as the maritime strike, and the dispute were brought before the Arbitration Court, every honorable senator must admit that the award given in such a case would affect to some extent the interests of men employed in all kinds of work along the water-side.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Whether in the union or out of it.

Senator TURLEY:

– Every award of the kind must affect in some way the interests of men engaged in subsidiary industries. Senator McGregor has forcibly reminded the Committee that the amendment is intended to protect unionists from being victimized. Every member of the Committee is aware that on many occasions men who have taken the trouble to organize their fellowworkmen, and who have been charged with the responsibility for causing disputes - though in my experience the men at the head of trade organizations have endeavoured at all times to prevent disputes - have been victimized. When the great maritime strike was brought to a conclusion,, some of the best workmen in Sydney, who had been working along the . waterside for years, had to go to the offices of the Shipowners’ Association, in Kent-street, and declare that they were not members of the water-side organizations, and that they had left the unions, and on that declaration they received a ticket which enabled them to secure employment. I am glad to say that there were numbers of men who had been members’ of trade organizations for years who refused to declare that they were not unionists, and to my own knowledge they were victimized by being refused employment for months.

Senator CROFT:
Western Australia

– Our desire to include some system of protection or preference to unionists has reached a stage when I think that the objections urged by honorable senators on the other side have been fully met. In the early stages of the Bill they pointed out that we were trying to secure a particular preference for a minority of workers in an industry. Even if that were so - and I do not admit that it is - they must now admit that the amendment of Senator Pearce does away with their argument. They must recognise that what we are aiming at is to protect unionists from being victimized by unscrupulous employers. Although there are good employers, still there are a number of employers who are prepared to victimize any men who have taken part in a strike or action in the Arbitration Court. From my knowledge of the Western Australian Act, I hold that even with the amendment of Senator Pearce, and I intend to vote for it, this would not be a good measure. Without that provision the law would be absolutely worthless. If I may not vote against the return of the Bil! unless it be amended in this direction, certainly I shall be found using < my voice with the unions in my State not ] to register. I believe that my recommendation will have considerable weight with : unionists. It is unlikely that I could appreciate this measure when I know that the State Act is a better one. Both in Western Australia and in New South Wales the Arbitration Act is effective in securing the settlement of disputes and preventing unscrupulous employers from victimizing certain unionists. I know that some honorable senators will urge that, even if the Bill be not a good one, it should) be placed upon the statute-book in order to establish a principle. I submit that the principle is already established in the minds of the people of ^ the Commonwealth, and that we are not justified in placing upon the statute-book a bad law in order to establish a good principle. In Western Australia public opinion favours the Arbitration Act. When some amendments were recently made in the Legislative Assembly no attempt was made by the tory element in the State Parliament to make tha Act less effective than it has proved to be. Notwithstanding that fact, one of its representatives here, Senator Smith, without offering any reasons, seeks to prevent a portion of this measure from giving protection to the very men whom he knows so well and who worked so hard to secure his election. He is well acquainted with the trend of public opinion in the State. He knows that the people favour an Arbitration Act which gives preference to unionists, not merely because they are unionists, but because they have done so much to secure better conditions and higher wages for non-unionists and unionists alike. He is not correctly representing the public opinion of the State in the vote which he recorded to-night, and the vote which I understand he intends to give against this amendment. I appeal to honorable senators on the other side to consent to send this amendment down to the other House, and thus give our friends there aT opportunity to meet our views on this great principle.

Senator McGREGOR (South Australia). - I hope that before a final vote is taken on this question honorable senators will reconsider the position. All along, in our humble way, we have endeavoured to present the situation in its truest light, but they have always seemed to think that we desire to get our own way with the Bill. That is not the case. It seems to be thought that because we have obtained a concession in connexion with the political rights of organizations we ought to be quite satisfied. That is only a very insignificant necessity in connexion with arbitration, compared with the position in which a union would be placed if it were small in numbers. Let me give a concrete instance. Suppose that a particular trade in Australia employed 2,000 men, of whom 400 were organized and 1,600 were not . organized. Only a minority of those engaged in the trade could bring a question before the Arbitration Court, although it might concern both non-unionists and unionists, and unless the Court was assured that a majority was in favour of preference being granted it could not be given. What would the result be if an award were given against the employers ? The good employers might take no notice, but the employers who were bitterly opposed to the working man would presently find an excuse for discharging first the secretary of the union, then the president, and next other prominent members. In a very short time there would be no union, and the whole object of the Bill would be entirely defeated. What have we sought all along to secure? We wish the Bill to provide that even if a minority engaged in an industry brought a case before the Court, and a decision were given, that minority should not be prejudiced because of its action, and that the Judge could give preference, even to the minority, so long as it did not prejudicially affect the majority of those who were engaged in the trade. Could anything be. fairer than to intrust that power to the Court? We all desire to show some result for our labours, and to bring this session to a close as harmoniously and as quickly as possible. I am assured that if a provision of that description were adopted by the Senate it would receive consideration in another place, and that the two Houses might be able to come to a compromise. I wish honorable senators to dissociate clause 55 from clause 40, because the concession granted in the former has nothing to do with the preference asked for in the latter. I believe that if we were able to present our proposal with such ability as the AttorneyGeneral has displayed in his endeavour to thwart our intentions it -would be carried here by a large majority. I would point out to the Attorney-General - and I do not use these words as a threat, because we have : no intention to do anything which is unfair i -that the session would be brought to a : close much sooner if we could only arrive 1 I at a compromise.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– It appears to me to be obvious that a few inconsistencies are being imported into the discussion, even at this late stage. The; Bill went down to another place in a certain form. Certain amendments were embodied in it. Those amendments have, in some cases, been rejected by another place. The Bill is sent back to the same House as previously considered it. But strange to say, while we cannot recognise any combination of events which should cause a change of principles on the part of honorable senators, yet, on what may be called the vital principle of the measure, some of .those who original I v cast their votes in one direction, have sufficient elasticity of conscience to vote on the other ‘side now.

Senator Mulcahy:

– That is what every legislator has to do, and does wisely, in his life-time.

Senator HENDERSON:

Senator PEARCE:

– I am asking the Senate to vindicate its position by refusing to go the length to which they are invited by another place. The considerations on which a decision was arrived at in another place, are an insult to the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am afraid I must draw the honorable senator’s attention to standing order 402 -

No senator shall allude to any debate of the current session in the House of Representatives, or to any measure impending therein.

Senator PEARCE:

– I may have transgressed the Standing Orders, but, at any rate, honorable senators are well aware of what took place in the House of Representatives. I ask honorable senators whether they will take care to satisfy their own minds, or whether they are prepared to let party bias decide the question. I ask honorable senators whether they will allow the fact that this amendment originated with the Labour Party,’ to weigh with’ them in their opposition to it. Have they considered whether the proposal means a satisfactory solution of the question? There are same honorable senators fond of prating that there are no parties in this Chamber. One honorable senator, on every occasion which suits him, declares that there are no party lines in the Senate; and yet I venture to say that on this amendment, he will give a vote dictated by party reasons only. There can be no other reasons, seeing that the honorable senator., when in Committee, previously voted to eliminate any qualification whatever from this clause. I refer to Senator Smith ; and if he is not going to give a party vote, I ask him to tell us on the floor of the chamber, what his reasons are for reversing his decision.” He cannot say that he is influenced by a fear that he may lose the Bill, because heknows that at the worst, there can only be a rejection of this portion of our message - only a reply that the House of Representatives does not agree to our amendment. When we find an honorable senator, after due deliberation, and a long debate, voting to strike out the qualification-

Senator Mulcahy:

– Senator Smith advised at the start that the Bill ought to be accepted as it was.

Senator PEARCE:

Senator PEARCE:

– The employers would expect them to be sensible on their side.

Senator Matheson:

– We are giving the Court specific instructions.

Senator PEARCE:

– We are, and we must assume that the Court will, obey them. The Court will not ask what was the intention of the Legislature, but what the Act says. The time will come when the members of this Parliament will be forgotten, but this Bill may remain on the Statute-book for a century. The Court will read the printed word, and will put its own construction upon it. With all the earnestness of which I am capable, I again appeal to the Committee to at least afford us an opportunity of mitigating the severity of this proviso. I have pointed out that there is not the slightest danger of losing the Bill. We should be given an opportunity to approach the other House in a spirit of compromise. If a compromise on this matter were arranged, no need for an amendment of the measure would arise for some time, this subject would be removed from the arena of Federal politics, and we might devote our attention to other matters of importance. On the other hand, if this proviso is allowed to remain as it stands, this difficulty will remain as a festering sore in Federal politics, and political battles will rage round it for years to come. I ask honorable senators if they regard the . Senate as a non-party Chamber, to use their judgment in this matter, and to refuse to allow the party whip to be cracked over their heads, to secure their vote against this proposal, not on its merits, but merely because it emanates from honorable senators on this side. I trust that the amendment will be carried, not because we have very much to hope for from it, but because it may serve as the basis of a compromise with the other House.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be added - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 15

Majority……2

AYES

– We can imagine a dispute occurring on the borders, where people do not recognise arbitrary boundary lines. On the northern rivers of New South Wales, one-half the people may be working in Queensland, and the other half in the former State. On those rivers there are seafaring men, wharf labourers, and others, and it would be quite possible to have an Inter-State strike, with only 400 men affected. Where the members of a union were in the minority, it might be even more necessary, in order to insure fair dealing, to give them preference, than in a case where they were in a majority. If there is something sacred about a majority, still we ought to afford some protection to the minority, and not allow them to be victimized in a wholesale fashion. The more men there are outside the unions, the greater opportunity there is for employers to get labour and victimize the unionists. The men outside will reap the benefit of all the self-sacrifice on the part of the unionists, while the latter will be made to suffer. T’he object for which we are striving in this Bill is industrial peace, for the benefit of the whole community. That cannot be secured without the assistance of industrial organizations, and I would remind honorable senators that if the motion moved by the Attorney-General is carried, instead of encouraging men to join organizations, we shall encourage them to leave them, and we shall prevent men from joining them because, under this proviso, they will run the risk of being victimized in a wholesale fashion. Pictures have been drawn for us of the non-unionist seeking for work for the wife and children dependent upon him, and being told that there is no work for him because preference to unionists bars the way. It must be admitted that even if preference to unionists is granted, each industry can provide employment for only a certain number of men. From the humanitarian stand-point, we have nothing to choose in this matter. It is equally objectionable and repugnant to our minds that the children of unionist parents or of non-unionist parents should suffer because they cannot find employment. If it is a good argument against preference to say that the children of the non-unionist may have to suffer because he is unable to secure employment, it is an equally good argument in favour of preference to point out that if there is no preference to unionists, the non-unionists will get the preference, and the unionist will have to trudge from one part of the Commonwealth to another, vainly seeking for work, whilst his little children are calling out for the bread which he can no longer earn for them. I have known hundreds of such cases, and they will continue to occur unless we devise some means of giving effective protection to unionists. If preference is given to unionists, I remind honorable senators that the non-unionist has a very effective remedy at hand if any hardship should be imposed upon him as the result. He can join the union straight away. The Court, under this Bill, has power to see that the rules of the union will freely admit non-unionists who desire to join it, and that no hardship shall be inflicted upon them by any of the union rules if they choose to join it. That being so, the non-unionist is perfectly safeguarded. But what remedy will the unionist ‘have if the Court does not grant preference? He will have absolutely none. He will be a marked man if he takes part in the agitation to bring a case before the Court, and he will ‘have no remedy. He cannot escape being victimized. If he is discharged by one employer upon one flimsy pretext or another, he will not be able to secure employment from another.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– He would be on the black-mark list of the Employers’ Federation.

Senator GIVENS:

– I proposed to point out that even now the majority of the employers are banded together in a federation, and a unionist without preference might vainly search from one end of Australia to the other looking for work from any member of the Employers’ Federation, whilst I have shown that a non-unionist, where preference to unionists is granted, has an absolutely effective remedy which would immediately place him on a footing of equality with the unionist. I remind honorable senators that the Court might not make a common rule applicable from one end of the Commonwealth to the other. It might make a common rule applicable to a particular place, -and to the particular parties concerned in the dispute brought before it. In such a case a non-unionist might be placed at a disadvantage in that particular industry at that particular place, but he would be under no disadvantage in seeking employment in another industry, or in the same industry in another place. But, on the other hand, the unionist who takes part in a dispute, and whose organization has failed to secure an award of preference, is placed at a disadvantage, not only in his own employment and in the place where he resides, but from one end of the Commonwealth” to the other, and in every employment, because the members of the Employers’ Federation throughout the Commonwealth might refuse him employment. What is here proposed is grossly unfair and unjust. I have shown that, whilst honorable senators who approve of this proviso are prepared to inflict an outrage upon unionists, their plea on behalf of the nonunionists is a sham, a delusion, and a snare. If, in spite of all our efforts, and in spite of all that has been urged against this proviso, the Committee persists in accepting it, for my part I would not give a solitary straw for this Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. It will only be the means of victimizing unionists, who are the best workers and the best citizens in the Commonwealth, and the men who have accomplished more for the masses of the people, both in the old country and in the Commonwealth, than any other class in the community. The reward proposed under this Bill to be held out to them for all their self-sacrifice, is the right to be victimized or to leave the ranks of unionism. Speaking as calmly as I can, with a sense of the great wrong which I believe is about to be inflicted, I say in all honesty and fairness that we should give some little encouragement to the men who will make it possible for this Bill to be effective, for the great boon of industrial peace to be secured, and for equitable conditions to be imposed in the interests of employers and employes, and for the great advantage of the Commonwealth. We should not altogether deprive them of the benefit of the verdict of the Court when it has been arrived at after full and fair consideration.

Senator TURLEY (Queensland). - Before the adjournment for dinner, I referred to the experience I have had in connexion with this matter to show what would be the effect of a provision such as this in a_ Bill dealing with industrial matters. I pointed out that after the maritime strike was brought to a close in Sydnev, men who had taken a part in organizing the Wharf Labourers’ Union, and who were held to be responsible to some extent for bringing about the strike, were compelled before they could secure any employment at all to make application at half-past five in the morning, at an office established by the Ship-owners’ Association in Kent-street, when they were given a blue ticket if they declared that they had left the union. For a time some of these men were unable to secure any employment at all, and later on, when the shipping companies were short of hands, these men were compelled to leave their work. To secure employment again they had to make another application to the office, when they were given a ticket of a different colour, and although having been engaged in the work for years, they were fully competent, and more competent than many of those who were dragged in during the dispute to take the place of unionists, they had to accept work at a reduced rate of wages. They were compelled to accept iod. an hour,” when is. an hour was paid to men who were not nearly so competent, but who had been taken on during the strike. I remind honorable senators that this is an experience which we have been through. They will say that all employers are not built that way, and do not endeavour to take a mean advantage of a workman when they get the opportunity. We are aware that there is a very large number of fair-minded employers. There are some who would pay better wages and grant better conditions than those in force at the present time, but it is the unfair employer who compels the Legislature to adopt ‘ legislation for the regulation of industrial ‘ matters. An employer once said to me, “ It does not matter to me what wages are paid, or what hours are worked, so long as all the employers in this occupation are subjected to the same conditions as I am.” He was one of the fairest men I have known, and he would have done more for the men but for the competition to which he was subjected by men not nearly so fair-minded as he was.

Senator Pearce:

– I draw your attention, sir, to the state of the Committee. (Quorum formed.)

Senator TURLEY:

– If the motion of the Attorney-General be carried, the men who are employed u> other occupations will suffer to a far greater extent than the men who are employed on the coast. When we realize that preference is only to be given when it is desired by a majority, of those who may be affected by the award, and when we recall the extent to which people in Queensland were affected by the disturbance in one industry, we wish to know what interpretation is likely to be placed on this proviso. It is of no use for honorable senators to try to shirk their obligation by saying that they are prepared to leave the determination of the question to the Court. We have proved that they are not prepared to trust the Court. I contend that a distinct direction is here given to the Court. In 1899 a dispute occurred in connexion with a station called Jondaryan, not very far from Brisbane. The shearers had been interferred with by the manager, and a strike occurred when the shearing was only half done. As the organizations were pretty well affiliated then, not only did the shearers come out, but the men who were engaged in the transportation of the product from the station to the ship were forced out of employment for a considerable time.

Senator Pearce:

– I draw your attention, sir, to the state of the Committee. (Quorum formed.)

Senator TURLEY:

– Not only ‘did the dispute entail a considerable amount of loss upon the shearers, but, after it was settled by mutual agreement, those men realizing that it might not have been altogether due to the fault of their employers, paid the cost of sending the product along the coast for a distance of about 2,000 miles. Let me point out how it may affect not only those who were directly employed on a station, but a number of other persons. Take the case of a station which is situated at a distance of 200 or 300 miles from a railway, and suppose that an award is given in connexion with shearing from one end of Australia to the other. We know that it need not be made a common rule throughout the Commonwealth. Shearing rates vary in different places. In some places men get £1 per 100; in other places the rate is 17s. 6d. per 100; and I believe that in certain places it is as low as 15s. per 100. In Victoria, where the stations are situated close to railway communication, the article can be produced more cheaply than it can in a State where the producer has not only to pay a higher rate for labour, and a freight of £4 or £5 per ton to the railway station, but also has to send the product over a considerable railway mileage. Suppose that a dispute arises, and the Court decides not to make a common rule, but to base its award on the conditions of the employment, as they are known to exist. If by the award the rate of wages is increased, or the hours of labour are decreased, in some places it must interfere with the cost of producing the article, and the difference must be made up in some way. If in one State the article can be produced at a certain rate, and in another State it has to be carried 400 or 500 miles to the railway, in the latter, the carriers are affected by the award just as much as the men belonging to the claimant union. I think that, according to a liberal interpretation of the amendment, the carriers would be entitled to ask that they should be consulted when their carrying rates are being interfered with. I wish to know whether the interpretation of the provision is to end with the carriers. I contend that not only the carriers, but all the other men engaged in .taking the article from the railway ‘ station to the ship, are concerned. There is hardly a State in which the Government has not had to interfere during the last few years with the wages of its railway servants because the lines were not paying. When a difference has to be made up in some way owing to an award of the Court, the men who are engaged in the transportation of the product from the station to the ship are entitled to be considered just as much as the men who are members of the claimant union, or are directly engaged in the occupation. Rather than be a party to the enactment of a provision of this kind, I should prefer to see the Bill kicked under the table. It will make not for industrial peace, but for industrial strife. It will be an engine of oppression rather than a provision for the just settlement of industrial disputes. There is no provision in the Bill to prevent the victimizing of men who have taken part in industrial troubles. The unions have always endeavoured to protect their- members against being victimized because of heir actions as trade unionists. Under the old style of unionism, which Senator Gray and’ some of hi.3 colleagues say they were so much infatuated with, it was a rare thing for a workman to’ give his services to an organization, and be paid for them. The work he did was voluntary. He was engaged at his trade during the day, and in the evenings attended meetings, conducted the correspondence, kept the books, and looked after the routine work of the society. At the end of the year he was paid a gratuity of perhaps £20 or ^25 - an amount not by any means commensurate with the work he had done - as an acknowledgment of his services. It was because of victimizing by employers that the organizations were compelled as they grew in strength to pay their secretaries. Of late years they have always had to have permanent officers.

Formerly there were many employers who, though a man might take a prominent part in a trade union, would recognise him as a good workman, and would have no objection to employ him. But when the relations between capital and labour became more acute, many employers resorted to practices which compelled the unions to adopt different tactics. After the shearers’ strike in 1891, the practice adopted by the employers was at the end of the shearing to give their men references on a certain coloured piece of paper. Wherever a man wanted to go to work he had to produce his reference before there was a possibility of obtaining employment. I know some men who were as good workmen as ever stood in the back country, but who had to alter their names before they were able to obtain employment, because they were known amongst the employers as men who had taken a prominent part in unionism. There is one man who now occupies a ministerial position in Queensland, who was on the black-lists of the employers for some years. Other men who were similarly treated are now in the Queensland and New South Wales Parliaments. Indeed, they were elected because their constituents recognised the valuable work they had done. After 1 89 1, it was impossible for them to get ,a stand in any .big shearing shed, because of the system of victimizing. Wherever a prominent unionist travelled in Queensland, New South Wales, or Victoria, his name was known, and employment was refused to him. Some of the best men who formerly worked in the central district of Queensland are now to be found down on the Warrego and the Barcoo, others are to be found in ,the north-western district, others on the Flinders and Cloncurry rivers, and even as far north as the Gulf country. They were driven to these districts, because they could not secure employment where they used to live, unless they changed their names, or “ratted” on the organizations with which they had’ been connected for many years. I know of prominent unionists who, since the strike, have never followed their occupation, because they would not accept the references offered to them by stationowners. Some honorable senators opposite tell us that the old unionism did good, but that the new unionism its mischievous. I am convinced that in a few 3’ears time the same class of people will be telling us that the unionism of to-day was good, but .that the unionism of that time is mischievous. It is only while the work is being done that people who have interests on the other side condemn it. lt is urged that we must have regard to the interests of minorities. Honorable senators opposite were elected by majorities of a few hundred, or a few thousand, over the candidates below them on the poll. But do they not give the same consideration to .the wants and wishes of the minorities in their constituencies as to the majorities that sent them into Parliament? There cannot be the slightest doubt that if the amendments which we require were made in the Bill, the wishes of minorities would be fully considered. If honorable senators opposite had given ample consideration to this question thev would recognise the justice of the claim we put forward on behalf of the organized workers of Australia. They would recognise that whilst the organizations may be able to bring cases before the Court, the employers would practically be able to defeat the award, or to prevent preference being given by the fact that the men would have to make out a good case in showing that there was an absolute’ majority of those affected by the award who were in favour of preference. That is why I have endeavoured to put as clearly as I can the opinions which I hold relating to the matter. I am not offering opposition simply because of sentiment ; but because I know what has taken place in the past. It is all very well to say that in the future there will be no strikes; but unless this Bill is made an engine of oppression and the Government proclaim organizations as organizations under it, there will be nothing to prevent strikes. It will then be realized that the present position is not grounded on sentiment, but on our hearty approval of the principles of compulsory arbitration. We desire an effective measure which will make for industrial peace, but which, at the same time, will not be used by unscrupulous employers for the purposes of victimizing men whose efforts have built up unions* ‘and have tended to settle industrial disputes without resort to strikes. If this provision be retained, I am prepared to vote against the Bill becoming law under any conditions whatever.

Question - That the amendment be not insisted on - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 12

Majority……… 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 55 (Registration of organizations).

Senate’s Amendment. - Insert “And further provided that no organization shall be entitled to appear before the Court to oppose an application for preference by any organization, 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.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend-, ment agreed to with the addition of the following words, viz. : - “ Political purposes’ in this section does not include obtaining or maintaining provisions applying to all persons in any particular industry, without discrimination as between those who are and those who are not members of an organization, with respect to the . regulation of the following matters : -

Motion (by Sir Josiah Symon) proposed -

That the amendment of the House of Representatives be agreed to.

Senator TURLEY (Queensland). - I think there might be some improvement made in this provision. I remember Senator Play ford stating that when he read the newspaper containing the report of this clause, he nearly fell down on realizing the concession which had been given to the Labour Party.

Senator Playford. - No ! No !

Senator TURLEY:

– I must admit that when I read the amendment, I thought it a considerable concession, until I hap pened to look over the speeches of those who had supported it. One strong supporter of the amendment stated that he realized that it clipped the wings of the organizations, and that the clipping was being done by those who promoted the unions. I fancy there must be something in that view; and, in any case, I do not regard the amendment as a great concession one way or the other. Trade union organizations would undoubtedly have to deal with the matters which are specifically mentioned here, but beyond that, I do not see that any opportunity would be afforded for dealing with political matters as in the past. Trade unions have not only done great work in connexion with industrial matters, but they have used an influence in politics which has given them the standing they have to- day in the Parliaments of Australia - a standing which is recognised even by men who have been distinctly opposed to them for years. This amendment has been characterized as a great concession, and it was urged that a quid pro quo should be given in connexion with the amendment last before us. In spite of all, however, I am satisfied that the present amendment does not compensate us for the concession we have been asked to make. I hope that when we reach the report stage, senators opposite, who have declared themselves against the principle of the Bill, will be found voting with members on this side, with the object of throwing the measure into the waste-paper basket.

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

– When this matter was previously before us, Senator de Largie moved an amendment, which had for its object the bestowal on labour organizations of the full right to use their funds for political purposes. That amendment was defeated by three votes. With a great desire which I naturally felt to suggest some compromise, and bring about, as I hoped, a peaceful solution of this very troublesome question, I moved an amendment to the effect -

That no action in reference to hours, conditions, or remuneration of labour shall be deemed to be a political purpose.

That amendment, which to all intents and purposes, is the motion now before us, was received with the greatest possible ridicule and objection by the Attorney-General. No words were considered by him as too strong or too scathing to apply to the amendment.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

-And deservedly so. Does the honorable senator oppose the present amendment?

Senator MATHESON:

– I do not. The Attorney-General on that occasion said that 1 was attempting to “ undermine the whole scheme “ of the Bill - that I was driving “ a mine of the most deadly character under the whole scheme,” and that the amendment was more “mischievous than any which had yet been suggested.”

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– I quite agree with that now.

Senator MATHESON:

– I know that the Attorney-General is quite frank - that he believes what he stated. I have no quarrel with him for what he then said, because I know that he expressed his honest convictions. I am obliged, however, to allude to t60se matters in connexion with others with which I propose to deal on the amendment before us. The AttorneyGeneral said that if we put in any words covering political action, there would be no checking the political action which might take place under them, and so on. The result of those criticisms was that my amendment was de’ffeated by two votes - the votes of Senator Keating and Senator Smith. I want to lay some stress on that fact, because it was undoubtedly the eloquence of the Attorney-General which induced those two gentlemen to vote in the way they did. The matter is more remarkable in connexion with Senator Keating, because that honorable senator had, as will be found by reference to the records, voted for Senator de Largie’s amendment, which would have given to these organizations the fullest right to use’ their funds for political purposes. Yet, when my amendment was proposed - the very amendment which is now before the Committee - to give these organizations the power to use their funds in a much more limited way, we found Senator Keating yielding to the persuasive eloquence of the Attorney-General - because the honorable senator never spoke on the subject - and voting against my amendment. It will be most interesting when we come to a division now, to see in what way Senator Keating will vote on this motion. I appeal to the honorable senator to come down to the floor of the Chamber and let us know why he votes in one way one day and completely reverses that vote on the next day.

Senator Givens:

– What about the honorable senator’s colleague, Senator Smith?

Senator MATHESON:

- Senator Smith has also failed to deliver himself of any opinion upon this amendment. He holds some most liberal views, and is always prepared to support democratic principles, when he recognises them. He is another honorable senator who was - unwittingly, I feel sure. - led astray by the eloquence of the Attorney-General to deliberately vote against my amendment. I shall not elaborate that matter any further, but I propose to refer briefly to the proposal now before the Committee. What is it that this amendment wishes to separate from the prohibition of the Bill ? First we have legislation for the preservation of life and limb.

Is there any one who objects to legitimate agitation for the improvement of the laws relating to the preservation of life and limb? If so I am not with him. I say to the trade unionists and the working men of Australia, so long as your object is the general good of the workers without claiming any right of privilege to yourselves which is denied to your fellows, I have no objection to your agitation for the improvement of your conditions.

The next thing provided for is compensation for injuries or death -

There is no country where such la’/s are not in existence. I have no objection to any agitation for the improvement of such laws. The right to express opinions on these subjects, with a view to securing reform, is one which I deny to no man and to no body of men.

The third object is sanitation -

Does any human being object to agitation for the improvement of the sanitary laws of the country? I do not.

The fourth matter dealt with is the age and sex of employes -

Who objects to agitation for the improvement of such laws so long as, not only the unionist boy and the unionist girl, but all boys and girls are legislated for?

The fifth object is the regulation of the hours of labour -

I have no objection to any man or any number of men banded together in trade unions taking political action to bring about better legislation upon such subjects.

I would remind the Committee that hours of labour was one of the specific topics with which my amendment dealt, in so many words. The sixth object is the remuneration of labour -

That is another legitimate subject for political agitation by the workers of the Commonwealth. I should be very sorry to think that any member of the Committee wished to impede such activity.

– Apparently all the principle is on the other side.

Senator STEWART:

– I do not wish to be pharasaical ; but I cannot refrain from saying that we on this side never abandon our principles. In that respect, we have a very great advantage over honorable senators on the other side. In my opinion, legislation ought to be governed by principle, and a party which throws principle to the wind for the sake of remaining in power, is a menace to the community.

Motion agreed to.

Resolutions reported.

Motion (by Senator Sir Josiah Symon), proposed -

That the report be adopted.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I hope that the report will not be adopted, for with a number of honorable senators, I believe that the Bill is now of such a character that it will defeat the very object for which it was designed. There are certain honorable senators on the other side who have declared, during the passage ofthe Bill through its various stages, that under any circumstances they would vote against the final motion. It is to give them an opportunity of carrying out their expressed intention that I oppose the adoption of the report. If, however, they intend to back down like the Government, and vote to place upon the Statute-book what to my mind is nothing less than a political fraud, their action will not be ,very creditable. Senator Gould has gone away. I am assured that he intended to vote for the adoption of the report. I do not think that this side will be so mean or arbitrary as to refuse him a pair in the circumstances; but, in my opinion, it should not be asked for. Senator Gray and Senator Dobson are in a similar position. They have declared that they would vote against the passing of the Bill, in fact, do anything they could to prevent its passing on to the Statute-book.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– But they are not going to do so now, so that the honorable senator need not rely on them.

Senator McGREGOR:

– Now they are going to .vote for it. But they have not said so to the Senate, and I think!, they ought to ‘declare themselves. Senator Trenwith has declared that if we cannot get the house which we desire to live in, we should go and live in the bush. But if this Bill is not better than the conditions that have been existing for the last thirty years, why hurry into a house of this description? The trade unions of Australia are not in the bush. They came out of the bush many years ago. They helped to send Senator Trenwith and others of us to Parliament. If we have an opportunity to defeat legislation that will be of an abortive character and antagonistic to the interests of the unions, it seems to be our duty to do . so. If we refuse to adopt the report of the Committee, the Bill will be defeated. The Government may, if they like, cause it to be sent up again in the same form next year. The same events may follow. Then there will probably be a double dissolution, and the people will have an opportunity to send to Parliament representatives who are prepared, not to vote in one direction on one day, and in another direction on another day, but who will pass legislation in accordance with their desires. I agree that we have no right to complain of an honest change of opinions if honorable senators opposite are convinced that they were wrong previously. But we have every right to inquire as to their motives for their changes of opinion. On this occasion it is fair to assume that those motives are verypeculiar, inasmuch as some of them are voting for legislation of which they have stated they do not approve. I invite them to vote against this Bill at this stage. It is because the Bill is not what it ought to be that I also ask those who are not in favour of putting on the Statute-book legislation which will have the effect of trammelling the operations of the organizations of labour in the future, and of putting them in a worse position than they have been in the past, to vote against it. I hope that a vote will soon be taken.

– If there are a number of honorable senators who hold that view, it is a serious menace to people in whom I take a deep interest, and for whose welfare I have a high regard. I have followed honorable senators opposite in many respects when I thought they were not quite wise, but as they were in earnest and appeared to think that there was some wisdom in what they proposed, I allowed myself to be overruled. But I shall be deeply disappointed if after the efforts that have been made, we throw over the advantages that will be gained by placing upon the Statute-book a Bill of this character. I join with my honorable friends in regretting that the Bill has not been improved, and perhaps I share to some extent their anger that some amendments have not been made. But a feeling of regret or of anger should not make us so unwise as to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

Senator TURLEY (Queensland).- Senator Trenwith says he is astonished. I do not know that there is anything to be astonished at. I have said at every stage of the Bill that I should vote against it finally if certain provisions which it contained were not altered. Other honorable senators have said the same thing. We are simply backing up our statements now. I intend, therefore, to vote against the adoption of the report. I am sorry that I did not vote with Senator Gray and others against the third reading. I think it is a greater menace to have bad legislation on the Statute-book than to inaugurate new legislation, even if to do so takes longer. Senator Trenwith mentioned the history of the Victorian factory legislation, which has been built up from a small beginning.

Senator Trenwith:

– That is the type of all industrial legislation.

Senator TURLEY:

– That I deny. In Queensland we have had an Employers’ Liability Act for years, which has been described by the Chief Justice of the State as a delusion and a snare. While other English-speaking countries, such as New

Zealand, could get a Workmen’s Compensation Act without great trouble, we have worked to that end in Queensland for years, but have always been met with the ‘statement that there is an Employers’ Liability Act, which can be availed of. But for that ‘fact we should have had a compensation measure years ago, which would have been of more benefit than a dozen of the former. I should be very glad . to see the Senate refuse to adopt this report. I do not believe that the Bill will forward the interests of the organizations, but that it will be found to be defective in its working. There will be years of trouble before we get the amendments that are considered necessary. I can understand cases of factories regulations gradually developing into legislation as experience is gained and public opinion is influenced, but I can give quite a number of cases where the existence of pernicious lawshas prevented the passing of good laws. It is possible that we made a mistake to-day in agreeing to the exclusion of agricultural . labourers and domestic servants. I agreed to their exclusion, because I thought that after such a compromise the Government would be prepared to meet us fairly on the third amendment.On that ground I, to some extent, sacrificed the interests of those engaged in domestic service and agriculture. I have never been able to draw the line between agricultural and other workers. One day a man may be working as an employé, and come under the Act, whereas the next week he may be an agricultural employer and able to deny his men the benefits of the legislation. I am sorry that we did not’ divide the Senate on that question in ‘order that we might see -whether honorable senators have altered their minds on that as completely as on other matters. A number of honorable senators have declared their opposition to the principle of this Bill. I regret that I did not assist them to defeat the measure before, but there should still be no difficulty in dealing with it, because, if they vote with me on this side, they will be able to throw out the Bill now.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
Attorney-General · South Australia · Free Trade

. -I wish to say a few words without any heat, sense of pique, or irritation of any sort. I rejoice that the Bill has. reached this stage. It is a Bill, which in some respects - in this I am like Senator Trenwith, but from a different point of view- does not meet with, my entire approval, and I think I have expressed that opinion very freely. Some remarks have been made by ah honorable senator whose vanity is perhaps a little wounded by the course taken in regard to one particular amendment. I am perfectly willing to remain under’ a criticism of that kind, and do not . wish to resent it. I do not object to a division on the adoption of the report,, because an opportunity will be afforded, of seeing who are” genuinely in favour . of the principle of compulsory conciliation and arbitration, and who are in favour only of some measure which is entirely of their own making. There are some honorable senators who are not satisfied unless they get all they want - who have no spirit of compromise or conciliation. Therefore, I welcome a division which will enable the two sets of honorable senators to be separated one from the” other, and placed on record who are and who are not in favour of a genuine attempt to settle the question. 1 regret to say that Senator McGregor expressed the hope that the report would not be adopted, and that is interpreted to mean that he hoped the Bill would be defeated. It will go forth to the country that the honorable senator is not desirous that the Bill should be passed - a Bill Which has been fought over for two years, which nearly wrecked one Ministry, led to the retirement of a most valuable member of that Ministry, and wrecked two other Ministries, one of which the honorable senator himself was a member. The honorable senator will take up a lamentable position in which he will be pilloried in the face of his countrymen if he seeks to wreck a Bill which at least will be an instalment of conciliation and arbitration, susceptible if necessary of amendment in the future. I do not envy the feelings of any honorable senator who can contemplate such a termination of our prolonged labours with equanimity.

Question - That the report be adopted - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 4

Majority … … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

page 8090

APPROPRIATION BILL

Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives.

Motion (by Senator Sir Josiah Symon) proposed -

That the Bill be now read a first, time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Givens) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 11.32 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 December 1904, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1904/19041208_senate_2_24/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 8 December 1904

PAPER

PAPUA (BRITISH NEW GUINEA) BILL

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Fraser:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:Attorney-General · South Australia · Free Trade

Senator Pearce:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Dobson:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator MULCAHY:Tasmania

Senator Dobson:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Dobson:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator GRAY:New South Wales

Senator KEATING:Tasmania

Senator Gray:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Gray:

Senator KEATING:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator PLAYFORD:South Australia

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Givens:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Playford:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Playford:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Drake:

Senator Lt Col Gould:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator DRAKE:VicePresident of the Executive Council · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Pearce:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Pearce:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator DE LARGIE:Western Australia

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Drake:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Playford:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Playford:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Matheson:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Matheson:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Matheson:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator DOBSON:Tasmania

Senator de Largie:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator GIVENS:Queensland:

Senator de Largie:

Senator GIVENS:

Senate
8 December 1904

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
Attorney-General · South Australia · Free Trade

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator DRAKE:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland:

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia