Senate
29 July 1920

8th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3052

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Defence Act. - Regulations amended - Statu toryRules 1920, No. 124.

Defence: Commonwealth Government Factories - Reports for year ended 30th June, 1919.

page 3052

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE

Pay of Imperial Reservist Officers

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Why is the difference in pay between Imperial and Australian rates of pay not made up in the case of a reservist who served as an officer, as is the case with reservists of noncommissioned rank?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– When, at the outbreak of war, the Imperial reservists were called to the colours, the Government, in view of the low rate of pay of a private of the Imperial Army (1s. per diem) approved - as an act of grace and in order that dependants of reservists in Australia might be maintained on a fitting basis - that their rates of pay and separation allowance be made up to the rates which would have been payable had they joined the Australian Imperial Force. This concession was not extended to any officer or to any reservists who attained commissioned rank after date of promotion for the reason that it was considered that the reservist was then in a positionto provide for his dependants.

page 3052

QUESTION

CORNSACKS

Distribution of Profits

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What provision is being made, or will be made, for the State of Tasmania to participate in the distribution of profits made on cornsacks by the Government?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Cornsacks were purchased primarily for the purpose of the Wheat Pool and the profits were distributed to the contributors to the Pool. Tasmanian purchasers of bags benefited, inasmuch as they obtained their supplies at a rate much below what would have been the ruling market rate had the supplies been obtained through the usual channels. Tasmania did not contribute to the Wheat Pool.

page 3052

QUESTION

WAR GRATUITY BONDS

Cashing by Life Assurance Societies: Agents’ Commission.

Senator FOSTER:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Have the Treasury issued an order that no commission is to be paid to agents where returnedsoldiers cash their war gratuity bonds for life assurance; and, if so, what is the reason therefor?
  2. Is he aware whether this would have the effect of penalizing many returned soldiers who . have taken up agency work owing to being unfitted for more arduous employment?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The answers are -

  1. Yes. The action was takensolely in the interests of the bond-owners. The Treasury endeavours to protect the soldier by seeing that he gets full value for his bond. Where the soldier takes out a policy which he does not intend to renew, or which he cannot renew because the annual premiums are too high, he is merely discounting his bond. This is undesirable, and cannot be allowed. To avoid trouble in the direction, the Treasury consulted the principal life assurance societies, and after consideration of their views decided that these transactions should be dealt with only by the executive officers of the societies.
  2. Whilst this may penalize some returned soldiers who are life assurance agents, the action has been taken in the interests of the returned soldiers generally.

page 3053

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator de Largie) agreed to-

That Senator E. S. Guthrie be granted two months’ leave of absence to attend to urgent public business elsewhere.

page 3053

UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES BILL

Motion (by Senator E. D. Millen) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit meetings for unlawful purposes in the vicinity of the Parliament and for other purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 3053

PUBLIC . ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Appointment of Members

Motion (by Senator E. D. Millen) agreed to -

That in accordance with the provisions of the Committee of Public Accounts Act 1913-19, Senators Bolton, Buzacott, and J. D. Millen be appointed to fill the vacancies now existing on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

page 3053

PAPUA BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 28th July, vide page 2996) :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Amendment of. section 20).

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

: - I understand that if this Bill is passed, a certain area of land in Papua will become freehold. Certain British investors secured land in Papua and have so far been unable to obtain :the deeds for it, and the purpose of this Bill is to enable them to do so.

Senator Russell:

– Yes.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– In that case a certain area of land in Papua will become freehold, and I take it that the rest of the land there will remain leasehold.

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– No. From the day we assumed possession of the Territory no land has been granted in fee simple, but there was some land the freehold of which was parted with before we took possession.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Then we are to understand that the purpose of the Bill is to deal with some land the freehold of which was granted or arranged for before we took possession of the Territory?

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– Yes; I think I can make the matter clear to honorable senators. Ten years before the Commonwealth took over possession of Papua, acting under the British law then existing in the Territory, a man took a twenty-five years’ lease of certain land with the option of purchase. When he came to exercise his option of purchase after paying rent for the land for ten years, we were legislating for the Territory. There was some dispute as to the area involved. Our officials claimed that it was 6,000 acres, and Mr. Wickham, who desired to purchase the land, claimed that the area was under 3,000 acres; but the area is now known to be less than 1,800 acres. While this matter ‘ was being considered, the Commonwealth Parliament passed legislation forbidding any one to receive the freehold of land in Papua, but we did not take the power to interfere with any existing contracts with the British Government. Senator Thomas will recollect that when the Commonwealth took over the Northern Territory we prohibited the alienation of land there in freehold, but recognised contracts for the sale of land which had been entered into with the South Australian Government. I am glad to say that there is only one case of this kind demanding our attention, but if there had been others I still should have contended that the Commonwealth should recognise them. However, only one small contract is involved, and in assenting to this Bill we are not establishing any precedent for the future.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted’.

page 3054

CENSUS AND STATISTICS BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 28th July, vide page 2996) :

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Forms to be left at dwellings).

Senator SENIOR:
South. Australia

– I should like an explanation of the meaning of this clause. In its present form it is somewhat difficult to grasp. The Government propose to omit from sub-section 2 of section 10 of the principal Act the word “ dwelling,” and to insert in lieu thereof the word “ building.” They further propose to omit the word “ house “ from the sub-section. Thus there seems to be a conflict involved. It is proposed to omit the word “dwelling “ and to substitute for it the word “ building,” although, in my judgment, a “dwelling” is a “building.” Similarly, it is intended to omit the word “ house,” although a house is a “ building.” I should like to know the meaning of the proposed amendments in the principal Act.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– For the information of honorable senators, let me say that in one part of the principal Act the term “building “ is used, in another part the word “ dwelling,” and in still another part the term “dwelling-house.” We desire, for the sake of simplicity, to make the Act uniform throughout, and to bring its provisions into harmony with the Acts Interpretation Act. In reply to Senator Senior, may I point out that a “building,” for example, may not be a “ dwelling,” but a stable. There is no principle involved in .the amendments proposed. If we leave the definition of words to the parliamentary draftsman. I feel sure that the result will prove satisfactory.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Occupiers to observe Secrecy).

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– Here again a similar difficulty crops up. Under this clause it is proposed to amend the principal Act by inserting after the word “officer” the words “ or occupier of a dwelling,” although in a previous part of the Statute those words are not being retained.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– Under this clause a publican or the keeper of a big boarding- house will be bound to secrecy in regard to individual census forms. Formerly no such onus was upon him. Under this provision, the manager of the. Grand Hotel, for example, will be bound to regard all census forms filled in by private persons resident there as confidential documents. It is only right that people should be thus protected.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed’ to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment;- report adopted.

page 3054

ARBITRATION (PUBLIC SERVICE) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22nd July (vide page 2911), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

.– This Bill is altogether too important to be allowed to go into Committee without some discussion at” the second-reading stage. I regret that I have not been able to prepare as fully as I should like my remarks upon a measure which is likely to have such important effects on the in- ,dustrial and national life of Australia. No other question exercises the thoughts of public men to-day to anywhere near the same extent as that of bringing about industrial peace. It is the very essence of Australia’s welfare to obtain greater harmony and better feeling among the workers, both employers and employees. Naturally, I welcome any measure which has for its object the bringing about of such better conditions.

From my rather cursory examination of it, this seems to be a measure of conciliation, providing for the investigation of industrial disputes or want of harmony between employers and employed, and for arriving at a decision and understanding, if possible, in a voluntary way. I must express my regret that the Government, when dealing with this question, did not make some effort to handle those cases which cannot be met by conciliation. We know thai such cases exist. The greatest troubles arising from the existing system of arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes are, first, the inability of those who have grievances to get before the Court-

Senator Rowell:

– There will not te that difficulty under this Bill.

Senator EARLE:

– I admit that that difficulty will be largely removed; and the second is to enforce the awards of the Court when made. A large number of organizations are at the present time seeking the investigation and settlement of their grievances. The facilities provided for the consideration of those grievances have been so limited that it has been absolutely impossible for the Court to deal with them, and so a great number of cases have to be held in abeyance, and the disputes gradually become more serious. Bodies of men who ask for the consideration of their cases, and fail to get it, naturally feel further aggrieved, and a matter that might have been settled with very little difficulty at the beginning becomes aggravated to such an extent that it is very difficult to settle it at all. There is no doubt that a good many of such cases might have been settled quite easily if we had had the tribunal which this Bill makes possible.

There is another set of cases which are governed by direct actionists, on whichever side they may happen to be - whether employers or employed - and .these people will not submit to any judicial trial and settlement of their troubles. The Government might, when considering this question, have made some effort to include in this Bill a provision by which those cases could be dealt with. I have outlined before what I thought was a practicable schema for their settlement, and I have yet to learn that it is not practicable. We need to bring the responsibility of the observance of an award of the Arbitration Court home to the individual who is apt to break it. It is of no use to hold anassociation responsible unless it is compelled to transfer the responsibility to its members.

Senator Payne:

– You can do that only through its funds.

Senator EARLE:

– The honorable senator is quite right. It can be done only by compelling the association to have to its credit at some approved banking institution a certain fund representing so much per head of its membership. If this method were followed, I believe a scheme could be evolved by which individuals affected by an award would be compelled to obey it. I say unhesitatingly that the main desire of the people of Australia is to do away with strikes, lockouts, and industrial warfare generally. I am convinced also that that is the desire of the majority of those men who participate in industrial disturbances. Men often become involved in industrial troubles against their will, as I have learnt from a very intimate knowledge of such things. If there were in existence an Act empowering the tribunal trying these cases, or the Judge of the Arbitration Court, or whatever you may call him, to levy upon those who ignore an award and continue to redress their grievances by direct action, I am absolutely sure that the vast majority of the workers of Australia would be behind it.

I intend to support this Bill because I believe it comes a little nearer to what we desire. .’ It will give to those organizations which desire to get before some tribunal for an investigation, if not a settlement of their grievances, at least an opportunity to have them heard. I hope that, on some future occasion, this or some other Government will grasp the more serious problem, and present to this Chamber a Bill which will compel the lawless section of the people, whether they are employers or employees, to abide by the award of the lawful tribunal.

Senator MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The employers in this case are the Government.

Senator EARLE:

– I understand that this Bill applies to all industrial disputes. Am I to gather that it affects the Public Service only? If so, I am very sorry. I admitted that it was a very cursory glance that I had given to the Bill. If the Government are applying it to the Public Service, why do they not apply it also to the general community ?

Senator MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– We have to find out afterwards if they are- doing so.

Senator EARLE:

– If the Ministry intend to introduce another Bill dealing with employees generally, I hope it will contain those provisions to which I have referred.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

.- The purpose of this Bill is to create an independent tribunal to which Commonwealth civil servants may apply for the settlement of any disputes as to wages, conditions of employment, and other questions affecting their general well-being. Some time ago the attention of honorable senators was called by means of a circular to the large number of cases pending in the Arbitration Court. Some of these cases, it was stated, have been before the Court for two years, and therefore it seems very desirable that some attempt should be made to remove this congestion. This Bill represents one such attempt,’ and therefore it demands our careful consideration.

One or two features of the measure call for comment, and, perhaps, objection. There is, for instance, the proposal to reduce the number of members to constitute an organization.

Senator Pearce:

– Clause 5 provides for the registration of an organization of less than 100 employees, if at least three-fifths of such employees are members of it.

Senator SENIOR:

– I admit that, but I point out that there is a possibility of certain branches of the Civil Service being split up into small sections or watertight compartments of employees, numbering possibly twenty or ten. Threefifths of that number would constitute a very small organization indeed, and yet under this Bill that section of a union will have the right to an award which may be made a common rule affecting all the employees in that particular branch in. the Public Service. The measure is very important, and may have farreaching effects.

In one of the later clauses there is provision preventing the employment of counsel by any person or organization in a plaint before the Arbitrator, and therefore no costs are to follow any award. I am not anxious to build up heavy costs against any organization, but I urge that the Arbitrator will probably require some assistance, and assessors, who may be necessary to guide his judgment, should be entitled to some remuneration. At present in connexion with Arbitration Court proceedings a levy has to be struck on members to meet any costs incurred. It would be obviously unfair if an organization, when appearing before the Arbitrator, had to meet skilled legal representatives of the Government. There should be some provision that before the Court they should stand on equal terms with the Department in the case.

Senator Henderson:

– Would the honorable senator apply the same principle in connexion with outside unions ?

Senator SENIOR:

– I think that in the outside Arbitration Courts costs follow a . verdict; but in this case that practice will not be followed, and common sense dictates that there is a difference. Our attention has recently been directed to another Bill relating to a similar matter, and I must confess that since this measure has been brought before us I have not had an opportunity of giving if the attention it deserves. I have, however, been able to see that many of its clauses demand careful attention, and perhaps revision. If we are to have an efficient, we must have a contented, Service, and only in that way can- we secure economy. The introduction of this measure, is, I believe, an attempt to meet the complaint that has been justly raised in connexion with the delay in dealing with cases before the Arbitration Court, and an effort to hasten the time when a decision in the case of civil servants can be given. The Service stands entirely apart from other organizations, as ite representatives are not allowed to employ counsel.

Senator Pearce:

– Others are not allowed to employ counsel; what is the honorable senator talking about?

Senator SENIOR:

– I am speaking of arbitration; and if I do not know as much about the matter as does t’he Minister for Defence, it is because I have not had the opportunity that he has had of perusing the provisions of the principal Act, or of being apprised of its contents in the way that he has.

Senator Foll:

– Other arganizations can employ a representative to appear on their behalf, but they must not have a lawyer.

Senator Pearce:

– That is so.

Senator SENIOR:

– Is the Minister for Defence prepared to say that a similar privilege is to be given to the civil servants when its representatives come before the Court?

Senator Pearce:

– Absolutely.

Senator SENIOR:

– The civil servants can select certain representatives to appear before the Court to lead their case?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes.

Senator SENIOR:

– Well, that removes one objection, and it is certainly a point that the Minister for Defence did not make clear in moving the second reading of the Bill.

As there are other points in connexion with the Bill which need careful revision, I hope the Minister for Defence will give us further time to consider it. I am not suggesting, however, that its passage should be unnecessarily delayed, but we should be given an opportunity of dealing with it in the most effective way. The powers of the Arbitrator are, I now understand, to be co-equal with those of a Judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, and similar facilities are to be given to civil servants as are enjoyed by those in outside Courts.

According to the Bill, when an award is given, it has to be laid before Parliament for thirty days before it becomes law. If Parliament should not be sitting at the time, the award has to be laid before Parliament as. soon as it meets. But the award will not be effective until thirty days after.

Senator Duncan:

– That requires amending.

Senator SENIOR:

– It certainly does, as an award may be made towards the end of the year, when Parliament is not sitting, and would probably have to remain in suspense until about April. In justice to the members of the Civil Service, the award should take effect from the time at which it is given, irrespective of the date on which it is laid before Parliament.

I heartily indorse the general principle of the Bill, because I believe it will be of great assistance to the Service; but I earnestly hope that its passage will not be unnecessarily hurried. I am sure honorable senators desire to give it their best attention before it leaves this Chamber. It will, I believe, be the means of relieving the congestion that has occurred in our Arbitration Court, and to that extent it is a move in the right direction.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am very sorry that we are called upon to discuss the second reading of this Bill before the report, of which we have heard so much, and to which I have referred on several occasions, is in our hands. Although Mr. McLachlan’s report has been laid on the table of the Senate, honorable senators have not vet received copies. . I understand that it is in the printer’s hands ; but, whatever the reasons may be for the delay, we have not had an opportunity of perusing i’t. By reading what has been published in the newspapers, we have been able to gather some idea of . Mr. McLachlan’s views on the Public Service gene-

Tally; and it would appear that he is strongly opposed to an Arbitration Court for the Civil Service. I have a very high opinion of Mr. McLachlan, and I have always regarded him as one who has rendered valuable service. I venture to say that only those wlm were intimately connected with Mr. McLachlan, and in charge of Departments employing a large number of publie servants, can correctly estimate the value of the services he rendered. I can quite understand, however, that, in common with other people, Mr. McLachlan has some limitations. He entered the Public Service at quite an early age, and practically for all his life was surrounded by the atmosphere of the Service, and impressed by its traditions. It is quite possible, therefore, that his views in opposition to an Arbitration Court for the Public Service may not be of very great value, or such as to influence honorable senators who have favoured arbitration in the past to the extent of causing them to alter their views. Yet, seeing that Mr. McLachlan was asked by the present Government to report on the Public Service, I do think that, before we are called upon, to deal with the proposals which may be the outcome of his report, we should have time to study it. Personally, I favour public servants being given ari opportunity” to take their complaints to an Arbitration Court. I believe that it was a Labour Government, of which Senator Pearce and I were members, who introduced the measure providing for an appeal to an Arbitration Court by employees of the Public Service. I still hold that they should have the same right to appeal to an Arbitration Court as is conceded to employees in outside industries.

In moving the second reading of the Bill, the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) explained that one of the purposes of the measure .is to overcome the congestion in the Arbitration Court. A large number of cases are waiting to be dealt with, and there is a good deal of discontent and dissatisfaction in the Service because complaints cannot be heard. When the Minister made this statement, I asked, by interjection, why we should not appoint another Judge to assist in the work. I am prepared now to admit that, in his reply, the Minister convinced me that he was right and I was wrong. He pointed out that employees of the Public Service are differently placed from employees outside the Service. I understand that there are now two Judges hearing Public Service cases, and the Minister reminded us that it must complicate matters if one Judge dealing with the plaint of one division of the Service gives a decision which is not in accord with the decision given by another Judge dealing with a plaint from a different division of the Service. Confusion follows. In the circumstances, I agree that it would be better if an arbitrator were appointed whose duties would be confined to the consideration of Public Service cases, and to that extent I favour the proposal of the Government.

I understand, from reading clause 3 of the Bill, that all public servants, temporary as well as permanent, will come under the operation of this measure.

Senator Pearce:

– That is so.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Does that include employees of the Public Service in Departments now under the Public Service Commissioner, and also those employed in the Naval and Military Departments and under the Commonwealth Commissioner for Railways?

Senator Pearce:

– No. It will not include those employees under the Commissioner for Railways or in the Naval and Military Departments.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– We are to understand, then, that employees in the Departments mentioned will be exempt from the operation of this Bill. Temporary as wellas permanent employees of the Departments coming under the operation of the Bill will be affected by the decisions of the Arbitrator. I should like to know to what extent that represents a difference from existing conditions. We shall no doubt be employing temporarily a number of carpenters. They may be affected by an award of the tribunal proposed to be set up under this Bill, and that award may differ from the award given to carpenters generally by the Conciliation and Arbitration Court dealing with persons outside the Public Service. I should like to know what would happenin a case of that kind. I remember thatat one time we had some difficulty in dealing with temporary employees of the Public Service who were members of a union working under an award of the Arbitration Court. It was found that a person working temporarily for the Government might be asked to work under conditions differing from, and in some cases more favorable than, those of an award of the Arbitration Court. I point out that such a condition of affairs might make it difficult for the Government to temporarily employ any one who is a member of a unions working under an outside award. The Minister might deal with that difficulty when replying to the debate on the second reading.

I should like to see a Judge as chairman of the proposed Arbitration Court, with assessors to help him. I do not favour any proposal for the selection of a representative of the Service on the Boardcontrolling these matters. In dealing with wages, hours, and general conditions of the Public Service, I think it is preferable that the Arbitrator should be assisted by two assessors. One of the assessorsmight very reasonably be chosen by a vote of the public servants generally. No doubt he would be chosen from the General Division, in which there is a greater number of employees than are included’ in the Clerical or Professional Division.

Senator Foll:

– Would not each particular branch of the Service have its. own representative when its case was under consideration.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– My idea is that two assessors to assist the Arbitrator should be appointed for a term of five years or seven years. One of the assessors might be a representative of the Public Service generally, and the other might be chosen by the Government to represent the departmental side, and would probably be selected from the Professional or Clerical Division.

Senator Foll:

– One man will not know the conditions of all branches of the Service.

Senator Wilson:

– That would be two to one on the Bench.

Senator FOSTER:

– The honorable senator’s proposal is merely the Wages Board system over again.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I take it that that is practically what the Bill proposes.

Senator Duncan:

– The Government proposal is to create an Arbitration Court - not a Wage3 Board - exclusively for the Public Service.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– A Wages Board ordinarily deals with a specific industry, and the Public Service may, for this purpose, be regarded as one Government industry. No matter outside the Public Service caa come before the proposed tribunal.

Senator Foster:

– I suggest to the honorable senator that there is a great deal of difference between the duties of a mechanic in the Post Office and those of a clerk in the Treasury.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is so; but my suggestion is that there should be one assessor, probably selected from the General Division by the employees generally. and another selected by the Government, probably from the Clerical or Professional Division.

Senator Foll:

– The honorable senator is suggesting professional pleaders.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Assessors to assist the Arbitrator. If honorable senators generally prefer to leave the settlement of these matters to one person, well and good; but I have stated the kind of tribunal that I should personally favour.

I hope that the Government will be satisfied with carrying the second reading of this Bill, and will not brine it on for consideration in Committee until we have had a fair opportunity of studying Mr. McLachlan’s report.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- I have been somewhat disappointed with this Bill. During the last election campaign it was stressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), and most of those taking up the same platform, that there is very great need in Australia for industrial reform. It was also stated at the time that one of the best methods to secure industrial reform is to bring into operation round-table conferences between employers and employees. So far as the Government were concerned, it was stated, as a matter of policy, that the general principle of arbitration as it is in operation at the present time had not proved the success which had been anticipated, and that, in order to secure industrial peace in the future, it would be necessary to resort to some other method. Here is an excellent opportunity for the Government to give effect to some of the promises which they. made in regard to industrial reform.

While Senator Thomas was speaking, Senator Duncan rightly interjected that, under this Bill, all that the Government propose is to create an Arbitration Court exclusively for the public servants of the Commonwealth. There is nothing connected with that tribunal which will be different from the Court to which Commonwealth public servants already have access. Instead of their being required to go before a Judge of the Arbitration Court, they are to be given a Judge of their own, and upon practically the same terms as have heretofore obtained. Yesterday we dealt with a Bill which provides for the appointment of a Board of Management for our Public Service. To-day, we are asked to sanction the appointment of an Arbitrator who will have power to overrule anything which may be done by that Board. I wish to see both the Government and their employees represented upon the Board. If that course be foi* lowed, the Public Service associations will have an opportunity of joining in round-table conferences, at which the conditions obtaining in our Public Service can be discussed. But, under the Bill which we considered yesterday, the Government propose to appoint a Board to control our Public Service, and that body will be expected to see that the Service is run upon’ business-like lines. Yet it is to have no voice in determining such questions as the hours of labour, rates of pay, and the conditions of employment. I had hoped that when an amending Public Service Bill was submitted an attempt would be made by the Government to give effect to the election pledges which were recently made by them from practically every platform in Australia. I recollect that, in Queensland, the employees of a certain branch of the ironworkers’ trade hold regular round-table conferences with the ironmasters, with the result that upon very few occasions indeed were they obliged to appeal to the Arbitration Court. The results of those conferences were eminently satisfactory to both parties. We have been prating a lot about the desirableness of formulating means for the preservation of industrial peace. Whilst it is generally admitted that our present arbitration system is by no means satisfactory, I had hoped that, when- the Government .brought down a Bill relating to the Public Service, they would have made some honest attempt to establish the tribunals which they promised during the recent election campaign. In this, measure, however, nothing is being attempted in that direction. The Government are merely saying to our public servants, “ Instead of going to the Arbitration Court as at present constituted, we intend to give you an extra Judge to deal exclusively with your cases.” Under that system we shall be no further advanced than we were under the old system.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I am not sure that all honorable senators appreciate - I know that I did not do so until recently - the full significance of the measure which is now under consideration. In some of the clauses of this Bill reference is made to the existing Arbitration Act, and from those references honorable senators may be disposed to conclude that, if this Bill be passed, the public servants of the Commonwealth will still be - to some extent at least - subject to the provisions of the Public Service Arbitration Act 1911. As a matter of fact, in such circumstances that Act will become an absolute dead letter. The only references in the measure now. before us, either to the general Statute dealing with Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration, or to the Public Service Arbitration Act of 1911, are references of convenience for the purpose of definition. For example, in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill reference is made to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1918, and elsewhere to the Public Service Arbitration Act of 1911, but only for the purpose of definition. But should this measure be passed by Parliament, it, and it alone, will be the Statute which will in future govern the Commonwealth Public Service in regard to arbitration matters.

Senator Henderson:

– Will the honorable senator look at sub-clauses 3 and 4 of clause 11?

Senator KEATING:

– I shall come to them presently.

In his speech this afternoon Senator Foll stated that this measure does nothing more than make provision for arbitration as heretofore in the case of our public servants, apart from constituting a special Court to deal with their grievances. I would direct attention to the fact that the Bill goes very much further than that. Reference has been made by way of interjection to clause 11, in which provision is made for the transfer of existing disputes from the present Arbitration Court to the tribunal which it is proposed to establish under this Bill. That clause will also prevent the present Arbitration Court from dealing with Public Service plaints which are not pending at the time this measure becomes law.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator does not object to that?

Senator KEATING:

– No. I am merely pointing out that if this Bill be passed the existing Public Service legislation in regard to arbitration will become a dead letter.

Clause 16 provides that -

In making any determination under this Act the Arbitrator shall not. be restricted to -the specific claims made or to the subject matter of the claim, but may include in the determination any matter or thing which the Arbitrator thinks necessary in the interests of the public or of the Public Service.

That is a very extensive power to vest in an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator will have some dispute brought before him between a claimant organization and the Government

Senator Foll:

– That provision will take away the powers of the proposed Board of Management to a greater extent than I thought.

Senator KEATING:

– Exactly. The Arbitrator will deal with the issue which is brought before him. But if incidentally he thinks that in the interests of the Public Service he may make any award outside the whole scope of thi3 issue, he will be empowered to make it. Under this provision I can predict a great sea of conflict between the Arbitrator and the Board of Management which it is proposed to establish under the measure which we were discussing yesterday.

Senator Foster:

– It would be practically a hopeless position.

Senator KEATING:

– Undoubtedly. The Arbitrator and the Board would inevitably come into collision. We are asked to clothe the Arbitrator with a general power to make any order or award that he may think fit.

Senator Pearce:

– Has any conflict occurred under our Public Service Arbitration Act because that provision has been in the principal Act from its inception.

Senator KEATING:

– But one has to remember that the Judges who have hitherto acted as arbitrators have dealt with Public Service matters merely as incidental to their ordinary duties. They have dealt with arbitration matters generally only as incidental to their ordinary duties. But under this Bill it is proposed to create a tribunal for no other purpose than to deal with Public Service arbitration cases. The Judge appointed to deal with these cases will naturally regard himself as a specialist. There is every reason, therefore, to assume that he will come into conflict with the authority which will be charged with the general administration of our Public Service.

Senator Foll:

– Clause 16 will give him the power practically to control the whole of the Public Service.

Senator KEATING:

– That is so.

Then clause 19 provides -

No determination of the Arbitrator made under this Act shall be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed, or called In question or bo subject’ to prohibition or mandamus in any Court on any account whatever.

Whilst I recognise that it is desirable that finality in regard to determinations of this kind shall be reached as speedily as possible, we are going a very long way when we declare that no determination by the Arbitrator shall be subject to prohibition or mandamus. Honorable senators who belong to the legal profession will confirm my statement that applications for writs of prohibition are always founded upon a contention that the Court has lacked the requisite jurisdiction. Only in such cases is an application made for a writ of prohibition. Appeals generally relate to the determination of issues of fact or of law in regard to which the tribunal possesses undoubted jurisdiction, but writs of prohibition are resorted to only where it usurps a jurisdiction which it does not possess.

Under this Bill we shall be establishing an autocrat, because no matter what h~e may do we cannot even question it by saying, ‘ You have gone outside your jurisdiction.” He has made a determination or award, and we cannot question it. It is’ not a question of appeal; we cannot’ even’ say that ha had no right to touch the matter.

We need to walk very -warily in regard to this measure. I am not op-, posed to the principle of arbitration in dealing with th© troubles of the Public Service, although, personally, I very much prefer the system referred to by Senator Foll to-day, and Senator Fairbairn yesterday, comprising something in the nature of a round-table conference, after the manner of that which has been adopted in the United Kingdom as the result of the Whitley report. It was found there in the later days of the war that those governmental activities which were concerned with the output of munitions and other war work were able to carry on with very little industrial trouble by some such system as that recommended in the Whitley report. As the result of the successful application of the principles of that report, namely, the representation of employers and employees at something in the nature of round-table discussions, it was thought advisable to extend it to the ordinary branches of the Civil Service in the United Kingdom as they exist and function in times of neacs. Honorable senators will have noticed from the Fortnightly Review and other magazines that competent writers on the subject pointed out the success which has attended the gradual extension of principles of that kind to Departments of the Public Service of the United Kingdom.

Senator Elliott:

– But they do not elect the Board of Management. Senator Fairbairn wanted the employees to elect their representatives on the Board, which I think is wrong.

Senator KEATING:

– The Whitley, report deals more with _ conditions of employment and rates of remuneration, and prevents those industrial troubles which have been so frequent of late years. I am not against the principle of arbitration if honorable senators think it desirable, although I would much prefer the other method; but we must be very careful before we commit ourselves to establishing a totally new tribunal with unlimited powers of the kind provided for in this Bill, and in respect of whose actions there can be little, if any, criticism.

Again, I would warn honorable senators that by passing this measure as it ^stands we are possibly putting two authorities into conflict one with the other, namely, the Board of Management referred to in another Bill, and the Arbitrator appointed under this Bill, whose functions will go beyond arbitration,.

Senator Foster:

– In this Bill the Board ot Management is not referred to; the reference is always to the Commissioner.

Senator KEATING:

– I take it that when the other Bill is carried the necessary amendments substituting “ Board of Management” for “Commissioner” will be made in this Bill.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– As one who has been a supporter for many years of the arbitration method of settling industrial disputes, and regulating conditions of employment, I welcome any Government proposal that will extend the opportunities of any branch of employees in the Public Service to have their industrial conditions so regulated; but I am not at all sure that we are taking the right step in, as it were, segregating the civil servants from all other employees in the community, and declaring that they shall be a distinct section, separate from the rest of our industrial life. I see here, too, a very grave danger, so faT as the proposals of the Government in this Bill will affect the general principles of unionism. I do not know what attitude will be adopted towards these provisions by the unions outside. Quite a number of unions embrace in their membership not only the employees of private enterprise, but also employees within, the Government Service. The electrical trade union, for instance, embraces all men employed in the electrical trade throughout the community, as well as >all those doing electrical work in the Post and Telegraph Service. It is proposed by the Government in this Bill to set up a distinct tribunal before which only those unions whose membership is confined entirely to the Civil Service will be able to appear. The result will be that unions which have members not only outside, but inside, the Service will be forced either to consent to the loss of those of their members who are within the Service, or, by means of some subterfuge, to agree to their members within the Service forming themselves into a separate organization and registering as such under this measure, or under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I have read the measure carefully in regard to that point, and I can see a good deal of trouble sticking out ahead if the Government proposal is carried in its present form.

Senator Foll:

– There might be two different awards for members of the same union.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I was about *o point that out. The branch of the union formed to secure industrial redress for those employed in the Service may be working under one set of conditions and the rest of the members of the union employed by private enterprise may be working under quite another. That would not be conducive to industrial peace. Either the members of the organization within the Service or those outside the Service would be dissatisfied. It would be wise, in the interests of industrial peace and good-fellowship, and for the sake pf all the members of the organization both within and without the Service, to permit any union whose membership covers both classes of employees to register and appear on behalf of its members before the Arbitrator whom the Government propose to appoint. I confess, at once, that I do not like the idea of declaring the civil servants to be a distinct portion of the community, with whom nobody else must have anything to do.

Senator Keating:

– They will be offered separate representation in Parliament soon.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I suppose that will be the next step. Victoria had experience of that sort of thing in days gone by, when, as the result of a certain industrial upheaval, the civil servants were set aside as a distinct portion of the community. A trial was then made of the system of separate representation for the Service in Parliament, but it failed dismally. The members of the Service were continually fighting to get back to their old position as ordinary citizens of the community. I think they have every right to regard themselves at all times, and in all ways, as citizens, with full citizen rights. In this measure, the Government tell them that certain of their rights are to be taken away ‘from them, and that they can do some things only iri a certain- way, and according to a fixed plan. I do’ not like it, for the reasons I have put forward. I should like to see an amendment made in Committee so that those unions which cover both men in the Service and men outside will be able to conduct cases for their members cither before this or some other tribunal. It would have been, I believe, far better if we could have made provision for the extension of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration. Act, so that these men might get prompt attention and relief through the provisions of that Statute.

The point brought forward by Senator Senior regarding the associations which may register under clause 5 is not very vital. That clause provides that an association of less than 100 employees in the .Service may be registered as an organization if its membership comprises at least three-fifths of all those employed in the industry in the Service. While there may not be at present any branch of the Service with so few employees as indicated by that clause, we propose, in the near future, to create one or more Departments which may for a considerable time have less than 100 employees. It is intended, for instance, by another measure to establish a. separate Department of Audit, which may not for a considerable time have as many as 100 employees. Is it to be said that those men are not to obtain industrial relief or any regulation of their conditions of employment because they are few in number ? I can easily imagine other branches of the Government Service in which there will be for a long time less than 100 employees, who will still be equally deserving with other branches of the Service that have larger numbers of employees, of the right to secure the redress of their industrial grievances.

Senator SENIOR:

– The Clerical Division to-day spreads through many different Departments of the Service.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Yes, but under the Audit Bill we propose to set up an entirely new branch of the Service, under conditions different from those obtaining in any other branch.

I object, also, to the clause which provides that there- shall be no appeal from the decision of the Arbitrator. Here again I think we are looking for trouble. It will be absolutely impossible for any Arbitrator to make himself entirely familiar with the whole range of the Service. We hear constant complaints from Ministers that it is not possible for them to make themselves thoroughly familiar with the conditions even in their own Departments. How, then, is any Arbitrator charged with the responsibility of dealing with the whole Service and its activities, to make himself familiar with the whole field, and so to be able to regulate the industrial conditions of all the employees of the Government of the Commonwealth?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– He has no Parliament and party and Cabinet on his hands.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Even so, the job which the Government propose to give him is too big for him to handle in all cases with satisfaction to himself, the Government, the Service, and the people of Australia. It would be far better to provide for an appeal to the Arbitration Court, or some other tribunal, in certain cases, where men feel that they are suffering under a gross injustice or through a miscarriage of justice. That is not much to ask for. I feel sure .that the organizations outside will ask that some right of appeal should be established where it is evident that the decision given by the Arbitrator is not in accord with the facts of the case, or on all-fours with the evidence that has been placed before him. It has been pointed out with truth that the powers of the Arbitrator are very wide. His powers are simply enormous under this Bill, and it will be possible for him to do almost anything. Yet we are not to provide for any appeal from his decisions, because clause 19 lays it down absolutely that from his decisions there shall be no appeal whatever. He may make a determination that is not in accord with an award of the Arbitration Court. This matter has already been mentioned during the debate. Trouble will arise in unions that embrace members both inside and outside the Public Service if the Arbitrator determines that wages inside the Service are to be lower than those outside the Service. On the other hand, if he determines that wages inside are to be higher than those outside the Service, persons engaged in private enterprise will not thank the Government for providing such a rod for their backs.

The question raised by Senator Senior concerning the coming into operation of an award is important, because it would be possible for men, after fightv ing their case before the Arbitrator, and securing some redress, to be denied the enjoyment of this relief by delay, and, perhaps, compelled to work for months under the old conditions. This would create a very serious position, and I appeal to the Government to provide either that the award shall come into operation at once, or, if delayed, be made retrospective. This is only a fair request, made in the interests of the men and of industrial peace. I have no more to say at this stage, but, when the Bill is in Committee, I shall endeavour to secure the amendment of some of the clauses to which I have referred.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- I welcome the attempt by the Government to deal with the present industrial unrest that besets the community; but, with other honorable senators, I am disappointed that they have not favoured the appointment of a Board instead’ of an Arbitrator. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) has stated his intention to introduce this system for the settlement of industrial disputes outside tha Public Service. Surely if it is good for industrial organizations outside, it is quite as good for those within the Service. I suggest, therefore, that the Government should reconstruct the measure along the lines indicated. Associated with the Arbitrator there should, I think, be a representative of the particular organization concerned, and also, of course, a member of the Public Service Board, or a representative of it. In order to prevent further trouble with other Public Service organizations, there should be a representative of such organizations on the Board’, for we do not want a repetition of the conditions arising out of the seamen’s dispute. In that case, as the result” of an award by the Court, the seamen were for a time actually receiving higher pay than their senior officers. We are a progressive community, and there is no doubt that between the demands of the employees and concessions given by employers, the unfortunate public has of late years been very badly squeezed; so I suggest in addition the appointment to the Board of a representative of the middle classes, the people who “ get it in the neck “ every time. This may perhaps, appear to be a clumsy arrangement, but I think it would prove effective. I do not suggest that the various representatives on the Board should be the same in every case. The procedure of the Wages Board, system could be adhered to, the associated members being nominated from time to time, and, when necessary, resigning and being replaced by others directly interested in a particular dispute.

The Public Service is a huge organization. I am afraid One Arbitrator will mot be able to deal satisfactorily with the large number of problems that will come before him, and that before long he will be as much- encumbered, with arrears of work as the Arbitration Court is. I suggest, therefore, that the Arbitrator should have power to delegate certain disputes to, say, a stipendiary magistrate, who should be assisted by ‘ assessors, and in order to obviate diverging judgments, any awards made by the deputy tribunal could be subject to review by the Arbitrator or Chairman of the proposed Board. In this way I see a possibility of giving the representatives of the various organizations a chance to meet the administrative officers, as members of a Board, and arrive at a satisfactory decision in regard to any dispute. I am entirely opposed to the suggestion that the employees’ representatives should be associated in any way with the Board of Management. That would certainly lead to disaster. It has been said that it would be a pity to appoint a separate Board for the Public Service, but I understand it is the intention of the Government to set up these tribunals in connexion with outside industrial disputes, and I think the Public .Service is big enough to justify the appointment of a special Board. I .would forbid members of any Public Service organization from being affiliated with an outside industrial body, because, as Mr. McLachlan has pointed out, this only leads to trouble, disloyalty in the Service, and inefficiency. We want to remedy this state of affairs.

I agree with the strictures passed by Senator Keating on the power proposed to be conferred upon the Arbitrator, who will be an absolute dictator, to be placed bv this measure above every authority in the community. The Minister will be well advised to revise drastically the clauses dealing with his powers.

Senator MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– In the measure now under consideration there are several matters with which I do not agree. First- of . all, there is the question of arbitration. Up to the present the Arbitration Court has proved a failure, not in every instance, but in some very significant cases, notably, the coal miners’ and the seamen’s disputes. It has been our experience of late that when an award does not suit the organization concerned, it is simply turned down, and direct action is resorted to. “What will be the position if the Arbitrator’s decisions give rise to dissatisfaction? Shall we be faced with the same position as the Government of Western Australia ? Or shall we he in the same position as we were during the coal-miners’ strike, when it appeared as if the Judge had been instructed to give the men what they wanted? If members of the Public Service become sufficiently strong and united and object to an award, will the Government then give them what they demand?

Senator Pearce:

– I remind the honorable senator that in Western Australia the civil servants have no recourse to the Arbitration Court.

Senator MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– It is not a question of recourse to the Arbitration Court at all. The question is : If members of the Civil Service are not satisfied with an award, will they then resort to direct action, which appears to be a very prevalent disease just now? If they do, we shall be- in a very serious position.

Senator PEARCE:

– We all recognise that, but how are we going to deal with it?

Senator MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– It seems to me that we are rushing on with this proposal to appoint an Arbitrator and to make some drastic alterations in our Arbitration Act. It might be well to remember that the British Government have concluded that arbitration is an unsatisfactory method of dealing with disputes, and have decided upon the Whitley councils system. The Government might be well advised to adopt the same course here. A considerable amount of money has been expended upon Mr.

McLachlan’s report, and we are entitled to get at all the facts upon which his determination has been based. Personally I am opposed to the Bill.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– I should like at the outset to express my appreciation of the interesting speeches delivered by those honorable senators who have made their debut on this and the other Bill, and I particularly congratulate them on their brevity. They have set older members of the Senate an example which we would do well to follow.

Coming now to the criticism of the Bill, I remind Senator Senior that there is a minimum fixed in relation to the number of members who may form an organization, for it is provided that not less than three-fifths the number engaged in any particular branch of the Public Service must be members of an organization that seeks registration, and there is a reason, beyond that given by Senator Duncan, for this minimum. He pointed out that the inherent right of men to justice is not limited by their numbers. But there is another and very important reason. Administrative .officers sometimes become members of an organization, and on. certain occasions they have been called upon to answer to their union for having done their duty as officials of the Public Service. That is not right, as’ they are there to guard the interests of the Government, and must be free from interrference of any kind. Under this provision it will be possible for certain officers to form an organization of their own, and have their cases considered. They will be able to be loyal to the Government, and not subjected to any undue influence in the performance of their duty; that is why the clause is very necessary. Senator J. D. Millen referred to the strike of civil servants in Western Australia, where every civil servant, including the heads of Departments, were compelled to come out on strike because they were all members of the one organization. The result has been that the Government activities in Western Australia have been practically at a standstill.

Senator Senior pleaded for the payment of costs by the Government; but he must remember that the “members of the Service, after submitting their case to the

Board of Management, have the right to appeal to the Arbitrator. Senator Senior says that the Government, which is the representative of the taxpayer, should pay their costs, but in this case it is the taxpayer who is really the employer.

Senator Senior:

– Supposing the representatives of the Service have to travel from Queensland or from Western Australia ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I will deal with that point later, and prove conclusively that in such cases it is highly desirable that the costs should not be paid. The taxpayer is represented by tha Board of Management, the members of which may state that they are prepared to award a certain rate of wages, and the employees, through their organization, say they are not satisfied with the rate fixed. The Commonwealth, through its Parliament, says that there is an Arbitration Court to which they can submit their cases, and the taxpayers engage an official to represent them. The representatives of the Government have to be paid by the taxpayers, and it is equally right that the employees, through their- organization, should pay their representative. The representative of the employees does not attend the Court to safeguard the rights of the taxpayers, but to fight for the interests of the section of public servants he represents. Why should the Public Service be placed in an advantageous position in this respect? If an organization of miners wishes to defend a case in the Arbitration Court, it has to pay its representatives, and there is no valid reason why the Public Service should be advantageously situated. I can easily imagine what glorified picnics there would be if Senator Senior’s suggestion were adopted. The honorable senator referred, by interjection, to representatives having to travel from Queensland or Western Australia, and I venture to say that if the costs of such representatives were to be met by the Government it would be found that we would be likely to require the services of probably a dozen arbitrators instead of one. Is it to be said that this measure will be the means of denying substantial justice to members of the Civil Service ?

Senator Senior:

– Absolutely.

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Senior knows perfectly that when a case, comes before the Court the advantage is not with the Government but with the Public Service. Let us consider the position as it exists to-day. In every case when the Gorvernment are fighting before the Court the representatives of the Public Service are hoping that the Government will lose, because they realize that if they do it will be to their benefit. When dealing with the wages of, say, linemen, or even the salaries of men, holding important positions in the administrative branch, it is always in the interests of the employees if the’ Government lose. I ask Senator Senior if, in his anxiety to protect the members of the Civil Service, he has considered the position of the Government as the representative of the taxpayers.

Senator Senior:

– The taxpayer indirectly pays for the Government to be represented.

Senator PEARCE:

– Of course he does; but the public servant in Arbitration Court cases has a tremendous advantage over the Government. Senator Senior pleaded for a contented and efficient service, and although that is very desirable, I am sure no one desires that we should have a pampered service.

The honorable senator also said that further time should be allowed for the consideration of the Bill, and that honor-: able .senators should have the opportunity of perusing Mr. McLachlan’s report before the measure was allowed to leave this Chamber. The Government introduced the Bill at this stage because there is considerable congestion of business in the Arbitration Court, and as many of the cases awaiting a hearing relate to the Public Service, the Government felt that the sooner the Bill was disposed of the batter it would be, not only for the members of the Service but for the public generally. Mr. McLachlan’s report shows clearly that he is totally opposed to arbitration, and, therefore, honorable senators would gain little information in regard to the details of arbitration if they had the report before them. If there is any doubt in the minds of honorable senators as to whether we should have a special Arbitration Court to deal -with Public Service cases, the reference to arbitration in the report might lead honorable senators to oppose the Bill.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– After perusing the report, some may be influenced to vote against the Bill.

Senator PEARCE:

– I doubt very much whether any honorable senator wouldbe prepared to take the responsibility of dispensing with arbitration altogether.. I do not think we have any direct actionists with us.

Senator Foll:

– I intend to oppose the Bill.

Senator PEARCE:

– Is the honorable senator opposed to arbitration?

Senator Foll:

– Certainly not.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Bill does not embody any new principle, and is practically a reprint of a measure that has been in operation since 1911. The only difference is that instead of having a Judge of the High Court to deal with Public Service cases, an Arbitrator, who need not necessarily be a Judge, is to be appointed. In view of these circumstances, it will be admitted that all the imaginary terrors and disabilities that have been brought forward by Senator Keating and others have been in the existing Act since 1911, and have not caused any trouble.

Senator Senior also drew attention to the fact that the awards of the Court will notbe operative until they have been laid before Parliament for a period of thirty days. The honorable senator is of the opinion that they should become operative from the date on which they are made, and suggests that inconvenience will arise if Parliament should not be sitting when an award is made. There is a fundamental objection to the suggestion, as Parliament does and should retain control of all expenditure. Parliament will not concede what is asked, because it is well known that increases in salaries have to be brought forward on the Estimates and agreed to by Parliament before they are adopted.

SenatorSenior. - That is not a parallel case.

Senator PEARCE:

– If it is not a parallel case, there is great similarity. Are we going to give to an Arbitrator, who is notresponsible to Parliament, except that he can be removed by petition, the power that should be retained by Parliament? When the Estimates are submitted to Parliament the expenditure and revenue should balance; and if we are not to have control over expenditure, it is more than probable that the Estimates of the Treasurer would be blown to pieces by the awards of the Court. Do honorable senators realize that during the last financial year an amount of £750,000 was added to the Public Service wages bill by the awards of the Arbitration Court? That latent power must remain with Parliament, and, after all, is there much in the honorable senator’s suggestion ? I only wish, from one point of view, that Parliament was not in session as frequently as it is. My experience has been that Parliament sits for the greater part of the year, and our recesses are marked by their brevity. Even during the war, when we were fighting for our life, Parliament sat for nine months out of twelve, and it is very unlikely that inconvenience would be caused to members of the Service because Parliament was not in session.

Senator Thomas referred to the question of temporary employees, and to the position that might arise in the event of an award of the proposed Court clashing with an existing award. An award given by the Arbitrator who is to be appointed will certainly bind a member of a Public Service organization, and the wages he will be paid will be the wages awarded by the Arbitrator. If the Arbitratorisa man of common sense, he will, before giving his decision, have before him the awards of the general Arbitration Court.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Supposingthe Arbitrator made one award, and the general Arbitration Court made another?

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Thomas must admit that it is not always the Government that must be accommodating. Surely the unions must shoulder some responsibility. Why should the Government always have to concede a higher rate? If a lower award is made outside there is never a demand made by the Public Service that such an award should apply to it. If the contention is that awards in the Public Service must be the same as those outside, it will be time for the country, through Parliament, to say that the conditions shall be the same. As a matter of fact, we know that they are not There are sick pay, sick leave, furlough, recreation, and a great many advantages enjoyed by public servants that are not enjoyed by employees outside the Service. All these advantages have a monetary value to the recipient of them and should be taken into consideration.

Senator Foll:

– Are they not taken into consideration by the Judge of the Arbitration Court now?

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not think that they are. They should be taken into consideration by a Public Service organization where, in the case referred to by Senator Thomas, there is a difference between an award of the General Arbitration Court and an award of the Public Service Arbitration Court. ‘

Senator Thomas and one or two other honorable senators spoke of the necessity of appointing assessors to assist the Arbitrator, and regret has been expressed at the omission from this Bill of any provision for a conference or something in the shape of a Whitley council. If honorable senators will turn to sub-clause 5 of clause 12 of the Bill, they will find that what they ask is provided for, though perhaps not as directly as some might wish. After a plaint has been lodged or served on the Minister or Department, the sub-clause to which I refer provides that - 0

If any objection is lodged the Arbitrator shall call a conference, to be presided oyer by himself, of representatives of the organization and of the Commissioner and of any Minister who has lodged objection to the granting of the claim, and following upon such conference shall, after hearing such evidence (if any) in respect of such matter as has not been agreed to at the conference, as the Arbitrator thinks necessary, determine’ the claim.

That is practically a power to call the conference that is asked for, and meets the same purpose as a Whitley council or round-table conference.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I take it that the organization concerned will discuss the matter in dispute with the Board of Management first of all.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is so, but if the organization .objects to what is decided by the Board and appeals to the Arbitrator he can convene a conference under the sub-clause to which I have referred. There are other provisions in the Bill under which the Arbitrator is not bound by the strict rules of evidence, or technicalities, and can inform himself in any way he thinks fit.

Senator Senior:

– And he can shut out any evidence he pleases.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Arbitrator may, under this Bill, avail himself of the suggestion offered by Senator Elliott. It may be that a dispute arises in a remote part of the Commonwealth, or is peculiar to one State of the Commonwealth, and the Arbitrator may appoint a Board representing himself and the disputants to go into the matter in dispute and report to him. He may inform his mind in any way he thinks desirable in connexion with any matter in dispute.

Senator Foll:

– He is the person who gives the decision whether a conference is called or not.

Senator PEARCE:

– Of course he is. There must be some final authority. The convening of a conference does not necessarily, mean that it will come to a decision. It may represent two views, and there must be some one to arbitrate between them. If the conference came to a unanimous decision it is almost certain that the Arbitrator would accept that .as his determination. It is only in case of failure to agree when the matter is first submitted to him that the Arbitrator would be likely to call a conference.

Senator Keating was, I think, unduly alarmed in regard to the powers given under clause 16. First of all, in replying to the honorable senator, I have to say that there is nothing new about clause 16. It is a repetition of the exact wording of section 10 of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act, which has been in force since 1911. To the legal mind of Senator Keating there may be some consolation in the fact that a Judge has been administering section 10 of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act whilst this Bill might be administered by some one who is not a Judge. . Personally, I am as ready to trust a layman to act with common sense in the settlement of matters of this kind as I am to trust a Judge to do so. The powers conferred by clause 16, therefore, have been administered for some time under the existing law, and, so far as I know, they have never been abused. It may be said that even if that be so, there has been a right of appeal, and there is no appeal under the Public Service Act. There is no appeal under the Act to which I have referred from the Public Service Arbitration Court to any other Court, and yet the clause to which Senator Keating objects is, as I have said, an exact duplicate of a section of that Act. We have the experience of the operation of that section since 1911, and none of the terrible forebodings of Senator Keating have been realized. There is a distinct necessity for such a clause. The Public Service Association may dispute certain decisions of the Board of Management in respect to wages, conditions of labour, or service; and when the Arbitrator conies to deal with the complaint he may find that if he confines his decision to the matters referred to him, the result may be only to create the confusion and chaos already referred to as arising from conflicting or differing awards. If the Arbitrator fixes the wages of a linesman, it may be that be will feel it necessary that he should also fix the number of linesmen who should be employed for a given length of line. Honorable senators will see that there may be a number of things conditional or contingent upon the fixing of the wages of a particular section of the Public Service. The purpose of the clause objected to is to enable the Arbitrator to avoid being restricted to the consideration merely of the items in a plaint where, in order that he may do justice, he should consider all matters pertaining thereto, even though some of them are not strictly included in the reference to him.

SenatorFoster. - What is the position of the Board of Management in that case?

Senator PEARCE:

– Exactly the same as the position of the Public Service Commissioner under the existing law. The Board of Management will have the power to initiate the rates of wages, salaries, and conditions of the Service-

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– In the same way as the managers of a mine fix wages and conditions which may afterwards be reviewed by the Arbitration Court?

Senator PEARCE:

– In just the same way. The managers of a mine may decide that the wages of miners shall be fixed at a certain rate. The men may not accept their decision, and may take the matter to the Arbitration Court, and then the Judge of the Arbitration Court fixes how much shall be paid. Honorablesenators need not be alarmed concerning the consequences of passing clause 16. It is a very necessary clause, giving the Arbitrator power to consider all matters incidental to , the plaint referred to him.

On the question of control over the Arbitrator, let me say that, just as under the Arbitration (Public Service) Act there was no provision for an appeal from the Public Service Arbitration Court, there is no appeal provided for here. But there is still the control of Parliament. That is to say, that the judgment of the Arbitrator must be laid on the table in both Houses of this Parliament; and if it is believed that it is not in the public interest, action can be taken to ask Parliament to disallow the award. That is the appeal that is provided for.

Senator Senior:

– That is one-sided.

Senator PEARCE:

– It is not any more one-sided than would be an appeal from the judgment of the Arbitrator to another Court. After all, we are constantly told that Parliament is the highest Court in the land.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– There is the same provision under the existing law.

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes, and it has never been operative. It has never been suggested that any award made should be disallowed. The power of disallowance is latent, and it is a sufficient guarantee that the horrible consequences suggested by Senator Keating as likely to follow the investment of the Arbitratorwith this unlimited power is really not likely to arise. What is the alternative? Senator Keating suggests an appeal to the Law Courts. My experience of industrial laws, which I am sure will be borne out by honorable senators who have had much to do with industrial matters, is that every time there is an industrial dispute the disputants to go to the ultimate Court open to them. If, under this Bill, organizations of the Public Service were given the right to appeal from a decision of the arbitrator to the Law Courts, we may depend upon it that every Public Service case would be settled in the Court of last ‘ resort. This could only have the effect of making a settlement more costly, difficult, and irritating to every one concerned.

Senator Keating:

– I did not suggest appeals, but finality.

Senator PEARCE:

– There is finality provided for in the Bill.

Senator Keating:

– I object to the pro-, vision with regard to prohibition.

Senator PEARCE:

– We say that the only way in which we can secure finality is to prohibit appeals to the Law Courts.

The right of revision rests with this Parliament if it. should he necessary to exercise it.

Senator Duncan mentioned a very contentious matter in referring to the segregating of Public Service employees. That is a question which becomes more difficult as time goes on. In the old days, when a Government was simply a machine for carrying on the ordinary government of the country, the difficulty did not arise; but to-day, in carrying out various functions, the Government invade almost every walk of life. It engages in various industries, in commercial occupations, shipping, and so on. The difficulty now is to draw the line and say what are actually governmental services and what are commercial or industrial undertakings. I believe that this Bill does that completely. For instance, the Commonwealth Government to-day undertakes shipbuilding, shipping, the manufacture of woollen cloth and of uniforms for its servants, and so on. None of these are really governmental undertakings that will come within the scope of the Public Service Arbitrator provided for in this Bill. Those concerned in such undertakings will have their remedy in the ordinary Arbitration Court. On the other hand, the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, the Prime Minister’s Department, and the Home and Territories Department are institutions necessary to carry on the ordinary government of the country, and the employees of those. Departments can be segregated from the employees of other Departments that may not be carrying out purely functions of government. If this were not possible, we might have governmental machinery linked up with some industrial dispute that had nothing whatever to do with the government of the country, but had to do with a question of the distribution of profits between employer and employee. Surely that would not he desirable. The only way to avoid that is to provide that services established for carrying on the government of the country should be segregated from the industrial life, which is concerned with the question of the distribution of profit between employer and employee.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Where is that made clear in the Bill?

Senator PEARCE:

– That is made clear by the clauses which make provision as to the Departments which will come under this measure - that is to say, those which are governed by the Public Service Act. The employees engaged in the industries I have mentioned, and in connexion with the railways of the Commonwealth, are not subject to the Public Service Act.

Senator Lynch:

– Higher wages obtaining for the same class of work inside or outside the Public Service has been a constant source of trouble.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is so. I have said that the Arbitrator will have before him the awards applying to persons employed outside the Service, and will, no doubt, consider them in making up his mind as to the decision at which he should arrive.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– According to the definition clause, the Bill applies to certainservices whether under the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902-1918 or not.”

Senator PEARCE:

– The honorable senator will see that in the definition clause “ the Public Service “ is defined to include -

The Public Service of the Northern Territory and of the territory for the Seat of Government, and the service of any public institution or authority of the Commonwealth, and includes all persons employed in any such service in any capacity, whether permanently or temporarily, and whether under the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902-1918 or not, but does not include persons employed in the Naval or Military Forces only.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– That does not exclude anybody.

Senator PEARCE:

– No.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It does not exclude the men who are engaged in the Commonwealth woollen mills.

Senator PEARCE:

– There is another clause dealing with that matter.

Senator Senior:

– There is only one exemption - that of the members of the Naval and Military Forces of the Commonwealth.

Senator PEARCE:

– Honorable senators will note that, clause 4 provides that -

Employees in the Public Service, or in any division, class, grade, or branch thereof, or in any callings, service, handicraft, occupation, or avocation in the Public Service, or in any division, class., grade, or branch thereof, shall be deemed to be employees in an industry within the meaning of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1918.

However, I am advised that the industries to which I have referred do not come within that category. I have had experience of the working of the Act, and I know that, by agreement with the Minister, those industries can be brought within its scope. As a matter of fact, in some cases in my own Department that has been done. However, I cannot very well deal with everything on the spur of the moment, but in Committee, I shall be able to satisfy honorable senators on that point.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

  1. In this Act unless the contrary intention appears - “ The Public Service “ includes the Public Service of the Northern Territory and of the Territory for the Seat of Government, and the service of any public institution or authority of the Commonwealth, and includes all persons employed in any such service in any capacity, whether permanently or temporarily, and whether under the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902-1918 or not, but does not include persons employed in the Naval or Military Forces only.
Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– ‘Notwithstanding the very indefinite references in this clause to the Publice Service Act 1902-1918, I am inclined to think that the definition of “ the Public Service ‘ ‘ which is here laid down must not be read in conjunction with the definition which is contained in the principal Act. In that case the two definitions must stand separately, and under this clause “the Public Service” will include all persons employed by the Commonwealth with the exception of members of the Naval and Military Forces. The provision is so very comprehensive that we ought to know exactly where is the boundary fence.

Senator Benny:

– Will the honorable senator look at clause 4, which defines an industry within the meaning of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act?

Senator SENIOR:

– The provision which we are now considering is a definition clause, and clause 4 deals with an entirely different subject. From the definition which is laid down in this clause, I imagine that the Court would hold that all employees of the, Commonwealth, with the exception of members of the Naval and Military Forces, are included in the Commonwealth Public Service.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I think that the definition of “ The Public Service” which is contained in this clause is very much wider and more comprehensive than was indicated by the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) in his concluding remarks upon the motion for the second reading of the Bill. That definition is identical with the definition which is contained in the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1911, and which was intended, I think, to apply the principle . of arbitration in the relation of employer and employee, to the Commonwealth and all persons working for it, irrespective of whether or not they were covered by the Public Service Act 1902-1918. Of recent years, and particularly since 1911, the Commonwealth has extended its activities in many directions, so that to-day it has numerous employees in occupations which were never dreamed of in that year. As the Arbitration (Public Service) Act of 1911 will not remain in force when this Bill becomes law, it necessarily follows that these employees will come under this measure. Clause 4 is intended to meet a difficulty which arose in the Arbitration Court within the past twelve or eighteen months.

Senator Pearce:

– That provision is contained in the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1911,

Senator KEATING:

– That is so. But the difficulty to which I refer arose within the past twelve or eighteen months. It has been emphasized that the power of the Commonwealth to settle industrial disputes by means of conciliation and arbitration applies only to disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State. But the argument to which I am now referring relates chiefly to the question of industrial disputes. Quite recently an appeal to the High Court was made by various municipalities against an award of the Arbitration Court, on the ground that their officers were not engaged in industries. A similar question arose in connexion with the plaint of the Australian Journalists Association. When that plaint came before the Arbitration Court it was’ argued on behalf of the respondents that journalism was not an industry, and that therefore it could not be the subject of legislation for the settlement of industrial disputes by means of conciliation and arbitration. It will be seen, therefore, that upon the definition which is contained in the clause now under review will depend what employees should be included within the scope of this Bill. I agree with Senator Senior that under this definition the only employees of the Commonwealth who will be excluded from the scope of the measure will be members of the Naval and Military Forces of the Commonwealth.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- A perusal of this clause will, I think, convince honorable senators that practically every Commonwealth employee will come within the purview of the Bill. It follows, therefore, that the employees of theRepatriation Department, which is administered by its own Board of Commissioners, will have the right of appeal from that Board to the Public Service Arbitrator.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

.- As the points which have been raised in connexion with clauses 3 and 4 ought to be cleared up before we proceed further, I move-

That clauses 3 and 4 he postponed.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 5 -

An association of less than one hundred em ployees in an industry in the Public Service may be registered under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1918 as an organization, if its membership comprises at least three-fifths of all the persons who are employees in that industry in the Public Service.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– The argument which has been advanced by the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) in respect of this clause is a very general one. He has affirmed that we should not deny “justice, even to the smallest number of individuals engaged in any calling. That fact is generally admitted. My own view is that we ought not to deny justice to a single individual. However, the Arbitration Court has specifically decided that one individual cannot lodge a plaint with it. Only a union can do that. Upon the motion for the second reading of this Bill I pointed out that the clause now under consideration must have the effect of breaking up the Public Service organizations into small isolated camps. The Minister has affirmed that that is all rightBut my argument is that we must aim at cohesion rather than at distribution.

Senator Henderson:

– There is a number of unions in the Public Service now.

Senator SENIOR:

– That is so. Attention was called to this matter by the Minister for Defence, who pointed out that some of those unions include as members persons who are outside, as well as inside, the Service. In the Postal Department there are engineers who belong to unions with members also outside the Service. The Government propose to break off that portion of the union which is inside the Service and place it in a separate compartment. The same thing will apply to electricians and dozens of other artisans. Theresult will be constant unrest, because if a different award is given to those outside the Service, those inside will apply for another hearing, and vice versa. I object to the clause, because it will tend to break up the unions, and in each case two awards will have to be made to accomplish what is now done by one. The proposal will not benefit the unions or the Service as a whole, but will lead to discontent.

Clause agreed to.

Cause 6 (Appointment of Arbitrator).

Senator FOSTER:
Tasmania

– I should like from the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) some indication of the position the Arbitrator will occupy in relation to the Board of Management, particularly in the matter of. salary. I am anxious to see the proposed Board of Management composed of the very best men that we can get for the job. As Senator Thomas said yesterday, it was at one time suggested to him that he should get the very best man available to put the affairs of the Post Office in order, and I take it that we want the very best business men with properly-trained minds to manage the Public Service. The Arbitrator, if he should be a man appointed from the Public Service, should be at least equal in experience and merit with the men appointed to the Board. If he is to be paid a smaller salary than the members of the Board, the Board will be placed in an unfair position. We have had noindication from the Minister of the ratesof salary to be paid to the members of the Board and the Arbitrator, and we are, therefore, in the dark as to what the position of the Arbitrator will be. To allow the Arbitrator to have absolute authority to do practically as he likes with the recommendations or instructions of the Board of Management is to give too much power to one man. A man may be appointed as Arbitrator who has no idea of the value of evidence, yet he is to be given carte blanche to discard ordinary legal methods and to accept or reject evidence as he pleases. In that directionhe is to be allowed to use more common sense than legal judgment. In view of the positions to be occupied by the Board of Management and the Arbitrator, who is to have power above the Board, we should have some indication of the type of men whom it is proposed to appoint.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence [5.40]. - I have already said that the Government propose , to pay a salary of at least £2,000 a year to the Arbitrator. That is a little more than it is proposed to pay to two members of the Board, and a little less than is to be paid to the chairman. I have not the exact figures with me. The Arbitrator will, therefore, occupy a fairly important position, but one not quite so important as was indicated by Senator Foster, because he will have nothing to do with a great deal of the Board’s activities. Hewill deal only with such parts of the provisions as to salaries and wages as are appealed against by Public Service organizations. He is to be a court of appeal for the Board in those cases only, but the Board will deal with a great deal more than the fixation of salaries and conditions of employment. The position of Arbitrator should carry a salary sufficient to attract a man possessing the qualities that such a post calls for, and comparing favorably with the salaries paid to those, part of whose work he may have to revise. The Government will give due weight to all these considerations when they make the appointments. They are quite seized of their importance.

Senator Earle:

– Will the Minister say what the cost of the Board will be ?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– There will be other expenses besides salaries in connexion with the Board of Management; but I am not in a position to say what the total expenses of the Arbitrator will be.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

.- As the discussion progresses, and after listening attentively to the reply of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) to the second-reading debate, I am more than ever convinced that the Bill will lead to endless confusion in the Public Service. Consequently, I intend to vote against the clause. Its defeat would practically mean the rejection of the Bill. We have, on theone hand, a Board of Management to be appointed by the Government to control the Public Service in a business-like manner, and yet practically the whole power to control the Service is to be taken out of theirhands. and placed in the hands of the Arbitrator. This simply means that it will be impossible for the Board to do satisfactory work for the country.

Senator Earle:

– To the same extent power is taken out of the hands of all employers by our present system of arbitration.

SenatorFOLL. - I do not agree with the honorable senator. The proposed Arbitrator is to be an appointee of the Government, and clause 16 gives him unlimited power to do whatever he likes so far as the Public Service is concerned’. There will be nothing, so far as working conditions go, that he will not havepower to deal with.

Senator Rowell:

– He will have no more power than the Arbitration Court Judges have now.

Senator FOLL:

– I am not dealing with the question of arbitration generally.

Senator Pearce:

– If you are fair, you should do so.

Senator FOLL:

– I will be fair. I tell the Minister candidly that during recent years, at any rate, it is doubtful whether arbitration has been such a great asset to the country as some honorable senators think. I could quote some of the doings of the Arbitration Court in Queensland that would show clearly that the Courthas not been altogether of advantage to that State. I intend to vote against the clause, because I desire to see the Public Service placed on a business-like basis, and the gentlemen to be appointed to the Board of Management given a fair opportunity to carry out the wishes of Parliament.

Senator MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I also listened with a great deal of care to the Minister’s statement. One thing that struck me was his assertion) that if Senator Keating’s suggestion were adopted, and a Court toreview the Arbitrator’s decisions created, it would tend to make every decision given by the Arbitrator end in the Court of law. The same argument applies to this case. Every decision arrived at by the Board of Management, which is in opposition tothe desires of any of the men, will be forced before the Arbitrator. I am opposed to the clause.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 20

NOES: 4

Majority … … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 3074

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Imperialforce: Band Instruments - War Gratuity Bonds : Insurance Agents’ Commission : Purchases offurniture - Private Members’ Motions.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator ROWELL:
South Australia

– I wish to bring under the notice of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) the position with regard to band instruments donated to members of the Australian ImperialForce when in training prior to their departure during the war. While I was Acting Commandant for South Australia, a lady offered to supply a full set of band instruments for the use of the men. I accepted the offer on the understanding that the instruments were not to be taken out of Australia, and that, after the war, they were to be retained on behalf of the men. I am not quite sure what conditions governed the gift, but I believe that the lady paid about £150 for the instruments, which I understand are now in the Ordnance Stores in Adelaide. Probably the position is very much the same in the other States. Recently the South Australian Returned Soldiers’ Association, which has a membership of over 20,000 men, decided to form a band, and they made application to the Commandant for the use of these instruments. The Commandant was sympathetic, but, of course, had to refer the request to Head-quarters, which turned it down. I have a copy of the correspondence that passed on this subject, and I appeal to the Minister to see if something cannot be done in the matter. If he cannot hand the instruments over to the Returned Soldiers’ Band, I suggest that he might be able to allow them to be taken out on loan with some necessary safeguards. I understand also that the men made application for authority to use Australian Imperial Force uniform, but this request was, I think, quite properly refused.

Senator FOSTER:
Tasmania

– The reply given to me by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) this afternoon concerning the cashing of gratuity bonds for life assurance policies did not quite cover my question. I asked if the Treasury had issued an order that no commission was to be paid to agents in cases where returned soldiers cashed their war gratuity bonds for life assurance, and if the Minister was aware that this policy would have the effect of penalizing many returned soldiers who had taken up life assurance work. The. Minister’s reply was -

Yes. The action was taken solely in the interests of bond owners. The Treasury endeavours to protect the- soldier by seeing that he gets full value for his bonds. Where the soldier takes out a policy which he does not intend to renew, or which he cannot renew, because the annual premiums are too high, he is merely discounting his bond. This is undesirable, and cannot be allowed. To avoid trouble in this direction, the Treasury consulted the principal life assurance societies, and, after consideration of their views, decided that these transactions should be dealt with only by the executive officers ofthese societies.

I understand that if a returned soldier tenders his war gratuity bond to a life assurance company, the company will cash the bond for the full amount less four years’ premium on an assurance policy, and it appears tome that the action of the Treasury officials in. ordering that no commission be allowed to agents who may secure this business for the company are not protecting the soldier at all. The companies get over the value of the discount on the bond at face value, because they have an investment which is worth 51/4 per cent. to them, which is fairly good interest-earning paper, and they evade the commission which ordinarily they would have to pay to agents. In the ordinary course of business a life assurance society pays an agent the full amount of commission agreed upon for new business, even if the premium be for one year only, and I contend that the. action of the Treasury officials in this matter does not represent a fair deal to those returned soldiers who have taken up agency work for life assurance companies.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- I remind the Leader of the Senate (Senator Millen) that for several months now I have had a private notice of motion on the business-paper relating to the appointment of Trade Commissioners, and, so far, have not had an opportunity of getting a vote upon it. Although notices of motion by private members may not be regarded by the Government as of any particular importance, they are of interest to honorable senators, and I should like to know if my notice of motion is to be adjourned every Thursday, as has been the case up to the present, or whether the Minister will deign to favourme with a few minutes, in reply, on some Thursday evening in the not too-far distant future. I do not wish to cause, the Minter unnecessary worry, because I know he is a busy man ; but I do not think my request is an unreasonable one.

I also wish to bring under his notice certain transactions in connexion with the War Gratuity Bonds. I understand that if a returned soldier desires to buy furniture on the strength of a bond for £100, the furniture warehouseman, as a rule, requires him to buy furniture to the full value of the bond, although he might not require £100 worth of furniture. I believe a number of storekeepers and other business firms are acting in the same way. I am afraid it is too late now to do anything, but I think it would have been much better if the war gratuity bonds had been paid in denominations of £10 instead of one bond for the full amount of gratuity, so that if a soldier desired to negotiate portion of his bond, say, for a suit of clothes, he would be able to do so, instead of being required to purchase material to the full value of his bond.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

. -I should like to deal first with the question raised by Senator Foll. I am quite aware of the practice to which the honorable gentleman refers, due, no doubt, to the desire of some rather foolish soldiers to get a measure of cash for their bonds by making purchases, which often they do not need, from certain unscrupulous traders. Unfortunately this is a matter for which at present I can suggest no remedy; but I shall bring it under the notice of the Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook) with a suggestion that some arrangement might be made in bona fide cases of men desiring to convert portion of their bonds.

Senator Foll referred to the notice of motion standing in his name as to the appointment of Australian TradeCommissioners. and asked when an opportunity would be given for its further discussion. If the honorable senator will be patient and practice that great virtue, which I know he possesses, a little longer, I think I can see an opportunity within a reasonable time of the matter being dealt with.

The question raised by Senator Foster regarding the restrictions on the cashing of gratuity bonds is one of the most difficult problems with which the Government have been confronted in their endeavour, not only to protect the soldiers against unscrupulous outsiders, but against themselves. Senator Foster - I am sure he will pardon me for saying so - has not revealed a very keen sense of proportion in this matter, as he has submitted the cases of a very small number of returned soldiers who are acting as canvassers for insurance companies, and places their interests against those of the main body.

Senator Foster:

– But they have to be considered.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Certainly ; but the number is small. It must be admitted that only a limited number of exsoldiers are taking up this work. These, by submitting alluring propositions, may induce bond holders to take out insurance policies which they would not otherwise do merely to enable the canvassers to collect acommission. The restrictions have been placed upon these men to minimize the. trouble, because we cannot remove it, and it is hoped that our efforts will prevent canvassers persuading ex-soldiers to take out policies when they do not desire to do so. I ask Senator Foster to accept my assurance that the Government have acted in this manner merely because they desire to protect the soldiers, and it is admitted that many do need protection. It has been brought under my notice that the practice to which I have referred has been going on, and it is difficult to know how it can be checked. The restrictions have been framed in the interests of the soldiers themselves, and, I submit, that it is our duty to abstain from placing any inducements in the way of men that are not entirely satisfactory to those concerned.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– The point raised by Senator Rowell has already been brought under my notice, as in practically every State in the Commonwealth patriotic citizens supplied band instruments for use in the various training camps. The men to whom these instruments were presented left Australia, and the Defence Department was, in a sense, a trustee of the instruments, and had to make the best use it could of them. At the time when action was taken it was thought that many ex-membersof the Australian Imperial Force would be enrolled in an Army Reserve - some 40,000 were actually enrolled - and it was decided that the instruments should be kept for that body, because nobody could have a better claim on the instruments than the ex-Australian Imperial Force men. The present position is that the Government have not yet put the scheme into operation, and cannot do so until their defence policy hasbeen settled. The Defence Department is very loath to part with the instruments, even on loan, because it knows how difficult it would be to have them returned. I have no doubt that if an Army Reserve, or any other such force is established, it will have associated with it bands consisting of ex-Australian Imperial Force men and members of the returned soldiers bands to whom the instruments would be issued. I will bear Senator Rowell’ s suggestion in mind, and if the scheme, to which I have referred, is not adopted, the persons who would have the best claim to. the instruments would be the returnedsoldiers who have organized bands throughout the Commonwealth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 6.10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 July 1920, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1920/19200729_senate_8_92/>.