12th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. “W. Kingsmill) took the chairat 11 a.m., and read prayers.
The following papers were presented : -
Dairy ProduceExport Control Act - Sixth Annual Report of the Dairy Produce Control Board, year ended 30th June, 1931, together with a Statement by the Minister for Markets regarding the operation of the Act.
Transport Workers Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1931, No. 122.
page 769
– I have had a conference with the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Forde) on this subject, and 7 am hopeful that satisfactory arrangemonls will be made to meet the convenience of honorable senators.
page 770
Motor Registration Fees
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs whether motor registration fees in the Federal Capital Territory are to be reduced. If so, will he inform me of the extent of the reduction, whether it will have retrospective effect, and if so, from what date?
– Inquiries arc being made into the possibility of reducing the motor registration fees in the Federal Capital Territory, and as soon as I have any definite information on the subject I shall make it available to the honorable senator.
page 770
– I ask the Leader of the Senate if he will afford honorable senators an opportunity of discussing, before the Government makes a final decision on the subject, whether the proposed wheat bounty shall be payable on the exportable surplus or upon the whole of the crop?
– I understand that a conference is being held to-day between representative wheat-growers and the Government with the object of discussing this subject. I hope that the outcome of it will be satisfactory to both parties.
page 770
– Will the Leader of the Government inform me whether be has been able to do anything to give effect to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) that copies of the Macmillan report should be made available to every honorable senator.
– I said yesterday that fifteen or sixteen copies of the report had been placed in the Library for the use of members of the Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that a sufficient number of copies should bo procured or printed to enable all honorable members of Parliament to be supplied with one–
-i did not suggest that the report should be printed for that purpose, but that copies of it might be obtained from England.
– I am given to understand that there is no possibility of obtaining a sufficient number of copies for that purpose, except by reprinting tinreport. The Prime Minister has looked into that suggestion, and hascome to the conclusion that the Government would not be warranted in incurring the expense of printing the report.
page 770
– On tha motion for the adjournment of the Senate on Wednesday last, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) made certain statements with regard to the transport of honorable senators from Melbourne to attend the sittings of Parliament, and the attendance of honorable senators, in the course of which inferentially at all events, some blame was laid at the door of the officers of the Senate and myself. I have had pre pared a memorandum which sets out the actual facts of that occurrence, and also the practice which has been followed in the past. This memorandum, which is signed by the Clerk of the Senate, and addressed to me, reads as follows: -
The Honorable the President.
In connexion with the matters raised in the Senate yesterday by Senator Sir George Pearce, 1 beg to submit the following statements; -
Railway Travelling Of Senators
As a result of inquiries made I find it never - hug been part of the duty of Senate officers to make arrangements in connexion with the travelling of senators. Such -matter has always been arranged betweenthe Commonwealth department dealing with the railways (at present the Transport Department) and the Com- monwealth railway officers, on the one hand, and theRailways Department of any particular State on the other.
When such arrangements have been made it is usual for the Commonwealth railway officers to communicate them to the parliamentary officers, and when that is done it has been, and is, the practice for such’ information to be made known to members by placing it on the notice-board in their party rooms - and I understand like information is supplied to the members’ rooms in Melbourne, and is available to members there.
Coming now to the present case, an inquiry to the secretary of the Commonwealth railways discloses that last week-end he took up with the New South Wales railway authorities the question of senators travelling from Melbourne to Canberra, informed them twenty had been booked, and asked if the through train would be run. He was informed they were not prepared to run the train from Goulburn unless 35 persons were travelling. He telegraphed an inquiry againon Saturday last, and on Monday received a reply that the train would not run unless 35 were travelling. This decisionhe communicated to his own Commonwealth Ministerial Department, and also informed the staff of the Members’ Room, Temple Court, Melbourne. Ho informed me the State railwaysattitude is that the train will not be run for less than 35 passengers unless monetary compensation is made - this surely will indicate the question is one for arrangement between the Commonwealth Ministerial Department and the State authorities, and the secretary for Commonwealth Railways informs me it is at present the subject of discussion between such authorities.
As to any differential treatment of Senators as against members of the House of Representatives, there is none that I am aware of, nor, I am assured by the secretary for Commonwealth railways, is there any in his branch, but rather that every endeavour is made to meet the travelling requirements of members as a whole.
The reason that the members of the House of Representatives usually have no difficulty is that they travel in sufficient numbers to warrant the running of the train from Goulburn.
In conclusionI desire to emphasize the point that it has never been recognized as part of the duty of officers of the respective Houses to enter into the arrangements which are made between the Commonwealth and the States, for the conveyance of members on the railways:
On the subject of the attendances of senators the facts are as follow: -
The attendances are kept up to date weekly and arc available to any senator requiring them.
They are published in printed form only at the end of each session.
It has never been the practice for the officers of the Senate to communicate the information to the press - nor, in my opinion, is such a course desirable for reasons that are fairly obvious.
If pressman apply for the information - on the last sitting day of a session or at any other time - it is supplied to them. Whether they publish the details or not is entirely a matter for them to decide. On many occasions the attendances of senators have been published in the press, and on others it has not been done; and quite frequently it appears in some newspapers and not in others.
The same procedure is adopted in connexion with lists of attendances by the staffs of both Houses of the Parliament.
I may add that the practice has been, and still is, to leave to the technical officers, as I think it should be left, the transport of honorable members of both Houses of the Parliament. It was so when the Leader of the Opposition, who made this complaint, was a member of the previous Government. This is the first occasion, I believe, that the subject has been brought before the Senate. I do not claim, nor does any one, that this absolves us from criticism; and indeed I intend to take the matter up, on the information supplied by the right honorable gentleman, to see whether some better arrangement cannot be made. This, I will do with those whom I consider to be the proper authorities, namely, the transport department and the Commonwealth Railway Department. Certain improvements suggest themselves. There is, first, the proposal for the payment of monetary compensation in cases where that may be necessary. Secondly, there is the suggestion that some cheaper and faster mode of transport may be employed, such as motor train, if the permanent way is suitable for the purpose. I am sure that other suggestions for obviating the present difficulties will come to the minds of honorable senators. I am glad to have the opportunity of making this statement, in order that I may make it quite clear to honorable senators that no blame in regard to this happening lies at the door of officers of the Senate, who are following the procedure handed down to them. This, judging by the silence of honorable senators, has hitherto proved satisfactory and will, in all probability, prove satisfactory in the future.
As to the attendance of honorable senators, I have nothing more to add to what the Clerk of the Senate has said.
But one or two other matters were touched upon by the Leader of the Opposition. The first that occurs to me is the use or misuse of the word, “ Parliament “ as applied to only one branch of the legislature. That, I think, is due to inadvertence. If the right honorable senator does not think that it is, I would suggest to him that a motion which I feel sure would be treated as formal should be submitted, asking honorable members of another place of their courtesy to give their proper standing in connexion with Parliament by avoiding the use of the word “ Parliament “ when the House of Representatives is indicated.
– Is that intended as sarcasm, sir?
– It is not; it is intended as serious advice. Many are aware, but others do not always realize that “ The Parliament “ consists of - the King, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, and it is well that that fact should be recognized ; but nobody is inclined to misuse the term “ Parliament “ in connexion, at all events, with the Senate, or the House of Representatives. The right honorable senator complained, too, of a tendency - I took it to be on the part of myself and my officers - to allow the dignity and importance of the Senate to Vic lowered. The disproof of any such tendency is in the fact that, go where you will in Australia to-day the importance, for good or for evil, and the capability of the Senate, stand on a higher level than ever before.For my own part, I think honorable senators know that I hold the dignity of this chamber very dear, indeed. I have always done my best to maintain its dignity, and it comes as a bitter disappointment to me when it is inferred that my occupancy of the chair has not been all that some desire. However, that is my misfortune; I ask honorable senators to think that it is not my fault. I am inclined to think that the tendency referred to by the right honorable gentleman does not exist, for the reason that after very considerable experience I consider that the conduct of the business of the Senate is marked by a dignity and decorum that exist in very few legislative bodies in Australia.
I very much regret that I have to make these remarks. I do so without the least heat. If, as President, I am not fulfilling my duties as I should, it is the duty of honorable senators to tell me so; but J would very much prefer that the first intimation of any such dereliction on my part should be made to me privately, instead of being given such publicity as this complaint has been, so that I might have an opportunity to mendmy ways if they need mending. Of course all out ways need mending at one time or another.I have nothing further to say concerning the speech of the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) on Wednesday last. I point, out that the statement cannot be debated at this stage, but that if honorable senators wish to discuss it the course is obvious: they can give notice of motion for next sitting day that the statement whichI have read be printed.
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [11.20]. - by leave - My object in adopting the course I did was not as you, sir, suggest. I had no wish to misrepresent you in this matter; nor did I raise the question of your conduct in the chair, and the decorum of debate in the Senate. Neither did I raise any question as to your not maintaining thedignity of the Senate. That being so, the remarks you have made under those head ings have nothing to do with the observations I offered the other day. WhatI said then, I repeat: that the procedure adopted in respect of the matters complained of places this chamber in an inferior position in regard to the treatment of its members as compared with another place. There is only one person who can speak for the Senate in matters of this kind, and that, sir, is you. In such matters no one can speak for the Senate but its presiding officer. I deemed it my duty not to go to you privately, but to raise this question on the floor of the Senate, since I felt that other honorable senators as well as myself were being dealt with differently from honorable members of another place. That there has been differentiation is indicated by the memorandum prepared by the Clerk of the Senate, and read by you. It practically shows that a certain course of action has been decided upon by the Government and the Transport Department, under which travelling facilities, which are not, and will not be available to honorable senators who have to travel from Melbourne to Canberra, are given to members of another place. Aly point was, and is, that that is a matter in which you, sir, as President of the Senate, arc concerned, and if you. were consulted and acquiesced in the arrangement, then our complaint is with you. If you were not consulted, then 1 suggest, sir, that it is your duty to take up this matter on our behalf, because it is only through you that we can speak so that matters of this kind may be rectified. The memorandum prepared by the Clerk of the Senate places the whole bin mc under two headings: one, that an arrangement has been made about which we were never consulted, and concerning which we have no voice, and the other, that officers of the Transport Departmenttook the initiative in this matter. “We have no dealings with the officers of the Transport Department. They are not under our direct control as are the officers of this House. How can” the officers of the Transport Department know when the Senate is meeting, unless through the medium of the public press, if the officers of the Senate do not advise them? There must be some liaison between the officers of the Senate and the Railways Department, so that the latter may know on what day in each week the Senate is to resume.
I suggest that there is an easy way in which this difficulty can be overcome without additional cost. There is a daily train from Sydney by which you, sir, frequently travel. That train leaves Sydney at night and arrives at Canberra early in the morning. There is no reason why that train should not
In.- detained at Goulburn for a couple of hours so that honorable senators travelling from Melbourne could join it nml thereby have the same facilities which you and others enjoy.
– That train goes through to Cooma.
– It would mean delaying other passengers.
– If it were detained the federal members would make up a sufficient number without any inconvenience.
– It 80”ld leave Sydney at. a later hour.
– That might interfere with the Railway Department’s arrangements and delay Cooma passengers. At any rate there is a way by which honorable senators’ who have to travel from Melbourne to Canberra would not bc inconvenienced. Those travelling from Sydney could still remain in their sleeping berths, as they do at present, until a later hour in the morning.
I do not at all repent my action in bringing this matter forward; I do not think the complaint should have been mentioned privately to you, Mr. President. Honorable senators can look only to you, sir, and no one else, to speak on behalf of the Senate. If this arrangement was made without consultation with you and without your consent, we are entitled to protest. If any fresh arrangements are made I contend we must look to you to see that the Senate gets a fair deal. I take exception to your suggestion that an honorable senator should move a motion advising the members of another place not to use the term “ Parliament “ when they intend to refer only to the House of Representatives. I regard that as a mere indulgence in satire or sarcasm. My complaint was not against the members of the House of Representatives, but in regard to a statement appearing over the name of the Prime Minister, as head of the Government. I think it is rather cheap, to say the least of it, to suggest that it should be made the subject-matter of a motion.
– Such a motion could be moved, as I informed the right honorable senator in all seriousness.
– It did not seem to me to be seriously suggested.
In regard to the attendances of honorable senators, the procedure referred to by the Clerk was laid down when there were real sessions. The return is now made available only at the end of each session, and so far we have had only one session of this Parliament since 1929. Is it asking too much, or placing too great a burden upon the officers of this chamber to expect them to do what is done by the officers of another place, and that is to compile a return of attendances, which can be made available to the press after the adjournment of the Parliament Is that asking too much?
– I understand it is done.
– You, sir, did not say so; that, however, is a minor point. In the matter of travelling arrangements I suggest that we must leave_our case in your hands. You are the only person to whom we can look to see that the rights of the Senate are maintained, and that honorable senators receive treatment equal to that of members of another place. It is not a question of appealing to you personally but of appealing to the presiding officer of the Senate.
– The Government has never been approached on this matter.
– I ask honorable senators, if possible, to refrain, at this stage, from again referring to the matter, except when an opportunity may occur a few minutes hence. I remind the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition, as I have already informed him, that this matter will be taken up with the authorities. I would also recall to his mind that I previously stated that this is the first time in many years that exception has been taken to this arrangement, which was initiated by the Government of which he was amember.
– At that time there was a daily train.
– Since then there was never a complaint until last Wednesday.
– There has been an alteration since then.
– I do not know of any such alteration.
– There was an alteration in the train service three or four weeks ago.
SenatorDaly. - That is dueto the Premiers’ plan.
– It is due to economies, well placed or misplaced, as the case may be. The right honorable senator may rest assured that his complaint will receive attention. Personally, I have no means of removing the inconvenience to which honorable senators have undoubtedly been sub jected.I may, however, say thatI rose on this occasion more particularly to defend the officers of the Senate, who have no opportunity to defend themselves, and who, naturally, look to me, as honorable senators look to me, to plead their cause and to defend their rights. The officers have not been in any way associated with this matter which,I regret, has caused some inconvenience, at all events, to honorable senators who have to travel from Melbourne to Canberra by train.
page 774
– I rise to a question of privilege con- ‘ cerning myself. It arises out of the return that has been issued showing the attendances of honorable senators, in vhich I am made to appear as having been absent from the sittings of the Senate on seven sitting days. As I could account for only four absences, one due to floods preventing me from arriving in Canberra, and illness being respon sible for another, and as I felt certain that the number was not larger, I consulted the journals of the Senate, from which I learned that my recollection was not at fault. It now appears, however, that the three days which elapsed between my choice as a senator at a joint sitting of the two Houses of the Victorian Parliament, and my appearance in this chamber for the purpose of being sworn in, were debited against me. I desire that it shall be generally known that that is how the calculation has been made. I. dissent, though not querulously, from the assumption that I was absent on those three days. I submit, that I did not become a. member of the Senate until I had been sworn in, and that the calculation of my absences should commence from that date. If that were done, the records would show that I have been absent on only four days.
– The same thing would apply to a man who is elected.
– No. I received no notification that I had been chosen. I could not with dignity hasten to Canberra to inform the President that I had been elected, but had to allow a reasonable time to elapse for that notification to be forwarded by the Governor of the State of Victoria. This may be regarded as a small matter, but in it is involved the question of when a person actually becomes a member of the Senate. It is my respectful submission that I did not become a member until I had been sworn in.
– I assure the honorable senator that I shall look into the matter that he has raised, and let him know what practice has been adopted on former occasions.
page 775
asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -
– The necessary work in connexion with the transfer of the station to a more suitable site is being expedited as much as possible. Tenders are now being invited for the towers, and specifications are almost complete for other equipment, but no date can yet be named for completion of the station.
asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
page 775
– JOHNSTON asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The Minister for Trade and Customs advises that inquiries are still being pursued in regard to this matter.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon -notice -
– The Minister tor Trade and Customs advises that information is being obtained.
page 775
REGULATIONS : Motion to Disallow.
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [11.36]. - I move -
That StatutoryRules 1931. No. 100. Waterside Workers Regulations, and No. 101, Waterside EmploymentRegulations. be disallowed.
Honorable senators are aware that at the present juncture there is before the High Court of Australia a case relating to these regulations, in which judgment has been reserved, and we do not know what the decision will be. Meanwhile, however, injustices are being perpetrated under the regulations.
When the Senate previous’y denlt with this matter, a number of those whospoke upon it prophesied that if the policy of. the Government were given effect, and work on the waterfront were taken away from the volunteers and handed over to members of the Waterside Workers Federation, the latter would again institute the irritation tactics and the policy of job control, by resorting to which they disgraced themselves some years ago. That prophecy has already been fulfilled. I shall show how, having driven the volunteers from the waterfront, they are using the power which has been given to them. The Commonwealth Steamship Owners Federation has supplied me with the following list of happenings since the beginning of this year: -
BREACHESOF AWARD BY MEMBERS OF WATERSIDE WORKERS FEDERATION AT VARIOUS PORTS.
Queensland.
Since thebeginning of the year the only breaches which have been committed were those at Cairns recently, on the 30th July, and again on the 3rd August, the details of which are as follows: -
Thursday, 30th July, 1931. - The members of the union employed at the steamers Manunda,Ulooloo, Wortanna, Carroo, Canonbar, and Taiping, with the exception of three men, failed to return to work that day after the midday meal, absenting themselves for the purpose of attending the local show that afternoon. Prior to this incident the union, on the 10th July, 1931, requested that its members be given the opportunity of attending the Show on the day in question. The union was notified that vessels would be in port, and work must be carried on. It was impossible to grant the request; however, the members of the union, as before stated, failed to return to the jobs they were engaged upon, notwithstanding that before ceasing work at the meal hour, they were individually notified that they would be required to resume after the meal hour.
Monday, 3rd August, 1931. - On this day the union observed their annual picnic day holiday, and no members attended at the picking-tip place to offer for work on that day. Prior to this happening, a telephone message was received by the manager of the Adelaide Steamship Company Limited, from the secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, advising that it was proposed to observe the picnic day holiday on Monday, the 3rd August. The proposal was reported to the Industrial Magistrate at Cairns, who convened a conference on the 1st August, at which conference the representatives of the union were informed that if they acted as proposeda breach would be committed.
The question of picnic day at Cairns was raised by the employers on the15th October, 1931, in view of the fact that for many years this holiday had been observed during the busy season and resulted in inconvenience to shipping. An effort was made to induce the union to agree to a day which would notcause inconvenience, without success. The matte; was then referredto the Industrial Magis trate, as a board of reference, on the 5th December, 1930, who, after hearing the parties directed that the picnic day should be observed on a day during the months of February March, April or May in each year, such day to be mutually agreed upon.
The union lodged an appeal to the Federal Court against this decision, and, although approached by the employers to agree upon a day in the months ordered by the Magistrate refused to do so.
The appeal eventually came before Judge Beeby on the 4th June, 1931, who dismissed same.
For the failure of the members of the union at Cairns to attend for picking up on the 3rd August, a. summons was takenout against the Waterside Workers Federation for breach; this summons was heard in Brisbane by Judge Beeby on the 24th August, 1 931 but on an undertaking being given that the Magistrate’s ruling would be observedin future, the Julge would not impose a penalty and decided to hold the matter over until after the 1st August, 1932.
Hobart. 24th February. 1931, Euripides. - Breach of award by men workingat No. 2 hatch, who ceased work, without consent of employers, it consequence of a dispute arisingat No. 5 hatch Secretary instructed all men at shipto knock off. which No. 2 gang did. We prosecuted Terry for stopping work, he was fined £8 0s.6d Secretary Walker also prosecuted for inciting men to stop work - fined £17 12s.6d. 25th March, 1931,Ceramic. - Breach of award by two men. Knox and O’Neill, who refused to transfer from hatch to hatch when ordered, both successfully prosecuted, con, viction recorded against Knox. O’Neill fined £3 14s.6d. 30th April, 1931.Bitter field. - Ship incurred loss of 45 minutes in starting work owing to secretary sending 120 men to the pick up to be re-engaged, although men already mustered at ship in readiness to start work, having been ordered back from previous night. Owing to lack of corroborative evidence did not prose cute. 22ndMay, 1931.Port Campbell. - Although the secretary was informed by the Tasmanian Stevedoring Company that it intended topick up at 9 a.m.be ordered men who had worked at ship the previous day. and were discharged when the job was finished, to return to ship at 8 a.m., claiming payment for them from that hour, as men turned to at 8.45 a.m. payment wasmade from 8.30 only.
Newcastle.
Breach still being committed by the local branch of the Waterside Workers Federation in rostering out of the labour, which, by the way. are being sent out from shed in still smaller numbers, causing us to keep on requesting for more men to complete requirements. port ADELAIDE. 20th July, 1931, City of Tokio. - Company came in contact with delegates. 23rd July, 1081,R.M.S.Orama. - Company came in contact with delegates.Men refused to work smoke-oh. 30th July, 1931, K.M.S.Mooltan. - Company came in contact with delegates. 30th July, 1931. S.S. Time. - Company came in contact with delegates. 13th August, 1931. K.M.S. Chitral.- Men refused to work meal hour. 14th August, 1931, M.S. Mundalla. - Company came in contact with delegates. 17th August, 1931, S.S. Tancali- Men refused to work smoke-oh and meal hour. 19th August, 1931, S.S. Marceba. - Men refused to work smoke-oh. 27th August, 1931, R.M.S. Maloja.- Men refused to work dinner hour.
Wallaroo. 13th January, 1931, City of Hankoir. - Three gangs were discharged on account of rain. At 1 p.m. they were advised if the weather cleared up before 3 p.m. work would be resumed. At 2 p.m. labour was calledfor but none was offering. 29th May, 1931. Refusal to work undera foreman. - Waterside Workers Federation advised the South Australian Stevedoring Company that their members were refusi ng to recognize one of the company’s foremen. 10th June, 1931. Refusal to work overtime. - Consequent to the men refusing to work overtime to finish at the Era, on the 10th June, the steamer was delayed until the next day, fourteen hours being lost.
Waterside workers! Prior to the year of betrayal, 1 928, we consistently fought our class enemy on the industrial field.In 1928 we abandoned this policy and followed the lead of class collaboraters the disciples of that impossible doctrine of peace in industry. For three years we have had practical experience of what follows when the Lamb of Labour lays down beside the Lion of Capital in the the sanctuary ofBig Business - Beeby’s Court - our wages, both real and nominal, are lower than those prevalent for many years. In many ways, the owners show us - the producers of their untold wealth- that we count for less with them than the very cargoes we handle. Arrangements are always completed for the adequate shelter of cargoes before they arrive, but we propertyless workers are compelled to stand for hours each day in withering sun in summer and pelting rain in winter. “ Sheds “ for commodities, “ streets “ for the producers of commodities. Each day hundreds of wharfies travel by tram to Cliff-street pickup, and as regularly many of us fail to get work and face the march home, through wind and rain. Midday sees our comrades again on the trams bound for the slave market, and too often faced with the similar result of the morning. Walk, walk, walk, when we want work, work, work. Think of the waste time and energy involved in this despicable method of rubbing our noses in the industrial dirt. It is time to take a stand for the one pick-up and our other immediate demands on a class basis.
They then go on to indicate their immediate demands in these terms -
Immediate Demands
I do not know what they are- tohave any voice in the conduct of the struggle or negotiations of any sort. On a mass meeting being called we must immediately -
Organize a rapid transport forwood, pickets and interception of any attempts at scabbery. Ships must be visited by speakers in order to sec that the crews elect militants to the strike committee. This ensures cooperation between seamen and watersiders. Send speakers to the unemployed to draw them into the struggle by fighting for their demands as follows: -
Workers! Demand the right to hold meetings in the street and Town Hall to put the case for workers’ demands to the general public.
Workers! Unite against all cuts of wages and conditions against imperialism towards a worker and farmers’ government.
Read theRed Leader organ of the Militant Minority Movement.
Here is the fruit of these teachings -
Breaches of award and irritation tactics by members of the Waterside Workers Federation at Western Australian ports, from 1st January, 1931 - 4th May, 1931 - Work on LabourDay. - The union on the 12th April, decided that no work should be performed on Labour Day, although large quantities of apples were required to be shipped by vessels calling at
Fremantle on that day. As a result, the Orient line steamer U tran to cancelled all loading, and the J’. & 0. Branch vessel Hatta ratwas instructed to delay her arrival as work could not be commenced before midnight.
In view of tlie urgent need to increase the export of our surplus products so us to redress our unfavorable trade balance, and because these men deliberately prevented the shipment of those apples, .1 direct particular attention to the following paragraph : -
No proceedings could be taken against iiic union as on representations to Caiibe.ru by it. the Customs .Department refused permits for work.
The Customs Department is actually backing up. this union in its attempt to prevent the exportation of’ these very necessary commodities from Australia.
April, 193.1- Cutting Wheat Bags. - A waterside worker was found cutting wheat bugs with a knife in order to make the stowage better where the carriers in the hold were walking. In view of previous complaints, and in accordance with instructions, the man was instantly dismissed, when the rest of the gung employed in the hold also left the job as a gesture of sympathy. The whole nf the nien concerned were stood down for further employment for approximately three (3) weeks 28th May, 1931 - Interference. Size of Slings. - At the SS. Katoomba- at about 9.30 a.m., the vigilant officer of the union had a snug containing about- fifty (50) bags of rice taken to the shed and weighed, contending it was too large. After weighing the contents of the sling, he took the names of the men in the hold -
Apparently to be dealt with elsewhere -
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.It is an aside by me, and I think the significance of it is obvious to all honorable senators.
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The statement continues 1st .lune, 1931 - Interference. Size of Slings. - At the SS. Arendskerk, the foreman, wl. iiiueii, and mcn in the hold were summoned to appear before the union-
That proves that my aside was amply justified
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Does the Minister doubt that they were?
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The statement continues for making up slings of potash containing more than eleven (1.1) lings, lt was later reported that the nien on tlie Katoomba and ihe Aran du If arl,- were brought before the union on the 7th June and cautioned. 2Sth July, 1931 - Interference. Size of Slings. - At the SS. Aldinga, the vigilant officer of the union instructed the men in thu hold not to put more than eleven (II) bags of raw sugar in a sling, the men on occasion having put twelve (12) bags in the sling where necessary to complete the load. ug of a truck. 1 0th August, 1931. - Travelling Time. North Wharf. - As a reported act of retaliation regarding the late arrival of ferries at the North Wharf on finishing work, the union instructed its members not to board ferries before S a.m., instead of boarding in time for the ferries to leave at 7. on a.m., as had been the practice since tlie introduction of lbc Beeby award in IU2S.. A.s a result of this irritation tactics by the time the mcn are on board, it is nearly live (0) minutes past S. before the launches can leave the south side instead of 7.”>o a.m., as previously.
That may be only a matter of ten minutes, but where hundreds of men are concerned, the loss of time in the aggregate i3 considerable. 25th August, 7931 - Interference with Foremen. - The union vigilant officer on this morn ing addressed the foremen and notified them that they were not to engage in the work nl handling cargo, coaling vessels, shifting hulks or take part-time employment, notwithstanding that these duties had been performed where necessary by tlie foremen as part of their work in the past. Just for the time being some of the foremen obeyed this instruction, but’ later notified their employers that they would in future ignore the union’s instructions in this regard.
These statements furnish the clearest proof that this Government, having instigated the Waterside Workers Federation to drive from the wharfs those volunteer workers whose common sense and earnestness had ensured peaceful conditions on the waterfront, the union, al the instance of the so-called Militant Minority Movement. has deliberately adopted a policy of irritation tactics, mid is now resorting to job control, with k disastrous consequences to our export trade. I do not think it is necessary to say any more on the subject, since it has been so fully discussed on other occasions.
. -I cannot imagine why the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) should so persistently bring this matter before the Senate. This morning he quoted extracts from several folios of information supplied to him by the interested parties, the steamship companies, but apparently the gravest offence charged against the waterside workers is that they had refused to work in “ smoko “ time. Surely that is not so serious that the right honorable gentleman should make a song about it?
– The Arbitration Court award provides that when necessary to complete the loading of a ship, work shall be continuous.
– Even if it does, not to do so surely is a trivial offence.
– Is not the Minister in favour of arbitration?
– Of course I am. Since these regulations have been in operation, work has been proceeding smoothly and harmoniously at all ports. Nothing has occurred to disturb the shipping companies. If there had been trouble we should have seen it reported in blazing headlines in all the daily newspapers.
– The Minister has not been reading the Queensland newspapers. ‘
– I have seen no report of disputes on the waterfront since these regulations have been in operation, but apparently it suits the Leader of the Opposition to hark back to what happened five years ago ; it suits his purpose to pull the scabs off old sores, and unsettle the minds of the people. I am amazed that he should be so persistent about this matter, but I remind him that if persistence is a virtue the Government has just as much right to be persistent in the maintenance of its industrial policy. I suppose we shall have this trouble over the regulations until next elections, because obviously it is the intention of the Opposition to raise all these old ghosts of the past and when next we appeal to the people doubtless these dead-sea captains will be paraded in the interests of Opposition candidates.
– Surely the Minister does not suggest that the statement read by the Leader of the Opposition is entirely false?
– I do not know, but I believe that the complaints of the shipowners are very greatly exaggerated. One would think that to refuse to work during “ smoko “ time was as serious as a bank “hold-up”. However, I do not propose to waste the time of the Senate in discussing this motion. The right honorable the Leader of the Opposition has the numbers.
. -I am surprised that the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) should again raise this issue, which has been discussed on so many occasions in the Senate. He knows that if the Senate disallows the present regulations, the Attorney-General (Mr. Brennan) will draft a new set.
– And take a car to Yarralumla.
– By virtue of his office, he is entitled to do that in pursuance of the Government’s policy, and the new regulations will be gazetted without delay. I do not say that all the complaints contained in the statement read by the Leader of the Opposition are absolutely false, but up to the present no member of the Senate other than Senator Pearce has seen the document, and so is not in a position to pass judgment. It appears to me that, simply because, during wet weather or for other reasons, the waterside workers ceased work on a number of occasions, the shipowners have addressed a number of unnecessary complaints to the Leader of the Opposition. The waterside workers are working in harmony in every port of Australia to-day; but it is evidently the purpose of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), just when the prices of wool and wheat are increasing, to throw a spanner into the works and start a vast industrial blaze on the waterfront. No one knows the waterside workers better than I do. They are as reliable a body of citizens as any other section of the community; they are respected, and, through their unions, have taken a prominent place in the development of Australia. Trade Unionism has played just as active a part as capitalism in the development of the Commonwealth. I do not wish to set myself up as a censor of Senator Pearce’s utterances, because I have no means of telling whetherthe statements he has submitted are true or otherwise - I have not had the opportunity to peruse the document from which he has quoted - but I think it only fair that a select committee should be appointed to investigate them, and say whether the statements they contain are true or not.I ask leave to continue my remarks.
Leave not granted.
– I thought the “Ayes” were easily in the majority.
– One dissentient voice refuses leave.
– I do not propose to labour the question, because it has been threshed out so often in this chamber; but, if the Leader of the Opposition is sincere - andI do not challenge his sincerity - he will giveevery honorable senator an opportunity to peruse the documents that have been furnished to him for the purpose of assailing members of the Waterside Workers Federation. I desire to move -
That the charges made by Senator Sir
GeorgePearce be laid on the table of the
Senate until a select committee has had an opportunity to investigate them.
– The honorable senator can always move that a document quoted by another honorable senator be laid on the table.
– I have no objection to laying the papers on the table as soon as they are returned from Hansard.
Motion (by Senator Dunn) proposed -
That the document quoted by Senator Sir George Pearce in the course of his speech be laid on the table.
. -I regret that the usual courtesy, which is extended to honorable senators when they advance good reason for asking leave to continue their remarks, was not conceded to Senator Dunn. The only argument advanced by Senator Pearce was, in effect, “I have a document which is clear proof of the misuse by the members of the Waterside Workers Federation of certain concessions granted to them by this Government.” My conception of the law is that an ex parte statement is never accepted. When, therefore, evidence is produced which honorable senators - on this side of the chamber have had no opportunity of checking, surely it is not unreasonable on our part to ask foran opportunity to check it. I am not challenging the bona fides of Senator Pearce; I believe that the statements he made were obtained by him in a perfectly bona fide manner; but, unquestionably, they are those of a vitriolic opponent of the policy which this Government desires to pursue on the waterfront. If the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) is preparedto allow this matter to rest upon proof - I object to the word “ proof “ in relation to the document - which ho has produced, then, under the ordinary principles ofBritish justice, an opportunity should be conceded to the members of the Waterside Workers Federation to rebut it.
– The statements sound true enough.
– They would sound true enough to a prejudiced or biased jury, but. what I object to is that the Lender of the Opposition has placed in Hansard, evidence obtained from an admitted partisan, and has claimed that it is “ proof.”
– Is it not proof to the extent that the documents contain the records of the courts of the country?
– The honorable senator either did not listen to the Leader of the Opposition or misunderstood what he read. His statement did not purport to contain the records of the courts of the country.
– Portion of it did.
-But how much of the actual records of the courts?
– It mentioned fines inflicted and the cases adjudicated upon.
– But it did “not mention the circumstances under which the fines may have been inflicted.
– The verdict of the court was given.
– But it did noi state whether it was’ a fine for a technical or a serious breach of the law. A man may have committed a technical breach of the motor laws, and evidence may have been submitted to us that he had been fined £2 for excessive speed, but that would not be proof that, he was not fitted to drive a motor car.
– The waterside workers have not been accused of excessive speeding!
– When we get down to the bottom of this question, we find that what is really expected of the waterside workers is excessive speeding.
– I ask honorable senators to allow Senator Daly to proceed without interruption.
– How many honorable senators who heard Senator Pearce can say that they memorized the whole of the statement upon which he relied? To do or 10 omit to do certain things, such as to place twelve bags in a sling, may be a breach of an award, but we should have an opportunity to study the documents for ourselves. The Senate i3 rightly always proclaiming its dignity; but that, dignity cannot be maintained if the ordinary rules of law are to be jettisoned. Honorable senators should not have opposed ihe very reasonable request of Senator Dunn for an opportunity to inspect, the documents. The Leader of the Opposition, having the numbers behind him, can dictate when the debate shall be resumed, and in order to gain some measure of justice for the Waterside Workers Federation I appeal to him that I be granted leave to continue my remarks.
Leave not granted.
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [12.11]. - In accordance with tlie motion of the Senate, I lay on the table the documents quoted by me. .Senator Greene. - I rise to a point of order. I take it that no motion was put from the Chair that these documents be tabled, and that, under Standing Order 364, such a motion must be submitted immediately ‘ after the honorable senator, who has quoted the documents, resumes his seat, and at no other time.
– Of what is the honorable senator afraid ?
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Nothing at all.
– I om certainly under the impression that the motion was put from the Chair. I went so far as to advise the honorable senator when he was in doubt as to the form in which to submit his motion. The Leader of the Opposition did not offer any objection to laying the document on the table.
– I should not lui ve risen but for the action of Senator Daly in trying to draw a red herring across the trail. The honorable senator has tried to make it appear that the Leader of the Opposition has moved for the disallowance of the regulation, because lie has received n communication from the Steamship Owners Association, which sets out the number of offences committed by the members of the Waterside Workers Union since the Government adopted the practice of gazetting new regulations immediately the existing regulations had been set aside by
I be Senate. The honorable senator knows very well that that is not the reason why the motion has been moved. It suits Senator Daly to make it. appear that that is the reason; but he cannot bluff me or other honorable senators, nor can he bluff the people of Australia in that way. L have had enough of this kind of thing. Let it bo said definitely why these regulations are being di-allowed.
– Yes; let, us be honest about it.
– If the honorable senator would try to copy us in that respect he would show considerable improvement. I support the motion for the disallowance of the regulations, because if they remain in operation they will inflict a grave injustice- upon the section of the waterside workers, which has been responsible for the preservation of peace on our waterfront for a number of years. By means of these regulations these mcn are being persecuted and crucified. They are being refused employment on the waterfront. I resent the action of the Government more to-day than ever I did in persistently recasting regulations which have been disallowed by the Senate, and in continuing the persecution of the men to whom 1 have referred.
– This represents the fifteenth, or it may be the twentieth or thirtieth attempt of the Government - I have really lost count - to justify its action in assisting certain wharf labourers to break the law of this country - and the labour law at that. These regulations might be termed, “ the Lawbreakers’ Charter.” They are purely and simply an invitation to break the awards of the Arbitration Court. The Government is aiding and abetting the wharf labourers to break the law. I am amazed at the attitude adopted by Senator Dunn and Senator Daly. -This must be the first time in their lives that they have been stuck for words. That such great talkers should ask leave to continue their remarks must surely be one of the most surprising things that have happened in the Senate in the last 2f> years. Senator Dunn was not stuck for a word a few weeks ago when he was lashing the Government so fiercely. I have no doubt that Senator Daly would have been glad at that time had Senator Dunn desired leave to continue hi3 remarks; but on this occasion the two honorable gentlemen are making common cause in suing for time. Why? Simply to perpetuate the miserable farce. I appeal to the Government to drop this humbug and to cease attempting to bloster up a section of workers which it must know in its heart of hearts is not friendly towards it. These men are rebelling against the laws of this country. They are not the friends of the workers, nor are they the friends of this Government or of Australia. I have heard it said in this chamber before now, that these very men spoilt any prospects that certain Labour candidates might have had at past elections of being returned to this Parliament. And why? The answer is very simple - because they have been deliberately guilty of unsocial acts and have inflicted injury on society and innocent people. Why, therefore, should the Government bo wasting its own time and the time of the Senate in gazetting such regulations as those we are now resisting? The very men whom it desires to protect, are the enemies of the Labour party in power, yet’ the Government is attempting to assist them to defeat the labour laws of this country. Though these men have no real sympathy with this Government, they seem to be able to obtain assistance from it, while the obedient, loyal and law-abiding workers get no sympathy whatever. These wharf labourers, whom it is desired to protect, are blatant, over-bearing, overmastering, disloyalists; they are a mere remnant who wish to control all the work on the waterfront. There was a time when they could hot be organized to resist a real wrong, and go on a justified strike, and now the beggars cannot be stopped from striking. I know it, because they took my place. I wonder how the Leader of the Senate would act if he had a large consignment of fruit lying in the sun -on the wharf at Fremantle, after having been taken from cold storage. Would he then do anything to aid the waterside workers who refused to handle his produce? That is exactly what these men are doing, and the Government is aiding and abetting them in their endeavour to prevent urgent work being done. In my opinion, no law of this country should stop a man from working, even on Sundays, when work is vitally necessary, in order to preserve the food that God Almighty has given us. Yet the Government is helping these idle, good-for-nothing wharf labourers to stick up the transport services of this country and ruin, not only many of the producers, but many of their own class. It has been said that these men objected to working on Labour Day. Labour Day be hanged ! I ask Senator Barnes whether, if he had an ox in a ditch on Labour Day, he would decline to do anything to rescue it. Producers throughout the country send the fruits of their labours to the seaboard for shipment. They work hard for twelve long months only to find that when their produce is at a very critical stage and requires storage iu refrigerators, it is left, to be destroyed by the burning sun on a wharf. If the fruit belonged to these wharf labourers they would act very differently. They should have some regard for their poor fellows who work hard from daylight to dark, from sunrise to sunset, in order to prepare their produce for shipment to the world’s markets. It is deplorable that at, a vital moment a few wharf labourers should be allowed to destroy the fruits of twelve months’ hard toil.
– They are not workers, but shirkers.
– The producers are not protected by Arbitration Court awards, and the like, but have to struggle against competition in world markets. The men who work at the seaboard have special conditions of employment. Twelve bags of sugar may not be put in a sling ! A few good bushmen could carry twelve bags of sugar on their backs, yet. if they are put in a sling, and an engine lifts them, it is unlawful, and may cause a strike.Is it any wonder that Australia cannot pay her way? Is it any wonder that there is disorder and misery in this country? 1 should like to take some of these wharf labourers and put them on a “cocky” farm, where they would have to work industriously for a year and make that farm pay. That would change their outlook, and make different citizens of them. At present they occupy a strategic position, which enables them to hold up the commerce of this country, and the Government has issued regulation after regulation to assist them in such unfair, unpatriotic and destructive conduct. Comrades! They do not know what the word means ! They should be made to live for a while like the poor devils who produce the goods which they allow to perish in the sun. In the interests of fair play and natural justice, I support the motion. Is this a time when broken bottles and broken bricks should be employed as the weapon of one class against another? In these days we should be working together. Even at this late hour [ appeal to the Government to cease this make-believe and humbug, and to take some steps which will put these people in their proper place. At present they art? not only ruining the workers’ cause, but they are also ruining this unfortunate country, and the Government as well - though perhaps it is already ruined.
Motion (by Senator Greene) put -
That the Senate do now divide.
The Senate divided. (The President - Hon. W. Kingsmill.)
AYES: 16
NOES: 5
Majority . . 11
AYES
NOES
Question so resolvedin the affirmative.
Question- That the original motion be agreed to - put. The Senate divided.
AYES: 17
NOES: 5
Majority . .12
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
page 783
Motion (by Senator Sir Hal colebatch) agreed to -
That leave be given to introduce a bill lor an act to amend the Rules Publication Act 1903-1916.
Bill brought up, and read afirst time.
page 784
(No. 2).
Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives, and (on motion by Senator Barnes) read a first time.
page 784
Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Barnes) read a first time.
page 784
Bill read a third time.
page 784
Bill read a third time.
page 784
Debate resumed from the 14th October (vide page 703), on motion by Senator
Barnes -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m..
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Amendment of definition of “flax”).
Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [2.15]. - At the secondreading stage of this bill I asked the Minister whether the intention was to pay a bounty for the doing of something less than was contemplated when the original act was passed. It seems obvious to me that one of two things has happened: Either the intention is to pay a bounty for less than was previously intended; or, the two Houses of this Parliament very solemnly did what was contrary to their intention at the time. I find it rather difficult to believe that the latter of these two things happened, because the proposal was debated very hotly both here and in another place, there was a division on it, and the Minister in another place certainly assured the House that the bill had been drafted only as the result of lengthy conferences between all the interests involved. I find it rather difficult to imagine that after those lengthy conferences had been held a measure was presented to this Parliament meaning something that was entirely contrary to what; was intended.
I thank the Minister for having kindly forwarded to me a statement covering this matter. That statement, however, leaves one or two points not at all clear to my mind. It suggests that when the act was drafted it was believed that the present definition covered the flax of commerce as produced in the Australian mills. I take that to mean “ as produced in the Australian mills at that time.” But that was not the intention. If honorable senators will read the report of the Tariff Board in relation to the flax bounty, they will find in it references to the evidence of those who advocated the bounty, and in particular that of Norman C. Grigg, director and manager of the Drysdale Flax Company Proprietary Limited. That gentleman made it quite clear that what the mills were doing at that time was not sufficient, and that it was not to continue. In another portion of the statement that has been supplied to me I am informed - it was definitely the intention to pay the bounty on the class of flax which was being commercially produced in Australia by the mills. . . .
If the intention was to pay the bounty on the class of flax now being produced, well and good. The statement that the intention was to pay it on the class of flax then being produced is, I believe, inaccurate. The witness before the Tariff Board to whom I have referred, said that one of the purposes of the bounty was to finance the cost of four breaking or decorticating machines, the idea underlying the installation of those machines being that a morefinished article than was being turned out at the time would be produced.
Although I opposed the measure which granted this bounty, and still consider that the bounty ought not to be paid, it is not my intention, by a side issue, to try to defeat the intention that Parliament expressed. If I am assured by the Minister that these flax manufacturing companies have done what they undertook to do in the way of importing additional machinery so as to turn out a more finished article than they were turning out before, and that it is merely proposed to give effect to what was intended, I shall have nothing further to say. If, on the other hand, the intention is to enable the advocates of the bounty to refrain from doing what they undertook to do, and to be given something for which they did not ask, the committee should not agree to it.
– The whole purpose of the bill, as I understand it, is to enable a bounty to be paid. It was discovered that in the act the wrong technical term was used to describe the manufacture of the flax fibre, and the intention is to correct that error.
– Have the importers installed the additional machinery?
– I understand that they have not done so. The other day the honorable senator inquired regarding the quantity and quality of the flax grown in Australia.I n a speech that I delivered on this subject last. July, I said -
The Tariff Board has estimated that 150,000 acres offlax plant would require to be cultivated each year to provide the 23,000 tons of linseed now processed in Australia by manufacturers of linseed oil, linseed meal, oil cakes, &c. Flax-growing is best carried on in a three-year rotation crop. Therefore, under ideal conditions 450,000 acres of suitable flax country is necessary, and the 300,000 acres not required for flux in any given year could be used for other crops. The estimated areas of suitable land forflax -growing are: Victoria, 100,000 acres; South Australia, 367,000 acres: Tasmania, 180,000 acres; Western Australia, no definite area supplied.
Although there has been development since that date, I am not in a position to inform the Senate of the extent of it. This is a harmless proposition to alter the technical term from “combed” to “ scutched “.
– What is the difference?
– It is a technical one. Apparently, the department originally believed that it was a common practice for the Australian flax mills to carry the process of manufacture to the stage of combing. That has since been found not to be the case. The proposal now is to so amend the definition that those who are endeavouring to establish an industry in this country will be able to participate in the bounty. There is no catch in it, and nothing controversial about it; therefore the committee ought not to waste further time on it.
Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia.) [2.24]. - I resent the suggestion that honorable senators are trying to waste the time of the committee. We are entitled to know what we are doing. I, for one, shall decline to take any step without knowing what I am doing. The Minister has confessed his’ inability to explain what we are doing. We have no report of the Tariff Board to guide us as to whether this alteration should or should not be made. The only report of that body which dealt with the subject laid it down that the bounty should be offered for a certain purpose, and that was the installation of particular machinery that would enable the manufacture of flax to be carried a further stage. I ask the Minister the simple question: Have these people installed the machinery to do that extra work?If they have, I have nothing further to say; but, if they have not, we should not agree to this amendment.
– The time of honorable senators might be saved if they really appreciated what the Government had in mind when it introduced this amendment. According to the instructions that I have received from the Customs Department, when the bill was originally drafted the intention was to grant a bounty upon flax production. The method by which the flax was produced was referred to a technical adviser, who supplied the term “combing”. Subsequently, however, it was discovered that the technical term applicable to the Australian manufacture of flax was “scutching”, and that whatever combing was clone after the scutching, was carried out by other manufacturers.
– They are two different processes.
– Exactly. If a mistake has been made, it was made originally by the acceptance by the departmental officers of the technical term supplied by the expert whose opinion was sought, and its adoption by this and another place.
– Will this involve the Government in increased expenditure?
– No.
– Can the Minister tell us whether the machinery that it was intended to install was for combing or scutching?
– I am advised that this amendment goes no further than to make clear what Parliament intended to express in the first place, and that the machinery referred to by Senator Colebatch is for use in the scutching process. It is necessary to make this amendment in order to meet the requirements of the certificates that of necessity have to be furnished to the Auditor-General.
– The point raised by Senator Colebatch, as to whether the machines to which he has referred are combing machines, is explained when one realizes what they are supposed to do. They are decorticating machines. The technical term “decorticating” simply means removing the outer husk. Honorable senators know that in the production of flax the first process after cutting is retting, and that the next is scutching, which is simply removing the outer husk of the stalk and leaving the fibre bare of all waste material.
– What does combing do?
– Combing is the first process in the manufacture of the flax for the three processes of manufacture after it has been scutched. In certain classes of manufacture, no combing takes place. I have no doubt that the word “ combed “ was inserted in the act inadvertently, and that this measure merely carries out the intention of Parliament.
– That is to say, combing is not a proper thing for the producer of the flax to undertake ?
– If he were to put in the necessary machinery and comb the flax after it had been decorticated, he would then leave it in a condition in which it would not be suitable for certain processes of manufacture. So far asI know. it is unwise to carry the process further than is actually necessary. The scutching process leaves the actual fibre upon which the bounty is to be paid in a state desired by the market. I think that. in the circumstances, the Senate can rest assured that the bounty will be paid only upon the pure flax, as intended by Parliament. Whether or not these people have put in these special machines mentioned when the Tariff Board’s investigation was in progress I do not know, but I assume that the Customs Department is satisfied that the flax upon which a bounty will be paid will he clean fibre. Consequently the Government will not be called upon to provide for a greater amount than originally intended by Parliament.
.- The explanation just given by Senator Greene should be acceptable to all honorable senators. When I was in England a few years ago, I took some interest in this subject. I have in my hand the prospectus of a British company that was floated at about that time. This prospectus gives a detailed description of the entire process, and I can find in it no reference to the process of combing, but there is mention of retting, scutching and degumming. The scutching process, as we understand it, has been, so some extent, superseded by a process which renders unnecessary the use of scutching machinery. The scutching process produces the raw material for the textile machinery, but there are other processes. I also have a sample of flax treated by the method which has been substituted for retting. As honorable senators will notice, all the straw is broken, and the fibre is in a condition ready for utilization by textile machinery. I understand that this raw material has to undergo two or three processes, one of which is degumming, after which the fibre is in a perfectly clean condition. 1 believe that the amendment of the act is desirable, because the combing process is not now necessary.
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
page 786
.- I move-
That the bill be now read a second time.
This measure reduces the number of members on the Committee of Public Accounts from ten to seven, as it is believed that the smaller body will be* less unwieldy and quite competent to perform its functions efficiently. As it is desirable that appointments to the committee be made from both Houses of the Parliament, and that the various parties be represented thereon, it does not seem practicable to reduce the membership below seven.
– Is there provision for representation of the Beasley group?
– No doubt members of that party will be given an opportunity to secure representation. The existing committee has an inquiry in hand and it is proposed to defer the commencement of the act until that investigation has been completed. The proposed allocation of representation between the Senate and the House of Representatives is that two members be appointed from the Senate and the balance from the House of Representatives.
– Is it intended to reduce the amount of money to be allocated for the use of the committee?
– In all probability that will be done, because the Government is doing everything possible, having regard to efficiency, to cut down expenditure in every direction.
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [2.40]. - I rise to suggest to the Government that, in view of the unsatisfactory state of the Commonwealth finances, and the fact that, as no public works are in progress there can be no work for the Public Works Committee, at all events, the Government should suspend the operation of both the parliamentary standing committees. Since their establishment both committees have exercised a useful check upon public expenditure, but I contend that just now there is a very good reason for their suspension. I do not suggest that the acts under which they were established should be repealed, but both committees might, with advantage, be suspended for the time being. I do not know whether this is necessary, because, apparently, there is power in the act under which the Public Accounts Committee was ap pointed, for that body to undertake inquiries of its own volition. Therefore, if money is made available the committee, will, no doubt, pursue its inquiries. This is not a personal matter, because under this amending bill present members will cease to hold, ‘office, and there will have to be new appointments. As the Commonwealth Government is working on an overdraft, extended to the very limits of the resources of the Commonwealth Bank and the private banks, this is a time when we should cease the expenditure of public money on such committees.
– Why not abolish them altogether?
– I do not suggest that, but I do urge that their operations be suspended for the present. When times become normal again, no doubt public works proposals will be brought before Parliament and the Public Works Committee could then be instructed to function again, and for the same reason, the Public Accounts Committee could be authorized to resume its investigations. But, as I have said, at the moment, there are no works in progress and the financial position of the Commonwealth is so desperate, notwithstanding the recent improvement, which may not be maintained, that Parliament might very well set an example and economize in the expenditure upon these committees. I do not wish to vote against the bill because I am in favour of a reduction of the number of members. I never approved of a Public Accounts Committee of ten members. I believe that the number might be reduced still further than is contemplated in this bill. In my opinion, a committee of five would_ be more workable and. satisfactory than a committee of seven. If the Government desires to pass the bill, I do not wish to oppose it, but the Minister might give Parliament an assurance, of, if necessary, insert a provision to suspend the operation of both these committees for at least, twelve months. At the end of that time, if the Commonwealth is in a better financial position, they can be asked to function again. I put this suggestion forward in all seriousness and urge its adoption by the Government.
– Ou this question 1. find myself in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce). From time to time, the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) has made repeated statements about the parlous condition of the Commonwealth, and about the need for economy, and has said that tlie Government will not stand for any waste. At Premiers conferences, he and the Commonwealth Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) have proclaimed to the world that, there must be a balancing of budgets in Australia, that governmental expenditure is too great, and that all Australians must’ get together to try to do something to rehabilitate the finances of the country. When I was working as an artisan i.n a government dockyard I had several opportunities to see members of the Commonwealth Public Accounts Committee and Commonwealth Public Works Committee paying visits to that establishment. The other day, in conversation with a senator who has had a long and honorable career, ] learned that, at one time, tlie Public Works Committee had under investigation a proposal to build an underground railway station at Civic Centre, in Canberra. Paney an underground station in Canberra! The committee very rightly threw out the proposal. The engineer who put it forward must have been a fit candidate for a lunatic asylum. Whilst the country is in a desperate condition, we must seize every opportunity to avoid unnecessary expenditure, and I, therefore, agree with the suggestion that the membership of the Public Accounts Committee and Public Works Committee should be reduced to five. I am also in accord with the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that both committees should be suspended for the time being, and, if any amendment is moved in committee with that end in view, I shall support it.
Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [2.47]. - I do not intend to offer any opposition to the second reading of the bill; but, if it gets into committee, it is my purpose to move for the insertion of a new clause which will have the effect of repealing section 8 of the principal act. ~ The Public Accounts Committee was set up in .1918: hut, at that time, no provision was made for payment to members of tlie committee. In 1920, however, an amending bill was introduced in which provision was made for the payment of an allowance of 30s. a day to the chairman of the committee, and an allowance of 25s. a day to members of. tlie committee by way of travelling expenses. I question very much if that amendment was justified. Its continuance at the present time is certainly not justified. I see no purpose in having a public accounts committee to travel about the Commonwealth, and 1 ask honorable senators to recall the more recent activities of the committee which have occasioned it to travel. I do not wish my remarks to be taken as any reflection on the members of the committee themselves. They were doing what they were asked to do, but, in my opinion, improperly asked to do. The. first was an inquiry into the claim of certain broadcasting companies. Could there possibly be any tribunal less fitted for the discharge of such a duty than a number of members of Parliament? To their credit, the members of the committee did not make a report. They probably realized how improper it was that they should have been asked to go into the matter at all. Their next inquiry was into the disabilities of certain States. Again, I say that there could not be a less fitting tribunal than the Public Accounts Committee for making such inquiries. Yet these are the kinds of investigation which are said to justify the payment of expenses. If section S is omitted, we shall still have the services of the Public Accounts Committee. No doubt, if work can be done in Canberra, the members of the committee will devote their time to it as members do on other committees in both Houses. But, in present circumstances, to continue the system under which allowances are paid, and under which the committee travels about Australia doing things it should not be asked to do, is, in my opinon, inexcusable.
– I rather agree with the proposal of the Government to reduce the numerical strength of the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Works Committee; but I do not think we should take the retrograde step of suspending them or doing away with them. As every one knows, there has been a crying need in Australia that, if public money is to be spent, some one should sec that it, is wisely and judiciously spent, and the only way in which that can be done is to remove, as far as is humanly possible, the element of party politics. After a long period of looking on and making up of minds, the idea was hit upon in certain of the States, and copied by the Commonwealth, that the only way of lessening the influence of party politics, and particularly ministerial influence, was to set up some body on which every party could he represented. That was the genesis of the Public Works Committee and the Public Accounts Committee now under discussion.
– The Senate is now discussing tha Committee of Public Accounts Bill only.
– The only flaw in the constitution of the Public Accounts Committee is that it. has too much of a free hand to wander about the Commonwealth. 1 do not say that disrespectfully, but it may choose any subject it likes to investigate. It would be wise, I think, to curtail its activities in that respect, and confine its investigations to matters submitted to it by the Government, or by a resolution of Parliament. But. to be quite frank, I think we have noticed in the past that the Public Accounts Committee has simply said to itself, “We shall inquire into so and so”. It might be in regard to a matter in a geographically remote part, of the Commonwealth, although there might not be sufficient warrant for inquiry in the public interest. T think,, if the act were amended in the direction I suggest, it would be in the interests of the public. Generally speaking, however, the work done by the Public Accounts Committee has been for the good of Australia. It has certainly brought, to light many things that sadly needed to be brought to light, and which when brought out Ivy the exertions of the committee, caused an early remedying of things that, would never otherwise have taken place. It would, therefore, be a backward step to abolish this committee.
I conic now to the proposal of the Government to reduce still more the margin of influence that remains to the Senate in the constitution of thu Public Accounts Committee. We know that, in the very nature of things, so far as numerical strength goes, this chamber cannot be equal to the other, but so far as the moulding and shaping of public, policy in Australia are concerned, the Senate is, with the singular exception of its power over administration and finance, co-equal in all respects with the other chamber. We have now before us a proposal to reduce the influence and representation of the Senate on the Public Accounts Committee to even less than it has been. If we believe that the Senate, should be on an equal footing with the other chamber, here is an opportunity to make it so. I protest once more against these repeated attempts on the part, not only of ill-informed critics outside, but also of responsible political parties in this country to undermine the importance, good name and standing of
I his chamber, which, I venture to say. is the custodian and palladium of public well-being in Australia to-day. When it is proposed to reduce the Senate to a secondary and negligible position, it. is high time we direct attention to the necessity for a halt, and for the need to put (his chamber, so far as representation on these public bodies is concerned, on a proper proportionate footing, and not on such a footing as the bill proposes. Why are we always so slighted? There is more intelligence devoted to the consideration of public questions in this chamber than in any other body in the land. For the last. 25 years, I have been persistently objecting to the consistentefforts that have been made to belittle the Senate. “ Ye shall know them by their fruits.” I remember this chamber saving the situation when another chamber failed to do it. I can remember it being a more thorough and more accurate reflection of public opinion than the other chamber has ever been. It ill-becomes any party to undermine, belittle or lower in public estimation an institution like the Senate which springs from the loins of the people, which is the lifeblood of the democracy of Australia; which is chosen in a manner like no other cham ber is chosen. I hope at this eleventh hour the Government will withdraw the bill and give the Senate half the representation on the Public Accounts Committee. I ask honorable senators not to allow the proportion of Senate representation on the committee to be less than it was under the act now proposed to be amended.
– The proportion is the same under this bill as it is at present.
– The arithmetic that I learned at school was probably just as good as that learned by the honorable senator; but it will not give me the result he has obtained. According to my reckoning, there is a difference of one-seventieth.
– That is so.
– That bears out my point. I enter my protest against the reduction in the already too small representation of the Senate on this committee. I want to see fair play for the Senate. This chamber is truly the people’s chamber. It is equal in ability, and in truly democratic representation to any House of Paliament in the whole world, although some people in Australia very often forget it. The Senate was brought into existence by the exercise of the suffrages of the whole people, but there are many alleged democrats in Australia, and some of them associated with this Government, who do not know this. I object to any reduction in the representation of the Senate.
– I hope that the Senate will accept the proposals contained in this bill, which has been introduced by the Government in the interests of economy, and for the purpose of maintaining two parliamentary committees, which are, in my opinion, very desirable institutions. 1 have had a considerable experience of the work of these committees. Some honorable senators seem to take the view that in times of financial stress we should suspend the operations of the Public Accounts Committee. As was properly pointed out by Senator Pearce, the present members of these two committees can speak with absolute freedom on this subject, because if the bills are passed their term of service will be ended, and new committees will be appointed. The honorable senators who are at present members of the committees may, therefore, speak without laying themselves open to the charge that they are looking after their own interests. It would be a retrograde step, as was properly pointed out by Senator Lynch, to abolish the Public Accounts Committee, or to suspend its work. If there was ever a time in the history of the Commonwealth when a proper scrutiny of public accounts was necessary, it is now. Had the Public Accounts Committee been permitted by the governments of the past to discharge its main function, namely, the examination of the public accounts of the Commonwealth, our financial position would not be as serious as it is. It would not be wise to take away the measure of control which the Public Accounts Committee is undoubtedly able to exercise over public expenditure. The tendency in all the Parliaments of the British Dominions is,to throw more responsibility on parliamentary committees rather than to take any away from them. Only last year the Senate, on motion by Senator R. D. Elliott, affirmed the principle of appointing standing committees to consider and report upon certain aspects of regulations, and other matters submitted to it. One honorable senator who has expressed some diffidence about the wisdom of maintaining the Public Accounts Committee was, I believe, very favorable to Senator B. D. Elliott’s proposal. In seeking to increase rather than reduce the responsibilities of parliamentary committees the Parliaments of the Dominions are following the example of . the Imperial Parliament. A British Public Accounts Committee has been in existence since 1860, and has functioned along much the same lines and exercised much the same authority as the Commonwealth Public Accounts Committee. An eminent authority, Colonel Durell, in a notable volume which he has published on the financial system of Great Britain, refers on nearly every page of his book to the good work done by the British Public Accounts Committee in scrutinizing the expenditure of public money. Time after time he commends the committee for its work. He makes it very clear that parliamentary control of the national purse of Great Britain has been immeasurably strengthened by the work of the British Public Accounts Committee.
Tlie Commonwealth Public Accounts Committee is at present engaged in an inquiry referred to by the Leader of the Government (Senator Barnes) into the form and manner of presenting tlie Commonwealth Estimates, and it is proposed that it shall bc allowed to complete this work before the proclamation of this measure. That inquiry is being conducted at Canberra, and at very little expense, because members only hold meetings when they are able to devote a reasonable amount of time to the taking of evidence or the consideration of matters arising out. of the inquiry. This inquiry was initiated by the committee itself. The usefulness of this investigation has been referred to by many, eminent public men. The committee has been fortunate in securing evidence from, or statements by, many leading economists of Australia, including Professors Bland, Giblin, Shann, Hytten, and others. These gentlemen, and the AuditorsGeneral of Victoria and New South Wales, have expressed the opinion that the inquiry should be most serviceable, not only to the Commonwealth, but also to the various State Governments. In initiating inquiries, the committee has always acted judiciously, and I believe that it, always will do so.
Since its inception in 1913 the committee has conducted 37 inquiries, and furnished 50 reports to Parliament. More than 50 per cent, of the inquiries have been made into subjects specially referred to the committee by the various governments or by motions carried in either or both Houses of Parliament. The remainder were initiated by the committee itself. By adopting recommendations made by the committee, very great savings have been made in expenditure. This has been particularly so in relation to inquiries initiated by the committee.
– To which inquiries is the honorable senator specially referring?
– I refer particularly to the inquiry into the operations of the Commonwealth Government Line cif Steamers and to the investigation into the Pacific Island shipping facilities. The committee also made a valuable inquiry into the cost of building in the .Federal Capital Territory. Another important investigation was initiated by the committee into the administration of the War Service Homes Department. By adopting the recommendations that were made by the committee at that time, the government of the day, of which Senator Pearce was an eminent member, effected considerable savings in expenditure. The ‘recommendations made by the committee in its 50 reports to the various governments have been accepted in 30 instances. This shows the confidence of governments, past and present, in the committee.
Reference has been made to the inquiries recently conducted by the committee into the financial disabilities of South Australia and Tasmania, and it has been implied that the investigations were costly. I remind honorable senators that the Government accepted the recommendations of the committee in both those instances, and the Senate, by passing the bills introduced to give effect to those recommendations, showed irs confidence in the committee. The investigations made by the committee have not been costly. In fact, they have been far less costly than similar inquiries made Ivy royal commissions appointed by various governments. In the period from the 1st January, 1923, to the 30th June, 1929, 21 royal commissions were appointed, the total cost to the Commonwealth of their investigations was £107,765, or an average cost of £5,132 per inquiry. An examination of the nature of the work done by those commissions shows that it could well have been done by the Public Accounts Committee at very much less cost. During the same period the Public Accounts Committee conducted sixteen inquiries, at a total cost of £3 9,556, or an average of £1,22-2 per inquiry. I direct the attention of honorable senators to the costs of certain similar inquiries by a royal commission and the Public Accounts Committee. A royal commission made an investigation into the financial disabilities of Western Australia, and the Public Accounts Committee recently inquired into the financial position of South Australia. In both instances the conditions were comparable in regard to the size of the State and to the extent of travelling required. The cost of the inquiry by the royal commission into the affairs of Western Australia was £5,681, and the cost of the investigation by the Public Accounts Committee into South Australia’s disabilities was £1,682.
– That is not a fair comparison, because the salary of the members of the royal commission had to be included in the cost, whereas the salary of the members of Parliament who comprised the Public Accounts Committee did not. have to be taken into account.
– I concede the point of the right honorable senator. In my opinion, that is an additional argument in favour of the retention of the committee.
– The inquiry into the affairs of Western Australia was conducted by independent and unbiased persons, and not by members of Parliament who had local interests.
– The members of the Accounts Committee made their inquiry as part of their parliamentary duties. When travelling is entailed, the fees they receive are insufficient to recoup them for their out of pocket expenses. That is one of the strong reasons why Parliament should retain its standing committees. The investigation by the Development and Migration Commission into the financial and economic position of Tasmania cost £14,973-
– In addition to £103,000 a year to keep it in operation.
– It employed a number of agricultural experts. One was an investigation by technical experts and, therefore, a comparison cannot be made between the cost of the two inquiries.
– The investigation by the Development and Migration Commission cost £14,973, whereas that conducted by the Public Accounts Committee into the disabilities of the same State cost £1.024. As a result of the inquiry by the Development and Migration Commission, recommendations were made, and adopted by the Government of the day, whereby the services of certain technical advisers wore made available to Tasmania to assist in the rehabilitation of that State’s primary industries; but the cost of those services is additional to the £.14.973 which the investigation cost.
-i am sure the honorable senator does not wish to misrepresent the position. That was the subsequent cost and not the actual cost of the inquiry itself.
– The cost of those services to the State was additional to the cost of the inquiry. The services of these technical advisers were available to the commission during the course of the investigation. It will be seen that the weight of evidence is in favour of parliamentary committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee, the constitution of which is being altered by this measure. The committee has not been extravagant ; its work has proceeded with clue caution, and the margin of caution which has characterized its work in the past, will be observed in its future investigations. Moreover, the committee is entirely under the control of this Parliament.Its expenditure is subject to annua] appropriation, which may be refused, reduced or increased when the Estimates are under consideration. Senator Lynch raised the question of the Senate’s representation on the committee. Personally, I would not object to its membership being reduced from seven to five. The committee considered this aspect of the matter prior to the introduction of the bill, with a view to making some recommendations. It has felt for some time that a committee of ten is too large, and has been costing, perhaps, more than was necessary. After giving the matter full consideration it was decided that a committee of seven would be satisfactory. This matter has to be considered from three angles. The committee is not representative of parties, or of either branch of the legislature. It is a committee of Parliament inthe strictest sense of the term.
– But some of the reports are of a partisan nature.
– In order to maintain the balance of representation it was essential that representation should be given to States, to both Houses, and to political groups.
– That would mean a verybig committee.
– No. A committee of seven was suggested in order to give representation on the basis I have suggested. Senator Herbert Hays has suggested that some of the committee’s reports are of a partisan nature. During the two years I have been a member of the committee I can say that the committee’s deliberations have been conducted, evidence has been heard, and reports prepared regardless of party considerations.
-I do not think that that is so.
– I am speaking of what has occurred since I have been a member of the committee. During that time its work has been conducted on strictly non-party lines. That is the atmosphere that makes for success with bodies of this kind, and which must be maintained if the committee is to function in the interests of the Commonwealth. The ratio of representation between this chamber and another place has been maintained so far as possible under this measure. The present committee consists of ten members, three of whom were appointed from this chamber and seven from another place. Under this measure it is proposed to reduce the membership of the committee by approximately 331/3 per cent., and it naturally follows that in orderto maintain the ratio of representation, the Seriate should lose one and the House of Representatives two members. If the basis of representation is wrong the present Government is not responsible, as that basis was established in 1912 when the principal act was passed. The present Government is maintaining the same ratio. The existence of this committee has a corrective influence. It cannot investigate proposed expenditure ; but it can examine the results of expenditure already incurred. That is a strong point made by Durell throughout his book, to which I have already referred. He points out that the Public Accounts Committee in Great Britain has. from time to time, examined expenditure of -previous years, and reported to the British Parliament where, in its opinion, administrative changes would result in a saving of revenue. In scores of instances its recommendations have been adopted by the Treasury. It is hoped that the recommendations which the Public Accounts Committee will make as a result of the inquiry which it is at present conducting will also be adopted. The mere existence of a body which may undertake an investigation into a government’s administrative acts as a check upon the executive. When the Estimates and budget papers are presented to this Parliament there is a general discussion on abstract questions of public finance, and probably 75 per cent. of the time which should be devoted to a discussion of the Government’s financial proposals is occupied in ventilating grievances not directly associated with national finance. The result is that, in the matter of finance we have, more or less, Cabinet oligarchy. The existence of a committee of this nature, appointed by, and responsible to, Parliament, strengthens the hands of Parliament.
– Does the honorable senator suggest that the Public Accounts Committee should report upon the Estimates?
– The Public Accounts Committee of Great Britain, which investigates the result of expenditure incurred, has the assistance of the Controller of Accounts, whose position is similar to that of the Commonwealth Auditor-General, and a high Treasury official. Each year it investigates the result of the expenditure of money voted on the previous year’s estimates.
– After the money has been spent?
– Yes. In that way the committee is able to point out. the weaknesses in the previous year’s system, which can be corrected during the ensuing year. In Great Britain the matter has been carried further, as, in addition to a public accounts committee, an estimates committee has been in operation. That committee, which was first established in 1912, functioned for two years, but at the outbreak of war, which brought about a complete dislocation of the financial systems of Great Britain, its operations were suspended. It was resuscitated in 1925 and is still functioning ; but it has found it. difficult to reconcile its work with the general financial policy of the Government of the clay. It has not, therefore, been the success anticipated. Durell points out that, although the Estimates Committee has not been the success its sponsors anticipated in 1912, its partial failure has thrown into strong relief the complete success of the Public Accounts Committee. I support the bill.
– As mentioned by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Barnes) in introducing the bill, the present members of the Public Accounts Committee are free to discuss this measure regardless of personal considerations, as the present committee is to be disbanded when the act is proclaimed. I support the suggestion that the membership of the committee should be reduced from seven to five. If that were done the Senate could be represented by two and another place by three members. I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted ; debate adjourned.
page 794
Motion (by Senator Barnes) proposed -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday next at 3 p.m.
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.31]. - I do not know whether it is the intention of another place to meet next Tuesday.
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Unless it is, I suggest that some arrangement be made immediately for the transport from Melbourne to Canberra of those honorable senators who wish to return here on that day. From what the President told us this morning, it is obvious thatif some such arrangement be not made those honorable senators willnot reach here until half an hour after midday.
– I have already assured the right honorable gentleman twice that steps will be taken to put on a satisfactory basis the matter to which he has referred.
-I did not know whether you realized, sir, that the necessity for taking such action might arise suddenly.
– I quite realized that.
.- I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to call the Senate together every Tuesday? That arrangement would not be inconvenient to me, but I understand that those honorable senators who come from distant States might find it somewhat difficult to observe. Is it to be understood that the Senate is to sit four days in each week until the tariff has been disposed of?
. - I have ascertained that another place is meeting on Tuesday next.
In reply to Senator Foll, I may say that the number of sitting days will depend upon the progress that is made. We do not wish to remain here for the remainder of the year if that can be avoided. I always consult the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) before making an arrangement of this nature. Quite a number of honorable senators have spoken to me to-day regarding an important function that is to take place in the not distant future, at which they would like to be present. Whatever is the will of honorable senators, will be done. The chief concern of the Government is to have the tariff cleaned off the slate. The harder we work, the sooner that will be done.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 794
Waterside Workers : Information Tabled by Senator Pearce- Importation of Machinery by Adelaide News Limited - Government Savings Bank of New South Wales : Statement by Prime Minister - Paper Pulp Industry:, Establishment in Tasmania.
Motion (by Senator Barnes) proposed -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General, whether it is possible for copies of the documents relating to waterside workers that were placed on the table of the Senate this morning by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) to be supplied to those honorable senators who desire them.
– Some months ago, I referred to the importation of machinery by the Adelaide News Limited. The Minister (Senator Daly) was then good enough to admit that I had proved that considerable hardship had been caused to this particular newspaper company, and that, as a matter of abstract justice, the action of the Government did not appeal to him. On the line of defence adopted the amount charged by way of duty should be refunded. Subsequently, however, there was a complete change of front on the part of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Forde), or the department, and the honorable gentleman promised to have an investigation made to see whether any redress could be afforded. I should like to know what inquiries have been made, and what action it is proposed to take. As I have previously pointed out, the defence of the Minister for Trade and Customs would not be allowed to stand in a court of law. I should be glad to learn whether any relief is to be given to this company.
– I understand that this morning the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) made, in another place, a lengthy and very important statement in relation to certain negotiations that have taken place between the Government Savings Bank of New South Wales, the Government of that State, the Commonwealth Government, and the Commonwealth Bank Hoard. I should like to know from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Barnes) why a similar statement was not made, also, in this chamber. Was it because the Government considered that honorable senators from New South Wales were not interested in this very important matter, which is of such vital concern to the people of New South Wales? Some time ago, upon complaint being made that statements delivered in another place were not repeated in the Senate, we were promised that, in future, the Senate would be given an opportunity of hearing what the Government had to say, and of discussing the matter, if it so desired. I should like to have had an opportunity to make some observations with respect to this matter.
– The statement made in anotherplace was in reply to a question.
– It was a prepared statement, and was made by leave. I. understand that it was promised the day before yesterday. The Government has been guilty of an act of discourtesy towards the Senate by its neglect to have a similar statement read in this chamber. The Senate is representative of the States. This matter vitally affects the relationship of an important State with the Commonwealth Government and the Commonwealth Bank Board, yet the Senate has no cognizance of it because the Government, apparently, considered it unnecessary to place it before us. I should like to have an explanation of, and perhaps an apology for, the action that has been taken. It is not fair to the Senate, and certainly not to the representatives of New South Wales.
– I take this opportunity of bringing under the notice of the Government a question that, must have occupied its attention for some time, and one in which the people of Tasmania, and probably the other States, also, are deeply interested. I refer’ to the establishment in Tasmania of the paper pulp industry for the manufacture of newsprint. I feel sure that every honorable senator would like to know what, are the prospects of the establishment of that industry. Prom time to time, the Government has led us to believe that it would be wholeheartedly behind any company that was likely to establish the industry, and was prepared to render very substantial assistance in that direction.When the matter was raised earlier in the year by Senator Payne, Senator Daly assured the Senate that the question was not one of finance, but of two companies merging their interests. He said that, if that were done, the way would be clear for the Government to take appropriate action for the establishment of the industry. The people of Tasmania are becoming impatient at the delay which is taking place. In that State the problemof unemployment is exceedingly acute, as it is in other States. This industry would give permanent employment to a large number of men, and lead to the manufacture of a commodity that is needed all over Australia, and for which huge sums are sent out of this country annually. The experts that have investigated the matter say that it is no longer in the experimental stage, but that the process has already been established. The Government has consistently claimed to be strongly imbued with the desire to find work for the workless. Why, then, does it not take steps to hasten the establishment of this industry? Parliament has not been appealed to for assistance by means of a tariff, a bounty, or in any other way. Can the Government not give an assurance that will engender in our people the hope that the industry will be established at any early date?
– Replying to the representations made by Senator Herbert Hays concerning the paper pulp industry, I remind the Senate that the most effective form of assistance which the Government can render is financial aid, and, unfortuantely, this Government litis no control over any financial institution in Australia.
– Does the Minister say that that difficulty is preventing the industry from being established?
– I say deliberately that, although this Government and previous governments have had most encouraging reports in connexionwith the proposed industry, and although it presents possibilities from the point of view of employment second to none, it is impossible to interest the financial institutions in the project, though overtures have been made in that direction. I believe that there is a great future for the industry, and I am still hopeful that we shall be able to do something.
– If it is such a promising industry why will not private capitalists put their money into it?
-It is very difficult to answer that question. I do not know why individual capitalists will not invest in the venture, nor can I offer any reason why they will not interest themselves in the fishing industry, but it is not difficult, apparently, to induce them to invest in million-pound theatres.
– Or a hole in the ground.
– That is so. It is strange that private investors should be so reluctant to risk their capital in ventures which will increase the absorptive capacity of Australia. But this is apart from the question before the Senate. I and all members of the Cabinet are fully alive to the possibilities of the paper pulp industry. Mr. Gunn, the Director of Development, is still giving the matter his attention in the hope that we shall be able to establish the industry. We have overcome the initial difficulties with which we were confronted when last J discussed this matter in the Senate. Finance is now the only obstacle, but, as I have said, the Government hopes that even that is not insuperable.
Senator McLachlan made out a very strong case for the remission of duty paid on conveyors for the Adelaide News Limited, and I have made representations to the department concerning the matter. All I can say, at the moment, is that I hope to secure a reply favorable to his client.
With regard to the matter mentioned by Senator Dunn, the statement read this morning by the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) will, I presume, be incorporated in Hansard. If, after perusing it, the honorable senator is still anxious to press his request, copies will be made available to him, and any other honorable senator who desires to obtain one.
Replying to Senator Duncan’s complaint that the Senate had been ignored in connexion with the statement made in another place concerning the Government Savings Bank of New South Wales, I am sure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) did not intentionally offer any discourtesy to this chamber. As the Minister in charge of the tariff which will be discussed in this chamber during the next month or two, I am most anxious to maintain amicable relations between the Opposition and the Government, so I will appeal to the Leader of the Senate (Sen a tor Barnes), in support of Senator Duncan’s request, and urge him to see that on all future occasions important statements shall be made also in the Senate, so that honorable senators may have an opportunity to discuss them upon the motion for the adjournment.
– I am informed that a statement was made in another place by the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) to-day with regard to the Government Savings Bank of New South Wales, but through an inadvertence it did out pass through the ordinary channel and reach this chamber.
– There have beentoo many inadvertencies; that is the trouble.
– I assure the honorable senator that there was no intention on the part of the Government to ignore the Senate in the matter.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjournedat 3.50 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 October 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1931/19311016_senate_12_132/>.