Senate
7 September 1932

13^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- RICHMOND WIRELESS STATION
QUESTION
- NEWNES SHALE DEPOSITS
QUESTION
- MELBOURNE TO KALGOORLIE RAILWAY FREIGHTS
PATENTS DEPARTMENT
- Transfer to Canberra
PAPERS
TARIFF BOARD’S REPORT
QUESTION
- MAKINE DIVING SUIT
DEFENCE BILL
NAURU ISLAND AGREEMENT BILL
- Second Reading
WIRE AND WIRE NETTING BILL
- Second Reading
DESIGNS BILL
- Second Reading
CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

I am now in a position to advise the honorable senator as follows : -

The freightof £7 10s. per ton, Melbourne to Kalgoorlie, is apportioned between the various systems as under -

The freight of £6 15s. per ton, Adelaide to Kalgoorlie, is apportioned between the two systems as under -

Yes. It is common railway practice to charge at a lower rate per ton per mile for goods conveyed over a longer distance.

Isit intended to reduce the freights on the necessities mentioned to the same rate as beer?
If not, why not?
Is it a fact that the. railways are carrying beer from Melbourne to Kalgoorlie at an actual loss of½d. per ton per mile, in order to enable a Melbourne brewery to compete with Western Australian industries?

I am now in a position to advise the honorable senator as follows: -

Under an agreement made with the Richmond Brewing Company by the Victorian. South Australian and Commonwealth railways, the through rate on beer by rail from Melbourne to Kalgoorlie was reduced to£7 10s. per ton subject to a guaranteed minimum tonnage annually, and to theRichmond Brewing Company giving on undertaking to forward all Kalgoorlie ‘consignments by rail for a period of twelve months. Approximately 1,000 tons of beer are railed annually from Melbourne to Kalgoorlie.

By arrangement between the Victorian, South Australian, and Commonwealth railways, consignors of clothing, jam, pickles, and groceries are granted a freight concession of £2 per ton on consignments from Melbourne to Kalgoorlie subject to an agreed tonnage for a fixed period,and toan undertaking being given that the whole of the consignments will he transported by railway. No arrangement has been made for reduced freights for mining machinery and explosives, but consideration would, on application,be given to concession rates subject to the guarantee of given quantities within prescribed periods.

No.

According to railways standard classifications, varying rates are charged for different commodities:beer is curried at a classified rate lower than the commodities named. On the other hand, many commodities, such as agricultural, produce, &c., are carried lower than beer.

No.

Is it a fact that whilst the railway freight on beer from Melbourne to Kalgoorlie has been reduced to £7 10s. per ton, the freight on sugar required for the manufacture of beer in Kalgoorlie is £11 17s.6d. per ton for the same journey?

Is it intended to reduce the freight on goods required for Western Australian industries to the rates so generously afforded to the products of eastern factories?

I am now in a position to advise the honorable senatoras follows : -

Yes. According to railways standard classifications, varying rates are charged for different commodities. The beer referred to is carried at a rate fixed by special agreement with the railway systems of Victoria, South Australia, and the Commonwealth: the agreement provides for a given tonnage within a given period, and for the whole of the consignments to Kalgoorlie being forwarded by rail. The railway systems would give consideration to applications for reduced rates for sugar, under the same conditions.

The fixing of through rates is determined by agreement between the various railway systems concerned in the traffic, and any application for special freights would be considered on its merits.

page 213

PATENTS DEPARTMENT

Transfer to Canberra

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Ou the 1st September, Senator E. B. Johnstonaskedthe Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, the following questions, upon notice: - 1.In connexion with the proposed transfer of the Patents Office to Canberra, is it pro posed to continue the practice of purchasing the houses in Mel bourne owned by transferred officers ?

How many houses have been purchased from officers already transferred to Canberra?
Of such houses, how many have been sold by the Commonwealth, and at what loss?
How many of such purchased houses are still owned by the Commonwealth?
What is the number and estimated cost of purchasing houses from transferred officers of the Patents Department?

I am now in a position to advise the honorable senator as follows:-

Yes.

2.97.

(a) 84; (b) No loss has been incurred.

4.13.

The figure used as the estimated cost was £37,900, and this is estimated to be sufficient to purchase 32 houses. A later estimate, however, is that the number of homes likely to be purchased will not exceed 25, the estimated cost of which will be £30,000.

page 213

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

High Commissioner for Australia in London -Report for 1931.

Copy of Agreement made on 12th May, 1932, between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Shale Oil Development Committee Ltd., R. A. Treganowan and C. O. Chambers.

Tariff Board - Reports and Recommendations -

Canary Seed.

Copper Sulphate.

Firebricks.

Fishing Appliances (Reels).

Formaldehyde and Preparations thereof.

Frozen Fresh Fish.

Galvanized Iron.

Generator and Starter Brushes for Automobiles.

Hyposulphite of Soda.

Jewellery Cases, Brush and Toilet Cases, and Spoon, Fork, Carver Set, and similar Cases.

Nicotine Spraying Preparations.

Sodium Alumino Silicates, either natural or synthetic.

Vessels exceeding 1,000 tons gross register.

Audit Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1932, No. 81.

Customs Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1932. No. 90.

Papua Act - Ordinances of 1932 -

No. 1 - Port Moresby Electric Light and Power.

No. 2 - Stamp Duties.

No. 3 - Supplementary Appropriation 1931- 1932.

No. 4 - Constabulary.

No. 5 - Appropriation 1932-1933.

page 214

TARIFF BOARD’S REPORT

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I lay on the table -

Tariff Board Act- Tariff Board- Annual Report for 1931-32, together with Schedule of Recommendations.

The report is complete, but in the annexure, which containsa summary of the recommendations made by the board during the year, a few recommendations relating to tariff revision matters which have not been finally considered by the Government have been omitted.

Senator O’Halloran:

– When will the omitted recommendations be made available to the Senate?

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am not able to say at the moment; but they will be made available to honorable senators as soon as possible.

page 214

QUESTION

MAKINE DIVING SUIT

Senator DUNN:
through Senator Rae

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Willhe take into consideration the demonstration of the new Australian invention (marine diving suit), and have tests undertaken by naval experts of the Royal Australian Navy ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The testing of the invention referred to is a matter for private enterprise. A similar invention was investigated by the Navy in 1928, and was found to be not suitable for naval use.

page 214

DEFENCE BILL

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[3.16].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a short measure for the purpose of ensuring that certain rules relating to evidence shall apply in respect of prosecutions under section 79 of the Defence Act 1903-1927,. for the failing to deliver up, when lawfully required so to do, arms, accoutrements or other naval or military articles belonging to the Commonwealth. Since in a recent case before the High Court, relating to a prosecution under this section, those rules of evidence were held to be inapplicable, it would not be safe to rely on such rules in future unlessthey receive the statutory recognition which the present measure proposes. Unless the rules apply, the activities of the Defence Department with regard to the care and custody of naval and military stores are likely to be seriously hampered. Accordingly, subsection 1a, which it is proposed should be inserted in section 79 of the act, provides that if, in any prosecution under that section, for failure to deliver up, when lawfully required so to do, any arms, accoutrements or other naval or military articles belonging to the Commonwealth, or to any corps, it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that any such article was in the possession of the defendant at any time prior to the time at which he was required to deliver up the article, he shall be deemed, in the absence of proof by him of the lawful disposal of the article, to have continued in possession thereof up to the time when he was required to deliver up the article. In addition, inability to deliver up the article shall not be a defence unless the defendant proves to the satisfaction of the court that such inability did not arise from any negligence or wrongful act or omission on his part. Although this is only a minor measure, honorable senators may wish to study it before discussing it, and, therefore, the Government has no objection to the debate being adjourned. Honorable senators may not know that for some time there has been an increasing loss, not of arms, but of articles of uniform, especially during the present period of depression. This loss has been intensified by the substitution of voluntary enlistment for compulsory military training, certain individuals having taken advantage of the voluntary system to obtain issues of uniform and, in some cases, of equipment - particularly those containing leather - and neither they nor the equipment issued to them has since been seen. In a number of corps, the losses from this cause have been fairly severe. When the department catches one of these delinquents it is most desirable that it should be able to prosecute him successfully, if guilty, and that he should not be allowed to escape on a technicality. In the case to which I have referred, that was the position. The Government wishes so to amend the law as to prevent this means of escape.

Debate (on motion by Senator Barnes) adjourned.

page 215

NAURU ISLAND AGREEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[3.20] . - I move-

Thatthebill be now read a second time.

This measure also is of a technical and legal character. In 1919 an agreement was made between His Majesty’s Governments in the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Dominion of New Zealand, to make provision for the exercise of the mandate conferred upon His Majesty the King for the administration of the island of Nauru, and for the mining of the phosphate deposits on that island. The agreement was approved by the Commonwealth Parliament in the Nauru Island Agreement Act 1919, and a copy is set forth in the schedule to that act.

The agreement provided that the administration of the island should be vested in an administrator. The first administrator was to be appointed for a term of five years by the Commonwealth Government, and thereafter the administrator was to be appointed in such manner as the three Governments decided. The administrator was empowered to make ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the island, subject to the terms of the agreement. As the result of discussions in England in 1921 between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth of Australia and of New Zealand, it was considered desirable to make more explicit provision for the exercise of the powers conferred upon the administrator. Further discussions by correspondence ensued, and a supplementary agreement was completed on the 30th May, 1923.

A bill for an act to approve this supplementary agreement was passed by the Senate in 1924, and was read a first time in the House of Representatives on the 8th May, 1924, but had not been considered in that House prior to the prorogation of Parliament, when it lapsed.

The need for again submitting this supplementary agreement for Parliamentary approval appears to have been inadvertently overlooked, and the object of the bill is to remedy the omission. The supplementary agreement provides as follows : -

All ordinances made by the administrator are declared to be subject to confirmation or disallowance by the Government which appointed him.
The administrator is to conform to such instructions as may be received by him from the Government by which he was appointed.
Copies of all ordinances, proclamations and regulations made by the administrator are to be forwarded to the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand.
The reports to the Council of the League of Nations are to be transmitted by the administrator, through the Government by which he was appointed, to His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom for presentation to the Council.

The agreement thus provides certain safeguards not contained in the original agreement, and gives the Government immediately responsible, for the time being, for the administration, greater powers of control over the administrator, in regard to both legislation and administration. The supplementary agreement does not affect in any way the provisions of the agreement of 1919 relating to the working of the phosphate deposits.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Halloran) adjourned.

page 215

WIRE AND WIRE NETTING BILL

Second Reading

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The amendments proposed in this measure are purely formal. They merely provide for the alteration of the words “ North Australia “ and “ Central Australia “ where they occur in the Principal Act, to “ Northern Territory.” When the Principal Act was passed by Parliament in 1927, this Commonwealth territory was divided into separate territories under the names of “ North Australia “ and “ Central Australia.” These territories have since been amalgamated, and the whole of this area is now known as the “Northern Territory.”

The act was introduced for the purpose of assisting settlers in the various States and the Northern Territory by way of advances in the purchase of wire and wire netting for the erection of rabbit-proof andmarsupial-proof fences, and the advances have been made to settlers at an interest rate of 5 per cent. repayable over a period of 25 years. Recently the rate of interest was reduced to 4½ per cent.

So far as the States are concerned, power was given in the act for prescribed conditions with regard to the advances, to be laid down in agreements between the Commonwealth and State Governments. Negotiations were accordingly entered into with all the States, but only Queensland and Western Australia accepted the terms of the agreement. In the case of the Northern Territory the machinery is provided in regulations promulgated by the Commonwealth. During the period of nearly five and a half years since the act has been in operation the total advances made to settlers in the Northern Territory was slightly less than £700.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– I have examined the measure, and agree with the Minister (Senator McLachlan) that its purpose is to overcome certain technical difficulties arising out of other legislation passed by this Parliament. For this reason, I have no objection to its speedy passage.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– This measure seeks to amend one of the excellent legislative proposals introduced by the Bruce-Page Government with a view to helping our farmers and pastoralists. I suggest that, while we are altering that act, we should insert amendments to give further relief to those concerned, and ensure that wire and wire-netting shall not, in future, be subject to serious tariff and other burdens which have been upon these commodities in the past. The intention to give assistance to. our farmers and pastoralists by means of cheap wire and vermin-proof netting was referred to by Mr. Bruce in his budget speech on the 8th July, 1926. He announced that the Govern ment would lend to the State governments £3,000,000 at the rate of £500,000 a year for a period of six years, at concession rates of interest, to assist the States to provide their settlers with cheap verminproof fencing. It was anticipated that all the States would take advantage of this legislation, and, having this in mind, the Government apportioned the money as follows : -New South Wales, £788,428; Victoria, £262,738 ; Queensland, £733,020 ; South Australia, £295,255; Western Australia, £606,945; Tasmania, £40,654; and Northern Territory, £272,960. The act, which was passed in 1927, was deemed to have commenced on the 1st July, 1926. It set out the form of agreement with the States, and contained adequate provision for the carrying out of the scheme. It must, therefore, have been a surprise to the government of theday - it certainly was amazing to me - that only two State governments took advantage of it.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Was not that because some of the State governments had more advantageous schemes in operation?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– If they had, all I can say is that the farmers and pastoralists in those States were indeed very fortunate. I am unaware of the reasons actuating those States which did not pome into the scheme; but I know that Western Australia, which, through its Agricultural Bank, has always provided liberal assistance to its settlers, and, in proportion to the work done, has made higher advances than are obtainable in other States, considered the proposal very beneficial, and readily joined in the scheme. Up to the 30th June, 1932, an amount of £610,838 had been transferred from the loan fund to the trust account provided for under the act, but only £542,166 had been received by the States from the Commonwealth. I am not quite certain how the amounts have been allotted, but according to an article that appeared in a recent issue of a Western Australian newspaper, that State has had advanced to it the sum of £328,472, while Queensland has received £213,000, and the Northern Territory only £694. If those figures are correct, it would seem that, although this legislation is being amended for the benefit of pastoralists in the Northern Territory, or in Central

Australia, so far that territory has taken very little advantage of the act.

Despite the fact that little more than half a million pounds had been advanced by the Commonwealth under this legislation, the last Government imposed a primage duty of 10 per cent, and a sales tax of 6 per cent, on all wire and wire netting that entered Australia. I am pleased that the budget speech delivered last week promised au alteration of that condition of affairs. But the fact remains that this assistance has been given to settlers only on the condition, while the Scullin Government was in office, that 16 per cent, of it found its way back to the Treasury.

Senator O’Halloran:

– On a point of order, I ask what clause of the bill refers to the primage duty or the sales tax on wire notting, fencing wire, &c. ?

Senator Collings:

– The Government is reducing pensions in order to square the ledger.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– When the time comes to discuss that matter, the honorable senator may find that there are in this chamber others who hold views as humanitarian as his. But let us take that hurdle when we come to it. I hope that, in committee, this measure will be amended to provide that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Customs Act 1901-1930, and the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1930, duties of customs shall not be imposed on fencing wire, barbed wire, or wire netting of any kind. If that amendment is embodied in the principalact, we shall be able to protect these people, in the matter of taxation, from the vagaries or whims of this or any other Government before the £2,500,000 has been spent. We shall ensure that the whole of the amount still to be advanced under the existing legislation will be used for the assistanceof the settlers concerned, and that a portion will not be placed to the credit of Consolidated Revenue in order to bolster up extravagant expenditure in Canberra.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I move-

That the following clause be inserted - “6. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Customs Act 1901-1930 and the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1930, duties of customs shall not be imposed on fencing wire, barbed wire or wire-netting of any kind.”

The committee is now amending the principal act under which a balance of £2,500,000 remains unexpended. This amendment is merely to ensure that when that sum is being advanced thesettlers concerned shall receive the fullest benefit of the expenditure, and that the commodities purchased with it shall not be taxed through the customs in a direction which could mean the diversion of anything up to 16 per cent. to the Commonwealth Treasury, and the unfortunate settler being charged heavy interest on that amount. I submit that this amendment is entirely cognate to the principal act. It simply provides that when this expenditure of £2,500,000 is incurred to assist farmers and pastoralists no portion of it shall be diverted to customs revenue at the expense of the producers.

Senator McLachlan:

– I submit that the amendment moved by Senator E. B. Johnston is not in order in that it is not relevant to the subjectmatter of the bill. Standing Order 201 provides that -

Any amendment may be made to any part of thebill, provided that same be relevant to the subject-matter of the bill, and be otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the Senate.

The amendment moved by the honorable senator is irrelevant to the subjectmatter of the bill.

Senator O’Halloran:

– It should be moved as an amendment of the Customs Act.

Senator McLachlan:

– Yes. The bill merely provides for the substitution of the words, Northern Territory for North Australia and Central Australia. The amendment of the honorable senator should be moved as an amendment of the Customs Act. Moreover, it is not competent for a private member of this chamber or of another place to move for any reduction in the levies by the Crown. That right rests only with Ministers of the Crown. On these grounds, I submit that it is not competent for the committee to consider the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon Herbert Hays:
TASMANIA

– The objection raised by the honorable the Minister is fatal to the insertion of the proposed new clause. My ruling is that the amendment is not relevant to the subject-matter of the bill; but would be more pertinent to an amendment of the Customs Act.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Standing and sessional orders suspended; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 218

DESIGNS BILL

Second Reading

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a short bill to amend the Designs Act 1906-1912 by inserting therein a new section, 4b. The existing Designs Act applies to the Commonwealth and the territories within the Commonwealth, namely, the Territory for the Seat of Government and the Northern Territory. The purpose of the bill is to enable the act to be applied to such, territories as the Governor-General by proclamation declares, thus ensuring uniformity in the law relating to designs throughout the Commonwealth and those territories to which the act is applied. It will make for easy administration. At present, we have to pass ordinances for each particular territory with exactly the same verbiage. This will be avoided if the bill is carried.

Senator Rae:

– Is there any special reason why the Territory of Papua should not be included?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– If is not within the Commonwealth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate.

Standing and sessional orders suspended; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 219

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

In committee: (Consideration resumed from the 20th May, vide page 1123, volume 134).

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

After section sixty of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - “60a. - (1.) An association which -

is, or purports to be, affiliated or associated, or,

claims, or has, at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section, claimed, that it is affiliated or associated, with any body of persons, incorporated or unincorporated, and whether within or beyond Australia, which, by its constitution or propaganda or otherwise, advocates or encourages the overthrow by force or violence of the established Government of the Commonwealth or of a State, or of any othercivilized country, or of organized government, shall not be eligible for registration as an organization. (2.) The Attorney-General may, at any time, apply to the Court for an order calling upon any organization to show Cause, on a date specified in the order, not being less than three days and not more than seven days from the date of the order, why the registration of the organization should not be cancelled on the ground that it -

is, or purports tobe, affiliated or associated, or

claims, or has, at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section, claimed, that it is affiliated or associated, with any such body of persons, as is described in the last proceeding sub-section. (4.) If on the hearing of the order to show cause, the organization fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Court, the registration of the organization shall be cancelled. (6.) An association, the registration of which as an organization under this Act has been cancelled in pursuance of this section, shall not be eligible for registration as an organization until after the expiration of a period of three years from the date of cancellation of its registration. (7.) In any proceedings under this section, the burden of proof that an organization -

is not, or does not purport to be, affiliated or associated, or

does not claim or has not, at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section, claimed, that it is affiliated or associated, with any such body of persons, as is described in sub-section (1.) of this section, shall lie upon the organization.”.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the words “ whether before or,” paragraph 6, sub-section 1 of proposed new section 60a, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ within six months.”

The effect of my amendment would be to make the proposed new sub-section read as follows: - 60a. - (1.) An association which -

is, or purports to be, affiliated or associated, or,
claims, or has, at any time within six months after the commencement of this section, claimed, that it is affiliated or associated, with any body of persons, incorporated or unincorporated, and whether within or beyond Australia, which, by its constitution or propaganda or otherwise, advocates or encourages the overthrow by force or violence of the established Government of the Commonwealth or of a State, or of any other civilized country, or of organized government, shall not be eligible for registration as an organization.

There may be organizations in Australia affiliated with organizations outside Australia deemed to be a menace to the Commonwealth. The purpose of my amendment is to give them at least six months’ notice to cancel whatever affiliation they may have. During the second-reading debate, it was said that at least one organization in Australia was affiliated with a foreign organization which was regarded by honorable senators as a menace to the well-being of the Commonwealth. In the circumstances, I think, that the organization mentioned should have an opportunity to dissociate itself from that which has caused so much alarm to honorable senators opposite, otherwise, it means its deregistration. I do not think that the Government is anxious to act vindictively. The Australian Railways Union has been mentioned as having been affiliated with the Red International. I have no personal knowledge that such is the case, but even if it be true, most railway men are good Australian citizens, with no desire individually or collectively to do anything inimical to the best interests of Australia. Surely the Government is not so unfair as to insist on depriving this union of an opportunity to conform to the law. If the clause passes as it stands, any organization in Australia affiliated with an organization outside Australia which, by its constitution or propaganda or otherwise, advocates or encourages the overthrow by force or violence of the established Government of the Commonwealth or of aState, or of any other civilized country or of organized governments, will not be eligible for registration under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as an organization. I do not believe that there is any trade union in Australia which would do the things mentioned; but there may be unions which are, or have been, affiliated with organizations in other parts of the world which seek to do things that are entirely foreign to the aims of any Australian organization. The Australian Railways Union has been mentioned. Most, if not all, of the members of that organization are good Australian citizens; and if, as has been alleged, that union has at. some time been affiliated with an organization with headquarters at Moscow, it should be given a chance to cancel its affiliation.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon Herbert Hays:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– The Minister might well agree to the postponement of the clause in order to have it re-drafted. This has been done over and over again in this chamber with a view to bringing suggested amendments into verbal conformity with other clauses of a bill. I am a member of two trad? unions, and I do not care very much whether they are registered or not, for the simple reason that the Arbitration Act nas become a machine to reduce wages and . worsen the conditions of the workers. Therefore, registration Milder it is about as valuable and nourishing as a “dummy “ is to an infant. But, bad as this amending bill is in many respects, it is absolutely vicious in its attempt to make offences retrospective. Obviously, the reason why the Minister cannot agree to Senator Barnes’ proposal is that the Government intends to take action against certain organizations because of their political activities within the last twelve months. Having become affiliated with these foreign “ ogres,” their activities, we are told, are now a menace to the Commonwealth. I except, of course, the New Guard ! This is the explanation of the attitude taken up by the Attorney-General with regard to the retrospective proposals of the Government. The bill is also a double-barrelled iniquity, because while the act is to be made retrospective as regards certain offences, the onus of proof is thrown upon the persons charged. I know all that has been said by Senator McLachlan and the Leader of the Senate and other members supporting the Government - that in certain circumstances it is difficult to prove guilt, and, for that reason, it is much easier for the Government to achieve its benevolent purpose by throwing the onus of proof on the person accused. Even if we admit that in certain circumstances such action may be necessary, all those people who so loudly boast that Ave shall always be right if we follow England, must acknowledge that, as a general principle, only the most extreme emergency can justify the application of the method suggested in this bill. It enacts that any one, who, at any time, has been connected with these banned organizations, will be automatically precluded from any of the advantages, that may be available to them under the philanthropic measure known as the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Does the Government believe that arbitration is an effective method for the peaceful settlement of industrial disputes, and that it averts calamities that otherwise might ensue? If it does, it should leave the way to the courts open to any one who can avail himself of them. Yet in this case the members of a union are to be practically precluded for all time from becoming registered as an organization, however much they may value that privilege, because of some siu that they allegedly have committed corporately, the onus of disproving which is to be thrown on them. The limitation of the period with respect to which action may be taken is a concession that is marked by Scotch caution. If legislation is to be retrospective why not, make it apply to any time that is past? What particular vice attaches to an offence that was committed twelve months ago that does not pertain to one .that was committed eighteen months or two years ago? If a man offends against the criminal code, by plundering, thieving, forging or murdering, he is liable to the punishment prescribed for the offence, even though twenty years may elapse before it is possible to charge him with it. I agree, of course, that that is not retrospective legislation.

Senator O’Halloran:

– And the offence would be against an existing law.

Senator RAE:

– That is so. The most vicious criminal cannot be tried for an offence against a law that does not exist at the time of the doing of the act complained of. Yet the Minister, without attempting in any way to show that retrospective legislation is either just or necessary, asks us to enact it.. The distinction is sometimes drawn that an act which may be unjust is justified by an emergency. What emergency does the Government say exists that would justify the retrospectivity of this legislation? What dangers have been incurred by Australia during the last twelve months that differ from any that were incurred ten, twenty or thirty years ago? What danger is likely to result from the underground workings of some miscreants that necessitates making this legislation retrospective to the extent of twelve months? If retrospective legislation is unfair and unjust, as in 999,999 .out of 1,000,000 it must necessarily be, it is equally unjust whether applicable for twelve months or twelve years. If honorable senators cannot produce something better than the suggestion that has emanated from the Minister, I trust that they will have the manliness to oppose the clause.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[4.40]. - I remind the committee that we are not dealing with ordinary procedure in connexion with trade union matters. It has become a well-known practice of bodies that are controlled from Moscow, to change the name but not the aim of their organization, and so to adapt themselves that, by subterfuge, they may evade any law that is enacted to check their growth in countries in which the Soviet is directing its propaganda. Anybody who has read, as I have, the instructions that have been issued from the Comitern in Moscow, knows that that is one of the directions that have been given to those who are red-anting trade unions in various parts of the world.

Senator Hardy:

– And it has been faithfully carried out.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I agree with the honorable senator. Let us not be mealy-mouthed about this matter. Let us look at the particular case, which is very well known, that has had a considerable influence on the Government in its introduction of this legislation. I refer to the case of the Australian Railways Union. I venture to affirm that the action taken by the executive of that union was one of the most audacious and impudent that has ever been perpetrated upon a trade union in Australia. Without any consultation of its members, the executive of that union assumed the responsibility of affiliating with the Red International of Moscow. Honorable senators travel all over the Commonwealth, and they know that the members of the Australian Railways Union are as sane and as law-abiding as the members of any other trade union, or the community generally. They have no sympathy with Moscow, nor do they wish to see the government of this country overthrown by force and violence. Yet in their name this small body of men affiliated one of the biggest unions in Australia with Moscow, and all that it stands for. I remind Senator Barnes, and those who are criticizing this legislation, that itwas introduced over three months ago. Inthe meantime, what action has that executive taken to bring itself into line with the great bulk of the trade unions of this country, by cancelling the affiliation? It has taken no action whatever. It has impudently remained quiescent, hoping that some loophole will be left in this legislation, and that by subterfuge it will be able to carry on its propaganda at the behest of Moscow. It can be effectually dealt with only by the method proposed in the bill, with the alteration suggested by my colleague the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator McLachlan). We neither need nor desire to go back over a period of years. The affiliation, which impudently is in existence to-day, we say, shall be met by this legislation, and we do not propose that these men shall be enabled to wait until the Governor-General has affixed his signature to it, and then avoid its consequences by the mere passing of a resolution. They, and not the Government, have trapped their members into the position which at present exists. Senator Barnes spoke of its being necessary for the members of this union to have time to take a vote on the matter. 1 remind him that a vote was not taken when the affiliation was effected. When the members of the union wake up to the fact that their award, and the protection afforded to them by the Arbitration Court, are endangered as the result of the impudent action of their executive, the probability is that they will elect a new executive. When this legislation becomes law, it has to be implemented by action taken by the Attorney-General.Let us assume that the loyal members of the Australian Railways Union say, “We do not. want to he affiliated with Moscow; we did not authorize such action, and we propose to have an executive that will act more in accord with Australian sentiment by refraining from having anything to do with Moscow.” Would the AttorneyGeneral ask the court to cancel their registration? Of course he would not. But he will have the power to take that action if this executive continues impudently to defy the opinion of the great mass of, not only the people, but also the trade unions of Australia that have no sympathy with Moscow. Consequently, 1 say that the honest trade unions which desire to effect reforms by constitutional means have nothing to fear from this bill, as amended in the direction suggested by the Vice-President of the Executive Council. All that they have to fear is an executive like that of the Australian Railways Union, which acts nefariously by affiliating with Moscow and the Third International.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

. - lt is well that it should be observed that the section with which we are dealing’ divides itself naturally into two parts; that there is a distinction between section 60a 1 and 60a 2. With respect to the first, I agree - if I may say so with respect - with the criticism offered by the Vice-President of the Executive Council (.Senator McLachlan) concerning the amendment proposed by Senator Barnes. That honorable senator, I believe, has not quite grasped the point of the Minister’s criticism. If he has, he must see that the only effect of his proposal would be that the provision would remain in operation for six months, and that thereafter it would cease to have any effect. If the clause went through in the form suggested by him, what would happen should an association, nine months after the act became law, blatantly and openly purport to be affiliated or associated with one of these organizations, and proceedings were taken against it? It would say, “It is nine months since the act was passed”; therefore, we are exempt from its penal provisions.” Consequently, I suggest that the only difference between the amendment agreed to by the Minister in charge of the bill and that which Senator Barnes has suggested is the difference between six months and twelve months, and that, if the Minister had agreed to the insertion of the words “ within six months,” he would have done what the honorable senator desired.

Senator MacDonald:

– We are not particular about the words used, so long as the principle is accepted.

Senator BRENNAN:

– The only difference in principle is that between six months and twelve months. I confess that I apprehend difficulties if the clause is carried in its present form. Some of those difficulties are indicated by the illustrations given by the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) of the activities of theAustralian Railways Union. The right honorable senator admitted that the action taken by the executive of that union was. contrary to the views of the great bulk of its members. The mass of the people: will agree with him. The penalty in. the case of a registered organization claiming to be affiliated with forbidden, organizations abroad is de-registration,, and it follows from that that the punishment of de-registration, if it is punishment, must fall upon men, who, according; to the Minister, may be guiltless. The only protection against that, is that the Attorney-General is not likely to proceed, in cases where there has been a change in the executive and open repudiation of the action of the old executive. Still the fact remains that the organization would, come within the law as it stands. There are two paris of this proposed new subsection - one dealing with organizations, which are assumed to be about to apply for registration, and the other dealing with organizations already registered. An application to de-register an organization, for the reason that it is or claims to have been associated with an unlawful association, must be heard before a court consisting of at least three judges who may - indeed, the measure provides that they shall - order cancellation if the facts relied on are not disproved by the organization. Why cannot the Minister in charge of the bill frame the first part in somewhat the same way, and leave it to the court to say whether the present conduct of the organization, which is claiming to be registered, is such that it is not entitled to registration by reason of the fact that it has been, in the immediate past, and probably is at present, associated with an organization whose object is the overthrow of constitutional government.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Does not. the honorable senator think that the two parts are connected?

Senator BRENNAN:

– This measure may make legally right something which will still be morally wrong. Nothing that the Government may do can make right a thing which is morally wrong, and this Parliament should not be a party to any such attempt. If a union did something which at the time was within the law, why should we now make it appear that it broke the law? Surely there are ample means of punishing a union whichhas offended against the law without passing retrospective action to deal with it. This legislation will do a grave injustice to the rank and file of the unions. Before making them liable to punishment we should give them an opportunity to cancel their affiliation with the organization objected to. If within, say six months, of the passing of this measure, they have not cancelled that affiliation, they will know what to expect, and will not then be able to complain of lack of fair warning. I hope that the Australian Railways Union will cancel its affiliation with the Red International, but whether it does so or not we should treat it fairly, and not seek by retrospective action to rend it in twain. Legislation of this nature is designed to destroy arbitration. Although during recent months, the Arbitration Court has reduced wages, the time will again come when it will increase them. I hope that the Government will agree to the deletion of the retrospective provisions of this measure.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– I ask the mover of the amendment to agree to its withdrawal for the time being, in order that I may move an amendment which will, I hope, be regarded as satisfactory.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- At the request of the Minister, I now ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendmen t - byleave - wi th d r awn .

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That after the word “which”, line 1 of subsection 1 of proposed new section 80a, the words “ within a period of twelve months immediately preceding in commencement of this session or at any time thereafter “ be inserted.

If my amendment is agreed to, there will be certain consequential amendments; in paragraph b of sub-sections 1, 2, and 7 respectively, it will be necessary to omit the words “ at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this session “. Proposed new section 60a will then read -

An association which, within a period of twelve months immediately preceding the commencement of this session, or at any time thereafter
1. claims, or has claimed, that it is affiliated or associated

– Russia has offered the most reason able proposals for a continued peace.

Senator MacDONALD:

– That is so. Russia has submitted the only reasonable proposals likely to end the trade wars in which, hitherto, European and other nations have been so often involved.

My objection to the whole bill, is that it creates a new class of offence, and will inflict punishment upon innocent persons. I do not care whether the retrospective provisions of the measure extend back a period of twelve months or twelve days. My whole objection is to the principle involved. No member of this Parliament in these days of advanced democracy should support the passage of such a measure as this.

Senator Sampson:

– Who will be punished under it?

Senator MacDONALD:

– It is a deliberate attempt to “get” particular trade unions. I object to that just as much as I would object to any attempt by passing a special act to “ get “ a particular man. The whole proposal is so outrageous that, finally, we on this side have driven the Minister in charge of the bill to withdraw his ad libitum view about the retrospective provision in the clause, and to substitute a period of twelve months. Istill object to it on principle, also, because the bill creates a new class of offence, and it is an attempt to “get” particular individuals. So far as arbitration is concerned, a considerable number of people still believe that the strike weapon must be employed if the workers are to obtain justice. Legislation of this nature breeds disrespect for arbitration. If the bill is passed in its present form, a number of trade union organizations will not seek re-registration, and as a consequence, we shall probably have a recurrence of industrial trouble throughout the Commonwealth. Apparently, that is what some honorable senators supporting the Government would welcome. I am entirely opposed to making the proposed new section retrospective for the period of twelve months. We should at least give six months’ warning to members of those organizations which are likely to come within the scope of the law. I should prefer Australian trade unionism not’ to be affiliated with the Red International. As an Australian Labour man, I do not desire affiliation with any political organization in any part of the world, because I believe that we should develop our own industrial movement on Australian lines. This bill is contrary to the average man’s sense of what is right and just.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes) withdrew his amendment because, clearly, it would not serve the purpose which apparently he desired it to serve. It seems to me that this proposed new sub-section may be divided into two parts. One applies to organizations and associations not yet registered, but which desire to be registered under the Arbitration Act. The other deals with organizations already registered, and provides that the Attorney-General may apply to the court for an order calling upon them to show cause why their registration should not be cancelled. I invite the committee to consider these two portions of the proposed new section separately. The first part, as I have explained, deals with an organization not yet registered, but which may desire registration in the future. This portion, presumably, does not apply to the majority of trade unions, including one which honorable senators have in mind. Even if the act is made retrospective for twelve months, this portion of the proposed sub-section, in my opinion, will not have retrospective application, because it simply fixes the class, and provides that, if an association is, or claims to be, associated with an organization which advocates the overthrow by force or violence of established government, it shall not be eligible for registration in the future. It is perfectly proper for Parliament to provide that if any organization in the past has shown that it is not a suitable organization to be registered, permission for it to be registered in the future may be refused.

Senator O’Halloran:

– That would mean giving a trade union a life sentence.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– That portion of the clause, I submit, is not retrospective. I do not like retrospective legislation, because, in my judgment, it isnot good for the community, and, generally speaking, is not fair to the persons concerned. But proposed new sub- section 2 is in a different category. It deals with organizations already registered, and prescribes action which the Attorney-General may take to have thenregistration cancelled. He may apply to the court, for an order calling upon an association to show cause why itsregistration should not be cancelled on the ground that it “is, or purports to be, affiliated or associated “ with some other illegal organization. There is nothing wrong with that, and there is nothing retrospective in it, but the same cannot be said for an order seeking cancellation on the ground that an organization “ claims or has at any time claimed “ affiliation or association with any such body or persons prescribed. The latter provision clearly is retrospective, and I cannot help thinking that the Minister in charge of the bill (Senator McLachlan), when having the draft prepared, overlooked the fact that the retention of the words “ or has claimed “ makes inoperative the omission of the words “ at any time whether before or after the commencement of this section “.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Retrospectivity is governed by the opening words of the proposed new sub-section, which limit it to a period of twelve months before the proclamation of the act.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– With all deference to the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce), I do not think that, is so. In its amended form, proposed new sub-section 1 fixes the retrospective period at twelve months for that sub-section. I am now considering sub-section 2, and I suggest that, if the Minister can see his way to omit the words “or has claimed”, it should be perfectly satisfactory. It cannot then be claimed to be retrospective. In its present form it may impose a severe penalty upon a registered organization. I do not object to action for cancellation of registration in the ease of an organization which “ claims “ affilia tion with some other illegal body; but. I do object to the inclusion of the words “ or has claimed “, because they would mean that, if any registered union at any time in the past had “ claimed “ association with one of these illegal organizations, it would be liable to have its registration cancelled. I think that my honorable and learned friend, Senator Brennan, will agree with me that this is the effect of the inclusion of those words. It carries the principle too far. However bad an organization may have been, if it had conducted its affairs in accordance with the law, I do not think it would be fair to enact that, on account of something which it had done in the past, and which, then, was not illegal, it should, under this proposed new sub-section, be liable to deregistration. I listened with interest to what Senator Brennan said to-day as well as on the second reading of the bill. I think the Minister has made practically all the amendments which are proper to make this bill reasonable and fair as regards its retrospective provisions; but, I hope he is also prepared to strike out of subsection 2 the words “ or has at any . . . claimed “ because their effect is precisely the same. I hope that the Minister will sec the fairness of this suggestion. In my view, it is not reasonable to seek now to penalize an organization because at any time in the past it. may have claimed association with any illegal organization.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– I appreciate the point which Senator Duncan-Hugheshas made, but it is a somewhat difficult one to overcome. Proposed new sub-section 1 is not retrospective in the true sense of the term. It is a little difficult not to have a certain degree of retrospectivity associated with sub-clause 2. Since this legislation has been introduced, there may have been no claim by an organization to affiliation with one of the bodies specified in subclause1; but we know that such claims have been made. Does my honorable friend suggest, that that should be allowed to continue without any redress in the hands of the Attorney-General on behalf of the people of this country? The diffi culty is one of proof.I am giving a concussion by the alteration of the word “ shall “ to “ may “. Where there is true repentance, no action will be taken. I put it to the committee that a certain amount of retrospectivity is necessary. A further amendment of an evidentiary character probably will be necessary. This is a most insidious kind of tiling to deal with, and the legal profession have found it most difficult to obtain actual proof. That is possible only where there has been a declaration by the organization concerned. These unlawful bodies work under a number of different synonyms. The allegation of affiliation with any of them having been made openly, why should not the organization involved be struck off the register?

Senator Collings:

– An offence is being created where none existed when the act was committed.

Senator McLACHLAN:

I wish to make my position quite clear. I have the utmost respect and the- greatest sympathy for the ideals that have always permeated the Australian Labour movement, both industrially and politically, but I have neither sympathy nor respect for the doctrines that have been promulgated by a very small section of migrants, who have been encouraged to come to this country, not by the party which sits on this side of the chamber, but by that which to-day comprises the Government of the country, so far as trade union and other conditions are concerned. Those who believe in the old principles of Australian trade unionism should be permitted to give effect to their ideals. Many members of the legal fraternity are strongly opposed to the retrospective nature of this legislation, because it introduces a pernicious principle. I remind honorable senators representing South Australia, and particularly the VicePresident of the Executive Council (Senator McLachlan) that the Parliament of that State is at present engaged in a political warfare with respect to a bill introduced into the House of Assembly purporting to have retrospective application, and which, if passed, will have very serious consequences upon certain vested rights, which it was thought could not be interfered with. Practically the whole legal fraternity in South Australia has united to denounce the measure. If retrospectivity is pernicious in principle when it relates to the dealings of a wheat merchant with a banking institution, and farmers, as it does in the case to which I have referred, it is just as pernicious when it relates to the affiliation of certain trade unions with organizations with head-quarters outside the Commonwealth, and whose objective is said to be the overthrow of constitutional government. If this provision is passed in its present form it will be held that the members of some of these organizations have committed what will be declared an offence only when this measure is enacted. In view of the objections raised I trust that the Minister will further consider the matter and submit an amendment acceptable to a majority of the committee, thus providing the protection which we are anxious to afford to genuine trade unionists. The Leader of the Government (Senator Pearce) referred to the Australian Railways Union, which some months ago was affiliated with the Red International; but which, I understand, has taken some steps in the direction of severing affiliation. I have a distinct recollection of reading in the press quite recently that at a fairly representative meeting of the Victorian branch of that union, a motion in opposition to affiliation was carried, but I do not know how far the federal organization has progressed in that direction. The right honorable gentleman said that, in his opinion, the great body of the rank and file of the Australian Railways Union has no sympathy with the action of the executive in effecting affiliation on their behalf. I, too, believe that the members of that organization are prepared to adhere to traditional principles. But after referring to the members of the organization in that way the Minister went on to say, in effect, that such men will be punished for an offence for which they are not guilty. That is what honorable senators on this side of the chamber seek to avoid.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m. Senator Barnes. - I am anxious to move an amendment to omit from paragraph bof proposed sub-section 1 the words “ or has at any time before or after the commencement of this section claimed “.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon Herbert Hays:

– The honorable senator must defer his amendment until Senator McLachlan’s amendment is disposed of.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– I understand that the purpose of Senator Barnes is to test the retrospectivity of the provision. The honorable senator can best do so by movingto omit from Senator McLachlan’s amendment the words “ twelve months immediately preceding “. If the committee agrees to Senator McLachlan’s amendment, it will affirm that the provision shall operate for twelve mouths immediately preceding the commencement of the act.

Senator Barnes:

– I wish to prevent that.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– Senator Brennan and Senator Duncan-Hughes have already pointed out that the proposed new section applies to organizations seeking registration, and I see no great virtue in Senator McLachlan’s amendment to make the operation of the provision restrospective for twelve months. Before applying for registration, the organizations will simply wait until the twelve months have expired, and in any case the matter will still be within the discretion of the court. Honorable senators of the Opposition, however, want to take away from the provision any suspicion of retrospectivity. That can be done, as Senator Barnes proposes, by omitting certain words from paragraph b.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The best way to test the matter is to move an amendment to omit words from Senator McLachlan’s amendment.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I suggest that the committee defeat Senator McLachlan’s amendment with a view to enabling Senator Barnes to move to omit from paragraph b the words “ or has at any time before or after the commencement of this section claimed “. The effect of that amendment would be to remove the retrospectivity from the provision. At the same time it would effect the purpose of the Government - that no organization with certain affiliations shall be entitled to registration. A few years ago there was an organization of trade unions in Pacific countries known as the PanPacific Secretariat. After it had been in operation for some time, and affiliation on the part of the Australian movement had been considered, it was discovered that the secretariat was affiliated with another organization in Europe which might be covered by the words in the proposed section now under consideration. By the retrospective nature of the Minister’s amendment, a perfectly innocent organization, not now registered under the arbitration act, might easily be forever deprived of the right to be registered.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [8.10]. - As Senator Brennan has pointed out, there are two divisions of this section - one applying to applications for registration, and the other to unions already registered. When we come to the part dealing with unions already registered, we propose to make the same amendment, because, obviously, the union which is to-day affiliated with some overseas organization, but is not registered, is in exactly the same position as a union already registered which is affiliated with some overseas organization. Any union can conformto the law by annulling its affiliation, and it is extremely unlikely that the Attorney-General would take any action in such circumstances. The Government feels that it needs this power, because, as Senator McLachlan pointed out, certain tactics are adopted at the direction or suggestion of the Soviet - changes of name and such like methods - to dodge the observance of the laws of the Commonwealth, intended to prevent the spread of certain propaganda. I, therefore, ask the committee to adopt this very unusualbut, nevertheless, necessary provision.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

– I cannothelp thinking that lawyers will find themselves in difficulty if ever these complicated sections which we are attempting to amend as we go on come before a court of law. It has beenconceded that this provision is divided into two parts, one dealing with organizations which seek registration and which are tainted, and the other with organizations which have been registered and which also are tainted. The one part is designed to prevent a tainted organization from being registered and the other is designed to remove a tainted organization from the register. In all friendliness to the Government, I suggest that these two branches could be better placed. The first could be attached as a proviso to section 55, sub-section 1, which deals with what organizations may be registered. The second could best be attached to section 60, which provides -

If it appears to the court on the application of any organization or person interested or of the Registrar - that certain things have been done - the court may, if in its discretion it thinks fit, order the registration of the organization to be cancelled, and thereupon it shall be cancelled accordingly.

Under section 60 of the principal act, the Registrar may move for the cancellation of the registration of an organization. If the latter part of sub-section 2 were included in that section, in some form of words which would give the AttorneyGeneral power to move, his action would give an importance to the application which it would not have otherwise.

We have been favoured with an advance copy of a further amendment, dealing with the Onus of proof, which it is proposed to move. I make these remarks because of the consideration I have given to the proposed amendment. I fear that we may reach a decision which it will be difficult to construe, and may lead to trouble. There does not appear to be a great difference between the opinions of honorable senators of all parties. The Opposition professes to be anxious to have nothing to do with affiliations with bodies on the other side of. the world, such as we have in mind ; and we must accept the assurances it gives. It surely is no disadvantage that a provision goes into’ an act with the approval of all parties. I do not know whether the Leader of the Government has other business to place before the Senate, or whether he desires that we should proceed with this measure; but it seems to me that, having regard to the further amendment of which we have received notice, we should take time to consider the whole sub-section again, from the point of view of the wording rather than that of the spirit.

I do not think that there is so much in the retrospectivity of this provision as the Opposition appears to believe there is. Were we to set out to prove that an association is at present affiliated with one of the organizations here mentioned, one of the ways in. which to do so would be to prove what it said, or did, at any time within the last twelve months or other period. It is a question of evidence, rather than of anything else. The suggested amendment proposes to make this kind of thing evidence. I do not altogether agree that what is here charged as being a retrospective operation is really retrospective. If the desire were merely to catch some one for something he did in the past, and for which he is now sorry, I would join the Opposition in disapproving of the attempt; but one of the best ways of proving what an organization is to-day is to show what its actions have been in the past.

Senator Kingsmill:

– It is a question of the character of the union.

Senator BRENNAN:

– Yes; that can often be shown best by proving how it has acted in the past. That is not only in accordance with the ordinary principles of British law; it is also perfectly fair to the person charged.

Senator MacDonald:

– But we should not base our case on it, as the Leader of the Government proposes.

Senator BRENNAN:

– The amendment refers to an association which, within a period of twelve months immediately preceding the commencement of this section, or at any time thereafter, makes certain claims.

Senator O’Halloran:

– The court is the best body to determine the character of an organization.

Senator BRENNAN:

– The court can only do that on the evidence placed before it as to the acts, words and resolutions of the organization in the past. The Leader of the Government will see that the words “ or purports to be “ will have to be altered. Indeed, there will need to be a number of amendments ; and it seems to me that we are likely to involve ourselves in complications if we try to amend this section as we go along. In all friendliness, I suggest that the Government should withdraw the bill for the time being, and reconsider it, not with the object of receding from the position the Government has taken up, but to make its. position clearer than it can be made by amendments which are made, somewhat hurriedly, as we go along. I do not want to be placed in the position of either voting against the Government, or of voting for something the meaning of which is in doubt. That is my position now.

Senator Sir GEORGIE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[8.21]. - Senator Brennan suggested first, that these provisions should be separated, and placed after the sections dealing with registrations and cancellations as they appear in the principal act. I assure the honorable senator that that matter was fully considered by the Attorney-General, who decided to separate the clauses, because they dealt with entirely different classes of things. It is true that they deal with registrations and cancellations; but, sections 55 and 60 deal with the ordinary registration of uni.ons, covering such matters as there being two unions in one industry, and other ordinary matters which have to be provided for. Section 60, which deals with cancellations, is the ordinary provision in every arbitration act dealing with cancellations for various causes; it is entirely different from this legislation, designed to protect the community. The AttorneyGeneral thought that it would be wise to separate this provision from the ordinary trade union regulatory provisions.

As to the other point raised by Senator Brennan, I grant the pungency of the criticism, and the danger of making amendments as we go along. I suggest, however, that we should adopt these amendments tonight, in which case I undertake not to ask the Senate to adopt the report of the committee until to-morrow. In the meantime, I shall bring both the amendment and the criticism of it under the notice of the Attorney-General and the draftsman. There will be ample time between now and to-morrow afternoon for full consideration to be given to the matters raised. It would be an advantage to get the amendment into the bill so that the clause can be put into the shape in which we want it to emerge. It is now figuratively shreds and patches; the Government wants to have the whole garment before it. . If we do as I suggest we shall have before us the whole clause, as amended, when we come to adopt the report of the committee. If necessary, the bill could then be recommitted. In any case, on the motion for the adoption of the report, a discussion could take place. To those who desire to help, the Government, I say that we should go forward until we reach the report stage, leaving the actual adoption of the report until to-morrow.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

Senator BRENNAN:

– That is my next point. The express provisions for retrospectivity do not in that connexion appear to me to be necessary. When the court comes to consider, let us say, an application not for registration, but for the cancellation of registration, it will hear evidence upon the point. That evidence may take the form of definitely proving that within twelve months the organization concerned was affiliated with an organization abroad. But it may none the less satisfy the court that that organization has abandoned its affiliation, and that it is not at the time so affiliated. If the court is so satisfied, unless prohibited by the act of Parliament itself, it will decline to de-register. Therefore, while evidence may be given of what an organization has done within the previous twelve months, in order to show, on the analogy mentioned by my colleague, Senator Kingsmill, its present character, if the judge is satisfied that that present character is good, notwithstanding what was done twelve months previously, it will grant the registration in the one case or decline to de-register in the other. But that principle would apply under the ordinary laws of evidence, even though it was not included in the proposed amendment. Consequently, while I agree that retrospective provisions positively enacted are always objectionable - that is to say, they have an objectionable side, although the need for them may sometimes render it necessary to depart from a settled principle - it seems to me that here they are not necessary, and that the effect of them may be to involve people in punishment, not because of what they are to-day, but because of what they were yesterday. They are unnecessary also because character over a period may be proved even without express authority. The court thus would be left in the best position to decide the matter, and could decide it without having its hands tied. Therefore, while I willingly accede to the first view put forward by the Leader of the Senate, -I am not shaken in the opinion that it would be well to reconsider the whole matter with a view to placing before the committee a clause that will take away nothing that the Government desires to preserve and embrace nothing that the Opposition desires to exclude. I hope that I am not so tainted with party bias - although I am not ashamed to profess party loyalty - as to believe that there is any harm in an amendment that meets the wishes of both sides. Particularly does that apply to a non-party chamber, such as the Senate is, andI hope will always continue to be.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator McLachlan’s amendment) be so inserted - put. The committee divided. ( Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 7

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [9.3].- I move-

That the words “ at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section,” paragraph b, sub-section 1 of proposed new section60a, be left out.

This amendment is in conformity with that outlined by the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator McLachlan), and it is necessitated by the redrafting of the proposed new sub-section.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- I desire to leave out the words “ claims, or has at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section claimed that it is affiliated or associated “ in paragraph b. The proposed new . section would then read - “ An association which is or purports to be affiliated or associated …”

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [9.6]. - As I have moved a prior amendment, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes) should test the feeling of the committee by moving to leave out the words “ or has “. To enable him to do so I am prepared to temporarily withdraw my amendment.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Amendment (by Senator Barnes) proposed -

That the words “ or has “, paragraph 6, subsection 1 of proposed new section60a, be left out.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– It is my intention to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the

– Quite so; but, even if they all voted for it, is it not possible for them, in the light of greater knowledge, to change their minds and desire to retrace their steps? Senator Pearce and

Senator McLachlan are insisting on this legislation being made retrospective to prevent any such change of tactics. Senator Pearce has pointed out that resort is had to all sorts of tricks, and that certain people are working underground. If this legislation is enacted, skittling all the principles upon which our democracy is based, there may be some point in the right honorable senator’s remarks about working underground. At present there is no concealment. The affiliation to which reference has been made was entered into openly. The Trades and Labour Council of Sydney has also affiliated with the Red International of Labour Unions. According to Senator Pearce, an organization may change its name and blossom forth as a new body; but I should say that, if the executive remains the same, or substantially the same, and the membership is recruited from those following the same calling, it will be an easy matter to prove whether it is trying to escape the law by a change of name.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator’s remarks would be more appropriate on the general question of the acceptance of the clause.

Senator RAE:

– Thank you; but I understood that the amendment was being taken as a test.

– Those concerned will have an opportunity of proving that the press statement is incorrect.

SenatorO’HALLORAN. - Already these organizations have been dealt with severely by the retrospective provisions which we have passed. Now it is proposed to place on them the onus of satisfying the court that what some member of the organization said, perhaps 20 years ago-

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Within the preceding twelve months.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– In view of thefact that the principle has already been accepted, I shall not discuss the matter further.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Senator Sir George Pearce) agreed to -

That the words “at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section paragraph 6, sub-section 1 of proposed section 60a, be left out.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [9.37].- I move-

That the following new sub-section be inserted : - “1(a). An association shall be deemed to claim, or to have claimed, that it is, or has been, affiliated or associated with a body of persons of the kind specified in sub-section 1 if the committee of management of the association, or the executive committee of the association, or any general meeting of the association, or of a branch thereof, claims, or has claimed, that it is, or has been, so affiliated or associated, or passesa resolution that the association or the branch is so affiliated or associated, and a statement by an officer of the association or of a branch thereof, that the association, or the branch, is, or has, decided to become so affiliated or associated, shall be prima facie evidence that the association is so affiliated or associated.”

That is practically a definition of the evidence that can be submitted to show that an organization claims, or has claimed, to be associated with the Bed International.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– This definition of evidence contains one fatal flaw; it provides that if a branch of an organization claims, or has claimed, to be affiliated or associated with certain other organizations it shall be deemed to have been so associated. An organization with branches scattered over the continent may be deregistered, and its members deprived of their privileges, because one branch does something of which the others do not approve.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The association can deal with that branch.

SenatorRAE. - Irrespective of what may happen to the branch for its action, the whole organization may suffer. That is not fair.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Any such claim by a branch will be prima facie evidence. The court will decide whether or not it represents the views of the whole organization.

Senator RAE:

– The action of one branch or of one member may destroy the whole organization.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Having heard the whole of the evidence, the court may decide not to cancel the registration of the organization.

Senator RAE:

– It would appear that in order to escape from the barbarism of the Government’s proposal an organization will have to depend on the mercy of the court. One of my chief reasons for objecting to this barbaric legislation is that it seeks to put the industrial clock back to the middle ages, and will prevent individuals and organizations from getting fair play. This bill is based on the allegation that certain organizations are trying to overthrow the government of this country. After the passage of this measure any union which becomes affiliated with such a body will be regarded as a menace to the peace and stability of the Commonwealth. Let me point out that the action of the Government in this matter is doing far more to bring about that undesirable state of affairs than that of any particular union. Necessarily, the effect of all sorts of oppressive legislation is to drive people underground, because they will not submit to tyranny which is provocative of revolution. As a matter of fact, if this course is persisted in, there will be nothing left for the industrialists to do but to turn to revolution as a way out of their difficulties.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– The amendment is about the most astounding proposal that I have ever heard of. It is an attempt to penalize an organization simply because a few hotheads in it may gather together and declare in favour of affiliation with some foreign body. I could not help thinking as I listened to the amendments submitted by the Government to-night, that the deliberate intention is to destroy trade unionism and particularly that section of it which, hitherto, has always stood for constitutional methods instead of direct action. As a member of such a body, the Government’s proposals appear to me to be most absurd. My organization, which has a membership of nearly 3,000, is divided into a number of branches which meet in the various cities at different periods of the year. As we all know, comparatively few members attend trade union meetings, and in nearly every branch there is a limited number of men who have become enamoured of the ideas promulgated by those who are against constitutional methods, and because of action for which these men may be solely responsible, my organization may be in danger of deregistration. The proposals now put forward by this Government are calculated to force trade unionism to adopt unconstitutional means to procure its ends. If the Ministry insists on having its way, it is of no use, apparently, for us to strive to reach some agreement to preserve the arbitration system on a sound basis, because obviously the Government has no sympathy with those trade unions which believe in constitutional methods and is not prepared to assist them to continue along those lines.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

– The amendment enacts that if the committee of management of an association or if the executive committee of an association in general meeting, or if a branch of such an association offends against the law by seeking affiliation with some illegal body, it shall be guilty of an offence. I belong to a union with tens of thousands of members. A few members out on some road job - fifteen members can call a general meeting - may adopt a resolution of affiliation with such a body, and although 50,000 members may be opposed to such a course, my organization will be brought within the four corners of the act simply because the resolution carried at a branch meeting would appear on the agenda paper for consideration at the annual conference, although, in all probability, it would then be rejected. Nevertheless, my union would stand in danger of deregistration automatically. If any labour organization decides upon affiliation with the Red International, it will lose the benefit of arbitration, but the members can please themselves. If, after the passing of this bill, members of certain unions decide to affiliate with an illegal body and forgo the benefit of arbitration, the measure will not do anything of a practical nature to overcome the difficulty. As a matter of fact, the tendency will be to drive industrial organizations away from the court and to induce them to use the strike weapon for the settlement of their troubles. There does not appear to be any sense in the Ministry’s proposal. It is the duty of the Government to give an organization a chance to rid itself of the affiliation if it wishes to do so and to enjoy the benefits of arbitration.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– At first I was inclined to believe in the protestations of sincerity made by the Government when Ministers appealed to the Opposition to pass certain provisions on the understanding that action would be left to the discretion of the Attorney-General. I say now, quite deliberately, that I am not prepared to trust the discretionary power of this G overnment. The very com plica ted and obnoxious amendment which has just been submitted has shaken my faith in the sincerity of the Ministers. Up to the present, we have not had an opportunity to study the amendment, and I now feel convinced, that the intention is to inflict the gravest possible hardship on the trade union movement in Australia in order to bring about the disintegration of that wonderful force which, hitherto, has stood for law and order and the peaceful settlement of industrial disputes, so that the people whom the Government represents may work their will upon employees in industry.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon Herbert Hays:

– Order! The honorable senator must not impute improper motives to the Government. I. ask him to confine his remarks to the subject-matter of the amendment.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. My excuse is that the amendment is long and complicated, and I have only had an opportunity to glance at it. Speaking from memory, it will bring within the ambit of the law, as regards the law of evidence, organizations on the mere declaration of an executive committee or an official of a trade union, who may claim that it is affiliated with bodies opposed to political action and seeking the overthrow of government by force. No regard is to be paid to the fact, as has been pointed out by my leader, that the executive or official making the claim may be a mere nonentity. The union in question may be put to considerable expense and inconvenience to prove its innocence. A government which can bring down such an amendment does not enjoy my confidence. I cannot believe that its administration of the law will be tempered with mercy, and, for this reason, I am absolutely opposed to the amendment.

Question - That. the amendment (Senator Sir George Pearce’ s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- I move-

That after the word “ time,” sub-section 2, proposed new section60a, the words “ after a period of six months from the passing of this section “ be inserted.

If this amendment is accepted, an organization that wishes to cease its affiliation with an unlawful association and to enjoy the privileges of the Arbitration Act will have an opportunity to do so within a period of six months. By agreeing to it, this Parliament will display a readiness to enable such organizations to conform to what the. Government seems to think is necessary for the safety of the people of this country. I do not consider that the Government is being asked to concede too much. So far as I can gather, there is only one union which it is suggested has such an affiliation ; and even that has not been proved. It is possible that the Government will never be able to prove that it is affiliated with a body that has its head-quarters in Russia.

Senator Rae:

– It will not have to prove it.

Senator BARNES:

– The Leader of the Senate would be satisfied with a press report; on such flimsy evidence he would deprive of the benefits of arbitration 50,000 loyal Australians who are anxious to obey the laws of this country. The Government is going the right way to make dangerous to the welfare of the people of this country independent bodies of men who believe in the enjoyment of reasonable liberties.

It can at least be claimed that an Australian would be the first to resent most vigorously repression of this character.I warn the Government that there is a limit even to what an Australian will stand. We enjoy freedom that it has taken many years to obtain. The passage of legislation of this character will merely invite reprisals that will not be in the best interests of the people or of Australia itself.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [10.7]. - The Government cannot accept the amendment, the only effect of which would be to hold up this legislation for six months while these gentlemen were making up their minds.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Barnes’ amendment) be inserted - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 7

NOES: 14

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Questionso resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Senator Sir George Pearce) proposed -

That after the word “that”, sub-section 2, proposed new section60a, the words “ within a period of twelve months immediately preceding the commencement of this section, or at any time thereafter “ be inserted.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– This amendment embodies the principle of retrospective punishment, about which we had. a very learned dissertation earlier in the sitting. Those honorable senators opposite who then enunciated the principle that punishment ought not to be retrospectively applied, should now define their attitude. The amendment proposes to make the provisions of the clause apply to organizations that have been affiliated at any time during the twelve months prior to the passing of the act. That, in my mind, undoubtedly is retrospective punishment.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Sir George Pe arce’ s amendment) be inserted - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 13

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Sir George Pearce) agreed to.

That the word “ shall “, sub-section 4 of proposed new section60a, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ may “.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

– I am strongly opposed to the retention of sub-section6 of this proposed new section, which provides that an association shall not be eligible for registration as an organization until after the. expiration of three years from the date of deregistration. Unless the Minister will agree to considerably reduce the period, preferably to three months, it is my intention to move to delete the sub-section.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– There ought to bo some period. I am agreeable to one year in lieu of three years, and if the Leader of the Opposition will move an amendment to that effect, I shall accept it.

Senator BARNES:

– I move -

That the words “ three years “, sub-section 6 of proposed new section60a, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ one year “.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– I shall accept that amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

– I move -

That the word “ organization”, last occurring, sub-section 7 of proposed new section 60a, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ applicant “.

The onus of proof under this proposed new sub-section shouldrest with the applicant and not with the organization. The person applying for the deregistration of an organization should show why it should be deregistered. We cannot expect an organization to cut its own throat.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [10.26]. - I remind honorable senators that the committee has already inserted a new sub-section setting out what is deemed to be prima facie evidence. The AttorneyGeneral after making the application provided for in the bill would have to submit that prima facie evidence. An organization is in possession of its books and other records, and could, therefore, show that a resolution was or was not authorized by the union. That information is not in the possession of the Attorney-General; that is why the onus to rebut the prima facie evidence is placed upon the organization.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

. - The arguments of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce) do not appeal to me at all. An organization may be charged with a breach of the law; but the Government may fail to find in the records of any conference or proceedings proof of any such breach. The allegation may be made that a resolution pertaining to affiliation has been deliberately omitted in order to escape punishment. The organization has to prove that it did not do anything of the kind. An organization could be charged with something which it could not possibly disprove. This proposal is in keeping with the barbaric attempts of the Government to pillory trade unions by depriving them of any opportunity to establish their innocence, and to find them guilty of charges not yet defined. It is possible for charges to be made against any of us in our private capacity or otherwise, and for us to find it difficult, if not impossible, to prove our innocence. It is a foundation principle that the onus of proof must lie on the accuser, otherwise things might be said about the accused which the prosecuting counsel had no chance of proving. I re-affirm my statement that this is a deliberate attempt to drive men into the revolutionary camp. They will have no option. If we cannot get justice for our democratic institutions, which are being whittled away by every act that is passed, we must welcome a revolution. This is the worst type of repressive legislation. It sets up a star chamber body to level accusations against an organization, and then throws upon it the onus of disproof. I protest against such legislation. It will not only produce revolution, but justify it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, also consequentially amended and, as amended, agreed to.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [10.32].-If progress is reported at this stage, it will still leave the bill in the bands of the committee, and in the meantime opportunity will be afforded to study the effect of the amendments before proceeding further.

Progress reported.

Semite adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 September 1932, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1932/19320907_senate_13_135/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 7 September 1932

QUESTION

RICHMOND WIRELESS STATION

QUESTION

NEWNES SHALE DEPOSITS

Senator McLACHLAN:Minister in charge of Development and Scientific and Industrial Research · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

QUESTION

MELBOURNE TO KALGOORLIE RAILWAY FREIGHTS

PATENTS DEPARTMENT

Transfer to Canberra

PAPERS

TARIFF BOARD’S REPORT

Senator GREENE:Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator O’Halloran:

Senator GREENE:Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

MAKINE DIVING SUIT

Senator DUNN:through Senator Rae

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

DEFENCE BILL

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

NAURU ISLAND AGREEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

WIRE AND WIRE NETTING BILL

Second Reading

Senator McLACHLAN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator O’HALLORAN:South Australia

Senator E B JOHNSTON:Western Australia

Senator O’HALLORAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator O’Halloran:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Collings:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Hoare:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Collings:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:Western Australia

Senator McLachlan:

Senator O’Halloran:

Senator McLachlan:

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon Herbert Hays:TASMANIA

DESIGNS BILL

Second Reading

Senator McLACHLAN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator Rae:

Senator McLACHLAN:

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

Senator BARNES:Victoria

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon Herbert Hays:

Senator McLACHLAN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator BARNES:Victoria

Senator O’HALLORAN:South Australia

Senator McLachlan:

Senator O’HALLORAN:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator O’HALLORAN:

Senator McLACHLAN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator O’Halloran:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator MacDonald:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator MacDonald:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Brown:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator MacDonald:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator MacDonald:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Barnes:

Senator MacDonald:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator MacDonald:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator BARNES:Victoria

Senator McLachlan:

Senator BARNES:

Senate
7 September 1932

Senator McLACHLAN:
Minister in charge of Development and Scientific and Industrial Research · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNN:
through Senator Rae

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon Herbert Hays:
TASMANIA

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP