/
19310724_senate_12_131.xml
2560 lines (2560 loc) · 199 KB
/
19310724_senate_12_131.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1931-07-24</date>
<parliament.no>12</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>4</period.no>
<chamber>SENATE</chamber>
<page.no>4379</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para class="block">Senate. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1931-07-24</day.start>
<para>The <inline font-weight="bold">President (Senator the Hon. W. W.</inline> Kingsmill) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PUBLIC SERVICE</title>
<page.no>4379</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Salary Reductions - Child Endowment</title>
<page.no>4379</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4379</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is the Leader of the Government <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Barnes)</inline> yet in a position to answer the questions I asked him last week, relative to the apparent anomaly in regard to Public Service salary reductions and child endowment, and also in regard to the application of similar principles to the military service as are being applied to the Public Service? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4379</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1L</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARNES, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator BARNES</name>
</talker>
<para>- I regret that I am not yet able to supply the right honorable senator with that information. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>4379</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>SALES TAX ON AGRICULTURAL LIME</title>
<page.no>4379</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4379</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KOF</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HAYES, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator J B HAYES</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs yet able to announce the decision of the Government in regard to the request I made on the 18th June for the exemption of agricultural lime from sales taxation, in view of the fact that other fertilizers are exempt? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4379</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1L</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARNES, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator BARNES</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am not yet able to give the honorable senator that information. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>4380</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>WHEAT INDUSTRY</title>
<page.no>4380</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para class="block">guarantee op 38. per bushel- policy of the Government - Polls of Wheat-growers. </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4380</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRZ</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Senator LYNCH</name>
</talker>
<para>- Will the Leader of the Government say why, when the Commonwealth Bank Board notified the Government that it was informed that it would be irregular and illegal for the Government to guarantee the board against loss if it provided money for the payment of 3s. per bushel for wheat, under the measure before us some time ago, the Government did not make provision for the advance to be made and indemnify itself against loss, as other governments have done? In other words, why was not the Government sincere ? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4380</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1L</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARNES, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator BARNES</name>
</talker>
<para>- The. Government was prepared to guarantee the bank against loss, but the bank was not prepared to accept the guarantee. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4380</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Senator Lynch</name>
</talker>
<para>- Could not the Government have guaranteed the bank, and indemnified itself afterwards? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4380</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K3X</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CARROLL, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator CARROLL</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Markets, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Will the passage of the Wheat Marketing Bill now before another place automatically repeal the Wheat Advances Act 1930? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>If not. is it the intention of the Government to bring down legislation for its repeal? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Failing the repeal of that act, is it the intention of the Government to have the act proclaimed? </para>
</item>
</list>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4380</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1L</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARNES, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator BARNES</name>
</talker>
<para>- In the Wheat Marketing Bill now before another place, provision is made for the repeal of the Wheat Advances Act 1930. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4380</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Senator LYNCH</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Is it a fact that the wheat-growers of New South Wales have now, by a substantial majority, rejected the proposal for the establishment of a compulsory wheat pool? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Is it also a fact that New South Wales is the third wheat State that has deliberately rejected the creation ofsuch a pool? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Is it the intention, under the Wheat Marketing Bill now before Parliament, to obtain an increased price for wheat sold for consump tion in Australia by giving the compulsory pools, power to fix a price above world's parity; if so, would not this cause an increase in the price of bread? </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>If the proposal for a compulsory pool is not acceptable to the wheat-growers, will the Governmentsecure for them an increased price for wheat by means of a sales tax on flour and apply the proceeds to the payment of the promised bounty? </para>
</item>
<item label="5.">
<para>If not, why not? </para>
</item>
</list>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4380</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1L</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARNES, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator BARNES</name>
</talker>
<para>- The replies to the honorable senator's questions are as follow : - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>At a poll held in New South Wales' on the 17th July last, 57.36 per cent of those who voted were opposed to the establishment of a compulsory wheat pool. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>In Queensland a compulsory pool has been established with the approval of the wheatgrowers in that State. </para>
</item>
</list>
<para>Since September, 1928, four polls have been taken in New South Wales at two of which there was a majority in favour of the establishment of a compulsory pool, but as the majority required by the act was not obtained, a pool could not be established. In two instances there was a majority against the establishment of a compulsory pool. </para>
<para>In Victoria two polls of wheat-growers have been taken. In one instance there was a small majority against the establishment of a compulsory pool. In the other case a majority favoured . the establishment of a compulsory pool, but as this majority was not the requisite majority specified by the act, a pool could not be formed. </para>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="3.">
<para>4, and 5. The Wheat Marketing Bill now about to be submitted to the Senate contains the necessary provisions to enable the Australian Wheat Board, acting in consultation with the State Wheat Boards to fix a price for wheat sold for local consumption within the respective States. </para>
</item>
</list>
<para>" NEW GUARD." </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4380</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1L</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARNES, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator BARNES</name>
</talker>
<para>- Inquiries are being made into the questions asked by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Rae</inline> relative to the New South Wales organization known as the " New Guard", and a reply will be furnished to the honorable senator as soon as possible. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>4380</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>COMMONWEALTH AND STATE RAILWAYS</title>
<page.no>4380</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Reductions of Costs</para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4380</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1L</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARNES, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator BARNES</name>
</talker>
<para>- On the 17th July, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator R.</inline> D. Elliott asked the Minister for Transport the following questions, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice: -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Is it a fact that reductions have been made in the working costs of any or all the States' Railway Departments, the result of applications to the Arbitration Court? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Have the Commonwealth railway authorities made application for similar reductions? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>If so; what do those reductions amount to? </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>If not; is there any reason why the Commonwealth Railway Department has not taken action to secure these reductions? </para>
</item>
</list>
<para>I am now in a position to furnish the following reply: - </para>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>The State Railways Departments of Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania have had reductions as a result of applications to the Arbitration Court. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>No. </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Sec No. 2. </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>The matter is receiving attention in connexion with the financial emergency legislation. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>LEAVE OF ABSENCE</title>
<page.no>4381</page.no>
<type>leave of absence</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Herbert</inline> Hays) agreed to - </para>
<quote>
<para>That leave of absence for one month be granted to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Milten</inline> on account of ill health. </para>
</quote>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PAPERS</title>
<page.no>4381</page.no>
<type>papers</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>The following papers were presented : - </para>
<quote>
<para>Patents Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1931, No. 88. </para>
<para>Transport Workers Act - Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1931, No. 76- No. 77. </para>
</quote>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL (No. 3)</title>
<page.no>4381</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Bill received from the House of Representatives; Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; and bill (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Barnes)</inline> read a first time. </para>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Second Reading</title>
<page.no>4381</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator BARNES</inline>(Victoria - Vice- </para>
<para>President of the Executive Council) [11.11].- I move- </para>
<quote>
<para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
</quote>
<para>The history of industrial arbitration in Australia holds many memories for honorable senators. Most of us are able to recall that in the years of our youth we fought for a means, which we thought would be sane and sensible, of avoiding the industrial disturbances which took place from time to time. After a great deal of agitation and argument, what we now know as the arbitration system of Australia, was established. Last year, honorable senators will recollect, a bill to amend the Conciliation and Arbitra tion Act was passed by this chamber after a very lengthy discussion, and agreement was reached with another place only after a conference of managers of both Houses had been held. The bill met with some obstruction in this chamber. At that time a number of industrial representatives were in Canberra, and it was decided to hold a conference of representatives, the Government, the Opposition, and the industrialists. The result of that conference was reported to the Senate. The principles to which the Senate then agreed with respect to the extension of the sphere of conciliation are the subject of the provisions of the bill now before us, consequent upon the judgment of the High Court in the case of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Railways Union</inline> versus <inline font-style="italic">VictorianRailways Commissioners.</inline> The majority of the justices held that section 34 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which deals with the appointment and functions of conciliation committees, was invalid. I think I am correctly interpreting the opinion of honorable senators who were present at the conference to which I have referred when I say that they welcomed the proposal to establish conciliation committees representative of both employers and employees, with an independent chairman called a commissioner. It was felt that the views of both sides could be placed before such committees, and that the chairman would be able to deliver a prompt judgment on the evidence submitted to him. The judgment of the High Court, to which I have already referred, also declared that section 33 of the act was invalid on the ground that it was inseparable from section 34. I think I am right in saying that the Senate last year desired that a reasonable means should be devised of settling industrial disputes. At the time we thought we were providing this, but eventually what we provided was challenged, and the High Court determined against us. The purpose of this amendment is to remedy defects in the principal act. </para>
<para>Under section 34 the Governor-General appointed conciliation committees consisting of members selected by the GovernorGeneral from nominations by the parties to the disputes. As the court did not consider persons so chosen to be authorized agents of the parties, it held that it was a law enabling a body of persons to settle a dispute by issuing a decree arrived at by a discussion among themselves without any hearing or determination between the disputants, and that such a law was not a law with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes. The line drawn is a fine one. The intention in making the appointments from among nominees of the parties was that such nominees would be representative of those parties. In actual practice such would be the case. However, in view of the technical distinction an alteration of the language used in the section is necessary. </para>
<para>There are also some consequential alterations arising from the judgment. For example, the chairman of a committee was not to be present at the initial deliberation, but was to be called upon if the other members were unable to arrive at an agreement. As the members of committees are to be given the status of representatives, it is now proposed that the chairman shall be present throughout the discussions. With the reenactment of section 34 in a valid form, the validity of section 33 will not be impaired. It is proposed to extend the operation of this provision to cover not only applications for the settlement of disputes or the variation of awards, but also applications to set aside, suspend or cancel awards. The act contains specific provision for the suspension or cancellation of awards on various grounds, such as the breach or non-observance of awards. This power is of a punitive nature. Contained in the section is a power to set aside, suspend or cancel an award for " any other reason ". </para>
<para>These Words are intended to be read in connexion with the preceding words, and were meant to give the court general power over cases of misconduct. The words, however, ha,ve. been, given the very widest interpretation, as if they were placed in a separate and distinct section, and stood alone wholly divorced from their context. The amendment proposed in clause 6 of the bill will restrict the power to the limits intended. It will be seen, therefore, that the bill introduces no new principles, and is substantially a technical amendment founded on the exposition of the letter of the law by the High Court </para>
<para>There is no great need for me to say much on this subject. I think that all honorable senators recognize the wisdom of settling industrial disputes by arbitration. That method has not always turned out as successful as was anticipated by most of us, but after all, even a judge sometimes, being human, is liable to err. I have had personal experience of that. In my opinion, and that of the members of the Australian Workers Union, a president of the Arbitration Court, in giving a judgment, did err. The union would not accept the judgment, and for a long time its members were out of employment. I am generally the last to advise men to strike, but there are occasions, such as the exceptional one to which I have referred, when it is necessary for the workers to set themselves in opposition to a determination by an arbitration court. Generally speaking under arbitration the industries of Australia ha.ve been carried on reasonably peacefully. At times employers and employees have resented determinations by the Arbitration Court, and have employed other means to settle, their disputes, but the folly of such a course has been demonstrated over and over again. <inline font-style="italic">]$o</inline> industry can cease operations without throwing every other industry in the country more or less out of stride. Take the waterside workers, about whom we have heard so much in recent weeks. There are-comparatively few men engaged on the waterfront, but a cessation s of work on their Dart disorganizes the whole industrial eastern of Australia.. It is common sense for us to say, " Let us get together and put our case before a judge of the Arbitration Court ". The purpose of this bill is to give effect to what the managers of the Senate, in conference with the managers of the House of Representatives, thought they were providing for, and I commend the measure to honorable senators. </para>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir GEORGE</inline>PEARCE (Western Australia) ' [11.25]. - After explaining the provisions of the bill <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Barnes</inline> has made a speech in defence of arbitration, a matter which is not, raised <inline font-style="italic">by</inline> the bill, and is not a point at issue. </para>
<para>This bill has an unfortunate history. At the last elections the issue was whether the Federal Arbitration Court and federal arbitration law were to be maintained. The Bruce-Page Government had put forward a policy for the withdrawal by the Commonwealth from the arbitration field except in regard to the maritime industry, and that policy had been challenged by the then Opposition. Labour declared at the elections that it stood for federal arbitration. The issue was not arbitration' or no arbitration, because, if the' Commonwealth withdrew, State arbitration laws would still remain ; it was whether or not the Federal Arbitration Court and law should be maintained, and on that issue the present Government won. The country declared for the maintenance of the Federal Arbitration Court. But this bill, far from maintaining the Federal Arbitration Court, deals it a deadly blow, hamstrings it and renders it inoperative. When introducing its bill last year the present Government did not take the ground that it proposed to extend the powers, functions, or scope of the Federal Arbitration Court, but said that the conciliation power in the existing act could usefully be extended. At any rate, that was the pretext put forward for a bill which was almost entirely devoted, in its main principles, to the appointment of conciliation committees. There were provisions in the main act for such committees, but the Government declared that it wanted more of these. The bill, however, contained a number of other clauses the effect of whichwas to strike out the provision for the holding of secret ballets and the provision under which the Arbitration Court was directed to pay regard to the economic positionof an industry. There were also clauses relating to quite a number of Blatters not mentioned at the election: When the bill came before us, recognizing that the Government had been given a mandate to maintain the principle of arbitration,the Federal Arbitration Court and arbitration law', we accepted the assurance of the Government that it desired to extend the conciliation provisions of the existing law, and, theref ore, we did not object to the clauses which gave the conciliation committees additional powers. But we struck' out of the bill the other provisions to which I have referred. As the result, a dispute arose between the two Houses, and a conference of managers was arranged. That conference' unanimously arrived at an agreement as to the amendments made by the Senate which should be accepted or rejected. The report of the conference was adopted in both chambers, and this is what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Daly,</inline> who was then Leader of the Government in the Senate and one of the managers at the conference, had to say when he brought up the report - </para>
<quote>
<para>I wish to say that an excellent spirit prevailed at the conference. Both parties attended the conference obviously animated by the. desire to arrive at an agreement if that could be done without sacrificing principles, and, I think, that the Senate may rest assured' that in all matters of importance its views have been met in. a very reasonable way. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Beasley</inline>was handling the matter in the House ofRepresentatives. He was a member of the Ministry at the time, and was one of the managers for the House ofRepresentatives at the conference. In making his report to the House ofRepresentatives, he said - </para>
<quote>
<para>The deliberations of the conference were of a lengthy character. Naturally the representativeson both sides stressedtheir respectiveopinions, and endeavoured to reach a' decision which they thought would meet the position. Each member of the conference entered into the negotiations with a desire to make this measure of benefit to the people from his particular point of view. 1 say quite frankly and definitely that the amendments agreed upon do not accomplish all that I would desire. Some of' the principles for which the Government has fought will not be- embodied in the' bill. Undoubtedly it has had a rugged passage in both branches of the legislature, and in the conference. The report of the conference is submitted to the committee for its favorable consideration, and it is hoped' that it will carry us along the path that we all desire to follow. The administration' of the measure will be watched very closely by the Grovernment. Every possible means will be taken to make this law operate as smoothly as possible. If the circumstances under which it has been necessary for us to accept this compromise change, the Government will seize the earliest opportunity to give" effect to the principles which it thinks should be embodied in this legislation. </para>
</quote>
<para>Certain members of the Labour party in another place voted against the adoption of the conference report, but <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chifley</inline> who was then a private member, but. is now a member of the Government, spoke iri support of it in these terms - </para>
<quote>
<para>I am prepared to go before the trade unions in any State, and to give to the men who really understand arbitration a full explanation and justification of the vote I shall record this afternoon. My duty in this House is to serve the people I represent, the majority' of whom arc workers. Although I do not think that the bill, us amended, represents all that we should have got, I believe I am justified in accepting it as representing some improvement on existing legislation. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">So much for the final shape in which that bill emerged from the conference between the two houses. It can, I think, -be truthfully said that it represented substantially the Government's interpretation of its mandate from the electors not to make any alteration in the act, but to maintain the principle of Commonwealth arbitration and the power of the court. But no sooner was that measure placed upon the statute-book than the Government by its administration, deliberately used the powers vested in it under certain provisions of the act as amended to prevent the Arbitration Court from functioning. Let me remind honorable senators of what happened. One of its first acts was to appoint no less than seventeen conciliation committees. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4384</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLACHLAN, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Senator McLachlan</name>
</talker>
<para>- Although there was no dispute then before the court. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4384</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable senator is in error. There was then one dispute before the court. Railway commissioners of every State were faced with tremendous deficits in their accounts, and State Governments also were concerned about the deficits in their public accounts. This drift in railway finances had been noticeable for some considerable time. Railway revenues in all States were dwindling from month to month until finally it became obvious that the only course open to the commissioners was to apply to the court for relief. Accordingly the railway commissioners of the several States joined in an application for a reduction of 10 per cent, in wages cost. Naturally the application was opposed by the various unions interested, and the case was actually before the court when this Government appointed its seventeen conciliation committees to deal with various aspects of railway claims, the deliberate intention being to remove the claim from the juris- diction of the court. The AttorneyGeneral <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Brennan)</inline> actually appeared in court to offer reasons why that tribunal should surrender its jurisdiction in respect of those claims. Thus we had the extraordinary spectacle of a government which claimed to have been returned with a definite mandate to maintain the principle of arbitration intervening to prevent important government activities from obtaining relief in their dire necessity. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4384</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Senator Lynch</name>
</talker>
<para>- And the railways deficits last year amounted to £9,000,000. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4384</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>-AH will remember the extraordinary action taken by this Government to prevent the Arbitration Court from making a determination with respect to the application of the railways commissioners who, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Lynch</inline> has said, were faced with deficits amounting to between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000. Eventually the Government succeeded. Then application was made 'by one, if not two of the States, to the Hight Court, which decided that this Government was acting illegally and had not the power to transfer jurisdiction in arbitration claims from the High Court to the conciliation committees. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para>That briefly is the history of the action taken by this Government in those claims. In this bill the Government is going a step further. It is now attempting to over-ride the decision of the High Court ; it is attempting to take from the Arbitration Court power to adjudicate in respect of all claims rightfully and lawfully brought before it. Not only is the Government proposing to do this, but in the last clause of the bill it is enacting that the provision relating to this arbitral power with which it seeks to clothe the conciliation - committees, shall be retrospective to the date of the intervention by the Attorney-General in the claim by the railway commissioners before the Arbitration Court. The bill purports to extend the conciliation provisions of the Arbitration Act. It does nothing of the kind. Nor is it designed to uphold the principle of arbitration, because no one will seriously contend that, under the existing law, the Arbitration Court is not able to function freely and effectively in all the States. </para>
<para>We need not look far for the reason for the introduction of this hill. For many years, when Australia was enjoying an era of prosperity, industrial organizations brought before the court, lime after time, claims for higher wages and improved working conditions; and because industry was thriving and prices of all commodities were increasing, the court made awards in order to, if possible, enable employees to keep pace with the increased cost of living. Now, for the first time, because of the change of the economic situation, the court has, perforce, to make awards on a lower scale, and this Government, at the behest of its supporters, is doing all in its power to prevent the court from functioning as an arbitral authority in industrial disputes. In other words, this Government and its supporters are determined that arbitration shall be a one-way traffic business; that the court shall only make awards for increased wages and never bring in determinations to reduce wages. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4385</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1Z</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RAE, Arthur</name>
<name role="display">Senator Rae</name>
</talker>
<para>- Arbitration is one-way traffic now - down hill. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4385</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Because the court, almost for the first time in its history, is now awarding lower wages in industry, this Government, which claims to be the champion of arbitration, is endeavouring to hamstring the court in its functions, and in other ways to prevent it from performing its duty as the final arbitral authority in industrial matters. I suggest that this is a bill which the Senate cannot amend in committee because its main purpose, as I have said, is to interfere with the functions of the Arbitration Court. Therefore, the Senate, in defence of the principle of arbitration, would be perfectly justified in rejecting the bill on its second reading. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4385</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K2Z</name.id>
<electorate>Victoria</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Attorney-General</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator BRENNAN</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I agree with and admire the observations which have just fallen from the lips of the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Pearce),</inline> and am a little amazed at the knowledge of detail he has displayed, having regard to the limited time given to him for the consideration of the bill. I had seen nothing of it until it was put before us this morning, and I find the greatest difficulty in following its various provisions without having before me the principal act to compare the proposed amendments with the existing law. I remember, however, sufficient of the measure which was passed last year for the appointment of conciliation committees and commissioners to recall that the whole of those provisions were declared by the High Court to be unconstitutional ; and I know that in this bill they have been replaced by- a number of clauses which are designed, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, to over-ride the decision of the High Court. I was not a member of the Senate when the last amending bill was under consideration, but if I had been - I do not know whether I am recalcitrant in nature or not - I think it would have taken a great deal of argument to induce me to vote for it. I should have Looked at the history of arbitration in this country from the passing of the first Commonwealth act over 25 years ago to the latest amendment, and would have recalled that, in that time, it had been amended no less than twenty times. Some of the amendments were of a minor character; others, again, were so radical as to alter the whole character of the legislation. Finally, the arbitration tribunal was given the status of a Commonwealth court, and judges were appointed with life tenure. That having been done one would have thought that the last word about the amendment of this act had been heard; but now further drastic amendments are before us. These have direct bearing upon the recent judgment of the High Court, which declared invalid those provisions of the amending act which clothed the conciliation commissioners with arbitral authority. An attempt is being made to replace, as nearly as possible, the provisions which were superseded by the High Court. ' In the provisions of a previous amending bill which were superseded by the judgment of the High Court, and which it is now sought to replace by going as near as it is possible to go with the provisions which have been superseded, a very radical alteration was brought about. That bill, I suggest, proved to be as great a surprise to the majority of the members of this Parliament as was the Trojan horse to the citizens of ancient Troy. </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">No one in either House appeared to have the slightest idea of what these alterations involved. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, it was not until the Government appointed the seventeen conciliation committees, to which he referred, that it was realized that the whole purpose of the act was to< substitute conciliation committees for the Arbitration Court, and to- leave the three judges who had just been appointed with, a life tenure, high and dry, with nothing to do; </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4386</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLACHLAN, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Senator McLachlan</name>
</talker>
<para>- At the conference between the two Houses a promise was- given that that would- not be done. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4386</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K2Z</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator BRENNAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not know what promises were made, but I believe that, with the exception perhaps of the Government and some of its supporters, no one realized that the new legislation would be used for such a radical and subversive purpose as the suppression of the Arbitration Court by conciliation committees. I would myself vote against this measure on general' principles. Arbitration as known in this country has undoubtedly operated in the direction, not of settling disputes, but of creating them. While we have in existence a tribunal set up, for the purpose of hearing disputes, and while the. decision of the High Court stands that a dispute, within the meaning of the Constitution, is a demand on one side and' a refusal on the other, we shall never have that tribunal idle. <inline font-style="italic">T.t,</inline> is hopeless hi such circumstances to look for that industrial peace which is supposed to be the object of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act'.. As one learned judge said, while there is in existence a tribunal which may give men better conditions, we shall find' men. constantly coming, before it. That is only natural. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>This cannot be better illustrated than by the experience of the Australian railways, and particularly of the Victorian railways. For many years the railway men of Victoria agitated for- a special tribunal to fix their wages and conditions of labour. The answer to that request was -a very obvious one. They were told that they already had a tribunal; they were under the Railways Commissioners,- who had no interests to serve but those of the country. In relation to the rail ways, they represented the country, and although their tenure was- a very definite one, still,- if they ran counter to the sentiments' of the people, there was behind them the parliament which could, at need, be the tribunal to guard the interests of (she- workers. The men- were not satisfied with- this, and threatened to- strike. They did strike. They demanded the right to affiliate with the Trades Hall, and eventually, after long years< of agitation, a1 Railways Classification Board wa& appointed. It was presided- over by a county court judge, a man of an eminently judicial and,- if I may so so, democratic frame of mind. He was the choice and satisfaction, of both sides. He sat almost continuously for seven years as president of the board, composed of representatives of the commissioners and the employees: At the end of that time, according to representative railway men, conditions- in the service were more- unsettled than- when the board was first constituted. Then, in. 1920, there was given what has become known as the Engineers' Judgment;. The matter out of- which this judgment arose had- been under- consideration for years, and when the judgment Was given, it upset' the whole principle of State instrumentalities. It was held that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court was competent to fix wages and conditions of employment in State railway services. What happened? The moment' that judgment was pronounced, the dispute which was necessary to bring the Victorian railways under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court was created. I't was created by the secretary of the railwaymen's organization sending letters, to the railways commissioners, and immediately the Railways Classification Board' was thrown overboard, and the Commonwealth Arbitration Court was appealed to. <inline font-weight="bold">Sir John</inline> Quick; a- Deputy President of the Arbitration Court, sat hearing the railway case for over three years. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4386</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Senator Lynch</name>
</talker>
<para>- Warren Hastings again. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4386</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K2Z</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator BRENNAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes. No one would cast any reflection either on the judicial qualities or great learning of <inline font-weight="bold">Sir John</inline> Quick, but eminent lawyer and statesman though he- is, he would be the last to claim that at the end of three years of studying this question, he knew anything like as much about it as did the railways commissioners. Nevertheless, he gave his judgment, and no sooner did he do so than the present economic cataclysm fell upon the .country. The railway commissioners, whom one might have thought could be entrusted with the management of the railways for the benefit of the State, found .that they could not carry on, and they had to go, cap in hand, to the court, asking permission to run the railways in the only way in which that task could be done properly. Thus,. the railway men were first under the control of the railway commissioners, then under a classification board composed of representatives of the commissioners and themselves; then they were under the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, and now it is proposed to place them under the control of the conciliation commissioners provided for in this bill. If we set up another tribunal after this, we should find that the workers would carry their disputes to it, and for this reason: While there are two tribunals sitting side by side, both competent to deal with the same dispute, the workers have a double choice, and they always hope that they may do better before the second tribunal than before the first. It is only attributing to them the qualities of human nature to say that they will try that tribunal which, in their opinion, will give them the best conditions. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>I agree with my leader, who said that this bill is intended to go as close to the High Court judgment as this Parliament can go. Its purpose is, as we know from our experience of the last act, to supersede the Arbitration Court. When efforts are made by such persons as the railway commissioners, who are concerned with the greatest income-producing asset in the State, to vary conditions of employment in the railways, the disputes will be referred to the Arbitration Court, and if this bill goes through, the conciliation commissioners may bc moved to intervene. I have not yet had time to study the. bill fully, and I do not know whether it still retains the provision, which is present in the act, that once a dispute has been referred to a conciliation commissioner, the Arbitration Court must stay its hand. As has been pointed out, the purpose of this bill is not to uphold arbitration, but to supersede it. After a trial extending over 25 years, we must face the fact that arbitration has either failed or succeeded. If it has failed, there is no reason for believing that another arbitration tribunal - which is called a conciliation committee - will succeed. If the Arbitration Court has succeeded, there is no need to replace it by any other tribunal. </para>
<para>I view with the gravest misgiving the proposals embodied in the bill. I know that one is not allowed to impute motives, but I venture to say that the real purpose of this bill is not the purpose which appears on the surface. That has been proved by what happened in respect to the last amending act. If this bill is passed, its effect will be, not to do what Parliament clearly received a mandate to do, namely, to uphold the Arbitration Court, but to supersede the Arbitration Court. For that reason I intend to vote against the bill. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4387</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPT</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KNEEBONE, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator KNEEBONE</name>
</talker>
<para>. - The honorable senator who has just resumed his seat said that this measure was intended to supersede arbitration, but my innocent view of the matter was that conciliation was intended to precede arbitration. Indeed, the act under which we have been working is known as the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. To say that the arbitration system has not been conducive to industrial peace in the Commonwealth is to do it less than justice. While arbitration, from the workers' point of view, operates to protect their interests, it also serves to protect the interests of good employers who, deprived of this protection, would be at the mercy of bad employers. There are good aud bad employers, just as there are good and bad employees. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act was intended to preserve a proper standard of living for those employees who desired to do a fair thing by their employers, and to protect those employers who were prepared to treat their workers properly. That the arbitration system has been largely successful, there can be no doubt. When it fails to preserve industrial 'peace, and there is a strike or a lockout, the fact is blazoned all over the world, with the result that Australia has received a great deal of unfair publicity, and has earned an undeserved reputation as a land of industrial unrest. The fact remains that the great majority of the workers are carrying on contentedly under agreements and Arbitration Court awards, and are producing more per head than the workers of any other country in the world. When an agreement is signed by the representatives of the workers and the employers, it is usual for that agreement to be honoured. Notwithstanding the existing depression, which has robbed a quarter of our wage-earners of the means of livelihood, there are still 500,000 or more workers carrying on under Arbitration Court awards, and if they are deprived of the protection afforded by those awards, there is nothing for them but to revert to the old, savage methods of direct action. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Dealing with the history of arbitration over a period of 21 years, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Power, who recently resigned from the Arbitration Court bench, stated - </para>
<quote>
<para>I have formed fixed opinions on many economic and industrial matters which have been arrived at under old conditions and on the information gained as a judge of this court for many years. I am satisfied, personally, that these opinions are right, but my successor will have to deal with present conditions to meet the new conditions, the new claims of the workers, and the new aspirations which the workers are attempting to obtain and realize in every civilized country in the world, including Australia. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">If there has been a degree of unrest and discontent, that is only natural in a young country like Australia. If we were all content with our lot, very little or no progress would be made. Differences are unavoidable when there is a general desire on the part of all to improve their conditions. This learned judge has rendered wonderful service to the country in his judicial capacity. No one in Australia was .better acquainted with our arbitration machinery. He went on to say- </para>
<quote>
<para>These new claims must, in the interests of the employees, the employers and the public, be dealt with by arbitration and not by force - by right and not by might. The unrest cannot be ended by coercive' or punitive acts of Parliament only. Force has failed as the basis of civilization whenever attempted. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">That fundamental fact has. been instilled into the minds of the present generation. </para>
<para class="block">It applies both nationally and internationally? The day has long passed when might was regarded as right. The learned judge continues - </para>
<quote>
<para>The real cause of unrest must be found and removed. " It never smokes but there is fire," as Carlyle said in 1830, in an essay ou " Chartism ". You may " abolish the system to <inline font-style="italic">no</inline> purpose if the disease is left untouched ". The policy of " Might is right ", as Thackeray said, is "the code of honour of the devil ". The better code of honour is " to do unto others as you would they should do unto you ". </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">He also quoted a pronouncement by the then Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Bruce),</inline> in his latest policy speech, in the following terms - </para>
<quote>
<para>The Prime Minister, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bruce,</inline> in his policy speech said - " My ministry stands firmly for the principles of the peaceful settlement of industrial disputes within the law. Freedom of contract and direct action are the methods of barbarism, while the bringing of industrial disputes under the region of law is in accordance with the first principles of human progress - any other attitude by a responsible ministry in Australia to-day is unthinkable. . . . It is also proposed to strengthen the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration." </para>
</quote>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4388</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JY7</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>UAP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DUNCAN-HUGHES, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES</name>
</talker>
<para>- Why is the Government trying to break down a court in favour of which <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Powers spoke so strongly? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4388</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KNEEBONE, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator KNEEBONE</name>
</talker>
<para>- This is not an attempt to break down any court; it is a proposal to precede arbitration hy a sensible system of conciliation. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4388</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNF</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>NAT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MASSY-GREENE, Walter</name>
<name role="display">Senator GREENE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Conciliation powers are already conferred by the act. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4388</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KNEEBONE, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator KNEEBONE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Apparently they have not proved altogether satisfactory. This is considered a better method of preceding, not of superseding, arbitration. The Senate not very long ago accepted such a method of preventing the development of very serious industrial disputes. These disputes generally start in a small way; and if they were handled on the spot hy a conciliation committee there would be every prospect of avoiding a more serious conflagration. In the concluding portion of this very interesting review <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Powers says - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>It is really unionism that has done the great work for the workers during the last ten years, with the assistance of this court, which has enforced just claims and refused unreasonable claims. I do hope that unionists of Australia will not let extremists, whatever' they call themselves or are called, destroy the great work that their leaders have done for them in the past, by trying to enforce by direct action, impracticable rates or unfair couditions, which can only cause unemployment and loss to the workers and their families and the public, as well as to the employers. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">With those sentiments, one can readily agree. Now, however, in what seems to me to be a genuine attempt to improve the industrial machinery throughout its varying operations, we are met with a very substantial and perhaps fatal opposition. But I remind the Senate that reactionary effects will follow if the effort to improve the conciliation and arbitration system is prevented, because the confidence which employers have had in the system will be removed, and the lack of confidence of the workers will be accentuated. </para>
<para>Our actions at the present time arc influenced largely by what is known as the plan of financial rehabilitation. During the proceedings of the Premiers conference in Melbourne this very question was discussed fully, sometimes in public, and at other times in committee. It was recognized, of course, that in order to meet our national obligations there had to be retrenchment, and an alteration of the industrial conditions in certain directions. The Attorney-General of Western Australia, Honorable T. A. L. Davy, explained the difficulty that his Government would have in bringing about a percentage reduction in the case of State employees. He stated that a majority of the employees of that State worked under awards of the State arbitration tribunal, and that their wages were adjusted automatically so as to conform with the cost of living figures. It is interesting to note that one of the Premiers, discussing that aspect of the matter said - </para>
<quote>
<para>I think that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Davy</inline> is arguing about something which probably the Western Australian Government will not have to face. When we regard the question of an arbitration court, we realize that that can be moved in a certain way if it be necessary. </para>
</quote>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4389</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sir George Pearce</name>
</talker>
<para>- Who said, that? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4389</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KNEEBONE, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator KNEEBONE</name>
</talker>
<para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hill.</inline> It is to be found on page 79 of the report of the proceedings and decisions of the conference. At the bottom of the same page <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Theodore</inline> is reported to have said - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>Could not the employers force the position by registering under the Commonwealth Arbitration Court in Western Australia? </para>
</quote>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4389</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLACHLAN, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Senator McLachlan</name>
</talker>
<para>- What does the honorable senator suggest was meant by that statement ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4389</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KNEEBONE, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator KNEEBONE</name>
</talker>
<para>-I leave that to honorable senators to determine. It has only one meaning to me. Nothing is likely to be more damaging to the confidence held in the court than the realization that employers can move it as suggested. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4389</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLACHLAN, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Senator McLachlan</name>
</talker>
<para>- It was a most improper suggestion. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4389</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KNEEBONE, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator KNEEBONE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I agree with the honorable senator. I have no desire to do anybody an injustice, but I could not ignore that statement. I am surprised that it was made in open conference, instead of in committee. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>A good deal has been said concerning the position of the railways in South Australia. In that State wages boards, an industrial court, and the Federal Arbitration Court operate. I agree with the opinion, already expressed, that there should not be this overlapping and duplication, and that neither employers nor employees should have the opportunity of approaching two or three industrial tribunals, so as to get the best deal possible. But what has happened in South Australia? There, certain employees in the railway service, after a lot of trouble, established what might be described as a wages board, with power to prescribe their wages and conditions. That board sat for about thirteen months before it arrived at a decision; and, immediately, the Railways Commissioner, although he had been represented on the wages board, appealed to the court, and had the decision declared null and void. Those railway employees, who desired tohave their case decided by the State tribunal, were perforce compelled to appear in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The matter had no sooner come before that court than the general cut of 10 per cent, was made by it, affecting the wages of employees governed by awards throughout Australia. It is questionable whether that decision is applicable to those men, because the court had not made an award governing their wages and conditions. </para>
<para>More good has been done by the prevention than by the settlement of industrial disputes. It is very difficult to bring about a settlement once a dispute begins to spread over industry like a bush fire. Much could be done by an extension of the principle of conciliation. If trouble arose, conciliation committees could prevent it from dislocating industry. We are living in abnormal times, and have to take abnormal steps to cope with the rapidly-developing situation. Before the Senate decides to reject this measure - which, as I understand it, aims at overcoming a position that has been brought about as a result of a decision of the High Court - it should seriously consider the consequences of such action. If we need anything in Australia at the present time, it is continuity of development. But our men . are only human. Man. for man, the Australian worker and employer can hold their own with any similar class in the universe. We cannot hope to be 100 per cent, successful. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4390</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K8P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMPSON, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator Thompson</name>
</talker>
<para>- Other countries, such as Canada and the United States of America, are better off without arbitration. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4390</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KNEEBONE, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator KNEEBONE</name>
</talker>
<para>- From the employers' point of view, that might be so. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4390</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K8P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMPSON, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator Thompson</name>
</talker>
<para>- From the point of view of both sides. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4390</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KNEEBONE, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator KNEEBONE</name>
</talker>
<para>- At any rate, the policy of this country, generally speaking, is that, instead of resorting to violent direct action, we should have some sensible arbitral system. The policy of arbitration has been adopted by the nations of the world for the purpose of preventing conflicts such as have been witnessed in the past. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4390</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FOLL, Hattil</name>
<name role="display">Senator Foll</name>
</talker>
<para>- Arbitration is of no use to the man who is out of work. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4390</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KNEEBONE, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator KNEEBONE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Nothing except work is good for such men. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4390</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Senator Lynch</name>
</talker>
<para>- What is wrong with work ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4390</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KNEEBONE, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator KNEEBONE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Nothing; but one-fourth of our citizens cannot procure it. If, as a result of the rejection of this measure, it is ma'de more difficult to carry on arbitration proceedings, and disputes are not checked in the initial stage, there must be chaos in industry. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4390</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLACHLAN, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Senator McLachlan</name>
</talker>
<para>- Surely the court is not overworked now; there are judges to spare. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4390</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>