Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 13 AUGUST 1912

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Industrial Peace Bill. [13 AUGUST.] Questions. 705

TUESDAY, 13 AUGUST, 1912.

The SPEAKER (Hon. W. D. Armstrong, Lockyer) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

QUESTIONS. DREDGE FOR CAIRNS HARBOUR BOARD.

:M:r. FIHELLY (Paddington) .asked the Treasur.er-

" 1. What are the names and addresses of the firms who tendered for the con­struction of the dredge for the Cairns Harbour Board?

" 2. \'Vhat were the amounts of the various tenders ?

" 3. What is the amount of the con­tract with the suocessful tenderer? "

The TREASURER (Hon. W. H. Barnes, Bu!irnba) replied-

•' 1. :Messrs. Simons and Company, Renfrew, Scotland; .Messrs. Fleming and Ferguson, Limited, Paisley, Scotland; :Messrs. Ferguson Brothers, Limited, Port Glasgow, Scotland; Messrs. A. F. Smul­del ,, Schiedam, Holland; Messrs. F. Schichau, Elbing, PnF<sia.

" 2. :Messrs. Simons and Company, £43,500; Messrs. Fleming and Ferguson, Limited, £33,500 ; Messrs. Ferguson Brothers, Limited, £35,800; Messrs. A. F. Smulders, £42,500; Messrs. F. Schichau, £42,000.

"3. £42,000."

REFRIGERATIKG PLANT AT ROMA STREET CoLD STORES.

Mr. FIHELLY asked the Secretary for Railw.ays-

" 1. Is it a fact that certain firms have been invited to tender for thH ·erection of ·a refrigerating plant at the Cold St{{res, Roma street, •and that only eleven days were allowed in which to furnish such tender ?

" 2. Has the department specified the system it intends to adopt, and does it practically require each tenderer to be its consulting engineer?

" 3. Is it true, as alleged, that the specifications are faulty, and that techni­cal terms are in some instances wrong and hopele<9ly confused?

" 4. Does the department ask for an engine when the machinery is to be driven by electricity .and an electric motor is the article required ?

"5. Will the Secretary for Railways withdraw the specifications with •a view: -(a) To substituting specifications that arJ complete and accurate, and which show ·a knowledge of refrigerating plant; (b) to deciding upon the class of plant it desires?''

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS (Hon. W. T. Paget, Mackay) replied-

" 1. Ye9. "2. It is left open to the tenderer to

state what system he proposes to adopt. The specifications clo not practically re· quire the tendere·r to be consulting engineer to the .department.

"3. No.

706 Questwns. [ASSEMBLY.] Industrial Peace Bdl.

"4. The specification distinctly states that the plant is to be electrically driven.

"5. There is no necessity to withdraw the specifications."

STATION-MASTERS IN RAILWAY SERVICE. Mr. FOLEY (Mundingburra) asked the

Secretary for Railw.ays-" 1. What is the total number of station­

masters in the Queensland Railway service?

"2. The number •and percentage of station, masters in· each class or grade 1 "

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS replied-

" 1. 299.

~nmber. p~f~~~~l~n " 2. 1st Class

2nd CJ.ass .. . 16 5 per cent. 29 10

3rd Class .. . 38 13 4th Class .. . 82 27 5th Class .. . 134 45

REPURCHASED WIDGEE ESTATE. Mr. KIRW A::\f (Brisbane) .asked the Sec­

retary for Public Lands-" 1. Has any part of the unselected

portion of the repurchasBd Widgee Estate be8n leased 1

"2. If so, for what tB'rm, .and to whom, and what rental, .and what date was the land leased 1

" 3. Or has any occupation license been given. If so, to whom, for what term, .and what rental? "

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. E. H. Macartney, Toowong) replied­

''1. No.

No.

"2. No. "3. The following occupation licenses

have been granted:-

Licensee. Portions. Area. Annnnl Rental.

A. R. 1', £fl. d. 203 Thomas Kelynack 2<l2 & 203 1,~/2 2 0 84 16 8

Harvey 204

1

IIose:t Glen Percival 221 & 222 800 0 0 57 G s 205 William Haney ... 217 & 245 481 2 5 32 2 0 206 Comel.u; Spiller .... ~50& 251 64" 0 0 42 l:J 4

207

" The whole of the .abovementioned portions are in the parish of Brooyar, and in the first section of the Widgee Estate. The licenses date from the 1st June last, and nmt has been paid to 31st December next. Gertrude A ugust,a ~ ~ .S 20,5<M 2 0 1,369 12 8

Bell (widow), David ~ :3 ~ John Abercrombie, 0 0 ~ Daniel Walker AS )icLeod, and Et·nest § 'g ~ Thoma.-; Uell, as :;::; ~ ;::: executrix and ex- ~ ~ 0:3 e,~Cutors of the E,.o o late James Thomas '2 ~ .~ ~ :\Iarsh Bell g a:> ~ ~

Q) a:lCI..:... 00 co r.t:j

""''!il" ~i$=~~

"The license ·dates from the 1st May last, and rent has been paid to the 31st December next.

"The licenses may be renewed ·by the payment of next year's rents, falling due on the 30th September proximo.

" The whole land being open for selec­tion, each license is subject to the follow­ing conditions:-

1. The licensee shall .act .as care­taker and protect all improve­ments on the land during the term of the license.

2. In respect of any portion ·applied for as a selection, the license shall dfltermine at the expiration of twenty-one days from the date of the land commissioner's ac­ceptance of the application to select."

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO HON. R. PHILP.

On the motion of the PREMIER (Bon. D. F. Denham, Oxley) it was formally resolved-

" That leave of absence for this session be granted to the Honourable Robert Philp, member for Townsville."

IJ\"'DUSTRIAL PEACE BILL. SECOND READING-RESU~IPTION OF DEBATE.

* :\Ir. MACKINTOSH (Pittsworth) ;;aid: I do not intend to say a great deal in connection with this Bill. There is no need to say too much. I was very delighted last night when the hon. member for Barcoo spoke about the Bill, and I am sure when he takes a hand in putting it through, it will be creditable to the House. There is one thing that the hon. member said that I do not agree with. He said that this Bill is founded on other Bills. At any rate, it is founded on the "olid rock of liberty.

GovERNl\.!E:<rT ME:IIBERS : Hear, hear ! Mr. MACKINTOSH : It gives liberty to

everyone, whether he be unionist or non­unionist, employer or employee. The mem­bers of the party on this side of the House, which has been returned with such a large majority, agree that a measure of this de­scription is necessary. A promise was given to the electors that such a measure would be introduced for the purpose of minimising if not completely stopping, strikes, and I think that a measure which aims at securing industrial peace should have our strE'nuous support. The people by a large majority have expressed themselves in favour of a Bill of this description. The great fault which hon. members opposite find with the measure is that it does not apply to rural workers. This matter has been so ably discussed by membms on both sidc,s that I do not propose to go into the intricate details just now, especially as that can be done when the Bill goes into Committee. We have listened to nothing but objections to the Bill from mem­bers opposite. Of course members on this side-tlfe Liberal democratic side of the House -are in favour of law and order. The people on the Downs suffered very much from the strike. Years ago, when we had no rail­way communication, we generally laid in a good supply of eatables, but since we have had railways, and townships have sprung up alongside the lin<'~, we have depended upon the stores in those townships for our sup­plies from week to week. During the strike we could get only a few pound' of sugar, and hardly any potatoes, and owing to tho dry season we could not grow potatoes locally. \Ve could only get a few pounds of sugar, and 10 or 12 lb. of flour.

Lndu.~trial Peace BiZl. (13 AUGUST.] Ind-ustrial Peace Bill. 707

Thab was the position of Downs people tduring the strike. At the Hotel Cecil in Brisbane, where I stayJd one day, the waiters and the ''boots" went out for so.mc supplies. They manag·ed to get meat of all ckscrip­.tions-sausagcs, chops, st oak, and so forth. \Vhen they were returning they met some of the followers of the strike committe<', who demanded their goods or their live'; and t!1ey gave up the mPat and ran for th·3ir lives, and left us at the hotel with nothing to eat. It is absolutely necessary that a mea­sure of this deseription should bo p ·to·_,, J, ·so as to prevent a recurrence of such things. I do not know much about unionism as I have never been a unionist but it seems ridiculous to me that, becaus~ some butchers :have a dispute with 'their employers, the car­penters should go on strikP, and that neither butchers nor carpenters should be allowed to work. I trust that this measure will be passed, and that it will put a stop to picket­.mg, so that workers may get employment from those who are able and willing to give It to them. Membflrs of the Opposition say that they are the friends of the farmers. I really cannot understand their making such a statement. whe~ they make such proposals as are contamecl m the Rural Wor-kers' Union log. It is impossible to have fix,•cl hours or eYen fixed ro1nunoration, arrang·~d fo; men cmp!oy<ocl in that industry, because the· wages paid by farmers depend upon tiP price -of products in the general market. Tho pri~ 'S of our products are now governed by ·the London market, and that market is sup­plied from all parts of the world where ,che:tp labour is procurable, and, if w~ have -to )Jay hi~h wages to our employee-;, it will he Impo>Oible for us to compete in that mar­ket. With regard to the "cow industry," as ·.the Sydney B1llletin calls it, the hours of :vork in that industry cannot b-" arrang-ed m the way proposed. The Bulletin is one of the greatest supporters of the Socialistic party.

Mr. KIRWAN: Your side is claiming its support all along.

Mr. MACKINTOSH: I notice that the same paper also found fault with the restricting <Of apprenticr>s to one to several adult -workers.

Mr. LENNON: That chows the br~acl­n1indedne&:3 of the paper.

Mr. MACKINTOSH : Cows must be milked twice a clay, wh,cther they are millwd by hand or by machines. Th,,- must be mill~ed, say, at 6 o'clock in the m;:,rning and agam at 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon. If milking is started at 6 a.m., it will not 'be over before 8 or 8.30 o'clock, according -to the number of cows to be milked. The cows that are first milked at 6 o'clock in the morning will be the first milked again at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. How can that be done if men worked only six hours a day? It is impossible. In fact, milkers onlv work about five- hours per day, but not dontinu­-ously-two and a-half in the morning and two and a-half in the evening.

Mr. :MAY: You could have two shifts.

Mr. MACKINTOSH: We should have to have two shifts of men for that work. Then, '.vith regard to milking cows on a Sunday. I know of a case in which a dairyman paid his men well and fed them weli, and the men were quite satisfied with their conditions as far as their work during the w2~!c was

<:lOncerneCl, but they would not milk the cows

o:J Sunday. We all know that if a milch cow is left a day or half a day without milking it spoils her for a month. The owner of the cows to whom I am referring was a liberal, broaclmindecl man, and h u said to his men, " Take the whole of the produce from the cows yourselves, bu<> milk them," but I am hanged if they would milk them on the Sunday. That is only on•3 case which I might cite. to show what way happen if we adopt the Rurai Workers' Union idea of '"''rking the dairying industry. Then, something has been said in connection with children being employed in milking cows. The union v. auld prevent any boy under sixteen years of age being employed in milk­ing cows. Some boys at twelve years of age are stronger in many respects than others at eighteen years of age, and they milk coy, s well-very much better than a machine" Boys could do that without doing any slaving work. I know what it is, because I have been through it myself. To let them off doing anything that would be of use to them in years to come, is out of the question. It is said that most of the prosperous farmers in the dairying industry in Queensland have gained thei1· succ03s through the assist:1•1ce of their children in connection with milking

. the cows. The children are reared well aw: educated well, and it is only a bit of pastirr.•· for them to milk. I have no doubt, if merr .. hers on the other side had a better know­ledge of these matters, they would not it:­sist on such ridiculous rules and regulari _-ns in connection with the industry, but they do not know anything of it. I suppose only one or two of them know anything about work. (Laughter.) I am a thorough democrat, but these are matterf, that it is impossible to regulate by any system. Tho only crop grown, in connection with which fixed hours will work, is maize. ill1aize, whBn it gets ripe, falls clown, and it does not much mat­ter how long it is on the ground before it is baggGd; hut wheat is diff-erent. After a heavy thunderstorm, if it is not looked after immediately, it will not be worth putting together. ·when wheat is standing upwards; the husk opens a little and takes moisture in, and the seed starts to germinate if left on the stalk.

Mr. FoLEY: You can give it to the cows.

Mr. MACKINTOSH : Cows cannot con­sume everything. Members are always com­plaining that we do not produce sufficient flour to 1naint~in ourselves, and thP reason of that is that tlie production of wheat is too expensive. The general price of wheat for the last few years has been from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 2cl. a bushel. The most expensive thing in the production of wheat is the har­vesting and so forth, and when all expenses are deducted there is onlv 6cl. per bushel left to the grower. · -

J\llr. HUNTER : How many bushels are grown to the acre ?

Mr. MACKINTOSH: We grow any amount per acre-the average in Queensland is from 14 to 17 bushels to the acre. That is the average on the Downs, but we get as high as from 30 to 50 bushels per acre. Of course 30 bushels to the acre are !more general than 50 bushels. In threatening and unfavourable weather we have often to gather our harvest of wheat, barley, or oats on a Sundav. Of course the Treasurer does not approve of that very much, but very often it cannot be avoided.

Mr. O'SULLIVAN: It is necessary work.

11-f r. JJ;I ackintosh. J

708 Industrial Peace Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Industrial Peace Bill.

Mr. MACKINTOSH : While I am on this subject of dairying, there is one thmg to which I wish to refer. I was very much disappointed last night at the disparaging mann,'r in which the hon. member for ¥ad­dington spoke of the farming commumty. He showed the sympathy they have on the other side for the farmers. 'l'he hon. mem­ber said the farmers gave food to their men that the3· would not feed to pig.s. Of course he said afterwards that it was a slip of the tongue, but at the same time he would uot apologise for ;a:y ing it; that emphasised that he meant exactly what he said. The hon. gentleman neither paid nor fed a man in his life·, neither did he ever do a day's work.

Mr. LEXNON: He qualified that sbte­ment.

lvlr. MACKINTOSH: 'vVhether the hon. member for Herbert· approves of it or not, he aid not cry .. Shame·, at the time. How­ever, I will just enumerate the condition·; of men on the farms. At 6 o'clock in the morning they have to mille They get either tea or coffee and crackers or bread and butter. When the milking is done they can have anything they like-chops, steak, and bacon and eggs galore, Then they have a rest bdore doing anything else. They get a cup of tea at 10 o'clock, and at 1 o'clock they get a good dinner with any amount of--

Mr. :l'.IuRPHY: Champagne, {Laughter.) Mr. MACKINTOSH: Yes. Damper is out

of the question now, as they nearly all get baker's bread, but damper or "Johnny­cake " baked on the coals would be more healthy, They get a good dinner with plum puddings, rice puddings, and custards of all de,cription, and the same again in the even­ing. Most of their time is taken up in being well fed,

Mr. FoLEY: No work and free meals, Mr. MACKI.KTOSH: Verv little work.

That is the sort of treatment we give to workers in the agricultural industry, and dairying in particular. Although I approve very much of the Industrial Peacfl Bill, there is another thing that is very 'n<ecessary also, and that is the construction of rail­ways to open up th,, country, to take the people to the country and take them away irom the cities, and then they will be at the command of the Government when they get into domestic trouble, the same as during the strike. They will be able to get the country people to come and assist them. I am sorry the leader of the Opposition is indis­posed, I would like to see him in the House for many reasons, and for health reasons especially. ·when the strike started, the hon. member said it was the most "heartening" day in his life. But when we could not get a bag of sugar on the Downs, and our eggs, butter, and agricultural produce were dee­troyed in Brisbane through the strike, the loyal farmers and their sons came down here and drove the strike leaders back into their burrows like a lot of rabbits. So far as the leader of the Opposition was conc·erned, that was the most disheartening day of his life, and he cleared away. Perhaps he was indisposed, but it was a good excuse to clear. The late deputy leader of the. Oppo· sition also cleared away. The hon. member

for Barcoo cleared away, and the member for :Maranoa also cleared awav and some excuse or another was given. Perhaps they were frightened of the farmers who came dow'n here to secure peace and quietness and law and order in Brisbane and for the whole

[11f r. }.{ ackintosh.

country. A good thing for this country i~ to build raib ays. , An estate ')'as c':'t up of 4,000 acres on whrch seventy fam1hes were settled. If you calculate seventy men w1th wives and three or four children apiece, you. would have fullv 150 more stalwart, loyal, patriotic men to come down here to the· rc·L:ue of the country and to help to: keep law and order. However, some ot

th£se men went away; but th~re [4 p.m.] is one man there that I gn·e

credit to, and that is the hon. member for W arrego, who stuck to his guns. Fl£ was led away by others, bu~ he was there at the finish. As I was saymg, th1s Bill being founded on the rock of liberty--;(9ppo­sition laughter)-giVes, equal opportum_tle~ to all concerned, unronrsts and non-unro.~ust0. 'lhere is no doubt th.nt 1f mv learned fnend, the hon. member for Barcoo, would give the assistance which I am sure he is cap­able of giving, he would do credit to hin~self, and his efforts would be of great beneht. to th£ whole community, I have no doubt that he will do so. I was very glad to hear hun. last night approve , of a S~preme Court judge or a lawyer bemg api'omted as J';'dge of the industrial court. He IS worthy of the position himself. (Laughter.) I say . that without any flattery, because flattery IS re­pugnant to me. I ,am sure the hon. mem­ber would make a yery able and con­scientious judge of the court. It may cost a good deal of money, but from what I know of judges, I have found them generally t,'? be straight and honest as long as you tell them the truth, and nothing ,but the tnrtl1. I will not dwell on the details of the B1il at present, but I haYe studied thD J_Ueasure very minutely. I was very sorry to hear the hon. member for Barcoo say that he did not understand it-that there were a great many parts of it that he could not understand. (Opposition laughter.) , I am quite sure that he could understand 1t very well, but I think he was dissatisfied because he could not find much fault with it, and so he made the excuse that he did not thoroughly understand it. (Laughter.) I trust that the discoussion on the second read­ing will soon closs, and· that we shall go in~o Committee and make it a useful mea­sure. By building upon the foundation I ha,·e stated, and with the help of the learned la"·.yers in this House, we shall shape a mea­sure which will be an example to the whole of tho other States of Australia. There is one thing I just wish to refer to. . Some hon. members said that the bo:ys should have nothing to do but go to school till they are sixteen years old. I saw the juvenile army of Brisbane going through the streets the other dav, and their conduct, as far as my observation went, was not at all satisfactory. I c,aw boys pulling facPs, and some of them even stepping out of the ranks, and I find that even their officArs have no control over them. If they were allowed to do a little work before tliev were sixteen it would make better men of (hem than bringing them up as they are being brought up now. I intend to give my undivid£d support to this Bill, and I trust it will pass just as it is. I trust that it will become law before many weeks are out, and then we shall have no more strike~. It has been said that you cannot stqp strikes, hut in order to keep them under, it is in th\'l hands of the Minister for R:<ilways to start morB railways, and if he does that--

?vir. KIRWAN: There will be no more· strikes. (Laughter.)

InduBtrial Peace Bill. [13 AUGUST.] InduBt1·ial Peace Bill. 709

:\Jr. 1\.IACKINTOSH: As a result of build­:ing more railways the men on the land will he so numerous that strikers will realise that theY will be able to come down here and prevent any iniquitous proceedings. I thank han. members for the kind manner in which they have listened to my remarks.

LIEUT.-COLONEL RANKIN (Burrwn): \Vhatever may be the attitude in which hon. n C"Ir1bers on either side of the ·House approach this me•sure, I think it must be conceded that they ha.-e r.caliscd the very earnest endeavour on the part of the Govern­ment fo tackiv one of th0 biggest pro­blems troubling the minds of the people :~t the present time. I am not here to sa:v tlut the Bill is a perfect onc-I have no ·cLubt there are ir:;perfe·dions in it. I do not think the end of wifdom has yet been Lached in what has been placed before us, lmt I think that anybody who has studied tl>~ n:wasu.re in an impart:al \Vc1y and with an m:biaesc•d mind, must have com<> to the c m­du. ·.:m that it is a very big step forward; Luch more so than any legifdation of that ch:trac~. r that has hitherto been presented to us. The mhtsure is to a great extent a ''1achinery Bill; it practinlly amplifks th£ p1·ovir.ions laid down in the \Vages Boards Act now in force. It gives greater powers to the boards, and it goes a shep further. By the creotion of a higher tribunal-an in­dustrial court-a murt of appeal, practically­it bring,; into operation tha.t which we have heac ~ so much about from the other side ·of tho Hous.c-the idea of compulsory arbitra­tion and conciliation. The opponents of the Dill bav thr t it de 1Js a blow at unionism 1--ecJ.us8 it does not discri1ninate between uuionist-:> and non-unionist<». That is the h•rnel of the measure it,,clf. It realises that in the eye o£ the .Jaw of the land all men are •:·qual. It is not for us to halt and in­quire wh8n trouble arises whether a man is .a rnionist or a ! ... on-unionist, any more than it ir, our duty to inquire whether he is a Christian or an atheist. The Bill recognises >till further that th., community, '" a com­munity, has certain rights that ought to be n .pect>'d by everyone, and that any in­fringement of those rights-anything which mD.y bo ch<tNcteriged as being inimical to the . commonweal-i' -'en offence a:o:ainst the people of the State; and on tho"' broad lines it pro-' • eds to lay down by it; various clauses and provisions the machinery by which it is sought to prevent those troubles and indu,trial dis­,putes of which "''" have heard so much within the past few weeks. Recognising at once that it is impossible to take away from men the right to strikP, to my mind it takes the ·only sensible course it is possible to pursue undE-r the circumstances-that is, it places as Irwny avenul•s a:f 0.--1cape as possible fron1 cuch a barboric means of settling industrial disputes. First of all, its industrial boards are given plenary powers. They have power not only to dictate rates of pay hours of work, and conditions of service. b~t the hun­dred and one other things which may crop up from time to time m any industry. As I said, b:>fore, it is an amplification of the powers ·already contained within the four corners of !he Wages Board~ Act; but the amplification ,., of very great Imp_:>rt~nce, and not lightly to be paseed over. Havmg placed at the dis­~os:ll of. t!~e worke£s and employers of the otate tlus mstrument whereby a harmonious _way. of ,,·orkin'j together may be created, .liavmg taken this step to prevent the occur-

renee of inclustri<tl strife, it then takes the next st,•p forward and says: "If you find it impossible to observe the conditions laid down by this industrial board. in the forma­tion of which you have an equal say "-be­~ause the board is composed of equal num­bf'rs of repruenbtives of employers and em­ployee:;, >vith a chairman as umpire chosen b,- the whole of them-having placed at their disiJOoal this machine whereby they may arrive at an amicabl£ understanding between themselves--" there is a further avenue open to you in the industrial court, a court which, from the qualifications necessary in its per·,onnel, should be in every .sense above suspicion." The Bill lays down that that court shall consist of a Supreme Court judge or a Di-· trict Court judge, or a barrister or e. ; elicitor of not kss tha.n five years' stand­inc-s·_·curing at once, as the final court of appe:'tl, rL man accu..-tomed to the weighing of evidence, a man unbia0sed by any extrane­otu or r-ut--ide circumstance-, that might in· fl.r1,~nc~ any other court, a man 1vhose pro­fessional positiOn commands the cGnfidence of both parties to the dispute. Havinp· taken the pa.rties throu ;h those. avenues-the in­dustrial bo-nd and the indm;trial court-they g) a step further, and' say: "If you cannot accept the conditions laid down by the in· dustrial court, we will :1sk you, l>0fore taking the last draotic step, to give fourteen days' notice, and take a secret ballot among-st those people who are going to be implict>.ted, and who are going to suffer throug-h the strike or lockout." It app<>an to me ohat if ever there were provisions embodying everything that is humane, they are to be found wii.hin the four corners of the measure now before the House.

GoVERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! LIEUT.-COLONEL RXJ\iKIN: It has been

obJectee[ bv member-, on the other side that the delay occa,cioned by the machin.,ry of the n1ll is a blemish; but, instead of b<>ing a blemish, I look upon it as one of th-e best featurC'I of the measure, because not infre­q,uentl:y, when industrial disputes are traced to tneu ;;0urce, when they are reduced, as it 'vere, to the irreducible minimun1, when we ;J"et to the bottom of it all, we see the tro~1ble originates in somo simple matter which, by bringing the part:es together, could have been, adjusted in a very few minutes .

Mr. C'DYNE : There is no conciliation in this Bill.

LIEUT·COLONEL RANKIN : Th<>re is .both conciliation and arbitration; and the judge has the right to call for any witn<>sses h£ r7quires without b<>ing asked to do so by ·Olth<>r <>mployers or employees. And if th£ judge sees that >a dispute is likely to .arise, he may immediately become the mediator, and take such action as will pr<>vent a dispute from taking place. If that is not conciliation an<l arbitr•ation, ther£ is no oth<>r term you oan .apply to it, so far as my knowledge of the English language goes. Having briefly outlined what we may term the machinery of the Bill and the obj-ects we have in vi<>w, I may say that the d<>sire. which I feel sure throbs in the mind of <>V<>ry mmnber sitting on this side of the House is th£ desir£ to see industrial strife abolished and a fair deal given as between employer and employee.

Mr. COYNE : The Bill contradicts that statement.

LIEUT-COLONEL RANKIN : Th£ Bill may contradict that statement; but, as far -as the

Lieut.-Golonel Rankin.]

710 Industrial Peace Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Industrial Pea~e Bill.

speeches of hon. members opposite are con­cerned, they have failed to. disclose wherein it does so. Let us inquire into it .a bit more closely. It is a well-known fact that the burden of speeches we have heard from members opposite is that the Bill is a blow aimed at unionism. I would like· to ask where in the Bill lie, the provision that is going to injure unionism. Do hon. members opposite Bxpect for a moment that this House is going to pass a measure to give preference to a small body of men who call themselves " unionists" ? Do they Bxpect for a moment that we are going to penalise those men who, for conscience' sake, perhaps, decline to belong to their particular party or to ·any particular union? I say "No." So far from aiming a blow at unionism by this Bill, we simply place all men on the same footing.

Mr. CoYNE: No. LIEUT.-COLONEL R.'1.NKIN: It is impossible. Mr. CoYNE: 'Where is there any protection

to unionists? LIEUT.-COLONEL RANKIN: Anyone who

reads the Bill in an impartial way must see that it deals impartially with all men.

Mr. COYNE: Show me where it protects unionists.

LIEUT.-CmoNEL RANKIN: I would ooint out once and for all that the great feature of the Bill lies in the fact that the fir~.t thing that takes place under the Bill is the consti­tution of the industrial board. Do we dis­criminate there between unionists and non­unionists?

Mr. COYNE: Yes.

LIEUT.-COLOI\'EL RANKIN: The hon. mem­ber says, "Yes," although he knows quite well that we do not. We do not ask men to be unionists or non-unionists to be quali­fied to take a seat on that board.

Mr. CoYNE: Yon protect non-unionists.

'LIEUT. -COLONEL RANKIN : We ask all men to come in. 'V e do not inquire whether a man is a unionist, or not. vVhen that in­dustrial board is constituted it~ is absolutely in the hands of the employees themselves, who are expected to abide. by the award. {Opposition laughter.) Hon. members oppo­site may laugh, but this is no new thing. It has been in existence in the other States for some time. I ask hon. members in what other way would it be possible to create such a board? Do they reckon that we should give a majority of the representation to unionists, although they represent but a small minority of the workers of this State?

Mr. CoYNE: \Vhy are you so afraid of them then?

LIEUT.-COLONEL HANKIN: You expect us to give you the majority, but I say, " No." As there is no discrimination between unionists and non-unionists in the creation of the board, we go one better than giving one side a majority. Instead of leaving it to the Minister or the Governor in Council to make the appointment of the umpire, in order to show that it is entirely bereft of any political bias, we leave the appointment of the chair­man and umpire to themselves.

Mr. CoYNJ<J: Nothing of the sort.

LIEUT.-COLONEL RANKIN: I do not think the hon. member has read the Bill. It is pro­vided that, if they do not take steps to

[Lie;ut.-Colonel Rankin.

appoint a chairman and umpire within a;.

certain time, then the Minister or the court st.eps in and fillc the vacancy.

Mr. CoYNE: Which of them? The SEORE1'ARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The

court. Mr. CoYNE: It is not the court. It is the

Minister.

LIEU1'.-COLONEL RANKIN: So far as the argument across the floor is concerned, it need· not trouble us very much, as it. is not the· wording of the Bill but the parbcular prm­ciples of the Bill that are of the greatest importance. I have tried to show the House: that, so far as the constitution of the board is concerned we are entirely free in the· matter, and ~ve leave its selection to the men \dlO "'ill have to abide by the a\'ard. Even if we pursue it to the next tribunal-to the industrial court-is there one hon. member on the Opposition side who can suggest for a single mom<>nt that it would be possible to· constitute a better court than one with a Supreme Court judge or District Court. judge presiding over it?

Mr. BERTRAM: vV e are not complaining of that part.

LIEUT.-COLONEL RANKIN: I was just. pointing out wherein lies the fa:llacy of the great cry that this Bill i•, aimed at unionism. co far as unionists are concerned, they are Rnfeguarded in every possible way ~n the selection of the court, as well as 111 the appointment and selection of the board. It. would, therefore, be futilP, puerile, an? ridiculous for any member to get up in thiS· Chamber and try to make out that in bring­ing this measure before the House the Go­vernment are actuated by any other spirit or any other idea than that which the title of the Bill implies-namely, industrial peace.

Mr. O'SULLIVAN: You must take us to be a lot of simpletons if you think we will believe that.

LIEUT.-COLONEL RANKIN: In that case· probably I would not make any mistake. (Go­vernment. laughter.) Coming down to the constitution of the court-what we might term the machinery of the measure-we have heard a great deal from the other side-I am quite sure it was entirely i:t-relevant­about the amount of unrest that exists throughout the world at the present time and the cause;; of that unr0st. l\Iost of US·

are perfectly well aware that ~h~re is a spirit of unrest, which is ch'aracteristw ~f the· age. It is not confined to . any particular class of people or any partwular clime or· any particular nation. It seems. to me that, if we look a little deeper and stnve to under­stand more fullv J.he causes of this unrest, we shall find it, perhaps, in that word" evolu­tion." vVe know that the evolution of the human race which is constantly taking place is causing this unrest. I sat listening the· other night with feelings little short _of amazement when one member on the opposite side stated that all the advantages which the working classes possessed >Lt the present ~ime in cont,radistinction to those of older times have been brought about by unions 01 ..

unionism. Nothing could be further from the mark. If we admit for a single moment that unionism is perhaps " factor in the_ evolution. I contend that it is a very small factor. It is one of the small0st factors, as. a matter of fact, that you find playing a:.

Industrial Peace Bill. [13 AUGUST.] Industrial Peace Bill. 711

part in that mighty force. Let us get away from these shallow depths for a moment and look at it from a deeper point of view. Let us try to find out by studying the disease whether "e cannot find a cure. Perhaps one of the greateEt factors in that evolution has been scientific and mechanical invention. Those two things have done more to advance the working classes than anything else­far more than unionism. I purposely leave out education, because I believe that educa­tion is embodied in this too. \V e know­and it is within the memory of members sitting in this Chamber to-day-that there w'as a time not so far distant when some of our commodities were regarded by the work­ing classes as luxuries. 'Ve know, for in­stance, that tea and tobacco and one hundred and one other commodities were a short time ago only a vail able to the wealthy elas.'•es.

Mr. O'SuLLIVAN: Why?

LIEUT.-COLONEL RANKIN: Because they were too expensive. (Opposition laughter.) That is ex:tctly what I am coming to. I point out that it is owing to mechanical inventions and scientific inventions that these commodities have become reduced in price and have become available to the working man. The same thing has applied to industries and callings ~\'here unions never existed. Take the agricultural labourers. We arc not aware that unionism has done anything for their advancement.

Mr. ·THEODORE: H will do so.

LIEUT.-COLONEL RANKIN: Then take our soldiers. Is there any unionism amongst them that has led to their benefit?

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS.

The SPEAKER: I hav•e to inform the House that there are two distinguished visitors-the Right Honourable James Bryce, British Ambasc,,Ldor at Washington, and Rear-_\dmiral King Hall, who is in com­mand of the Australian Station. I have ex­tended your courtsey to them in offering them a seat on the dais of this Hou.,e.

Hm>OURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, h.car!

INDUSTRIAL PEACI<i BILL. SECOND READING-RESUMPTION OF DEBATE.

LIEUT.-OOLOXEL H.ANKIN: I submit that we have only to look at the unions to see that they are a very small factor in the evolution which we see taking place to-day. The world is not made up in a one-sided fashion; influ0nc<:>s come from all sides. One of our greatBst writers on thB very subject which is now engaging our attention-I refer to Ruskin-says-

" There is only one cure for public distress, and that is public education directed to make men thoughtful, merci­ful, and just."

That is ·a thought 11 hich I would -ask hon. members opposit0 to allow to sink into their minds in approaching a measure of very great importance to the industrial life of this State. Let us not approach it in a spirit of .antagonism or with bias in our minds; but let us look at it from all points of view, and try, not merely to observe its

blemishes, but also to see its [ 4.30 p.m.] good points. Let us try to mag­

nify the good points, and, as f.ar as possible, minimise the defects of the Bill.

If we consider the measure in that spirit, we shall -accomplish something which •will be -a benefit to Queensiand. I assure hon. members oppo·,,.ite, ·and in doing so I feel that I am voicing the feelings of members on this side of the House, that we are genuinely desirous that some avenue should be opened by which industrial strife may ,be banished from these fair shor-es of ours. I do not think the task is at ·all .an impossible one, recollecting the boundless possibilities of this State, recollecting the paucity of our popu­lation, and recognising the fact that in ,a young country like this each member _of the body politic plays a higher and more Impor­tant part in moulding public policy than do persons in similar positions in other lands. Let us then strive so to shape this Bill that it will be not only a credit to the Govern­ment which introduced it, but also a credit to every member taking part in its ?iscus~ion and in its shaping. It is not my mtention, nor is it permissible on the second reading, to go into the details of the contents of the Bill. Certain speakers on the opposite side have dealt very harshly with the proyisio~s prescribing penalties. One would thmk m listening to those members that the Govern­ment inserted those provisions with the view of raising revenue. But surely hon. members must recognise that, whatever this Bill may be or may not be, it has cert.ainly not .been introduced as a revenue Bill. I venture m think that no penalty that it is within the power of this House to inflict would be suffi­cient to meet the case of men who by the unreasonableness ,and ;tupidity they some­times exhibit, and by intimidation, plunge thousands of men, and innocent women and children also, into a condition of want. No penalty we could impose would meet such a oase. If, -as the leader of the Opposition has said, thf' penalties are heavy in some respects, they are not proposed for the amount of money which may be recovered, but in order to place obstacles in the way of any­body lightly breaking through the lines we lay .down in the Bill. If anyone will take the trouble to ex-amine the penalties im­posed by the Bill, he will see that there is no effort to score against the unionists or employee'. I have made a short list of the penalties proposed. I shall not read them .all but I shall take one for the purpose of m~king a comparison between the p_enalties imposed on the employer and those Imposed on the employee. For instance, the fine for a breach of a board's ,award is £500 for an association of employers or employe~s. £50 for a single employer, and £10 for an employee. Although the penalty in one oa~e may seem high, yet ·as far as the w<;>rker IS concerned it is just about as low as It could be. If you pursue this comparison right throuo-h the measure you must come to the conch~sion that the framer of the Bill was not seekino- to impose penalties which could be regard';,d •as favouring the employer as. against the <>mployee. How-;ver, I brush as1de for the moment the que,hon of penal­ties. It is not with penalties that we are chiefly concerned. I hope that none of these penalties will ever have to be enforced, and I believe that {'·very member of the House hopes that it will not be necRssary for .any tribunal in the land to inflict any penalty for ~ breach of the provisions of this Bill. I fe<>l quite sure tha.t this measure will be very sympathetically received by the great,

Liwt.-Colonel Rankin.}

712 Industrial Peace Bill" [ASSEMBLY.] IndustnaZ Peace Bill.

majority of the people of Queensland. Many people are now a prey to the fear of indus­trial turmoil, and to the doubt which exists in their minds as to what to-morrow holds in store for them, and they are crying out for the Government to take steps to give them some solid place on which they may place their fed, .and say " Here, ·at all events, is finality; here is something on which we can build." That is what the Government propose to do in this measure. Reco("nising quite clearly the duties and 'Obligations that one citizen owes to another, and recognising, notwith•.tanding what has been said by some hon. members opposite, that capital is just as importo.nt to labour as labour is to capital, and that instead of their interests and aims being inimical the one to the other, they are identicd, the Gov-crnmcnt ar•~ tr=-ing to provide a basic standpoint on wh;ch capital and labour may work sic~e by side, and it is with that end m view that this Bill has be· ·n framed and submitted for our consideration. If ·we are sometimes accu •. ed of being har•h in what w<• say with regard h unionisrr. or unionists, I sometimes think that their .actions are not infrequently of such a character as to call for the con­demnation whic':l we give them. I hold in my hand what is called tlw "Rural Workers' Log." Pr<.sumably it is issued with the full authority and knowledge of a ycarticular union-the Rural WorkBrs' Union. Now, I ask, would anybody, even with ·a ·biassed mind. after looking through the provisions contain<'d in that log, say that they •are f-air or Tea .. Dnable? \Vhy, one of the fir·1t prin­ciples laid down in this log-one of the very first s.mtences here-stamps it as being a most unfair ~locument. If there is anything that we have consbntly thrown 'at us from the other side, it is the gnat democratic spirit that guides their every thought, their evBn action; and yet what do they mean by democracy? No people ''ho would try to govern this great country with its present population b:: a handful of unionists can surely claim the title of democrats in any sen·" of the wDrd.

1\Ir. THEODORE: \Vhat do vou cal! a hand-ful? ·

LIEUT.-C·JLONEL RA:;\JKIN: I will give '70n

Hw figures. I 1vill quote now from .the Australian " Year Bo.ok."

OPPOSITION J\IE1IBERS: Oh, oh ! LIEUT.-COLONEL R \NKIN: Th•'re is nothing

v-·~y " Oh, oh,'' about it. This book is acknov. ledc;ed l•y us all as the onlv authoritv. It ic by Knibbs. The number' of unio;;s rcz:-i ·tercel in Queensland in 1910 was thirty­seven.

1\Ir. THEODORE: Regist.,rod.

LIEUT.-COLONEL RANKIN: vVait a moment, and let me have my say, and you can speak eftBrwards. The number of unionists was 18,522. Now, the population of Queensland at that time was 605,813. If we assume­as I submit we are justified in assuming­that on~ person out of every five of the· popu­lation rs a worker, it will give us 101,160 workers. . Mr. THEODORE: There are 68,000 unionists m Queensland.

L!~UT.-COLONEL RANKIN: What the Op­posrtwn seek to do is this: that those 18 000 members of thirty-seven unions should p~ac-

[Lieut.-Golonel Rankin.

tically govern and control the labour of this State, representGd by 101,000 workers. Is that fair or reasonable? Yet what do we find? In this log, the very first principle laid down is that preference of employm<mt be given to members of the union,, Do you expect in thi; twentieth century that any Pnlightened race of people is going to stand that for one single mom<·nt'i Surely not! \Vhy should a man, because he does not happen to belong to a union, be branded aH an industrial le-per? \Nhy is that man to be sta.mped as unclean? Why should lw be prevBnted from taking employment, fro1n giving his wife and family su":tenance? \Vhy Rhonld his children sto,rve' \Vhy should hi wife go bego;ing merely because, for oon­scif nee' sake, or for any other reason, h;:. will not join a political union, and refuses to be guided by unionisb,' talk, or by th<> Trades Hall? I bay, if they throw it across thh C'~wmbET that v . .::~ are bia~>:ed in our legislation, that we are makinr;; an effort in t1!is Bill to dovvn unionism~-

::',[r. RYAN: So you are.

LIEUT.-CoLOl-<EL RANKIN: I s&y, if any r Jn is bic· 3.'d. it is the unionists who framed thL log, ~nd it is t.h,>· people 'i' l·"J are be­hind t]m:. w1ion. 'The clovc·n hoof has been shown time and again. 'vVhat they mean by pr-eferenc" to unionist.,-what they mean by unfairne;.s in the Bill is simply this-that v;e do not give thPm everythin2:-that we do no-t, &s they sometimes do in another place, recognise their unions as being the basis on which we should build up our legislntion. T '1k at'out the liberty of th1 subject! T'alk about inch:otrial ne~ce! I d-o not think one -in~b mecnber o,; that side of the House has rf'alie:ed chat• pc 'C'l really meuns. Let me give them a definition. OnB of our r;rc;c;test thinker ha,; said " Peare is liberty in tran­quillity." 'fh:>t is the definition of peace, and that is what c:·e are a"kin~ for-liberty for a n1a'l to \~ ork v,rhere he wants to VYork, and liberty for a man to seck employment where ho c:1n get emploympnt.

J\cr. O'ilm.LIVAN: What did Jud;e Higgins F'ty?

LIEUT.-COLONEL RANKIN: I do not c;we what Judge Hig:-;ins said. \Ye are not crm­cerned atout what Judge Higgins said, and ''e are less concerned about what Judge' Hig­gins thinks. We are trying to do the beet we can for this fair land of ours. So soon ":< wo reco:;nise this definition of peace in an industrial sens:,, just so soon shall we legis­late along lir>es that will build un this State. Let this sirnmer into our n1inds \vhcn we are dealing with the Bill-that pe~ce is not merely what we ourse-lves whit;1e it down to, but peace is, in its hi c-hest and loftiest &ense, liberty and industrial trcmquillity.

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear t'

:'\Ir. GILLIES \Eachao;,): First of all, I feel called upon to enter a mo~t emphatic pl·otest against the character that has been given to our farming community by members who pre­tend to know something about the £.arming industry-the hon. member for Drayton and the hon. member for Pittsworth. 'Those hon. members g;we us to understand that our rural industries cannot be carried on under twentieth century conditions. Now, I claim to know something about the farming industry, and I believe there are men in Queensland who desire to carry on those industries under

Industrial Peace BiU. [13 AuousT.] lnrlu8triat Pea~e BiU. 713

:tw<mtieth centurv condition··· Those hon. _members insinuat~d that it was impossible to carry on those industries and pay fair wages.

i\lr. MoRGAN : They did not. Thel said they do pay fair wages.

::.\lr. GILLIES: They insinuated that it is impossible to pay fair wages and carry on those industrieq.

:\Ir. FoRSYTH: They said nothing of tho -sort.

Mr. GILLIES: I quite agree that the.' -cannot make it pcty while the price or bnd is FO high, while rent IS so high, while the co.ct of machinery is so high, and while members, who pretend to represent the farmers. associate themselves with a middleman Government. The insintHction has be-2n mac~o that our great dairying industry cannot afford to pay fair wagt;>. vVe have been told that the great dairying inclustry is the wealthiest industry in Queensland, and that it is the healthie·'t indu·try in Queen;; .. land. Now, those two otatem{mts do not fit jn. Either one statement or the other is untrue, and I think it is about time thi' House knew whether the dairying industry is in such a hLd condition, such an unfor­tunate condition, that it cannot r.dford to po_y fair '' ag< >, or if-as I believe it is-the d_cirying industry is a flourishing industry, and a valuc,ble asset to this State. I knClw a paper in New South vVales that has bee:1 barracking very hard for low wages in the .dairying ind-:stry, and that paper recentJv published a leading article condemning, a"s the prevwus speaker did, the claims of the rccral workers, and in the sam<' is1ue they published the fact that Mr. So-and-o;0's cheqt1e for the last month was £120, "'nd i\lr. s,)-ancl­'o's checrue was £109, and they aho pointed out how much wages were paid. I think it is jmt as v ·oil to be consistent and to be ~·easonable, and I admit right here that any mdustry that will not allow re!lso_,;able con­ditions and wages is no good to Au,naLt. I arn a protertioni~t. I have be€n a protf':J­ti-mist all my life. and I believe in the firot pla.nk of the :Federal Labour party's pJat­fm·m,_ "f' \Vhite Australia," nnd I say that any mau"try m Austraha that cannot be carried out under white lal.._mr conditions is no good to Australia. But I deny the- ,,:ale­n,ent, so far as our agricultural industri,,, in Queensland are concerned. ~Olll(' speakers made referenc0 to the limited number of men who belong to unions in Queensland. ·One hon. mem}>er stated that there were 101,000 workers in Queensland. I may otate that there are 60,000 unionists in l.)ueensland,

J that more than 50 per cont. of the workers in Quer,lf-land are unioniots. Hav­in;; ,,aid so much, I desire to re£er to the B_i!l it~el£. I listened very patiently to the cl-scuFswn on the Bill, and paid l"articuhr .attention to what the Treasurer who is in charge of the Bill, had to say, a;,d the tone of voice. he adopted when introducing the Bill ; and I could not help thinking at the ~ime that, if the hon. gentleman wrts as ·Barnest and sincere as he appeared to be, he ha' v~ry sadly misjudged the ~" ople of Queensland when he spoke of this measure as a cure-all for all industrial unre.":t.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: It will undoubtedly go a very long way towards it.

Mr. GILLIES: I sincerely hope it will, because we on this side are very anxious to

osee industrial peace. But we desire to see

industrial peace, not ollly vvith honour ~1u~ with justice, and justice i,, the greate3t tlung in this worfd. Peace without justice is no good to us. :Nor can l by .any "tretoh. ol imagin-ttion see in this 1neasure <1llyGhn1g that will reduce indu,,trial unrest, bocaBoe it is opposed to unionism. It is ?PPOBed i.u unionisnl becauFe it is coercive, be-;HtHS.-) it Lrist!es with penaltie~ which will in practice hit the best men in this State. In wis Bill obstacles are put in the way of !J'-'li'.u;ll.)

unionisrn; in fact, a pren1ium is off8red t.o IlOn-uni<trYiists.

The SECRETARY FOlt PGBLIO WORKS : Tell US

in what way a premium is offered. Mr. GILI,IES: \Ye blk abo01t libeTty.

One \>Titer ha~ said-" 0 L1berty ! \\hat c~:i1nc:; are colnrnit-

tod in thy name!" \Ve talk about the fre<o-dom of the Briti<h subject. Generally tho people wno t:dk abut lib< rcy and freedom only think ot it for one se-;tion.

:C,j)·. FORSYTH: That is quite right; it IS

th,e Labour party.

Mr: GILLIEf'. : I Hn at liberty to 'valk do';·~n Qaeon H.r(---t, and ;:wing rny arms \Vhere I like, but 11nn1ediatcly rny arrn cornes into contac~ ,,-ith the hon. member's no,--, who lL:s just intecjrcted, my freedom cccoscs. {LaughtDr.) '.Chat should be borne in mind wh'n wo calk about the liberty a ,d freedom of the Briti,h subject. What we dHire is libcrt_y and freedom for all J'_e people and not for a s0ction of the p2or',; only. If the Government are in earnut in desiring to bring in a measure which will giv . j',,stice to <tll 5Botions of the community-and they &cty . that after this IlF'D.".):J.l'G is r 1:i~,,d both :-~~CtiOllJ of the C0ID-

111Unity will have an opportunity of admin­ir .. t,erir.o- it-is it n{)t of as n1uch ii11portanc~ that ;;; tho p:t',sa;,·o of this mec, .ure both sid<· of the He, lScl should have a :,ay in it? WL v did not th, fro,; mer:: of the Bill ace pt the· offer of the hon. member for Chilla<roe 'illd the hon. member for Cairns, who have had experience, and who know y,-hat th.J ider_s, the "··,spiration,-. ar~d i.h'3 te:nper of ti·e work< ,·s are? .If they _de, Ire to brin~ in :.~ rncasure that \vill g1ve JUstrca to all a'nd privilege to none, they \VO'_,!d c'-r­tainlv confer with mcml:"rs on this side v.-ho knovi something about the- people who ,,re anclernea th. I ''auld w·,,rn the:n that the famons Cvcrcio'". Ac' in Kew South vVn'es '>'as the politic·:1l ViT:, terloo of tlcte Wade Go­vorntnent,A~"and it is ju; ~ as y,'ell to rc1nc~n.t<}r that this Coercion Act may be the pohtwal IV a:erloo of this Government.

Mr. FORSYTH: It wa; not at the la:st election.

Mr. GILLIES: It was not, because it was not [1Hssed then. If the peopl<o at the last election had had anv idea that this Govern­lnent was goin6 to bring in a. coercive Inea­suro like this, do you think they would have return<'d them ?

J\1r. FORSYTH: Yes, every time.

Mr. GILLIES: I think the averag,e Queens­lander or Austraiian likes justice and fair play; he is a clean sport, and desires justice all round.

Mr. E. B. C. CORSER: No preference.

Mr. GILLIES: Various members on the other side in supporting this measum have endeavoured to con('eal the fact that they

Mr. Gillies.]

714 Industrial Peace Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Industrial Peace Bill.

are opposed to unionists. \Vhy are the Go­vernment not honest enough to tell the peo­ple straight out that they ar-3 opposed, hke Mr. Badger is, to trade unionism-that thev believe unionism is going too far, and that it is just as well to nip it in the bud and crush It, as Jl;lr. Badger attempted to do when a union "·as being formed amongst the tram­way men on the first occcLsion? It is just ao ·well that v.-e Fhould kno-\1 that the Gov~rnment arL opposed to unionism, that the'\- be­lie\o that unionism is bad, and· that the motto that ''Union is StreiiJl:th" is a delusion and a snare. If the Govern­mcmt were honest enough to do that, we could understand this measure, because it bristles with penalties which cannot pcssibly reach tho non-unionis G. The le rtdc· .: of the Opposition the other night stated that it was possible· for a man to bG fined £1,000 undGr this measure, and one of the Ministers in­terjected that that was wrong. But it is ab'·Jlutely true. The Bill provides that an indiYidual nn be fined up to £1,000. \Ve arc aC<"Iscd on the public platform and by the Tory Pre30, that we as a party are alwayo associating ourcelves with experimen­tal l~gislation. The Premier himself admit­ted that this was a novel Bill. I contend that the Government arc going in for experi­mental legislation. It is not if they had nothing to guide them in this direction. 'IhB Fedora! Arbitration Act has proved suce .'ss­ful, and every man on this side who has spoken ha". assured the GovBrnmcnt of our co-operation if they will introduce a Bill on th8 lines of the Federal Arbitration Act. But the Govemment comes down with a Bill which the Premier designates a novel B1ll, and which is in every sense experimental legislation. If this Bill is going to be a suc­cess, ''-hy have the Government, who are the largest employers in the State, not seen fit to include public servants in the measure? The rural workers have been omitted, and the public ser·vants have also been left out. The Minister for Agriculture said it would give to the employees the fullest measure of liberty. We hear this word " liberty " used so often by a Government who desire to pass a measure that absolutely sweeps away by its provisions the liberty that our anczs­tnrB luve fought for and died for-the right of every citizen to be tried by his peers. Trial by jury has be~n torn to tatters and thrown to the four winds of heaven in this Bill, and yet we talk about liberty. It takes away the right to strike absolutely. Y.T e WCi'e told that the right to strike is conserved, and many han. members opposite ~id it was impossible to take away the right to strike. Indeed they said it was unfair; but still th" Bill compels a fortnight's notice beforu a strike nn take place. 'I'hat would absolutely spoil the effect of a "trike. I would not complain about that, be~ause I am abso­lutely opposed to strikes. I regard the strike> as the last possible weapon, an out-of-date, barbarous weapon. But this Bill does not give the worker an alternative. If the Bill

gave tho worker an alternative, I [5 p.m.] would not object to the right to

strike being taken away; -but it does not do so. Then thNe ;-, no appeal from the court-a court composed of one man. I endorse the words of the deputy leader of the Opposition, and say that no man in this House has got -a right to say a word against a judge of our Queensland courts unleso that man is prepared to say that that judge should be removed from the

["}f r. (Jillies.

position ht· occupies. Still, when the right of trial by jury has been taken away by this. Bill, I say that a very serious inroad upon that justice of which we •are so proud has been made. ~· e hear a great deal of talk -about the agitator. The agit-ator is supposed to be a very dangerous individual. If -a man gets up at the street corner and advocates the i'ights of down-trodden humanity, he is. branded as an agitator; if he goes out lectur­ing in the cause of vested interests, he is a respectable organiser. Now, I say the .agita­tor--call him an •agitator if you like-has done a great deal of good work. It has been admitted by han. members opposite that the gospel of discontent should he preached, .and that without discontent there would b,. no progres>. Almost every speaker on the other side recognises the right of men to try and improve their conditions.

Mr. CoYNE : Even the hon. member for Pittsworth. Ho agitated for a railway this afternoon.

Mr. GILLIES: I admit that it is quite pmsible to bludgeon this Bill through by mere forcB of numbers, but there is a greater power than Parliament. If this Bill goes through, it will have the effect of the famous Coercion Act passed in New South Wales. We are given to understand by speakers on the opposite side that the unio11s and the workers are responsible for strikes. \Vhy, n<:arly every strike I ever knew or heard of can be traced to employers. I ,am going to read an extract from the Sydney Morninq Herald of 27th Jan nary, 1910-just .about the time the coal strike was at an end. On that date it printed this-

" It is believed that at l-ast some of the operations of the powerful coal vend are to be brought to light, and that features of the .foreign coal trade which have previously been kept in the back­ground will be inquired into.

''In the course of its investigations, the [Compulsory Arbitration] Board, in order to determine upon the hewing rate to be fixed, will necessarily need to in­auire into the trade conditions of the field, and, it is understood, that in fixing the hewing rate, the board will give­attention to the profits made by colliery companies. . . Another matter that will probably be the subject of evidence is the 'arrangement which is understood to exist, wherebv the output of the re­cpective collieries is controlled. It is -alleged that when the· selling price is fixed, generally towards the end of the· year, each colliery in the vend is al,lot~ed a certain amount of trade. If, mu1ng the following twelve months, that output is exceeded, the colliery has to pay a fine <·qual, as a rul-e, to the profit made on the extra trade into a fund which goes to reimburse those· collieries which have­not secured their full share of the trade. This arrangement has been a special bug­bear of the miners' feder-ation. That body cont;onds that the agreement has the effect of frequently throwing collieries idle, when, if the company h~d not ~een under a restriction, there w11s sufficwnt legitimate trade to permit of their work­ing full time. They allege that ·a great deal of the broken time seen last year ooulod be traced directly to this source, and that in many cases when it paid a.

Industrial Peace Bill. [13 AUGUST.] Industrial Peace Bill.

colliery to close down for ,a period, the men were induced by a svstem of de­liberate persecution to go on strike. Many who are not connected with the fPderation go even further and state in whispers-for no one d'lre; speak of the ma~tN above a whisper--that the prc",ent stnke. was welcomed by certain big co!henes that had exceeded the output allotted them."

Now, where is the liberty there? Talk about liberty! l am sure the same thing applies to many of the stnkes that have taken place in the past. (Hear, hear!) \Ve have a measure before us bristling with penalties for the workers .and for the unionists. As the hon. :nembe_r for Cairns pointed out, it is utterly Imp'?o:nble to find an employer guilty of ?ausmg a lockout, so what is the use of try­mg to gull the people by providing penalties for employer and employee alike, when it ie utterly impos,c:ible to sheet .it home to the employer? The hon. member for Wide Bay said that the passing of this Bill would make history. I believe it will. I believe that, when the history of Queensland comes io be written, the genuine Queenslandor will be ashamed of it. V'!hen the more conten­tious clauses of this Bill are before us in Committ.,e, I am. going to have my say. At present I am gomg to content myself with saying that I believe this to be one of the rrost coDr,Jive 111E'1.sures th1t 11as ever b0on introduchl into a Queensland Parliament.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION : Why don't you try to prove it instead of merely saying it ?

Mr. GILLIES: Wait till the Bill gets into Committee-von will hear all about coercion. But members opposite are not open to conviction, so it is of no use for us to point out the defects in the Bill. They are bound hand and foot b,- their caucus and have to vote for the Bilf. Even on th~ Address in Reply every member who spoke on the other side gave us to understand, be­fore he saw this measure, that it was going through. I admit that it will go through but not without the protest of member~ sitting on this side.

Mr. MURPHY (Burke) : In regard to this measure we have to recognise that the mani­festo of the Premier on the eve of the general election was very emphatic ~es far as legislatio>1 for th·., pr~vention of strikes wa., concerned; and we know that as far as the endorsement of the public is cone ?erned ~he Government have really re.ceived mstruchons from the electors to introduce S?me measure. to d~,al with the strike ques­tiOn. In dealmg With the Bill we have firsL, to consider whether the principle ,it em­bodies is a good one or not. The defects­a,nd there are defects in the Bill-will be 4ealt with in Comn:ittee. Any measure hkely to do away with the cursed strike system, which will enable the man with labour to sell to go to a court and obtain fair remunera~ion for that labour, is a good meas.ure, and worthy of the support of all politiCal parties. Not onlv in this State but in all Australian Stat<< the people hav~ come to the conclusion that the best method of dealing with the wages question is by the establishment of a legal tribunal. We know that New Zealand established a pre­cedent. in this respect which no other people committed largely to industrial life can afford to disregard. In New Zealand thoy

had big industrial upheavals until Mr. Reeve,;, who was then a member of the Seddon Cabinet, hit upon the plan of intro­ducing a Compulsory Arbitration Act; and we know that in that country that Act has done a vast amount of good. No man who, gives the matter any consideration will argue against the humane s;, stem then in­troduced of dealing with the3e questions, Not only in New :l;ealand, but in most of the Australian State:J and in the Comwon­wea1th, there is legislation on the statute­book which enables those who have griev­ance•; against their employers to go to a court. and have them quickly, ea~ily, and effoctnely fixed up. And this Bill I'l on tho;,• lines.

An OPPOSITION YlEMBER interjected.

Mr. MURPHY: When the Arbitration Act was introduced in New Zealand it was called an Act with the object of inducing industrial association•• to come before the>e arbitration courts; hut there was no clause in the Act as first mtroduced in New Zealand for the penalising of those who did not belong to a union. lt was provided in the Bill that a man was not to be dismissed by reason of being a non-unionist, and that the award should provide that the unio:nists and non­t,nion;sts were to work side by side. Vi'hen we pas3ed the Wages Boards Act we did not give preference to unionists.

An OPPOSITION ME11BER : \V e could not­get an amenament to that effect.

Mr. MURPHY: In spite of all the state­ments that this Bill is really an attack on unionism. the passage of the Wages Boards Act did · more to assist industrial unionism in Queensland than anything that had been done before. Have not more unions been formed here ,,ince the passage of the W a.ges Boards Act than before it was passed?

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS: Hear, hear ! Mr. MURPHY: I sav those unions came

into existence as a rAs,{It of the passage of th-at Act, for the reason that men recognise that sometimes considerable expense has to be borne when a case is taken to a legal tribunal, and they orga'?-isc in the first place for the purpose of ra1smg money to _enable them to go before the tribunal. It IS said that the Government have introduced thi" Bill with the object of smashing unions. I know nothing of that; but I say that if the Government introduced the measure with that object the} made a huge blunder; and the passage of the Bill, imperfect as it may be, will assist ma~erially the unions of the State. I am satisfied on that point; l am also satisfied that no man here will argue that it is not better to deal with an indus­trial question by means of a specially C?n­stituted tribunal than under the old stnke · system.

An OPPOSITION MEMBER: It depends on th~ tribunal.

Mr. MURPHY: Is there not to be a judge· appointed? And will not the judge d?:tl out <'Y<>nhandeJ justic<'? The hon. mewber mi("ht as well argue that b< cau,,e ther0 may be some bias in the mind of a judg0 nobody should go to law. I do not think anyone will argue that any judge, \vhether fro:n t.he Supreme Court bench or from the D1stnct Court bench, would wilfully, after weighing the evidence carefully, give a decision that in his opinion was not absolutely fair. \Vhe::> the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill was in­troduced in New Zealand, all the things we·

Jfr.llh{rphy.J

-.716 Industrial Peace Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Industrial Peace BiZt,

haYe heard during the discussion of this Bill \Yero stated. The unions were up in ar1ns; mnployers ... ,\\ere up in arms; a big· r:0ction of tho Press was opposed to it; it was de­be. ted in the New Zealand Parliament for thrc.:_, sessions; t>.Yiee it "\Yas throv"~".'n out by the l_;pper House; and it was thought for a ti111e that it would be impossible to get the measure placed on the statute-book. But later on, after the Act had b, en in opera­tion for sorne time, and it \vas found ne1·":-s­sary to make some amendments, it showed what the re,lresentatives in Parliament thought -of the humane system of dealing with disputes provided in the Act when the amendments went through both Chambers without opposition. We are told that this is a cooroi,~e measure. All law is more o,· kos coercive; and there is no legislation th,,t has noL some penal clauses. Some of the penal clauses in this Bill have been taken from the Commonwealth Arbitn.tion Ace; others are copied from an Act recently introduced in New South Wales by a mem­b-,1· of b0 Government there, Mr. Dec\b~-. 1nan -..vho has given grfat att·''ntion to this class of legislation, and is thoroughly satis­licd, ar~ording to his own statements, which can be read in the New South \VaLs 1/-an­s<ud that so far as this class of legislation is c<;nccrr{od thoro has to be so,rnething in the nature df coc.-cion. Vlhy, th-1 very fact that we talk of compuLmry arbitration means that there has got to be a cert cin amonnt of coercion. They tried voluntary a:::·1)itr.ation in An1erica and it \Vas a fail:uc-. Mr. Heeves, who introduc,:d this Bill intc) the New Zealand Parliament, first paid a visit to America for the' purpose of stud;) ing the working of the voluntary systHn in that country, .and he discovered that th" volun­tary s0 stem of conciliation anc~ arbitratioil \Vns a failure so far as L"'\1nenca \vas ton­corned. 1-Vhen he ret·Hncd from his tour he introduced a Bill into the J\;cw Zc~land Parliament, and he pointed out that the only method of making conciliation and arbi­tration a cU<"-'' 's was by making it compul­sory. 1-Vhat is the result to-day? Imper­fect as our wages boards systems ],ave been, will any hon. member in this Chamber ar,;uc that the workers have not benefited to a gT"<tt extent under the ad1ninistra.tion of that Act? In tL-, old days when there was a grievance between employer and employee what happened 'I There was simply a brutal fight, and the worker was absolutely starved and the employer's . business dislocated. So fa:;_· Ch the lP1iorh1nato c1nplo:y -~ \vas con­c-rned, he not only had to fight the employer and the employers' federation, but to a great extent he had always to fight the Govern­ment. Und"r this new modern system of dealing with industrial grievanc-Js there is quite a different state of affairs. Now the worker., appeal to the court to inquire int._, them. There is no necessity to enter upon a long and brutal fight with the employers.

'Tho wage-earner remains quietly at his work, knowing full well that the court will do e'"erything poh-iblc for him and give reason­able comideration to his claims and make an award. So far as tho coercion is concerned, we know perfectly well that under every law that is passed there is alwavs a certain amount of coercion. 1-Ve have only to look at tho cadAt syst-:-m in Australia. It is com­pulsory military training, and there are penalties provided in conm-r·tion with that '~·stem. 1-V e know from reading the new->­fJapers that hundreds of parents are being

[Mr. Murphy.

fined to-day for not compelling their c):lil­dren to attend the required number of drrlls.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE : And the smallest fine is £5.

Mr. MURPHY: In some quarters that is regarded as coercion. But we know that the Federal Legislature has d-·creed that compulsory military training shall be t!vJ law o£ the nation, and, without some penal clau,es in this Bill and in every other h1 , \Yhich pasoes the Legislatures, that people wo~ld not comply with the law. You haYe to put thc'e clauses in to make people r,,ahse tint the Government will carry out the law '" it is pa-.sed by the representatives of the peop2e. Surely no one could take the light-c5t ex<cption to that. When the Mm­

ister for \\'orks was introducing this Bill I poin,ild out to him a clause which to my miE-1 was a Yety unfair one. That was the garnishee clause. I have noticed a goo-.l dr<1l in connecti'on with this matter of gar­nisheed, .and on 1nore than one occasion I have brought it up in this House. I point-ed o;·t that it was absolutelv unfair to depriv-• tne breadwinn<:rs of the ~vhole of the wages duo to then1, becau~-3 it not only penalised the latter himself, but it inflicted great hard­fl,ip upon his wife and family. I suggc,tcd by interJo~tion at th.,,"t ti~.::le that the Mla­i,ter for \York., should introduce a clause providing that a proportion or instalmcnc c£ the n1an~s ,vag~:·~ stt' 1ld b~~ paid. On a second rusal of the Bill I notwe that the YCr.> 1 ~nng that I ;.:Iggest·~d \vas in th~ B_ill, and I ju t tak<o this opportunity ~f pomt_mg· it out. (H c, r, hear !) Tho compLunt .agamst the \va;:-.-c -_ board j vst:~m vras that the 1\.linister had tho po" er too appoint the chairmDn .. It \Vas ahvay;; said that ·when a Conservat1Ye Guvernn1cmt v\aB in po1v-er .._~_, eh.tir1nan with leanings towards the employers would be appointed, and so far as the workers were c0ncerned the vci·dict would always be g"ven agai::>st them. I have argued hHe on two or three oceasionc. that it would be much better to appoint a judge to have full control oi these "ages boards, and I am pleased to seu in this Bill that tho Gonrnm.,nt intend to appoint a Supr2mo Court judge who, will have absolute control ov r the decisions of the r·ag<'s bo%rds.

Mr. BERTRAi\!: And the chairman.

).lr. JHURPH_Y: If the representatives to tho various boards cannot agree on the chair­man, then the matter is referred to the judge. If the representatives of the two sides agree on the appo,intment of a chairman, there is no need to appeal to the judge at all. But if they fail to do so, then the judge ap­points the chairman.

Mr. BERTRAl~: It is referred to the Go­vcmor in Council.

The SECRET'ARY FOR AGRICULTURE: That is only m.whinery.

J.Ir. ::\ICRPHY: ~is I read tl1e Bill, the judge really nominates the chairman, and th•·re is po g-etting away from that point.

The SECRET.~RY l'OR PUBLIC \YoRKS: Hear, hear!

1\Ir. MURPHY: The question has been raised on this side that it is likely to inter­fere with the unions. I have already pointed out tlutt nothing of the kind is likely to eventuate. It has been said that any twenty men might apply to the court for an award.

Mr. FGLEY: That is 30.

Industrial Peace Bill. [13 AuG-usT.] Induotrial Peace Bill. 717

iVI:r. l\1G'RPHY: In some instances that. would be a very good t.hing be·:ause Queens­land is a very big centre, and there are little isolated places ,1 here thare is no organisation and they have as much right to have their wages raised and their conditions improved b:y the court a,, if they belonged to an organ­isation. (Hear, hoar!) Surely no one will take any exception to that.

Mr. BERTR'Al!: 'rhey could have done that under the old \V ages Boards Act.

l\1r. MURPHY: Of coms.c they could, and they will be able to do it under this mea­sure. Any Act under which men can go to a court and ask to have their grievances re­dressed must be a good Act. Surely with all its imperfections it cannot be argued that this Bill is not likely to do some good.

Mr. RYAC:: It will do a lot of harm.

Mr. l\lUHPHY: l listened to the hon. member last night, and really I was not con­vinced on that point with his speech. (Go­vernment laughter.)

.l\lr. RYAN: That was not my fault.

. Mr. :'\1l'RPHY: Possibly not; but it ;s eery seldom that the hon. member fails to convin::e me of the justi{.;e of his conh.:ntionE. But I listened to him attentively last night, and all the bad things he predicted as a result of this measure I am sincerelv con­vinced will not eventuate at all. Smne bad things were predicted when the first Bill was introduced in N<lw z,.-Janrl. \Vhen tl,;, Arbitration Bill was introduced there it \•.as said that. it v. as going to bmash existing union:J and r-:;,use i!]dr;:·_,:rial unrest, and that it was going to be a cocrciYe and repres­sive mc~sure. The result was that 'Vhen the Bill came into operation the employers and workerp and generJ! public say: the beneficial effect·' o£ tho Act, and all these things were forgottc,,. It Vi.lS the b·•neficial effects of -!:he Bjll in New Zealand that caused all the pro­grc"'.sivists in li_ustralia to advo::ate arbitra­tion and conciliation. \V e know v0rv well that shortly after that Bill was pas~ed in New Zh1land all the Labour parties in Aus­tralia plac.,d conciliation and compulsory arbitracion in the forefront of their demo­cratic programmes.

Mr. FoLEY: Who opposed it when it was going through the House?

Mr. MURPHY: The workers and the employees.

Mr. FoLEY: I think you are wrong. 1\Ir. :\IURPH Y: No; I have taken the

trouble to read through a; good many of the debates.

Mr. HAMIW·oN: The New Zealand Act provides for the reg·istration of organitations. This Bill abolishc.s them altogether.

Mr. MURPHY: I haYe pointod out already that this Bill certainly docs not prO\-ide £or the registrution of unions.

:Ur. HAMIL TO~.;: It abolishes them.

1\Ir. MURPHY: That is where I differ with the hon. member. I do not think that the Bill provides for the abolition of unions at all.

Mr. HAMILTON: You cannot registc·r in this court.

Mr. MURPHY: There is no nece"sitv to register any more than there was any neces­sity to register under the Wages Boards Act.

:VIr. HAMILTON: You have to register vr:der the Commonwealth Arbitration Act.

l\Ir. 1.\IURPHY: We are not dealing with the Commonwealth Arbitration .Act now \V e are dealing with this Biil, and I am comparing it with our system ol wages, bu:trds, and, a• I say, the \Vages ]_3oard;; A~t brought more unions into e::rrsten.ce m Queensland than had ever been 111 <":\Istence previouslv. And it must also be r0membered

· that no State legislation can con­[5.30 p.m.] llict with the Commom"ealth law.

The Industrial Peace Bill cannot deprive the peo1ple of any rigJ;.ts J?O'sessod under the Commonwealth Arbrtratron ;"\ct. The fact that unions have not got to regrster · will not make the olight.est differ<;nce, for tf!e ;-ery simple reason that men wrll recogmse that thev must have a barrister or solicitor to prepare their evidence and represent the?' in court, and, in order to do that, they wrll combine in unions.

An OPPOSITION l\JE~!BER: They cannot be represented by counsel.

1\Ir. MURPHY: I do not think the Bill provides that an ernployer or employees can­not be represented by a legal gentleman in the court .

:!.Ir. H.UIILTON : It does provide that.

:!'.Ir. MURPHY: Well, that is a matter of detail which cccn be di'·Dusscd in Committee. But such a provision n1ay not be ~n unmixed C'Yil \Vc\ know that the !ega.! expense; inc;_;rrcd by some unions in taking their c,tSes · Lefore 1·he A_rLitration Court have been ex­c0ptiona1ly hf--avy. Not long 3:go. the rrrades and Labour Council in Victona Issued a re­t'I''n which sho\' ed that they had been in­str-umental in raising something like £44,000. in fi•,-e ,-,,~ars bv means of levies on members ior the Purpose~ of assisting ·workers who were out on strike. If we can get away from the uece-:.sitv of continually raising money by levies ,;n members of unions to carry on strikes we shall have accomplished some· good, 'and this Bill aims at minimising th~t n·il. \Vhateyer may be its defects, that 1s · ite object, :ond it is possibL> t_hat the ;neasure may be amended in Commrttee. We kno·.•· that the majority will rul~, a,ncl ~hat w~ shall not be able to alter a smgl8 clause m the Bill unle.~s the '\linister who is in charge of i' accepts an ame,ndment. The Government Lcve introduced the Bill, and as far as t~e Opposition m·e concerned they_ cannot alt~t'. ;~ in any way, even by. the dottmg o£ an 1

or the crossing of a '· t." But we know. verv well that no Bill that has ever been mtro­duced into anv Le~islature has been P''"sed as it bs b<'en- introduced, and I believe th 1t if reason·,ble amondm<>nts are proposed in· this meas11re thev will be accepted, no matter from which .side ~~ the House they may come. I have one regret in connection with the Bill, and that is, that it was not i_ntroduc"~ as a non-party measure, a; the Liquor Bul ,, :ts, so that v:hen it was placed before the· Chamber members mi·.'ht have had an :•.b''")­lut<>ly free hand in making the Bill an excel-lent ·nH_"';_~sure. -

J\Ir. FOLEY : Thcv would not carry it if· they did tha.t. ~

Mr. 1\IVRPHY: I do not know whether tr ''Y would carry it or not, but I lmO\y t~>;-t t be people of Que<>nsland, whether umomsts or non-unionists. employers or n1e1nbers of the general public, are particularly anxious that some measure should be placed on the> ,;·dtute-book which will give the Government rowBr to ,;tep in and stop strike,. We have been asked many times why did! not the·

Mr. Murphy)

718 I nduBtrwl Peace Bin. [ASSEMBLY.] Industrial Peace Bill.

Governmc1t step in and stop the last strike. \Ve know perfectly well that th.• statute-book does not contain a single measure which would enable the Governmeat to step in and put an end to industrial warfare. This Bill will give the Arbitration Court this _pow•er. I do not say that if this measure becomes law there will never be a strike in (~ueensland again. · \Y e have seen strikes in :C\' ew Zealand since the passage of the Ar­litration Act in that State, and we have seen strikes in Australia since the passage of the Australian Arbitrat.ion Act; and I do not think any law <>an be devised which will c;ompel men to work if they do not feel inclined to work. But there have been laws ch.•vised-such a:; Conciliaiion and Arbitration Acts-which compei people to abide by an award of the cou1·t. Certainly, an employer nt·ed not cany on his business if he so d£ter­mines, but if he does carry on his business he must c:arry it en in accordance with the award of the court. A worker need not work, but if he deCides to work h'l must do so in accordance with the award of the Arbitration Court. vv·e all realise what a wretched and lnrbaric system the strike is for settling industrial disputes, and we know the dreadful suffering it entails upon those who have -enga"·ed in them, particularly the worker and the worker', family; and anything that "'"n be done to get away from that obsolete, t~rbaric '<ystem ought to be done. Mr. King O'l\Iallev and other Labour leaders have de­'criloed it as a barbaric system. lllr. Hug-hes, the Fedenl Attorney-General, recently stated that, in his opinion, there had never been a single strike out of which much good had come and he advised workers to endeavour .always to get their grievanc-•'s redressr>d by a ]('ITa] tribunal, such as it is propused to estab-1is"b under this Bill. I remember that in 1904 one of the first deputations which waited l<pon the then Pn·mier, Sir Arthur :Morgan, was a deputation from the Labour party, <Comprising the present leader of the party a.nd other members, for the purpose of urging the introduction of a Conciliation and Ar~ btration Bi!l, in order to do away with strikes.

Mr. THEODORE: Not a measure of this sort.

1\Ir. MURPHY: Well, if we are in favour of a Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, what objection <'an any member take to the prin­ciple of this Bill!

?\Ir. THEODORE: 'This is coercion.

Mr. MURPHY: Supposing this Bill had been introduced under the title of a Con­ciliation and Arbitration Bill, would anv ex­ception have been taken to the principle of the Bill?

Mr. KIRWAN: If it was a Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, it would be all right.

l\Ir. O'SULLIVAN: It is a travesty on arbitra­tion.

:\Ir. MURPHY: I do not think it is a travesty on arbitration. The Bill gives em­ployees and employers the right to appoint representatives on wages boards; it gives them the right to select a chairman; it em­JXlWers them to make an award which will be binding upon employers; and it further en­ables the workers, if they are dissatisfied with such award, to appeal to a tribunal presided ovu by a Supreme Court judge.

~fr. Tl-rEODORE: It encourages scabs.

[Jfr. Murphy.

Mr. MURPHY: I do not think it does. :\Iv own opinion is that the word " scab " is used too frequently. We have heard a lot about victimisat,ion, and what this employer and that employer does to the nnionists, and in the past there has undoubtedly been a iot of victimisation. But there is another side to that question. During the last election for Burke thPre were some things Jone which were not creditable to• some wno were loudly advocating the caus-e (·f· unionism. Old men who had the temerity to put on my colours and vote for me 'vere ~(icked and brutally ill-used at Kidston. Partic-.1lars of those things can be found in the W al..h and 'l'ina1·oo Jfino·, in which are reports of cases in which men W•3re pro,.ecuted and fined for such conduct.

Mr. THEODORE: Were they unionists?

Mr. MURPHY: I am not ·arguing against unionist~, but against victimisation; and I say that while emplo~·ers have frequently victimised unionists, there are occasions on which unionists are tyrannical also. lVlen are too prone to use the word " scab." I may be somewhat particular on this point, and I wi:I admit that some men who use the word really do so unthinkingly. I have bePn callnd a " scab" myself. During the election campaign some of my opponents referred to me as a "suab." VVhy? Becauee I "as not a m<ernber of the Labour party. Because I dared to stand upon a political platform and fight my own battle. Be~cause I dared to contest an election against an endorsed Labour candidate they said, "Here is a man who is a <.~ab." Now, the old members of the Labour party in this HousH know that I was not turned out of the Parliament:uy Labour party, but was refused endorsement b;;- the Central Political Executive in 1907. That being so, I have perfect freedom to contest any seat that I like.

Mr. THEODORE: What has this to do with the Bill?

Mr. MURPHY: 'That hon. member and some of his friends are particularly good in referring to people who do not altogether agree with them .as "scabs." That is what it has to do with the Bill.

Mr. O'SuLLIVAN: 'The Premier set a very bad example.

Mr .. MURPHY : If the Premier used that ·><ord, he set a bad ·example, and if hon. members on this side of the House are too fre·e with the word, I say it is bad also.

Mr. THEODORE: We give it a specific meaning.

Mr. MURPHY: What meaning do ;vott give it. \Yhen you call a strike, every man who does not go out on strike with you is a scab?

Mr. KIRWAN: What do they do with a scab in the army? Is he not ehot?

Mr. MURPHY: Not always. In the army a man is court martialled, and if he is found gailt:v he may be shot.

Mr. KIRWAN: He is shot-that is the point.

Mr. MURPHY: Not on the mere say-so of anv individual. Some unionists are un­fortun"atelv too reaclv to shoot y'o.u first and try you afterwards~ Before concluding, I wish to deal with a couple of matters in con­nection with the Bill. I bPlieve this Bill is likely to do some good; but I regret that it

Industrial Peace Bill. [13 AUGUST.] Industrial Per:.ce Bill . 719

.does not .apply to every section of workers in .the State. Every class should be equal bef?te the law, and "uch an omis,ion is a .seriOus defect in this Bill. I cannot see all the evils in it which hon. members on this side have pointed out. I do not think that the_ union~ havB .anything to fear, and I .am ·satisfied m my own mind that the vast majority of the workers of the State have a ,great deal to gain as .a result of its passage. And further, we know perfectly well that as .a result of the recent great strike> in Great Britain the Prime ~finister has appointed-1 think it was a con1mission-to inquiro into industrial legislation, not only in Au~tralia, ~ut _in Ganad~,- with the object .of mtroducmg m the Bnt!sh Legislature a measure on the lines, presumably, of thB Australian Arbitration Act. I am sure it wiil be f.ar bettm for the workmen of Great Britain to have an opportunity of ,going before .a court and having their griev­.ances redressed, as they are abie to have them redressed in Australia, than to have <)ontinual bitter struggles to gain better con­ditions and better wages. That i, agreed .and, consequently, having agreed that th~ principle of the Bill is good, the best thing we can do is to pass the second reading and deal with any dt:fects in Committee. So far as I am concerned, I have an absolutely free mind upon this matter. Any amendment moved which is likely to make the Bill more beneficial, and which is likely to give the worker a better opportunity of obtaining his fair share of the world's good~. will <)ertainly receive my support, no matter from which side of the House such an .amendment may come. I am rather pleased to see that the Government are taking up the question of industrial legislation. We urged that an Arbitration Bill should be introduced in­stead of the Wages Boards Act, because we believe that thB workers, who are primarily interested in the passage of such legislation, would be ·better served by an industrial court than under the prBsBnt wagBs boar·d system. I sincerely trust, when this Bill does pass through the Legislature, that it will be one that the workBrs will be able to V\el­comB. So far as unionists are concerned, it is something like the question of winding engineers' certificates which we dealt with rBcently. I think to a great .extent they have misunderstood the Bill, •and when they know more about it they will realise that it will not interfere with them .as unionists, .and that it is no more coercive or repressive than similar legislation passed elsewhere. In my humble opinion it will give the wage-earners an easier and a better chance of having their gri~vances ·as to hours, wages, and conditions of employment remedied much more quickly in th0 future than they have been able to do in the past.

Mr. BERTR~M (Jiaree): I want to say at the outset that the necessity for the in­troduction of some measure that will pre­Y<'ll"t industrial strikes is a matter 'that I think every member of the House i" agreed upon, and the quesetion we are discussing just now is, it seems to me, whether the Bill tltat has been introduced is likely to have that effect. I urn of ooinion that the Bill will not have the effect that is ex­pected, and for that reason I desire to say a word or two by way of criticism of the measure. It will be aumitted that the ques­tion is one of great importance. The ques­tion of dealing with industrial unrest is a

matter that is agitating the minds of some of the greatest thinkers of the world to-day, and any Government that succeeds in pa~s­ing a measure that will solYe this difficulty will prove .a ·benefactor to the workers and to mankind in general. The settlement o.f industrial disputes is a very difficult matter. As a matter of fact, I do not think that we shall ever prevent industrial disputes or in­dustrial upheavals until such time as the worker has secured to him the full result of his industry. In order that we may be able to yass some m< a sure that will settle industria disputes, it is n<ocessary that we should endeavour, as far as possible, to as­certain tho cause of those industrial disputes, and by what meaq~ they can be prevented . Industrial disputes are a result of a desrre on the part of the wage-earnore. for the betterment of their conditions. The worker is no longer satisfied to work for a mere pitcance while the capitalistic class is living in luxury, and it is because of that, and because the worker is beginning to realise that he is deserving of mor·e cmJsideration, that we have these industrial disputes. In my opinion, this measure will prove futile so far as the settlement. of industrial disputes is concerned, and it is, in fact, a direct attack on unions. I shall endeavour, before I con­clude my remarks, to show that it has been the intention oi tha Government to introdth e a measure that will repress unionism. I want to say a word or two with regard to agitators, because a number of members on the other side have made sneering references to agitators and officials of unions. An agi­tator may be gvod or bad; it dc>pends upon what he is agitating for, and how he is agitating. If a pBroon is agitating for a good cause, he should be praised; but, if agitating in a bad cause, the agitator should perha.ps be condemned. The men who advo­~aie the union muY'.3ment, ""vhLh has for its object the benefiting of the workers, sho.uld not be condemned, but should be praised. \Vriting of agitators, Holyoake says-

. ",T ust-minded a<;itation prevents the putrdication of opinian, which is as fat<il to States as to truth."

Another writer says-" All who in the service of God or

man disseminate sentiments of truth and equity, are agitators in the better sense of the term."

\V c li:now that some of the greatest men of history have been agitators. Paul was an agitator; Christ was an agitator; and I venture to say that no hon. member on the other side of the House would say one word in disparagement of those men. It comes with very bad grace from hon. members orposite 'o refer in disparaging and oneering terms to the paid officials of the nnions. I happ'm to kno,w many of these officials, and I know that they are actuated by a desire to do something in the interests of the worker. They are not there for what they can make out of unionism, because manv of them have made considerable sacrifices in taking up the positions they now occupy, and they have done it purely in the interests of the m•:n with whom they are associated. The state­ment that these men are there for their own SF!f-aggrandisement, and with the ob­ject of getting into politics and other places, i> absolutelv untrue. The st .·te­ment that these men 'are the cause of strikes is equally untrue, becaus" most of them endeavour at all timN to settle indus­trinl disputes by pacific measures. Very

M1·. Bertram,.]

720 Industrial Peace B1ll. [ASSEl\IBLY.] Industrial Pea.~e Bil(.

often complaint is made by the rank and file that th.:; leaders of unions are not going far enough-that they are too prone to use pacific measures instGad of taking more drastic action to settle industrial dis­putes. I would rather be a union. agitator advocating the betterment o£ the conditions of the worirer than I would be sitting on the front Treasury bench being dictated to like the present occupants are by the EmployerG' F euera Bon. It has been claimed by the Government that the object of the Bill is to crea"te industrial peace. The Premier told 1B that the essence o£ the Bill is peace, that there was nothing of a repressiYe cna.racter or coercive nature in it. He also told us that thG measure had no sting in it, but was rather in the nature of a salve. The Hm1. the Secrf't:n-.v for Public Works, wLr>n moving the second reading of the Bill, also spoke in similar terms; he told us that one of the objects of the measure was to make the conditions of the workers more ·'a tis~actory.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC .\VORKS: Do you obJect to that?

Mr. BERTRAM: I do not object to it, but I want to show that the hon. gentleman was not sincere when he made that claim. He tofd us that the name of the Industrial Pl•ace Bill wa..~ indicative of its nature, but the hon. !jentleman will have some difficulty in convincmg the victimised Government em­ployees that he is quite so solicitous about the weffare of the worker.

An OPPOSITION ME"--BER : The ployees.

railway em-

i\lr. BER'lRA::\1: Yes, ployees, an? also some _of JJis own department, rn Printing Of-fice

the railway em­the employ'ees in the Government

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC \YoRKS; Th:t t is not correct.

::\1r. BERTRAM: ·The hon. gentleman wiii hav~; ·sc·iLC difficulty in convincing man;; of those public servants that the Gov.,·nmont are deo>irous of bettering the condici01:s of the worker. We have only to looK at tl•e record of the Government to see how un­sympathetic they have been to anything ·which has been in the interests of tl1e worker.''. I want to deal with some of the o1Jjectionablc features of the Bill. I d "J not cay that the Bill is wholly to be condemned, but there ar<> so many objectionable features in it that it is almost impossible to make the Dill of any value to the worker, or one 'vhich would be of any use for the purpose of settling industrial <lisputPs. First of all, I want to deal with the clause which pre· vents '' orkers other than those who are en­gaged in the industry from sitting on an in­dustrial board. I think that that is one of the worst defects in the Bill. I think when an hon. gentleman on the other side, like the Secrcta.ry for Public \Yorks, says that it has been introducud in the interests of the worker, the statement cannot be sincere. From my experience of trade union officials and wages board work, I know of no one more capable of representing the workers on 1' board of this kind than the paid official of a union. These men are not in dread of losing their positions; they are there as the mouthpiece of the men, and are free to give E·xpression to their opinions, regardless of whether it pleases or displeases the 8!11·

[1¥1·. Bertram.

players. Very often an employA•3 in the in-· dustry would not be able to do that for fear· of victimisation. ThG paid ollicials ?f the nnions have also more time at thur d1sposal to get the nec10ssary evidence. If the Go· Yernment had been desirous of doing wh~t ''as in the interests of the worker they would have seen that the emnleye<'s had the right, if they so d0;ired, to elect thei: paid officialr· · to represent thc·m. I am of. opn:wn t?at that clause will lead to grGat d1ssat1sfactwn. In one or two cases it has already done so, and, hnd it not been for the advice of the union leaders there would have been tro,thl" m om• industry over the same thing. I know of men who were wao-es board representa­tives for so~e years,""' and 'vho, wh.~n ih2 board ceased to exist through effiuxwn of time ·were not eligible for re-election, and that' has caused dissatisfaction in the indus­try to •·:hich I refer. I think that, if the Go,-crnment desire to do what they claim-that is, introduce a measure that is in the best interests of the worker· -they will see that this c!a;use is amen­ded in such a way as Will per'!';'t of those of the men who are best quahhecl to act as union representatives on tl~e i_ndustriaL board sitting on that board. Th1s 1s ~ m.at­ter that is a source of very great untatwn to org:J.nis••d workers. As a mattGr of fac.t, I should not be surprised if it resul!ed m unions refraining from having anyth1ng to do with a measure of this kind, becau~·' tho men who are bec.t qualified to reprF'<ent them on those boards are inPligible to sit. I made reference to the fact that one g·mtlcman­I refer to Mr. Crampton, .of the. Butche;·s' Union-was not able to s1t, owmg to L1e amendment in the IV ages Boards Act last se·•don, as a representative of the employees. in the meat industry.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: He became. 0110 and r·esi"ned.

J'.Ir. BERTRAM : The hon. gentleman int<\rject.s that he b<?came a member _and ;·c<.igned. That is quit-e true, but. smce· then he was re-nominated for a po•,Itwn on the board and I believG that the department refused t~ accept his nomination bera:xse hC' had not been a bona-fide employee m the industry within the preciJding nine months. I know that that was a source of ver:y great irritation to the mcmb~rs of the umon. I think that is a most objectionabfe feature, as I consider it to be very unfa1r that the mc,n who are best qualified to act as the re­!Jr<'senhtives of the employees shoul~ be· debarred from w doing. There are qmte. a. number of objectionable features of the B1ll that I think might very well be dele~.r;d. Another objectionable feature, to :UY mmd, is the delay that will take place m get_tm_g­a det<ermination. As a matter of fac~, 1t lS hPrdlY possible to got an award ln less than nine or ten months. Some two J?On~hs. have to elapee from the time th: apphcatwn is made before the representatives are ap­pointed; another month will l?robably elapse before a chairman is appomted; two or thTee months-or perhaps six or eight-before a detc,rmination is arrived at; and then at least three months must elap~e before the· determination becomes operat1ve; so that it is probable. th~t a· det<:'rmination could ~ot be fixed. up wrthm a penod of less ~han nme· or twelve months. I think that IS a most unsatisfactory feature of the Bill, and I ho·w that something will be done to remedy that

Industrial Peace Bill• [13 AuGusT.] Industrial Peace Bill. 721

defect. Another objectionable feature that has been referred to by a number of hon. members on this side is the clause which provides for penalising a union because of the mistake of some member of that union. I think that is most unfair, but I do not intend to deal at length with that phase of the question, seeing that it has been so com­pletely dealt with by other membei·s. An­other objectionable feature is the powGr which the Governor in Council has to sus­pend a dete,·mination. That. is a pc,wer which 'hould not be in the hands of the ~verner in Council; it ehould oniv be in the hands of the board or in the hands of Parliament. The Bill also pro­vides that a number of industries cannot take advantage of these industrial boards. Th~t is another objectionable feature, but it 1s an obJe"t!On that l do not propose to dGal with at length, because it has been ably dealt with by others. I would only ljke to f'1Y that, while the Secretary fo · Public V\,'orks was speaking, he said-dealing with the rural indu,ny-that nothing should be done to prevent export, and the onJ:, deduction we could dr~w fro.n that was that the employees in the industry were to be sv;eated.

Mr. VVHITE: There is no sweating in the rural industry.

Mr. BERTRAM: Notwithstanding the in­terjection, I am inclined to think that there ie a great deal of sweating. The hon. mem­b0r's ov·n employees may, perhaps, not be svveatwi, but there are men engaged rn tho rural industrY who are sweated. Another feature of th~ Bill which is objectionable is the clau,e compelling unionists to tyork with non-unionists; that is a feature of the Bill that will ent.iil a good deal of trouble.

Lieut.-Colonel RANKIN: You are doing it now.

Mr. BEHTRAJ\!1: I v0nture to say that if any attempt is made to compel the Water­side 'Workers of this State to work with non­unionists, trouble will ensue, Those men have preference to unionists under an agree­ment thev have under a common award. Any attempt to enforce a penalt.y on them for refusal to work with non-unionists will lead to trouble. Hon. members must realise that that is one of the mc·,,t objectionable features of the Bill. The clause providing that fourteen days' notice must be given of intention to strike is also an objectionable feRture. It simply means that men, under that dause, would not be permitted to re­fuse to work on a dangerous building with­out asking for the intervention of the in­dustrial court, and, if that proved abortive, of then giving fourteen days' notice of their intention to cease work. ThPre are quite a numbGr of other objectionable features, but time will not permit me to deal with them. I believe that those objectionable features will have a tendency to make organised W'Jrkers ignore this Bill aHogether. It will, in my opinio!I, havo a tendency to anta­gonise them towards it" provisions. The re· suit will be that, instead of seeking to settle their difficulties in the way that hon. gentlemen on the other side desire, it will have the effect of compelling them to rely on organised force instead of seeking to avail themselves of this measure. I fear the tendencv will be that they will become so ant.a<;onistic towards the measure that in­stead of endeavouring to settle their differ-

1912-2Y

ences in the way the Bill provides, the:y will reyert to the old method of endeavourmg to enforce their de111ands bv mt;ans of str .ikes~ The recent strike demonstrated to the worker the power of organisation and the helple,;sness of the employer when face to face with organi .. eel labo\u. The tendency ~f the workers nowadays is to ignore such tri­bunals as wages boards and seek to obtain their dem~nds by organising and by fixing up agreements with their employers. .f.. good deal has been said about the Bill havmg for its obje<-b the suppression of. unim;ism; ~ut it is well known that drastiC ana coercive measures have never had the effent of in­juring unionism to any extent. The recent strike in Brisbane confirms that, because Labour is stronger in Brisbane to-day than it ever wus beforG in the history of Queens­land. As to thG claim by members of the Government that they brought m this mea­sure with a d,· ,ire to s<>ttle industrial dis­putes, all I can 'aY is that I do not. think it is sincere. I hesit01te to « 'sert that any hon. member is a hypocrite; but if we en­deavour to find how much or how little has been done by thG Government for tho workers I think we arc justified in coming to the ~onclusion that the claim that the;;· desire to do what is in the best interests of the v. ,·Jge-fltl,rner IS nothing 1nore or 1erys th·: 1 hypocrisy. As the · hon. member for Bns­hane interjects, "By their fruits ye shall lmo-s· them." There has been an agitation g-oing rn for years for a statutory ehht· hours dav, but without effect. We know that the Gov<'rnment have refused to give us a Trade Disput.ns Bill. A da:y or two a -ro when the hon. member for Flinders moved a motion to provide for a minimum salary of £110 for all State employees ovm· the age of twenty-one years who have been in the ser­vice three yeare, it was opposed by the Go­vernment. vVhen the Wages Boards Act Amendment Bill was before this Chamber last srS<ion, any virtues the Act possessed were taken away by the amendments that, were passed, notwithstanding the efforts of members on this side to prevent their pas· sage. One amendment excluded from sitting on wages boards as repre<entatives of the employees men not bona fide employed in th<' industrv during the preceding nine months: another: amendment prevented an employee from claiming back money for more than--

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS : Tl1rN\ months, and for any time beyond that it went to the consolidated revenue,

Mr. BERTR.AM: Under the old Act an employee could claim within twelve month" the whole of the arrears; under the amended Act the emplovee must claim within two weeks of the .i:mount becoming due, or hP cannot get the amount to which he was entitled.

Mr. VoWLES: Your party agreed to that.

Mr. BER.TRA.M: I do not think so. I repeat that those amendments robbed thP Act. of any good it ever possessed, a,s far as the worker is concerned. It onlv shows thot the Government are not justified in claiming that in introducing this Bill they are Pl1·

deavouring to legislate in the interests of the worker. Just one other point, before I ]eave this question. We bave only to see who a,rr> supporting the Government to realise how little they are justified in their claim thot they are endeavouring to legislate in the

Mr. Bertram.]

722 Industrial Peace Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Industrial Peace Bill.

interests of the workers. We find sitting be­hind them members of the Employers' Federation, employers' repreqentative~ on wages boards, and anti-unionists; and I say that under the l'ircumstanc<'S there is no justification for the claim that the Govern­ment are endeavouring to legislate in the interests of the workers. I can only think that the claim is either a failure on their part to observe the trend of the times, or ,.heP.r hypocrisy. I cannot think that mem­bers on the Treasury bench, who must. read what is going on in the world, can think they are going to settle indu,trial disputes by repressive or coercive legislation, and I do not think a great many of their sup­porters think the measure will have that effect. A day or two ago t.he hon. member for Charters Towflrs, J\Ir. Williams, gave notice of his intention to move a motion to this effect-

" That, with the view of improving the relations betwf'•!n employer and employee, it is desirable that legislation be intro­duced having for its object the encourage­ment of schemes of profit-sharing be­tween employer and employee."

The hon. member for Charters Towers is evidently of opinion that a coercive or re­pressive measure of this kind is not going to have the desired effect.. Twenty-five years ago Sir S. W. Griffith e"pressed himself in his manife·•to in these terms-and it only goes to show that he had a great deal more foresight than is po>sessed by members of ihe Government to-day-

" The relation between labour and capital constitutes one of the greatest difficulties of the day. I look to the recognition of the principle that a share of the profits of productive labour belongs of right to the lrubourer as of the great­est importance in the future adjustment of those relations."

The SPEAKER: Order ! The hon. mem­ber is rather anticipating the motion which is standing in the name of the hon. member for Charters Towers.

Mr. BERTRAM : I may ,be out of order in doing that, .and I will not pursue that line of argument. I say that this Bill will not have the desired effect. Reprt"'sive measur"3 of this kind never had the de,ired effect in the past. I desire 'to move an ,amendment to this motion, and I will do so now as my time is flying. I move-

" That all the words after the word ' now' be omitted, with the view of inserting the words, 'withdrawn with a view of introducing a Bill to pro­vide for prevention and settlement of industrial disputes on more just and equita,ble lines.' "

OPPOSITION MEMBERS : Hear, hear !

Mr. BERTRAM : My opinion is that the measure which we have before us will not provide for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes at all, I think that the measure is of such a coercive and drastic natur,e that it is quite hopeless to expe+:>t that it will have the desired effect. For that reason I desire to amend it in the way 1 have proposed. I believe that instead of promoting peace. this measure, if carried into law, will promote strife, and it will have a tendency to compel unions to reso;-t to strikes as a means of settling their disputes.

[.ilfr. Bertram.

The Bill as originally introduced is quite incapable of being .amended in such a way that it will prove ,at all satisfactory to the worker. I hope that the Government will FA3e the wisdom of accepting the amendment. If hon. members opposite are in ,favour of unions ,as they say they are, then they will be fo{,nd supporting this amendment. I expected to hear the hon. member fo~ Ips­wich and the hon. member for Wmdsor speaking on this Bill. They profe;;s that they beliBve in unionism, ,and if they favour unionism as much as they profess, then they will be found supporting this amBndment. If they are truly desirous of supporting a measure that will be in the interests of the workers, they will support. the amen:dment. If the Secretary for Publ:c Works ;ntends to have a measure that 'Will meet With th£ approval of the great mass of the workers of Queensland, he can easily do. ~hat by inviting the leader of the Opposition 'and one or two members ot;t this si~,e of t~f House to confer with him, and If that ts done it will result in a Bill being brought before this Chamber that will meet with the ,approval of every member of the House. (Government laughter.)

OPPOSITION MEMBERS : Hear, hear !

Mr. BERTRAM: The Chief Secretary laughs; but he always laughs at _any propo­sition that comes from this side of the House that is worthy of consideration. I say that that can be done ":ithout ,any lo?s of dignity so far as the Chref SBcretary IS concerned, and he should confer with the le,ader of the Opposition and the Secretar~· for Public W arks and one or two 1nembers on this side of the House. (Government laughter.) If that were done, we would have ,a measure that would go a long way towards bringing about the settlement of industrial disputes.

Mr. 'THEODORE: That is a good sugges­tion.

Mr. BERTRAM : I say that repressive measures of this kind are absolutely unwork­able. This Bill will not have the desired result ,and it is be<:ause I believe that that I seek to >amend the motion in the way I propose. Repressive measures in every part of the -,wrld have never had the desired Tesult. Hon. members opposite must realise that the same as we do. I believe, if they were free to introduce a Bill to-morrow, they woufd introduce a Bill that was less drastic than this one, but unfortunately for. many of the hon. members opposite, they have got to .accept the dictates of the non; unionists behind them and the Employers Federation. I am quite certain in my ovm mind that the wages boards would have been more effective if the employers ha,d not b:'en so. bitterly hostile to th.e employees hav_mg a seat on the boards with them. J\1y time has expired, and I will not say more, but just submit my amendment.

Mr. O'SULLIVAN (Kmnrdy) : I rise to tif'Cond the amendment. I do so wi~h the greatest pleasure, because. I quit'! realise that the Bill put before us will not nave the de­sired effect. Anvone who has looked at unionism and has "taken into consideration the trend of public opinion to-day would not have framed such a Bill as this one. We know, as we look back into the past, that the workers have a,lways had to depend up:m organisation to better their conditions. Right back in the early part of last century,

Industrial Peace Bill. [13 AUGUST.] Industrial Peace Bill. 723

when industrialism broke forth on the world .almost suddenly, tht> workers found that they had to organise into unions to get better con­ditions, but we know that the powers that be in those days-the old Liberals and Tories--­·were always opposed to organisation, and re­pressive measures were introduced, as it was always looked on JS a crime to belong to an <Jrganisation. To-da;v we have Minisb?rs of the Crown who are so imbued with the de­sire to help the employing classes that they would de·•troy unionism if they could do so. \Ve know that the introduction of labour­sa,inc machinnry, which was supposed to help the working man. only meant enslaving him. In many \Yays he is simply an auto­mgton, and has to work up the speed of the n:achines in the interests of production, so that greater profits will be gained by the employers. The great bone of contention, and one of the gre'1test causes of industrial unrest throughout the world, has been the non-recognition of unions on the part of the big- employing combinations. That hns been noticed in America, where the big employers will' not recognise the unions at all. The 'ame thing may l'e said about the old coun­try. When the great shipping companies came into collision with ·their workers a short

time ago. that was the very ker­[7.30 p.m.] nel of the whole dispute; and

when the railway companies came into conflict with their workers, the who1e diepute centred round the recognition or non­recognition of unions. And here to-day we have a Bill which does not recognise unions in any way. except as a standby to fleece in J~enalhes when any of their members are found guilty of an offence under this Biil. The reason why we want to amend this Bill is that it does not recognise the right of workers to choose whom th<ey please to send as their rcpreecmtative on the wa.,es board. One of tlw great Labour leaders in the old -country pointe-d out that when the railway workers wer-e repre -en ted on boards by an ordinary man from the ranks, they had no chance with the company direotorJ, rut that when they v·ere represented by their brainy rrien--

The PRE1UER: I rise to a point of order as to the yalidity of the amendment. I think ihe matt"r is dealt with fully in "May," page ,:72. where it is stat(•d--

The SPEAKER: Order! The amendment has not been put from the Chair, and there can be no point of order raised upon the amendm<'nt until it is before the House.

c\Ir. O'S"CLLIV AN: The Labour leader to whom I have referred stated that when the v·orkers were representeJ br an 1rdinary ma.n from the ranks. sueh as a fireman, a porter, or a traffic man, they had no chance against the verv keen men they had to meet on the beards.·

1Ir. COYNE : They were afraid in any case.

1\Ir. O'SuLLIYAN: Yes, they were afraid in anv case. vV e kno.w that when men meet their employers face to face they have no chance, unless they have a strong union behind them, of getting any betterment in their conditions. This Labour leader &aid that when they sent their keenest men, the answer of the employers was: "\Ve will not treat with unions, we will only treat with men who are in our employment." And that is the principle in this measure to which we are so much opposed. We are of opinion

>that the Bill can be made very much better

than it is at the present time. We have seen what great sacrifices unionists have made in the past, and in the immediate past, too, on behalf of their fellow-workers. We know what sacrifices men in this city made recently on behalf of men who were under the despotic power of an employer. I can under3tand hon. mc,mbers opposite not being able to enter il1tO the spirit of unionism, because it is foreign to their principles to make sacrifices for their fellow-men as unionists do. But I say it is a grand thing in this time of strenuous competition to see men r-eady to giye up their employment in the in~erest ?f their fellow-men, and to make sacnfices m order to assist their brethren. By that means thPy have been able practically to revol?­tionise the conditions which prevailed 111

many industries. vV e do not wish to see that kind of thing go 'on; we want to see mea.ures passed which will avoid those great E:tcrifices. At the same time, while present conditions continue, while production is car­ried on on the lines of profit, there must be a clashing of int.:lrests betw,en the employer and employee. I should like to si1ow how e' sential it is for bodiPs of men to be banded together in strong unions, and I propo:;e to rend some remarks made by an emment gentleman whose name has been frequently mf'ntioned in this discussion. This is what T\Ir. Justice Higgins said, in the course of his judgment in the Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemen's dispute, on the 12th May, 1911-

" It affords me some room for reflec­tion, however, to find that, although in theory there is power to decrease wages, in even· case vrhich has come before my predecessor and myself, the court has had to interfere by way of increase. The reason seems to be that the employer nePds no court to enable him to reduce wages."

When we have such remarks from a man in his position, from a man who has had experience in administering an Act which proddes penalties for a lockout by em­ployers, we must take it that it is futile to impose those penalties if they cannot be enfm·ced when an employer refuses to give employment at wages which he thinks too high. Mr. Justice Higgins further says-

" He has simply to refuse to give em­ployment at the wages which he thinks to be too high. It ought to be frankly admitted that, as a rule, the economic position of the employee is too weak for him to hold his own in the unequal con­test. He is unable to insist on ' a fair thing.' The power of the employer to withhold brMd is a much more effective "· eapon that the employee to refuse to labour. 'Freedom of contract,' under such circumotances is surely misnamed. It should rather be called ' despotism in contract.' "

The reason why we seek to amend this Bill is that we desire to give men an opportunity to br' represented by their own paid secre­taries, so that they may be able to plead their <"a use successfully. As Mr. Justice Higgins pointed out, the present method of adjusting wage'S is not freedom of contract, but the very opposite. Then we have hon. members opposite talking about liberty, and stating that this Bill is introduced in the interests of liberty. I contend that this Bill bas only been introduced in the interests of

Mr. O'Sulli-van.]

724 Industrial Peace Bile .. LASSEMBLY.J Indu8trial Peace B:ll.

the employing class. The community un­doubtedly has a right to have legislation placed on the statute-book to preserve m­dustnal peace. We do not deny that but co place such a lop-sided measure as 'this on the slatute-book and call it an Industnal Peace Bill. I say is altogether contrary to face. Judge Higgins goes on to sa;,-

" This court is empowered to fix a minimm11 wage as a check on the despotw p_ower. 2,'he worker is in the >arne posJ­twn as J!,Sau, when he surrendered his birthnght for a square meal, or a travel­ler when he had to give up his money to a lughwayman for the privilege of h,s life. Admitting all this, yet an employer orcen fails ba~k on an economic rheory whiCh I have 10und to be responsible for much industrial friction and to be at tho root of many industrial disputes. he thinks that all this regulation of wages 1s a mistake, a defiance of natural laws. He treats the so-called ' la>Y' as being 1n matters of ''ages, etc., n1ore inexorable and inevitable in its play than even the law of gravitation; as not being subject as the 'laws' of nature are to counter­action, to control, to direction."

That comes from a man who has had a lono­expcrience in the highest court in Au;': tralia. \\'hen we hear a man in that positicn admitting the inabilit~ of the employee to fight the emplo;, er under the broad principles of the Commonwealth Arbitration Act what must be the po cition of the workers 'under this Bill, when they are shorn of the right of getting the benefit of combination and of sending their best men to represent th"m in any dispute, or to frame the wages and conditions that should preYail in anv par­ticular industry? It is too late for our op­pcnents to come down and insist on the sacred la\\S of contmct that the:~ have always been upholding against all human rights. I can see in this Bill the old Liberal and Tory idea of the sacred laws of contract against human rights. I say when men are shorn of the protection that strong unions can give. them, they are at the mercy of the explmter. There have been instances we knm' where paid secretaries of organisations have drawn attention to discrepancies and the non-observance of awards. \Vhat would they have done had the employees alone to do the,,e things? When n.n employee can be refused work. many a thing will be submitted to from the employer; but if we have a system after the principle of the Federal Arbitration Court, where it is laid down that organisations must represent the workers on the one hand and the employers on the other, I am sur' we shall have more industrial peace than under this Bill. I do not wish to go anv further into that matter, be. a use I take it I _shall ha:ve the right of speaking on the mam questwn.

Mr. HUNTER: You lose your right by seconding the amendment.

Mr. O'SULLIVAN: I was not aware of that. I hope the recommendation contained in the amendment will be agreed to. If han. mc,mbers opposite think they ha,-e a mandate to crush unionism, they are going to be greatly mistaken, because, though I am here as a member of the Labour party, I do not represent what we call unionists. There are not more than about 200 unionists in the

[11fr. O'Sullivan.

whole of my electorate, yet I was returned to this House to uphold the principles of Labour, and there are thousands of people throughout Queensland who are not in unions _,·ho are in thorough accord with the principles of unionism. They look upon unionism as the only bulwark thPy have ~o defend them against oppression. Thousands of chem may not b. able to get into unions. They may be in little industries where no unions are yet formed, ;yet thf'/ L)ok to the Labour party to protect them against op­pressiOl1 on the part of the employers and those who are standing behind them. It is a fallacy- on the part of the Government to think that because there is not a majority of pledged unionists in this State unionism does not permeate the great majGrity of the workers of Qu<eemland. Should this Bill be­t-0.-... le law, I a1n sure there will be raised in tho breasts of those men who are not u"ionists such a resentment against its penal clauses-becaus<e undoubtedlv men will be breaking the law uncon,oiously because its, pro,-isions are so cunningly devised that it \\ill be hard for an independent-spirited '!nan to be able to leave work without br<eaking some of the provisions of this Bill-and such indignation will be caused throughout the wholB of Queensland that the workers who are now apathetic about joining unions will see that unions are their only salvation, and, unfortunately, the political wing of the· Labour movement will get a sr•tback >':hich I do not wish to sec. I know there are two si<l<>s to the Labour movement. There i; the pclitical side and therP is the industrial side, and for any man to say at this time of the day that there should be no politics in unions is evidence that he cannot read the signs of the times. He must wish to take from the workers the best method they have of bringing about a proper adjustment of the labour conditione, The ;,·orkers may strikE', as has beAn done in the past, but a far better way of adjusting labour conditions is by enacting laws, but, if they have only this Bill to work out their sah·ation, then there will be more industrial uphea,vals, I am sorry to say, than there have been in the past. I hope, l\1r. Speaker, tho amend­mont will receive your approval, and that it will be put to the House, and that as a. rf'cult an improv,ed Bill will be introduced, as the amendment has been moved with that object alone,

Amendment stated.

The PREMIER : I do not rise to address. myself to the merits of the amendment, but merely to raise a point of ord<er. If you, Sir, will look at the amendment, and then. -:~t. the l'uling laid down in our parlia­mentary Bible, "May," I think yon will have no hesitation whatever in saying that this amendment does not come within' the crdinary parliamentary ru!Ps and practice. The motion reads: " The resumption of the· adjourned debate on Mr. \V. H. Barnes' motion, That the Bill be now read a second time." The amendment proposes to make it read-" That the Bill be withdrawn with the view of introducing a Bill providing for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputu on more equitable lin<"'·" You will see that ihe amendment is not adyerse ta the recolution, but is merely a comparison. It says "on more equitable lines." As a matter of fact, the motion has been affirmed: as equitable, and the amendment seeks to substitute something more equitable. I con­tend that that is entirely out of order, and I refer you to the eleventh edition of "May,"

Industrial Peace Bill. (13 AUGUST.] Industrial Peace Bill. 725

:page 472, where the language is most clear .and emphatic, and, I cont<md, governs tltis ·nurticular case-, " It is also competent to a member who

de,,irBs to place on r.ecord a "Y special reasous for not agreemg to the second reading of the Bill to move, as an amendment to the question. a resolution declaratory of somG principlG adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the Bill; or expressing opinions as to any cirrum;;ta.nces con~ nectoc! with its introduction or prosecu­tion; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in rela­tion to the Bill by committees, commis­;ioners, the production of papers or other evidencP, or. m the Lords, the opinions of the judges. The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such pro. posed resolution, which must, therefore, strictly relate to the Bill which the Houc2. by its order, he< resolved upon cvnsidering."

'The Hou e ha resoh-ecl upon the consiclera­,tion of a cntain Bill, and the amendment which '"a, been ·, •ght to be moved is not '' ach-erse to the pri;ciple, ., is not "differing from the princip!e, policy, or provisions of ~he Bill.'' It is not a point that need~ elabor­ating, he ;a use it i·· so very self-evident. The amendment is in no wise adverse to the Bill, but re1!Iy endor~,,s it, but seeks to have ,-:onwl 1jin9,' more cr_iuitable.

:\1r. lVIAY: \Yhy cannot you accept the amendment, then?

The SPE<AKER: Order!

The PRE:\IIER: The only point raised by :-he :·Cccndel'-I do not kHO,t' about the mover of it-was that they desired to pro­Yide that the secretary of a. union should appear on a wages board. 'I'hat is a thing that ean he dealt with in Committee, and it is playing with parliamentary order to ·move an amendment which is in nowise ndver':t' to t~w Bill. This arnenJn1ent hr..,s been floating round the Chamber for some ·days past, first in one member's hands and chen in another, and I conclude that it ha" the approval of the deputy leader of the Opposition, who is present to-night.

l\Ir. RYAN: Hear. he1r! The pg;,~.II~R: Consequently, I claim

ihat ew Opposition approve of our Bill. An 0PPOSITJON J}IEC\.!BER: No fear. The PRE:\IIER: They simply seek to have

somethi1h~ more f·r;uitable, which greater ,equity sl1onlcl be provided for in the Com­mittee stage, and thel'efore I raise the point uf order. I coni mel that "i\lay " supports me up tu the hilt that there is nothing in the am9ndment that is admissible at this .;;tage.

::VIr. RYAN (Borcoo): With your permis­sion, ~\Ir. Speak3r, in reply to the argunwnts put forward hy ~he Chief Secretary, I desire to refer you to the Standing· Orders dealing

ith the'··' matters. Standing Orders 247 and '243 cl,eal with amendments which may be moved to the ,econcl reading d any Bill. :Standing Order 247 provides-

" Amendments may be proposed to such question, by omitl'ing the word 'now,' and at the end of the question a.dclinr,· ' on this clay three mo11ths,' ' on this day six months.'"

'The P!lE~IIER : Then why not moYe that?

Mr. RYAN: If the hon. gentleman will wait it mav probably be moved later on . At present I am arguing that . this. amend­ment is in order, and perhaps 1t w11l be as well to dispose of that first-

" or any other time; or that the Bill be withdrawn or rejected."

Standing Order 248 provides-" Any other amendment may be pro­

pos•'cl tq such question, provided that the amendment is strictly relevant to the Bill."

"l\tlay." in his "Parl.ia.ment:~ry Practice" on the page.; to which the han gentleman has referred laYs down the rules which shall apply i,;, ~·r;tcticc to amendments moved on the second reading of Bills. On page 471 he says- ·

" The ordinary pra.ctice is to move an amendment to the question, by leav­ino- out the word 'now,' and adding 'thre~:-- mo,nths,' ' six months,' or any other term bevond the probable duration of the sescio,il. The postponement of a Bill in this manner, is regarded as the most courteous method of dismissing the Bill from further consideration, as the House has already ordered that the Bill shall be read a seco.ncl time; and thfl amendment. instead of reversing that order, merely appoints a more distant day for the second reading. The accept.. ance by the House of such an amendment being tantamount to the rejection of the Bill if the session ext~nds beyond the peri~J of postponement, a Bill which has been ordered to be read a second time upon that day · 'three months,' is not replaced upon the notic·,-paper o.f the House. The same form of amendment is adopted when it is desired to postpone the second reading for any shorter time.

"It is also competent tQ a' member who cl{sires to plaee on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the ,econcl readino- of a Bill, to move, as an amendment t; the question. a resolution dedarRtory o.f some principle adverse to, or differing from, the princip!ee, policy, or provisions of the Bill."

The PRE'U:IER: The amendment is not that.

:\Ir. RYAN: Mr. Speaker, I hope the han. ventleman will not interject. He knows I ::~m addressing my argurnent to you in a judicial capacity. "May" goes on-

" or exprPs.sing opinio:ns as to any cir~ cumstances connected with its introduc­tion or prosecution ; or otherwise op · posed to its r rogress ; or seeking further information in relation to the Bill by CQmnlittees, comr!lissioners, the produ_c~ tion of papec·s or other E:vidence, or, m the Lords, the opinions of the judges. The principle of relevancy in an amend­ment governs every such propose~ resolu· tion, which must, therefore, 'strJCtly JOe­late to the Bill which the House, by rts order, has resQlYecl upon comiclering,'"

The hon. gentleman, as far as I can see, has two arguments ag·ainst this amendment being in order; first of all, he says rhe matter has been already decided by an amendmer:t moved at the preliminary stages of this I"leasure where some member of this party desired 'to widen the scope of the Biii-I think it was the leader of the Opposition-

]}£ r. Ryem.J

726 Industrial Peace Bill• [ASSEMBLY.] Industrial Peace Bill.

by inserting the words "by conciliation and arb1trat10n," and that was rejected. This amendment, which is moved by the hon. mem­ber for Maree, is an entirely different matter. I say that it is relevant to the Bill and that it is opposed to its progress in its present form. . It is within the actual wording of the Standmg Orders. For instance, the hon. member could have stopped at the word "withdrawn." Standing Order 247 says-

" Amendments may be proposed to such que .•. twn, by omitting the word • now' ~nd at. the end of the question adding

_on tlus day three months,' ' on this day s1x months,' or any other time· or that the BiLl he withdrawn or reject:d."

The hon. member could have moved "That the Bill be now rejected " or " That the Bill be now withdrawn." '

. The PRE11IER : Yes, but he did not move lt.

Mr. RYAN: He has moved "That the Bill be no':' withdrawn,'' ~tnd he gives his reason. Th1s is a somewhat important mat­ter, and one which will establish no doubt the practice of this House in futu're on simi~ lar occasions, and" I therefore remind you of amendme?ts whwh were moved during the last Parhament, and which were debated and rejected. One, for instance, was an amendment by the hon. member for Maranoa :vhcn the Agricultural Bank Bill was being mtroduced. When the motion for the second reading was proposed, the hon. member m?ved as an amendment-" That the Bill be w1thd1:awn and re-cast, with a view to amal­gamatmg the Agricultural Ban\<:, the Savings ~a~k, and. the Workers' Dwellings Act." A s1m1lar thmg was done on the Liquor Bill, when an amendment was moved-" That it now be withdrawn," and re-cast on certain lines. That is similar to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Ma~ee, r;o ~oubt with the object of hav­ing basw prmmples that are not in at pres­ent placed in the Bill which would be rein­troduced. For instance, I suppose he de~sires to see some foundation for the Bill and so on. I do not desire to overburden the mat­ter, but I am distinctly of opinion that the amendment i~ in order, and I trust that you wlll J:old so 111 accordance with the previous practwe, and also on the Standing Orders that are here for our guidance.

OPPOSITION MEMBERS: Hear, hear !

The SPE4KER : Does any other hon. member des1re to address himself to this motion?

Mr. HARDACRE (Leichhardt) : I wish to say a word or two.. I think the deputy leader of the Oppos1t10n has very fully jus­tified the moving of this amendment, and the contentwn ~hat the amendment is in order. I would pomt out that it is only an amend­ment: "That the Bill be now withdrawn"­which, if it had stopped there would have been clearly in order-- '

The PREMIER : But it did not stop there.

Mr. HARDACRE : With the addition of ~,e;tain,reaso~s for moving the amendment.

May prov1des, on page 472-" It is also competent to a member

who. desires to place on record ·any spemal reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill, to move, as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to,

[Mr. Ryan.

or differing from, the principles, policy,. Oi" provisions of the Bill."

The PREMIER : The amendment does not do that.

Mr. HARDACRE: It is just becam.o tlw amendment does not declare that it is ad­verse to the provisions of the Bill that I contend it is in order. I contend that the Bill should be withdrawn for the special reason we urge that the Bill he withdrawn,. not as eEJuitable and as just as this side of the House think they ought to be. For that nason we urge that the Bill be withclrav n,. and another Bill be introduced with pro­visions more equitable than the provisions of the present Bill. According to the Pre­mier's contention, a member on this side of the House would have no right to move that this Bill, with its objectionable features, be withdrawn, for the purpose of introducing another Bill with different provisions. vVhat we want to do is to have the present Bill, with its inequitable provisions, withdrawn, and another Bill introduced -.;;·ith different provisions and more equitable principles. I cont0nd that we are quite justified in mov­ing an amendment on these lines.

HaN. J. W. BLAH~ (Ipswich): I just desire to say a word or two on the point of ol-der. I did not intend to rise, as the matter &eems to ille as clear as crystal. rrlw lllatter &801118 in­capable of argument. I hold that this amend­ment is distinctly out of order. If you refer to its terms, you will see that it is as vague· as vagueness >can be. Reference is only made to the possible introduction of a Bill more just and on more equitable lines. I take it that the proper place to make it more just-and which is, after all, a relative question-and on more equitable lines-which is also relative-is a matter for Committee, where clauses can be discusbed word by word~ " May" says that in order that an amend­ment be in order it must be " a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy, or pro­visions of the Bill." \Vhere is there a prin­ciple involved in the amendment, which ic;. adv.erse to the principles or the policy o,r the provisions of the Bill? Where is there anything in the amendment that could not be expressed on the second reading, where the principle of the measure is discussed? Surely every safeguard is preserved to every member at the second reading of a Bill !

GOVERN1lENT MEMBERS: Hear, hear! HaN. J. W. BLAIR: Surely ample oppor­

tunity is afforded on the second reading of expressing opinions antagonistic to the Bill, and where hon. members seck to move an amendment they must go further and affirm some principle adverse to the principle of the Bill. My learned friend, the deputy leader of the Opposition, referred to the· words " or otherwise oppvsfld to its progress." I take it that th<tt simply refers to our Standing Orders 246 and 247, which say that an amendment mav be moved-" That a Bill may be received this day three months" or "That it may be withdrawn." That is tanta­mount to a vote of wanb of confidence, as it is taking the conduct of the business out of the hands of the Government and stopping­the progress of the measure. The precedents which have been referred to T submit are absolutely irrelevant; they do not go to the matter at all. These precedents referred to a motion whi.·h' in vo!ved an 'amalgamation of two distinct principles in a Bill. How on

Industrial Peace Bill. [13 AUGUST.] Industrial Peace Bill. 727

earth it could be contended that that was anything else but in consonance with ".May," I cannot see. I submit that if you, bir follow the practice laid down in "May," you will hold that the amendment is bad, because it does not contain "a resolution declaratory of a principle adverse to the Bill " ; that it is of a vague and nebulous character, and that it is only calculated to retard progress.

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear !

The SPEAKER : The point raised by the Premier is one that has caused me con­siderable trouhle to decide. I will traverse, first of all, the argument of the honourable and learned membPr for Barcoo, where he refers to Standing Order 247, at the end of which it is provided that a Bill may be with­drawn or rejected. The VI ithdrawal of a Bill is governed by "May," page 472, where withdrawal rna·, be allowed for the introductio.n of new · principles and new provisions-that is the interpretation of the practice in regard to the withdrawal of a Bill. I will not rule at this moment on the question of the rejection of a BilL I am dealing with the question raised by the hon­ourable and learned member for Barcoo. Regarding his reference to previous rulings and to my ruling of last year, I may say that in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Maranoa on the Agricultural Bank Act Amendment Bill, a principle was involved, and therefore· it wa' a good amendm<mt and one which was accepted by me. There was also a principle involved in the proposed amendment on the Liquor Bill last year, and, of course, I acc2pted it. In the present instance the amendment which has been proposed does not, in my opinion, introduce a ncow principle nor does it attack the principles of the Bill as introduced, nor does it do anything further than it is possible to introduce into the Bill if it passes its second reading and gets into Committee" I cannot see that anything proposed in the amendment might not be inserted when the Bill r:eaches the Committee stage. If the arirendment were accepted as good, and if it were carried, the position would not be altered, but delay would accrue. There would be no direction as to the wishes of the House in regard to any new principle to be included in a new measure. That being so, I rule the point of order raised by the, Chief Secretary, based upon the practice which he ru:td the honourable and learned member for Ipswich have quoted from the eleventh edition of ":May," and which practice it is needless for me t-o recDpitulate, is a good one, and that I can­not place the amendment before the House. GOVER~MENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear !

HoN. J. W. BLAIR: I desire to say one or two words on the second reading of this measure. Before addressing myself to the principles of the Bill, I desire to refer to certain charg.es somewhat -wildly made by members opposite. One hon. member did me the honour to express a wish that I should be heard. In this case the expected happens -I have the opportunity of being heard­and I hope he will be able to enjoy, and :possibly to profit by, what may be said. I resent very much indeed the remarks made ·by members opposite with regard to members on this side. I do not think those remarks do the case of those members any good at .all. It is always a mark of exceedingly bad tast·e when .abuse is indulged in.

·GOVERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear !

HaN. J. W. BLAIR: There can be no que.,tion that ,abuse has been indulged in by members on the other side, and abuse of a very reprehensible character, t??· I nev~; before heal'd such words as hypocrrsy hurlBd across the Chamber.

An OPPOSITION lYlEliiBER : True, too. HoN. J. W. BLAIR: And an hon. member

goes further .and says it is true; so tJ:.at th<;>Y cannot charge me, .at any rate, wrth mrs­representing what their views are. The since-rity of members on this side has been challenged · and practically every word uttered by' members on this side has been chaUenged on the ground of being absolute lying ol.· hypocritical.

An 0PPOSI1'ION MEMBER : Has not this side ·been charged the same?

HoN. J. W. BLAIR: I have not heard one word from members on this side which imputed to members opposite ;n?tives of th~t character. I think it is a drstmctly unfarr thing, an undignified thing; .and it leJ?-ds no strength to the case of ~ht; other . srde to indulge in such tactics. Srmrla_r tactrcs were indulged in .at the late electiOn; and the eJectors gave their .answer, and sent .a majority of members to this side.

An OP?OSITION MEMBER: It was a fluke ! HoN. J. W. BLAIR: A very lucky fluke,

at •any rate. (Laughter.) It is somewJ:at amusing to hear members on the other srde talk about the people not being tyrannised over. I -always thought that the people who elected members to this House had some say in matters of this kind; and I have y·et to be convinced that we have not behind us the majority of the people of the country. For hon. members on that side to arrogate to themselves the right to speak a~ they do of the people is in a sense •amusmg, and, ·beyond that, ridiculous. We are sent here to represent the views of those people who elected us; and we have to .be faithful to the trust reposed in us by those peopl·e. Throughout the length ,and breadth of the land during the election the one cr.) :vas f~r some kind of measure-not necess·arrly thrs or any other particular measure-that would make for industrial peace.

Mr. FOLEY: What ,about the Bundanba miners?

HoN. J. W. BLAIR: I will deal with the miners later on.

Mr. FoLEY: They will deal with you. HoN. J. W. BLAIR: I welcome any deal,

so long as it is like the last one. An OPPOSITION MEMBER : It will be· different

next time. HoN. J. W. BLAIR: It is always a ques­

tion of "next time." So long as members opposite keep to the realms of_ prophe~y, I do not fear. The Premier promrsed ,a B1ll of this kind, and wherever I spoke I advocate~ a measure of this kind; so that there rs nothing novel or startling in the fact that it is one of the first measures put before the House. Hon. members ,are agr·eed that ,a measure of this kind is necessary; the only question where there may be a dive~·gel!ce _of opinion is whether or not the Brll m rts present form is acceptable to the House. An hon member alluded to the fact that the miners ·gave me a certain answer. ~et .mB be reminiscBnt for a moment. I was m':rted to Bundanba where I addtessed the mu_wrs at the reques't of the miners' representative.

Hon. J. W. Blair.]

728. Zndust·ial Pea~" Bill, [ASSEMBLY.] Industrial Peace Bill,

At fir•,t t~eir secretary, Mr. Gledson, would have nothmg to -do with the Bill in any shape or form. The hon. member for Rockhampton ha_d been ~here the Monday previous; but this resolutwn was passed at the end of the conference-

" That the Bill, as framed, is inimical to th<· be-;t interests of mining."

~ w-;nt through it clause ·by clause, explain­mg It to the b-est of my ability, ·and -doing a duty 1\luch other members mio-ht do instea-d of coming here -and dishing up the trash we hear from them-absolute stuff, showing that they -!rave not .read the Bill, or, having r-ead 1t, Wilfully mislead themselves. What was the result? They promised that if they had any .amendments to suggest they v.ould send them in writing. I told them I would convey them to the Minister; .and I have already had that han. gentleman's assurance that he will go into them car-efully and deal with them on their merits. What rome could be asked of a Minister than the fair considera­tion of amendments on their mf'rits? It has been said that this Bill is exceedingly drastic and exceptionally co-ercive ; -but I know of no measure of this kind in the >vorld-and I have taken the trouble to compare this with all others to which I have acc-ces-which is not coercive and drastic in .an exactly simi­la,· s.:nse. It might o,urprise han. members to hear, as I shall bo able to show them from the Acts thems-elves, that the very penalties of which they complain exist in the New South W-aks Act paesed by a Labour Go­vernment; ·and in a measure introduced by Mr. Beeby are exactly the snme clauses, eooactly the same penalti£s, and exactly the same blocking of the rigM of appeal, and absolutely charging the wages of the worker.

Mr. HARDACRE: Not exactly. HoN. J. W. BL_UR: The han. member

sa] s "Not exactly." I ask that hon. mem­ber to look into the clause and read it, and read it again to-morrow, and see if I am not stating the truth. vV e hear a lot about the Bill bristling with penalties. One would imagine that because £1,000 is mentioned in on0 place-, and £500 in another place, that those are the fine' which are going to be inflicted in every case where a m1tn is found guilty of an offence. vVhy try to delude people outside "ith statements of that kind?

Mr. THEODORE: See the Bill itself.

Ho~. J. W. BLAIR: It says "penalties not exceeding so much." \V e know that that may be whittled down to 1d. or 1s. or nothing. In every case where a man offends a- ainst th<' law ·xe find fir.,t that he is dea1t with by the magistrate, who has exactly Hw same powers as a judge under this Bill, and he has power to reduce a fine to no­thing. The amount of the fine inflicted will correspond with the heinousness of the offence. If it is a light kind of offence, then a small fine will be inflicted; but if it is an dfence of greater gravity, then a gre•ater fine will have to be imposed. In this Bill the Government have avoided imprisonm<>n~. Imprisonment only comes in absolutely as a last resort.

Mr. BERTRAM: And it only applies to employees.

HoN. J. W. BLAIR: It applies to em­ployees and it applies alE::> to emplo:: ers. I con­gratulate the Government on that. There is no preference to unionists in the Bill. That is;: maitter of policy,and I say at, once that :we qmte understand members on tho Opposition

[Han. J. W. Blair.

side taking a stand on that matter and mem­bers on this side taking a stand. Put that is merely a matter of policy, and bet·- ,use we mifl"ht differ on that, that is no rea;~::m why we should say tLat the whole thing is bad.

Mr. COYNE: Is there any protection for unionists?

HoN. J. \V. BLAIR: I take it that under lhis measure there is greater protection given to unionists than in any similar mea­sure of its kind that I am aware of. The employers here are put on exactly the same footing as the employees. GOVERN~fENT MEMBERS: Hear, h9ar!

HoN. J. W. BLAIR: Although there are particuhr imtancr·s in this Bill where it js more drastic against employers than It IS in the New South Wales Act.

Mr. THEODORE: You cannot delude your­self with that argument.

HaN. J. \V. BLAIR: It is not a matter of deluding youn-elf "it~ that argument at all. It is a matter of bemg able to refuh' It or deal with it in another v.ay, but there is no delusion ahout it. I am speaking about cmnething I have taken the troubL' to ascer­tain, and I ea:~ that in this Bill there is a provision dealing with employers which does not exist in the New South vYaleo Act. I heard an hon. member talking about the delay that might take place in the award. He sai..-l you could not gc t It before a fort­Eight, and it might take--

JHr. BERTRA:11: Two I11onths.

HoN. J. vY. BLAIR: 'Two months. I ask the hon. member to look at clause 31 and fellow it do.,ely. He will sec there that a m m must claim his ''ages within thirty days, and, if it is not paid in full, he may within sixty days take proceedings in any court. What is the rc:tson for that'? It is exactly the same as the Commonwealth Arbitration Act and the New South \Vales Act, and it is also to be found in the Canadian and New Zealand }l.cts. It is a protection to both the employer and employee. If a man h;:s .a daim to make against an employer, It IS only fair that he should bring it as expedi­tiouslT as possible while the employ!"r may be able to get other employees to give evi­dence and to produce records and refer to them. It also protects the employee, as he may want witnesses too. Any man who condemns a clause of that kind has not graspt'd the first essen~ial of securing 'justi~e to a man who has a JUst cause.

J\Ir. CoYNE: Is it usual for an emplo;;-er to pay money without getting a receipt?

HoN. J. IV. BL.\IR: That is a matt-er that comes within the cognisance of the E'mployer. I know I would not give money without getting a rece-ipt, neither would any other sane man; but in the coun+> of employ­uent we know that that course is pursued. In the vVorkers' Compensation ~\ct we had an exactlv similar clause, and why all the fuss is made about this, conscientiously, I cannot und,·rstand. Provision is made there that the claim must be put in within a cer­tain time, otherwise it would be unfair to the emplovee and the emplover. If we de­laved it for a certain periiJd it might be unfair to cmnlovees as the employer might g·et rid of his hands or send them to some other workR if he had a different place, or it might be unfair to the employer in that it might lead to cases such as we know have occurred of absolute fraud-endeavours to make claims which are not existent against

Indu8trial Peace B1ll. [13 Aucus:r.J Industrial Peuce Bill. 729

·the employers. ·with regard to the question ·of the attitude of those supporting the Go­yernment~ I merely wish to say that I think 1t only farr that hon. members on the Opposi­tion side should accord the members on this sid,e liberty o.f conscience.

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! Mr. COYNE: They should reciprocate.

Hox. J. W. BLAIR: Certainly. When a man gets up in his place here and says de­liberately what his opinions are, what he has arrived at conscientiouely aftnr a scrutinv

·of the facto, I think it most unfair and unjus~ tof r~tort. with charges of hypocrisy and want O~ ~nne 3rity.

GOYERN1!ENT ME11BERS : Hear, hem· !

Hox. J. W. BLUR: The attitude I have taken ' ith regard to unionis:n has been un­chan.c;ed since I fir:.t sat in this House as a

•member and before that time. I b>lieve in unionism. I believe that men will verc· rarely get better wages or be-tter conditiori's oi labour than by uniGing, and there is noth­ing in this measure which bloch them from uniting.

GOYERX1IENT MEolBERS : Hear, hear ! Mr. COYNE: There is nothing to encouraiTe

them to unite. "'

Hox .. J. W. BLAIR: I appeal to the hon. 1nmnber a com:n1=>n sen:~e. If he looks thr,yugh the Bill he will find that so far from dls­

, cour:cging them to unite, the very argumento he c, ·>d him> "If should tend to make them more united than ever.

Go; J:mamNT Jl.IE1IBERS: H~ar, he- <tr!

Hox. J. W. BLAIR: If this Bill were so drastic or coer~ive as to tap the very root of their strength, that is the very reawn for them to combine. There is not a word, not a s: Hable, not a clause, or a combination of clauses which in any way tends to hurt unionisn1.

GOVERX11EXT iY1E~IBERS: Hear, hear!

Hox. J. W. BLAIR: Not one word. 'fh?re are clausPs in thi'· measure which deal with employeLs. It does not say that these c•mployeeo are to be unionists. It does not ,.ay that they are to be non-unionists. They may be unionists or non-unionists, or both but their rights are secured. Objection wa~ taken to the clause ''here twPnty employee~ would have to exist to move the board. Let me rcemind hon. members that in the Com­mom ~alth Arbitration Act the minimum is 100 mnployccJs. vVhich is the fairer?

An OPPOSITION MEMBER : Make it the ma­jority.

Ho!\. J. \Y. BLAIR: This is a matter which I .agree with. If we can come to a

·df'cision that in this measure thE-re are cer­tain pri.nci;Jles that we are in favour of, then it is our bounden duty, in fairness ·t •) the public o·1tside whose interests v. e have to

·consider, as thoy are neither unionists nor non-unionists, to see if we cannot cret som<' kind cf measure on which we are p;actically agreed. ·

Go\-ERIDILNT 11E:IIBERS : Hear, hear ! Hox. J. W. BLAIR : There may be clauses

and principles in this Bill as to which I will a.gree with hon. members on the Opposition side, and there may be clauses on which I will disagree with them. But because in this Bill we have differences like that which

•can be settled in Committee, is it right to

say that thn Bill is a pernicious one and inimical to the best inte:·est; of the work·?r? Are not remarks such as that mor.:. likely to promote further turmoil ?

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear !

HaN. J. W. BLAIR: There can be no gainsaying that. vVe provide for twenty em­ployees here while the Labour Government in the Commonwealth provide for 100 em­ployees. It is onlv a question of numbf'r. An hon. memh.·r Hys it should be a majority. vVhy docs not the hon. member propose• that a1nendment in Committr-· ~?

Mr. FOLEY: Will you support it?

HoN. J·. W. BLAIR: I am here with a<1 ab,olutely open mind. If hon. 1nembon oppo,,ite can sho" g·ood arguwents wh:: cer­tain clauses should be rejected, I will cer­tainlc· support them. If I see a thing i.3 bad I will move an amendment myself. .BLlr. to tr.v to con.U.en1n 1nembc1s for supporting the ;ennd reading ,., hen it is only a matter of principle that is affirmed) i;; a n1anifE"~fy unfair thing. \Yith regard to the questiOi! of tho secret ballot, I have here a speech delivered by the Hon. Mr. Beeby m mtro­ducing the sc ond reading of the Indtutriai ~\.rbitration Bill in the Now South \Vales Parliament on the 14th June, 1911. This is what he savs-

" All, existing registrations will con­tinue. Those registrations cannot be can­celled except under two conditions. One is that a secret bailot must be' taken, under the control of an officer of tho Go-vernment." ,

Mr. 'I'HEODORE: That provid<·S for regiclra­tion. There is no ngictration under 1his Bill.

HaN. J. W. BLAIR: Possibly not. One objee<:on taken to this meabure is that it provides that a secret ballot shall be taken of a;) the members of a union or of non­unionists--,,11 employe. ;s-before a strike is decided upon. That very principle is affirmed by tho Hon. )'Lr. Beeby, a member of the

New South \Vales Government. [8.30 p.m.] He certainly speaks of a ballot

of unionists, but he upholds the principle that before any action is decided upon a sPcret ballot of the members shall be taken. The only difference between the two measures is that this mea,urP does not pro­vide for preference to unionists, but puts evetybody 'on th(l same footing. Thi~ mea· sure practically puts all employees 111 the same position as electors. A man. 1nay _go to work at, a place which is teemmg wit_h unionists, or to a place in which there IS

not a single unionist, and no matter _wh_ere he is he will have a vote, and the ma]onty, whether unionists or non-unionists, will carry the clay. No one would argue that men who are not unionists should have .an electoral right to vote. I am sure that members op­posite would not argue in that way, beca~se thev know that it would ha~'" a very pecuha~ res;;lt. vVhy, then, should any employee not have a right to vote on a matter whi<Jh affects his source of living, his whole future and probwbly his deciining years, .and those who are dependent upon him? \Vhy should a man be deprived of a vote becau"e he ?on­scientiously does not belong to a umon? To deprive a man of a vote for that reason would be, to my mind, a very drastic and un­fair thing. I congratulate the Gover_nm~':t on the principle they have introduced In this

Hon. J. W. Blair.]

730 Industrial Peace Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Industria& Peace Bill.

matter, and I would sooner go down on a principle like that, than go npon an unfair principle like that advocatl'd by members opposite. The stand I take in this matter is that every man should have a say in the r<·•gulation of his work. \Vhy should a man who is aJ unionist have a greater say in the dictation of the rates of wages, the hours of employment, and the conditions of \1rour than a man who is not a unionist? I !mow that the argument adduced by mem­bers on the other side is that such men ought not to enjoy the fruits of unionism, but a weaker argument I never heard in my life. So long as a man does a fair day·'s work for a fair day's pay and satisfactorily fulfils his duties to his employer, what more has an employer the right to claim from that man?

Mr. THEODORE: Practise what you preach.

HoN. J. \Y. BLAIR: I pro:bably practise what I preach a little more than the hon. member practises what he preaches. That is the position with regard to the secret ballot. Can any censible man inside this House or outside it condemn a Government who introduce a measure which has as its object and aim the preventing of a strike or lockout, unless in the one case there is an absolute consensus of opinion on the part of employers, or in the other case a con­sensus of opinion on the part of the em­ployees in favour of such strike or lockout, and unlcRs such cons•ensus of opinion has been ascertained by a secret ballot taken by an officer of the court? Suppose we have an officer of the court like iilr. Rendle, in whom hon. members have every trust, will any· body suggest that he would take an unfair ballot? The unionists themselves have adopted this principle of ballot, so that there is nothing novel in it.

Mr. COYNE: A ballot conducted by their own officers.

HoN. J. W. BLAIR: Conducted by their own officers! I am not denying that, but I ask why should it not be conducted by a responsible officer of the court who is not associated with either party t.o a dispute? There can be no question of the majority deciding the question. Why it should be said that because in that majority there are some men who are not unionists their decision should not be accept,ed, I cannot understand. You might as well say that because a mPm· ber has been elected to a seat in this House by voters of whom three-fourths are non­unionists he should not be entitled to take his seat. That is praciically cut.ting away equality. I always understood that the idea of the Labour platform was "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,., or brotherhood. I say it is not brotherhood if, because sou have the strength of numbers-it is excellent to have a giant's strength, but it is cruel to ue,e it like a giant--I say there is no brother­hood in a number of men ,qacrificing another man because he cannot see eye to eye with them politically and join their union. There is no brotherhood in such conduct, or I fail to understand the cardinal meaning of brotherhood. There is no equality in de­priving a man of a: vote which may be used to improve the conditions of labour, simply because he is a non-unionist, and there is no equality or there is no liberal spirit in denying t.o another man what they seek to gain "themselves by force of numbers.

Mr. THEODORE: Wh-, don't. they join in the fight? •

[Hon. J. W. Blair.

HoN. J. W. BLAIR: The idea of this mea­sure is to prevent fights or disputes. Per­sonally I believe that as long as we have the wo~ld (;Onstituted as it is, strikes, like the poor, will always be with us; but.~ say it is an honourable thing and a legrtamate thing to strive to do away with strikes as­far as possible, because even those wJ:to use them as industrial c,ngines to better therr con­ditions know that in ninety-nine case out of a. hundred they are far worse off after a strike than if a strike had never ocJ<?urred.

JYlr. THEODORE: You cannot convince them of that.

HoN. J. W. BLAIR: It may not be possi­ble to convince some of them, but, if the hon. member would use the ability with which he has been gifted in an endeavour to convince them, we should have less of this trouble. I can assure the House that some of the men who came to the meeting which I addressed, came with one view. I can safely say that tho:: had not read w­single syllable of t-he Bill, and that they did not even take the trouble to follow their secretary when he was addressi?g the:n. Possibly they were not able to obtam copr_es of the Bill. Certainly they had not read r_t, and I am perfectly certain that what I sard by way of explanation of the measure came as a. revelation to them. We have heard a good deal about the penalti.es imposed by the Bill. I do not wish to go mto that matter clause by dause, nor is it permissible_ to do so if I had the time; but I would pomt out that if members turn to the Commonwe<1lth Arbitration Act and the New South Wales Act they will find that the penalty fo_r .a strike or lockout is exactlv the same as 1t rs .in this Bill-a fine not- exceeding £1,000. So that all this exaggerated and fanci~ul talk about this being a measure whr?h bristles with penalties vanishes n':t'? thm air w}yn you lool< at the plam prov1sro~s of the Bill. ::\1embNs oppo,srte may go allout the countrv and repre•,ent their vievs of the measure t~ the people, but other members can do that as well, and when the measure· is explained to the people I fancy t~at mer:'-­bers opposite will find that they wrll be m a very peculiar position.

::\fr. COYNE: You will have your work cut out.

HoN. J. W. BLAIR: I do not mind if my work is cut out so long as I ·am c;ut out for my work. Mr. Beeby further sard-

" The cheapening of procedure, the greater rapidity of action, ~he fact t~at the ultimate award made 111 every m­dustry will be made by a .. court. of arbi­tration, the fa,;,t that award goes out bearing the imprimatur of a court, the removal from the board of the whole element of legal discussion and wrar:g­ling, the bringing about of a ~ar ea~rer and simpler method of dealmg wr~h matters than we have to-day, are m­ducements."

So that practically in introd?c;ing thi~ mea­sure and deleting the provrsron whrch al­lowed counsel to practise before the court, the Government have followed the example· set them by the Labour Government in New South Wales. Whether it is a wise thing to do or not I am not prepared to say. But I fancy 'that very often a case might be presented in a much bette~.: way by a,

Industrial Peace Bill. (13 AUGUST.] lndust1·ial Peace Bill. 731!

person who has technical skill, and for that reason I think the Government might allow a r:epresentative of a union to appear on their behalf. I think they might agree to that because that gentleman may from his very course of life, and from his 'education perhaps be in a better position to explai~ what are. the aims and objects of the union and put It before the tribunal perhaps in a better way than his colleagues. Now, as a ma~ter. of fact, what does this Bill provide? It rs simply to establish an arbitration court -an amalgamation, practically, of the Wages Boards Act. Nothing more and nothing less. :\Ir. CoYNE: A kind of shandygaff.

HaN. J. W. BLAIR: It has nothing of a shandygaff nature. It is on the lines of the Commonwealth Arbitration Act. ·

OPPOSITION MEMBERS : No, no !

Mr. HARDACRE: It is absolutely one of the worst Bills in Australia.

HaN. J. W. BLAIR: I hear a chorus of negatives, and then an hon. member 'inter­jects, "It is one of the worst Bills in Aus­tralja:." As long as hon. members of the Op­positiOn ?online themselves to interjections of that kmd, so long will their case remain unproved. If they wish to convert any men:ber on this side, or to affect the people outside, they will have to go somewhat further than assertion. If you make asser­ti':'ns. that are absolutely contrary to the Bill Itself, then you are in a worse position because you have to answer then for mis: statements. Now, we find that under this measure a court is to be established which is to be presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court or District Court. Powers are to be established which practically take the place of the old Wage< Boards Act although there is some difference, as pointed out by han. members opposite-one of which is that twenty employees are requisite to bring the matter before the court. I would point out to them that if they study the clauses of the Bill they will find that any number can bring a matter before the in­?ust_rial co!-'rt, so that really there is no JustiCe demed to any association if it con­sists merely of three members or of two. One man can bring a matter before a wages board, and the wages board can consider it. A recommendation may be made and it may be acted upon. Twenty empioyees is the minimum who can bring a matter before the court, and the reason for that is not far to seek. It is because it is pre­sumed, before it goes to the court that the machinery of the wages boards ha~ been e,,_ hausted, a~d it is only practically as a last resort, m the exercise of the last right t~at thry can invoke the aid of the judg~ himself. If hon. members-and I say it in all sincerity-will take the trouble to read the provisions of the measur<, so far from. continuing their hostile attitude, they will be forced to the conclusion that it is an absolutely fair measure-a measure which may''possibly be amended in detail in Com­mittee, but which will. in the great prin­ciples contained within its four corners o<cure justice a.nd liberty and freedom t; every in?iv~dual in the community. An­other ob]edwn that I have heard to this measure was that the Government had power to appoint the chairman. That is one of those wild statements that are partially true and which are very difficult indeed to

deal with unless the person is nailed ab­solutelv on the fact. What does the clause say? 'rt gives the board absolute power to elect a chairman. Then it provides that, if they fail to do it, the Government can step· in, but only on the recommendation of thfr judge.

::\Ir. CoYNE: Cannot the.r disregard the r,c~ommendation?

HaN. J. W. BLAIR: The recommenda­tion of the judge would certainly be in writing. It would probably be delivered in opel). court, and what Government will be worthy of its name or worthy to occupy the Treasury benches who, for one moment, v,ent against the recommendation of one· person who is given exclusive jurisdiction? You might as well say that the Government might as well dare to repudiate or go against the recommendation of a judge of the Supreme Court in a capital case where he makes a recommendation, or in a case where he makes a recommendation for the release or non-release of a prisoner.

An OPPOSITION MEMBER : So they would.

HaN. J. vV. BLAIR: As a matter of fact, these things are ·carefully considered, but the Bill leaves nothing to their discretion in this matter. The clause is explicit.

Mr. COYNE: They can reject it.

HaN. J. W. BLAIR: The clause is ex­plicit that they must act on the recom­mendation. There is no question about it; they must act on the recommendation of the judge. Clause 23 provides, first of all, that the board shall appoint a chairman, and then " If the registrar does not receive­such nomination after the appointment of the said members, the Governor in Council mav appoint the chairman on the recom­mei'Idation of the court."

:\Ir. ColNE: He may do so. Hen. J. W. BLAIR: As han. members

know. tho word "ma.y" is used very often~ as was pointed out in the argument we had about the Governor-General or the Prime 1\Iinister of the Commonwealth not being bound by the word "shall," and not apply· ing the use of that word to the Governor in Council. Thev use those words 'c•hich are supposed to be applicable, the same as they use word to a hio:h authority that are not 'o indicate compulsion.

!IIr. CoYNE: They use "shall" m several places in this Bill.

Hon. J. W. BLAIR: If it only comes to an objection to the word "may" or "shall." what is the objection to moving m1 amend­ment? Make it "shall" if yoti like, and be absolute!} certain about it. The ::\Iinistry, when they bring down a measure, are not lcound to every sylhble of it, and their fol­lowers are no,t buund by it. They give the principle, and l~:.!Ne it to the commo:n sense of hon. members. Let the hon. member move· to insert the word "shall" and make it abso­lutely on the ree>mmendation of the judge, because in another section it talks about his jurisdiction being- absolutely exclusive. If hon. members will look at subclause (4) they will find this-

" If at any time the court, on a sub­mission by the registrar, is of opinion that the chairman of the hoard has wil­fully neglected to perform any of his prescribed duties, the court may, after hearing such thairman--''

Hon. J: W. Blair.]

732 Industrial Peace Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Industrial Peace B~lt.

1t gives him an absolut-lly fair chance to "recommend to the Governor in Council that he be removed from office, and that some other person, tD be named be appointed in his place; thereupon' the Governor in Uouncil may remove such chairman and 1,ppoint Buch other person."

Exactly the same words in both ~cctior1s. The PRE"HBR: Bowled out again. J:vlr. COYNE: There is no bowling out in that.

. Hon. J .. W. BL,\IR: Another great objec­-tico! to thiS measure formulated by members opposite is that the ri~ht of appc-~1 is taken away--that the judgment of the court is final. I understand that is clear~that that _is a huge objectio,n.

Mr. CoY:NE: Not at all. ~Ir. LE:NNON: No one urged it.

Hon. J. W. BLAIR: The hon. member is ~iugularly dc:tf if he did not hear that raised a:o '<111 oLjection. As a matter of fact, the right of appeal is taken awav bv section 58 of the N l:w South Vv .tlcs Act, imd the de­cision of the court there shall be final. Sec­tion 58 of the New So,uth \Vales Act pro­vides-

" The decision of the court shall be final; and no award, ,and no order, or proceeding of the comt, shall be vitiat0d by reason only of an informality or want of form, o.r be liabli to be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, qGa-"hecl, or called in qqf,3tion by any court of judi­cature on ~any account whatsoG,,er.''

'The !'alic!ity of any proceeding is not to be questwned at all. The worclin; of this Bill follows that section.

Mr. LENNON: What hon. member on this £ide ha-s urgRcl the right of appr,al?

Hon. J. W. BLAIR: I distinctly heard hon. members point out that one of the H'rious objections to this was that there was no appeal from the coud. If von take the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1904-11, section 31, you will find that an award cannot be challenged or ques­t~fuccl in any court on any ground "\vhaL:ver.

Mr. RYAN : Still they are cha,llenging them every clay in the High Court.

Ron. J. W. BLAIR: Section 31 of the Federal Conciliabo::r and rhbitmtion Act of 1904-ll, which was pa-decl by the Labour Government, provides that no award or order

.of the court is to be challenged, '"ppealed against, reviewed, or called in quu~tion, or be subject to prohibition or mandamus in any court. As a matter of fact, there mav be Btiil under this measure the common la\V right of prohibition~the right to go to a court on what is called tho common law side, apart from the statute altogether. Suppose the court acts without jurisdiction at all? If it touched a matter on which it had no jurisdiction, there ''-'ould be nothing in the -Norld to prevent any person from going to a hig~~r court OJ' tribunal and qnF<tioning its clt•clsion there. I have tD hurry no.w, I ,am rathe1· sorry to •my. There were certain com­!nents made a bout the drastic nature of charg­rng « pena-lty on an organisation. By the NPw South Wales Act of 1845--

The SPEAKER indicated that the hon. member's time, allotted to him under the Standing Order~.-had expired.

Mr. _HUNTER (Maranoa): In introducing this Bill to the Hous<", tho Government have ·expressed a desire to settle industrial dis-

[Hon. J. W. Blatir.

putes. The hon. gentleman who has just sat dm,·n has endeavoured in his own way to show to this House that the Bill that is submitted >• ill have that effect. It is well known that the Government when they first introduced the Bill expressed a wish to see that tho industrial troubles of the State were set at rest, and although the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat stated that this side of the House had accused the other side of insincerity, he denied that from the other side similar accusations had been made. I --at in tho Chamber during the greater part of the day, and this charge has been levell0d from both sides of the House ; from which it would appear that both sides aro anxious to bring about industrial peace. However, the methods that are employed by this Bill can have no such effect. "'l.s far as I can judge this Bill, the Government are taking the position that the trusts and combine" of America have taken to destro.J unionism. It is well known that the powers of trusts and combines~ the pm; er to give 0mployment or to r ,•fuse it~ has had the effect ,of d~stroying tho industrial unions of America. It mav be said that in Au·.tralia combines and trusts have not reached the dimensions they have in America, conse­quently they have not the· power to-day to destroy the unions; but we find the Government coming down, and by enactment putting in the pow~r of employers the whole machinery of the State for the purpose of the de•·truction of unionicm. No one who knows anything about the history of indus­trial unions will deny that they have been the means not only of raising the wages of the worker but shortening the hours of his labour, and therefore imprm- ing the condi­tions of men, and assisting in the development ~mentally and physically--of the whole of the race. Unionists are what might be called the " soldiers of industry," and although it if' true that a number of workers have not taken advantage of the opportunity of joining the unions, they have, at any rate, shared in the result of the efforts of the unionists.

OPPOSITION MEMBERS: Hear, hear !

Mr. HUNTER : I should be very much surprised if tho-,e men who arr> not unionists to-day are not found rap1dly joining unions for tho ,,.ake of the protectwn that 1s given tu the labouring clas,cs by the combination of employee>. vV e know th>:t in times gone by it has been the obJect of em­ployers to give special powers and privileges to tho non-unioni't so that he might find it more to his advantage not to join a union; but in his wisdom the non-unionist will easily discern that once the power of unionism is taken away the result will be that wages will fall and hours of labour will increase ; and it will be to his advantage, therefore, to strike back on a Government or on any party which dares to interfere in the man­ner which the Government arc proposing to do. We are told that this Bill is intended to give equal justice to all; but the only thing that it proposes to do is to dis­band unionism and bring the labourers into a common rabble. There will then be' an opportunity for tho employer to step in and take advantage of the disorganisscl state in which labour exists. It is onl:;· by speak­ing with one voice, and making demands in an organised form, that labour can secure its rights from the power of capital. Capital is a combination of wealth, and it can only

Industric.l Peace Bill. [13 AUGUST.] Industrial Peace Bill. 733-

be met by a combination of those who pro­duce that wealth. \Ve have combinations and unions in every phase of life almost. Labour is met on every side by combinations and unions. They exist among bankers, mer­chants, manufacturers, lawyers, and doctor~. Every trade and profession has its own pecu­liar union, which pro.tects it against the out­side public, and ,gives to it that which it re­gards as its right. That being the case, it is a right and proper thing that unionism should receive L·om all right-thinking persons tho support that it had in the past. But this Government, we find, are not disposed to show that favour. We were told that be­c:Luse of the picketing and the peaceful per­suasion which have been adopted by unionists they were intimidating and alarm­ing the non-unionist,, who were prevented from getting work because of the· tyranny of uniom" Now, the tyranny, if they so choose to call it-~hey can call it by an: name they please-Is only th0 necessary act of unionists to make known that they are endeavouring to secure a fuller return for the labour they expend in the production of wealth. It is generally recognised that more than a fair share of the wealth produced by the labourer passes out of his hands into the hands of the capitalist or monopolist. If you compare the action of the labour unions with the action of tne organised capitalists, we find th",t the capitalists adopt a similar course in preventing men "'\\ ho are unionists from finding employment by blacklisting them. vr e find past.oral asso~iabons I'<·,sessing all the attribute'"• that arD ascribed tD the unions. I consider a union absolutely worthleeg that dou not extend its power into the political arena, bec<tuse it is only by such methods that the workers can hope to arrive .at a fair and reasonable return for that whid1 theY produce. 'WhDn the unions come to exerDise· their power in a political sense, they are told that the object for which uniDns exist is made abortive. Dut I ask-if unions .are discountenanced and their funds are taken, what is the result? They hecDme disorgan­ised, and this court which the Government proposes to set up cannot be approached. I think the hon. member for Barcoo showed that the fundamental principle of this Bill IS that the court which it is proposed to ·establish could only be approached through the organisation of labour. In that opinion he was backed up by no less an authority than Mr. Justice Higgins of the Federal Arbitration Court. IV e had very good advice given us many years ago. by no le3s authority than Sir Samuel Walker Griffith. and that was for the worker to place his demands in a constitutional way before Parliament. I was rather amused at tho hon. member for Wide Bay last night, when he sa.id that if. we wished to see tho State pro.­gre"'S we must be a peaceful people. vVell, everyone can approve of that principle. The simile he gave us was that. suppos­inf); a family were quarrelling among- tllene>­sdveq, how could they hope to succee~l ? He might have gone a little further and sard that supposing the head of that house, or anY' other m<emb<er of it, was living on the labour of the other members of the hou·•·e. what would be the result? The unrest found in the industrial world to-day is the result of such a thing. Twenty per oont. of the com­munity are living on the labour of the remainder, and is it .any surprise to find that the 80 per cent. who produce the w<"alth in these enlightened days should come up .and

say that a larger ·hare shall be a,pportioned to them? We are told that this Bill is· intended to do away with strikes; but those members on this side of the House who have made a study of the industrial life of this Sta'te and aiso of the industrial life of other parts' of the world, are Df opinion-and I concur in that opimon-that it will have the effect of creating more industrial trouble than there ever has ·been before. I am strongly of the opinion that tl;e. right to strike must always exist, otherwise the fact remains that men are enchained. When men have no longer the right to "down wols," then you have taken fwm them the only liberty thc·y enjoy as citizens o! the State. I want tD give here an extract rrom no less an ·authoritY than a former Chief Justice of Victoria-the late Mr. George Higgin­botham-

" Nor should we forget that strikes are, and must continue for a time to be, the· only weapon in the la&t resort tha.t labour can use in v. aging lav;·ful 1

\ ar with capital.

" I share with you the belief and hope that time will bring peace between these two factors of human industry, but that time will not come until labour shall attain b' means of union equal power· with capital, and sh:cll be able to in~ist on terms of honourable and lastmg peace."

Now, if the Chief Justice of Victoria->-:ho· was not a Labour man, but a man of wrde experience and learning-expresses such a view, I would ask what the gentlemen op­posite have to say in regard to the matte_r? The right to strike must for ever be mam­tained until some means are adopted to· bring ' about a change in the conditions under which men find themselves. \Vhen wages boards have given awards, it is. a. common practice to find manufacturers .m­stantly raising prices, and we find no.thmg in this Bill to prevent that. Immed1ate)y an award is given and wages g~ up 111 any industry, immediately the J?rices are· raised, very often out of all relatiOn t'? the advance in wages. This brings about hrgher cost of living which naturally produces fu~­ther unrest ' If this Bill does pass thrs Chamber I contend that in Committee a clause should be inserted which will pre­vent that sort of thing happening. ~he necessity of some system of regulatmg prices has become hicrhly essential, because too large a share ot' the wealth produced' goes into the pockets of a class who do prac­tically nothing in return for the amount which they receive. If the Government c~n see its duty in this respect, an effort wrll be made to bring about a fairer means of distributing the products of labour ":mong the people, so that they may en]oy a cheaper method of living. A good d_eal has been said during this debate regardmg the wages that are paid in various indu~tries, and the farming industry has been mtro­duced on more than one occasion. My ex­perience of the farming community is that they are desirous of paying a fair wage. There are many things that might be sug­gested in connection with this matter. One of the best things that could be done W?:>ld be to put the farmer in a better J?OSitw;n with respect to his markets, by takmg h1s· produce from him and putting it into .the hands of the consumer at the least possible cost. According to. statements made by han ..

lff r. II unte·r. J

734 Industrial Peace Bill. (ASSEMBLY.] Industriai Pea~e Bill.

members on the other side, it would appear that members on this side are of opinion that farmers treat their hands badly in the matter of food. I say that it is a libel on the farmer to say that he does not feed his men well. I have known the early pioneer farmers on the Darling Downs at Heading­ton Hill, Back Plains, Westbrook, Aubigny, Upper Tent Hill, and I have seen them in .the Western country; and I know that the men shared with the farmer all that there was on the farmer's table; and I have known, where extreme po.verty necessitated humble fare for the family, spc·cial provi>lOil having been made for a man who might come in as a temporary hand. I repeat that it is a hbel to say that the farmer does not feed his men well.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : It was not sngg<·sted from this side.

Mr. HUNTER: It was suggested tram that side that ic was the opinion of members on this side ; and I am now speaking for this side of the House and giving my personal knowledge as to how men are treated on farms. They m&y be exceptions, but they are very rare; and it is not fair that all should be charged with the guilt of a few. I think it would be well for the House to con­sider whether it is not possible to make provision in some way tor aealing With great mdustrial queocions; and 1 think a groac deal of inlormation could be obtained in various parts of tho world as to the best means of b.ringing about industrial peace. I am a strong believer in the nccessitv for better relations between employers and' employees, but I do not think they are to be brought about bv drastic measures such as this. If the Go~ernment are sincerely desirous of securing the ends for which they framed this Bill, they will not refuse to consult authori­tiu" and obtain information to enable the House to deal effecth dy with this great questwn. Ii we could succeed in that, it would lead to greater prosperity all round, because if we could make men more con­tt'1ted with their lot they would labour more zC'alously in producing wealth; and that would be better both for themselves and for their employers. Speaking for myself, I have endeavoured in every possible way to bring about peace. I was in Brisbane dur­ing the recent strike. One hon. member said I ran away; put I did not run away until I had exhausted every possible means of bring­ing about a settlement between the strikers and the employers. I went so far as to get the consent of the strike committee to con­fer with the federated emplovern three weeks before the strike broke up,' and I had very fair promise of bringing about a settle­ment, and believe I might have succeeded but for perhaps the interests of the Government party, who. desired to keep the strike warm for the approaching general elections. There wc•r.e na:t a few on the ·executive of that body who expressed their willingness to meet the strike committee and bring about a settlement; but I was told bv a few that th<> strike was practicall:v broken, and it was iust as well to humiliate the men and make them anpreciate their jobs when they got them. That was the spirit shown by some of the employet·s, though the vast majority were quite willing to confer with a view to a settlement. I hold no brief for strikes, and on every occasion I would advise men who are dissatisfied with the conditions to take every possible means of getting a peaceful settlement. I do not ap­-prove of this Bill because it takes away from

[illr. Hunter.

the workers the right to combine for the purpose of obtaining their demands. How is it possible for them to go before the court and obtain their demands as units? For the reason I have given I intend to move an eomendment for the purpose of endeavouring to secure some better method of dealing with this great question. I propose therefore to moYe the omiFsion .. of all the words after and including the word "now," with the view of inserting the words '· referred to. a Committee appointed by this House, with instructions to make full inquiry and. submit recommendations as to the best methods of settl'ing disputes." I think if tho House in ite wisdom adopts this amendment that there will be such a field of research regardmg the ' urious methods of dealing with these disputes that this House will be able to place upon the statute-book of Queensland such a measure as will s~oeure that peac'" \Yhich \Ve have not kno"\Vll for 1nany years, and probably bring about such a settlement of trouble as will lead to the prospenty of this State. \V e know that there are extre­mists amongst Labour, and we also know that there are extremists amongst capitalists, but thess men do not represent the vast majority of either side, and it is with the purpm;e of enabling milder and moderately disposed pusons to ,,,ttle disputes that we sf1ould provide them with some court that will be able to deal with them effectively. I have therefore great pleasure in moving the amend­ment I have placed in your hands, JH_r. Sp~aker, and I submit it to rhe House m the hopP that it will accept the amendment and. make full inquiry into the conditions which prevail in other countries, in the hope that it will brin;:: about peace n.nd pros­perit~- to this State.

OPPOSITION ME;u:BERS : Hear, hear !

:Yir. LAND (Balonne) : I desire to second· th~ amendment. I look upon this Bill as a bad Bill. In my opinion, no amount ?f an endment will ever make a flOod Act of It. I wo:uld like to go back twenty-five years to show the conditions o.f the men then who i\l'e uLioni,ts to-day. I remember that at that time the 'hearers in \Ve,,tern QueeMland were getting 1 he rat'' of 4s. a score. T~e em­ployers joined together with the ob]~ct of reducing that rate, and they reduced It one vear bv 3d. ner score, and about the year lc'37 they end'eavoured to reduce the price of shearing to. 3s. 6d. per score. The shearers of that <lav saw that if they did not com­bine to look after their own inten·sts and keep up the pric~ of shearing, then, at the rate the employers were reducing it, it wo~ld soon be down to a rate that it would be 1m­possible for them to live on at all. As. :"ell as low prices they had ver:y .bad conditions indeed. Their gen<:>ral condihons were very bad. If yon look at the price of shearing- to­day, you will see that they are getting. 24s. per hundred, but th,o employers never assist.ed tho&>-~ men in any way. Although the pnce of woa:l went up, no one ever knew tf1e em­rloyers and producers of wool t'? raise the price of sheo,ring. Consequen~ly. It v;as .only tl,rough combining and enforCing their rig·hts by strike;, that they were able t? l"et the price thev a.re getting to-day. It rs all very ¥:ell for "members on the other side of the FfouRCl to speak about unionism in the way thev are do.im.;. Manv hon. members on the other side of the House know very little a bout the general conditions of the workers throughout Queensland' to-day. Every man en that side of the House says l•e believes in

Industrial Peace Bill. [13 A1;'GUST.~ Indu.otrial Peace Bili. 735

-uninnist3. Ew•ry one of th·om will say that a man can join .a, tmion if he likes. They say : "\Ve have no objection to that at all, but we want to clip the wings of unionists, and to destroy the power of the unions alto­gether." Their object is to reduce the num­bers of unions. There is no possible hope in life of doing away with strikes by coercion. The more vou coercJ men the 'nor·· they ·will combine. I do not say that this Act will stop men from joining unions. I do not say that it will stop them from striking, because it will do nothing of the sort. On<:J of the worst Acts that was ever pabbed was the Coercion Act. It was aimed 1't the unions, but it llever stopped the unions from getting stron;;er. L.Ong ago I remember ·Khen there was not a union in Queensland. To-day there are thousand'. of unions, notwithstandil';; the ftcct that we have had a Conser,·ative Govern­ment in powm· :w.•.rly the whole time. vV e have had a Government in power that have 2Jways f.xpressed their great sympathy with the toiler, bu~ they have pass?d Acts of this kind and administered them to preve.nt the "orkers "nd the unions from combining to better thPir own conditions. It has been said in this Bill that it doe•.. no.t prevent men hom joining a union, ctnd it does not cheC'k ihem. I know it does not prevent them from joining a union, but it certainly does uot enco,nage them. If this Bill is panad it will compel unionists to work with no'tl­ur•ionists. It was huid in this House to-night what a grand thing it would be to put every m~n on the same footing. We are asked if a non-unionist has not as much right to live as a unionist. No one said he had no. right to live. No union man ever said that a non­unionist had no right to live. But what the unionist does say is that, if he is w<•rking at the •am~ oalling, and getting the same rate of wagh and conditions that have been ob­tainH:l by the unionists. then he should join iu and contribute towards the funds for the upkeep of the union, flnd stick to the prin­-ciples of the uni0n. There are hur:dred.s of things that take place in connect.ion with shea1·ing alone. Take the shearers and she.d hand•,. If there were non-unionists amongst them, there would be strikes 0very day. If an agreement is entered into, the unionists combine. There may be troublE' about bad tucker. bad watPr, bad meat, and wet sheep, and all these thing,;. These little troubles are always arising, and if you are going to cr"ate a division :amongst the men, there will be strikes at once, so that it is impossible for unionists and non-unionists to work a'• the same calling.

Lieut. -Colond RANKIN : They do it every day. Mr. LAND: I admit that there may be

some· scattered ,union men working at differ­ent jobs with non-unionists, because they

have to do so or leave; but I [9.30 p.m.] am referring more particularly

to large unions. There is no pos­sible hope of unionists and non-unionists working peaceably together in the country districts, and if a measure of this kind is passed it will make it very hard for union­ists to carry on their work without tripping or b~coming liable to a penalty under this Bill. I never knew a worker, man or wo­man, who wanted a strike. When they have struck it has been because a stJ;ike was forced upon them.

An HoNOURABLE MEMBER: By agitators. Mr. LAND: No; I never knew an agita­

tor who had any voice in a strik!;l. What is

commonly called an agitator is a paid official of a union. Sometimes those offi­cials are paid, and sometimes their work is honorary, but I never knew one who had a vote on the question as to whether a strike should take place or not. The sec­retary of a union does not do any more in a union than the Clerk of the Assembly does in this House. He just takes notes of meet­ings and does the clerical work, and has no say at all in the matter of a strike. As far as I know, officials in connection with unions do not cause strikes, and I never knew a strike which was not forced upoi,t the -,.,·orkers. If there is any possible chance of a voiding a strike, the workers will not strike. The genuine working man in Queensland has as much interest in the country as anybody else. He has to depend upon his earnings for bread and butter for his family, and he does not strike for fun or amusement. A good deal has been said about unionists taking political action. A newspaper li~e the Bulletin is much read by the workers of Queensland, and '!~hat paper has always advised the men to go to the ballot-box to settle their disputes. I remember, too, that in 1891 the late leader of the Government wrote a little ballad ei;L­titled "The Ballot is the Thing." There are plentv of men and women supporting the Labo;:,r party who are not members of unions. There are not 99,000 union men -and women in Queensland.

Mr. MACROSSAN: Why do you give pre· ference to unionists if you get support from the other side?

Mr. LAND: I have already stated that I would give preference to unionist.s beca~se . I do not believe you can have Industrial peac<:> if you fore~ union men and union women to work with non-unionists. That is why I would give preference to unionists. I believe that it is to the interest of every toiler, whether man or woman, to b[lc?me a unionist. Employers do not form umons in the same way as the worke:cs, but come to an honourable understa!).ding, which is just as good to them as a unio11. They come to an honourable understanding every morning. If eggs are up ld. a dozen at the other end of the Valley, then they go up ld. a dozen here. There is no .difficulty in their coming to an understandmg, and that does not seem to be illegal so long as it is done by the employer. It was re­marked to-night that we had got a " dress­ing down" for saying nasty things to the members on the other side of the House. But when nasty interjections are made by members opposite it is only natural that we should retaliate. I remember that when one of the members on this side was refer­ring to the number of unemployed in the Western country who were carrying their swags, the Premier interjected "Hums." The han. gentleman takes very fine care that he does not call unemployed workers "Hums" the day before an election, and I may tell him that there are just as good men carrying swags in the back country as the han. gentleman or any of his colleagues. Those men have carried their swags from place to place and supplied employers with labour and if it had not been for those men we sh~uld not have so many people in the cities and towns of Queensland, nor should we see so many people riding about in notor-cars, and wearinr; gr-eat long cloth coats and tall hats if it were not for the wor.k done by the men with " boyangs" and

Mr. Land.]

736 Industria.Z Peace Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Industrial Peace Btl:.

blucher bo<;>ts. Again, when I was speaking on the stnke and referred to the class of persons employed by the Home Secretary that han. gentleman interjected that they all deserted from our side. I said some of the . worst characters were employed as special constables to keep order in Brisbane I also said there were amongst them som~ of the worst characters in Queensland in­cluding every sort of bad man and the !;[orne Secretary said they all de~erted our side. Those _sort of things are not cal­cu)ate~ to brmg about a good feeling in this Cnamb~r: . I am not prepared to take the responsibility of any part of this Bill. I lao!~ _upon It as so bad that there is no poss~bihty of getting an opportunity o£ makmg It better. I look upon it as having been taken from the worst parts of the "Worst Acts of its kind and I believe the EmJ?loyers' Fe~eration 'had a good deal to do m the frammg of the Bill.

T_he SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IKSTRUOTION : It 1s framed on Beeby's Bill.

Mr. LA.ND : It is all very well to Tead a few words here and there in the Bill and compare it with .an. Act that was pas,;ed by t11e Labour party m New South \Vales, or even to take a f·"w wor·ds from this Bill and cmnpare them with the Commonwealth AI,bi­trati:m Act. If you pick out the good parts, It Will compare .favourably with other Acts; but I am re~errmg to the Bill as it is, and I am not g01'.'g to ,tal~e a1~y responsibility in connectiOn ;nt11 p1acmg It on the statute­book. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I hope this amendment will be carried. The hon. member for Ipswich said repeatedly that people even as clo.,e as Ips­wi~h do no.t understand anything about the Bhl, and If there are so many people in Queensland wha do not undBrstan,d t'he measu~B, would it not be better to delay it and give them an opportunity of making themselves conversant with its provisions before it is placed on the statute-book of this State?

The PREMIER (Hon. D. F. Denham, Oxley) : I am not willing that thB House slwuld adjourn without letting it be dis· tinctly understood that I shall resist this a'!'endment. These tactics arB in conformity -,,,,th what has been ·announCBd by thB leader of the Opposition from the time of the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. RYA!'l : Who .announced it? The PREMIER : Your !Bader said he

would resist thB Bill at every stage ,and fight it to the last ditch. At the introductory stages two amendments wBre moved which WBre passed out. EarliBr in the ·evBning there was an -amendment wl1ich v;as rulBd out of ordBr. Now thBre is an .amBndment which, doubtlBss, is in order, and I want, without .any hesitation, to say that we do not proposB to accBpt thB amendment to rBfer the Bill to a Select Committe£. The last gBneral Blection was fought distinctly ·and ·emphati­cally upon this isstw, and the country was made to und·erstand as fully as possiblB the lines on which thB legislation would proCBBd.

OPPOSITION MEMBERS: No, no! The PREMIER : I say "Y BS, yes ! " and

I can quote from my manifesto here wherB it was vB_ry clc•arly laid down ·and vBry fully Bmphasised. And furthBr, no SelBct CommittE'•' is sunterior to the electors of this country. ThBre ·has been .an elBction fought, and thB BlBctors by no uncertain sound said,

[lvf r. La.nd.

"Do all possible to secure industrial peace";. and this Bill makes thB fullest provision for such objBct. I say the election was fought VBry largely in this issuB. In the manifesto these words occur-

" It is Bvident, however, from the in· cidents of thB last fBw weeks that the splBndid TBsourcBs .and vast capabilities of Qtwensland and thB strBnuous and Bffective steps which the GovBrnment is taking to make thosB unsurpassBd natural conditions yiBld a fair return to the Bm­ploym of labour and the highBst remu­neration to the labourBr may be useless unless effBctt<al moans are takBn to prB­vcnt oocurrences which, though arising out of nothing, may TBsnlt in the com­plete paralysis of industrial lifB. Within the recollection of many of us, trade unionism becamB a mighty power and had rBcoursB to thB only BffectivB means which onoo existed of obtaining rBdrBss of thB grievanCBs from which' its members suffered. It resorted to strikes to serure bettm· conditions for them. But most people thought that with the ballot-box and thB universal vote this pTimitive weapon would be discardBd, and that a coursB of industrial legisbtion would inaugurate an Bra of industrial peace. In all the States there are law~, more or less effectivB, dealing with wages, hours, am:! the like, and over all is thB· Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Trade unionism at its birth spelled efficiency as to its members and ·ability as to its management. Its in­fluBnce "as felt, its objects WBrB recog­nised aF sound and desirablB, its .aspira­tion' werB ,accordingly translatBd into law, and with the advent of wagBs boards, industrial courts, and conciliation· boards, the actual objectivB of unionism had beBn attainBd."

It was then clearly made known that we w.ero out to secure industrial peace, ·ancl the people of QuBensland, by a VBry large majority, <mdors0d that line of thought.

Mr. FOLEY : They did not know thB mr ,ms to he adopted.

ThB PREMIER: I say we are really translating into law the old tr.adB union· principlBs. \Vhat hon. mBmbers oppositB are disturbed about is this-that of recBnt years tradH unionism has been captured by ce>·bin men in the old land known as syndi­calists. H4re thBy hardly know what thBy are: but they arc all of that ilk or kind.

:Mr. BARBER: You do not undBl·stand the word ''syndicalist."

ThB PREMIER: I think thB han. member is labouring under a mi~apprehension •as to· thB meaning of the word. Not only do I know thB meaning, but I know the effBct, and it is becausB v;e want to save tradB unionists and heB workBrs from the per­nicious influence of syndicalism and •all it portends, that wB havB brought bBforB the House a measurB that will secure industrial pBace and liberty or the subject.

GoVERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! Mr. O'SuLLIVAN: Good old gag. The PREMIER: If it is true that of

recent y?cn·s a large number of men have felt that the wav to get redress was to join a union. unclE'r this Bill they can get all they desire-consideration of conditions, of hours, and of wages-without being dictated to by the Tradee\ Hall or any other body.

Industrial Peace Bill. Ll3 AUGUST.) Industrial Peace Bill. 737

GovER);MENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! and Opposition dissent.

The PREMIER: Men in this State have been under a tyranny that has been most galling to them, and I can say that . vaPt numbers of workers to-day are exc.:edmgly rejoiced that they can oee the dawning of libert1· once more. (Opposition laughter.) Go~ERN~IENT MEMBERS : Hear, hoar !

The PREMIER : Workers who believe in trade unionism, and who would like to se,, their feu devoted to the genuine purpose, see here once more that they can get back to the old tra-de union principle, and that under this Bill they will be free from domin­ance, and free from the taxation to which they are nmc subject. If the fees that have been appropriated or devoted to trad" uni<?n principles, and which have been wastdd m the scandalous w.ay in which they have bGen wasted, had been hu .. banded an.cJ saved, many industries to-dav would be under the con­trol of the trado unonish, and the:• would be wasters of the situ"'tion in•tead of being employPes. I am not going to travene the conditions o£ the Bill, but I just want to say emphatically that wo havP not the least idea of referring it to a Select Committee.

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear !

The PREMIER : Because there is not a Select Committee in this House that is superior to the electors. There is a body of men here who have been sent back for a special pm·pose, and we are going to carry that purpose out, if no other business be done this session.

GovERN:.IIENT J\fE:.IIBERS : Hear, hear !

The PRE::VliER: It may be that han. members "ant to force us to mB the powers that are contained in the Standing Ord·:rs. I do not propose t0 be in a hurry to do that. I <1m not going to allow it to be said outsid.J that this Bill has been blud­geoned through, or not suffici,·ntly discu•,sed. It slull be discussed in the fulie,,t form, but we- :ne going to stick to this until the Bill is throuo-h the House. \Vo know there have been objections rai.,od to the Bill, and we have been able to discu,s the matter with bodies of men quiotiy, and they ha vo realised at once tint this is the very thing they are looking for. (Opposition lauc:;ht' r.) l-Ion. members of the Opposition remind me of an old characte!· that ti1P han. member for Rockhampton, at any rnte, is familiar with­Dc·metrius, the ,,ilversmith of Ephesus. They see that the hopo of their gain is going. that they e:.n no longer be making silver gods for tho trade unionists, and .as they sec their handicraft slipping away they arc trving to make a fuss, trying to throw dust in' the eves of intelligent men; but they will not be 'bamboozled. (Opposition laughter.) All we have to do is to let men know per­fectly well that the unionist is preserved in his integrity, that we. do not attem!?t _to interfere or dictate to h1m. But the umomst is not put uoon a pedestal, and the free workers have ·as much say as to whether the work is to paFS from their han-ds into tho hands of the unionist. We have sf'en with our own eyes in our own State a condition of affairs which made us realise that men were arrogating to theme.,dves power that they had no right to be entrusted with; they were taking to thcm,elves .authority that they should not be clothed with; and the men were made to suffer who were writhing

1912-2 z

under it, and thee' will rejoice with legisla· tion like this upon th" statute-book, whtch says to them that the conditions, wages, and hours shall be dealt with by .a board com· posed of men who understand their. busin~ss. And if in the ultimate they ar,, d1ssutisnod with tho award, then they can go _to the court of appeal-to an independent Judge­and get the matter discussed before him. It strikes me that some hon. 111Blllbc,rs "\vho have been talking do not understan.~ trade unionism. (Oppo:.ition dissc•n'.) . '\vhat was the orio-inal intention of trade muomsn1? It was mc"ant to provide means ~Y. wh_ich indus­trial dioputes might be s':'ttJed w1t~out r<;l­course to force, and they \nil probab,y admit thaL Sydney Webb, .an eminent ,,.,.iter upon trade. unioniom, hao defined the thmg cor­r<cntly in thec;e words--

" Tho continuous associaJion ?f >ya,ge­earnors for the purposi' 0.1. nHunta1n1ng or improving the condition of their em­ployment."

OPPOSITION MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! The PREMIER : This Industrial Peace

Bill is juot exactly that. ::\1r. BARBER: Absolutely no.

The PREMIER : If it can be shown that the Industrial Peac0 Bill is adverse to that, or is inimical to the wage-f'arners, then there might bo some reason for either withdr.a~w­ing- it or remitting it to a Se!Gct Commit­te;). But "very body knows . that it i' based upon Gxperionce, largely based upon other kgislation, and based upon our own ~x­perience of economic life ; and we provide tho most simple, the most _economwal, .and the moot direct way of arrivmg at what IS a fair thing. What bettor method. could there be? What fuller men ,ure of arb1tratwn and conciliation can there be than that men engaged in any one industry shall gathe_r with their employees, an_d d1scu~s th_e condi· tions round a table, qmetly gomg mto the whole question? If the men say that they want wore wages, it will be for the em­ployers to show whether that may not _be possible, and by that mean,: be able to. a_rrive at a conclueion. I say the true sp1nt of trade unionism is translated into life. If lav:s of this natucc had been upon the ,,tatut8-book in Great Britain, there would h~ve b:::e!'­no need for the recent upheavals. (Opposi­tion laug-hter.) Tho troubles there arose because they have no industrial legi.~lation. Many han. members are not as concerned about the worker as they are about preserv· ing for themsqJves that authority which they have somehow or another secured and ano­gat~d unto themselves. All that ·we s.e~k in this Bill is to preserve the true spu:It . of trade unionism by securing an .assomatwn tbat will alway' protect the worker. The original id~a of trade unionism was to work on constitutional lines and constitutional me­thods. Here we are providing constitutional methods; but the modern ideJ., and the idea which hon. members opposite have been ad­vocJLting right through, have been unconsti­tutional methods.

:Vlr .. BARBER: No.

The PREMIER: We are asking to put upon the statute-book such a line of action and conduct that everv man shall bn able to get justice for himself. It has br"n said that a comparative few only are registered unionists, but that a large number: are un­registered. Outside of that there IS .a vast body who belong to no union; they prefer

Han. D. F. Denham.]

738 Industrial Peace Bill. LASSEMBLY.] Industrial Peace Bill.

to be independent, and we say to all those people: " It is open to you to say whether you want to strike." Nothing could be fairer. A register will be kept; every worker in every indu0try will be recorded in the register, and when any trouble arises they will all have their chance to say what they want to say. This is democracy exem­plified in industrial legislation. There has not been a reason adduced-there has been a lot of protestation, but not a reason ad­.duced-why this Bill should not become .statutB law, and I am perfectly sure that in its out-working it will be manifestly to the .advantage of the worker, and will secure what we all long for-industrial peace.

GoVERNMENT 11EMBERS: Hear, hear! Mr. RYAN (Barcoo): I am no.t surprised

that the Premier has P.nnounced his inten­tion of resisting the amendment, which seeks to refer the matter to a committe for the purpose of inquiry and recommendations, be­.cause it does not suit the Government to have inquiry and recommendations on this

matter. The members of this [10 p.m.] party helieve the Bill embodies

an attack on unioni".m, and I think I succeeded last night in showing how it is an attack on unionism, and that it means preference to non-unionists. I know I am sitting- on this side with the minority, but that only spurs me on all the more to fight this iniquitous measure. The leader of the Opposition stated on the second read­ing that he would resist the Bill to the last ditch. That is the intention of every mem­ber on this side, and I think it is the intention .of the majority of the electors of Queensland.

GoVERNMENT MEMBERS: No, no! Mr. RYAN: We shaH have an opportunity

-of finding out in a few weeks or a few months what is the opinion of a large num­ber of the electors by the petitions which I trust will be presented to this House. To show the necessity for inquiry into l<>gisla­tion of this kind, I need only refer to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The hon. member for Burrum said: "·what is Mr. Justice Higgins to me. or what are the -views of 1\T r. Justice IIiggins to me?"

Mr. J\IACROSSAN: Would you nob differ from a judge?

:iHr. RYAN: I might differ from a judge, bnt there is a method of differing from a judge if you think he is wrong. The Commonwealth Arbitration Court is established under the Commonv;ealth Conciliation and Arbitration Acts, and is founded upon industrial organ­isation of employc,·s and employees. Does a11y hon. member on the frontJ Treasury bench think he has a knowledge of arbitra­tion and conciliation equal to that po~sessed by the gentlemPn who debated the question in the Commonw<oalth Parliament?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: Why should they not?

Mr. RYAN: Because they have not troubled themselves sufficiently to make them­selves acquainted with the facts relating to unionis1n. '

}llr. MACROSSAN: How do you know? "'1r. RYAN: I know it from their speeches.

Tho hon. member for Windsor knows nothing about unionism. ·when I was speaking on the Address in Reply I referred to unionism, and the hon. member made the brilliant in­terjection! '' Unionis1n is political vdth you people." 0£ course it is political, and it

fHon. D. F. Denham.

must be politiaal to be effective. As was pointed out by the han. member for Cairns on the Address in Reply, the unionists about Brisbane found when on strik;• that their strength was nothing compared to the strength of the Government, who first tried tQ get the military and then turned loose a lot of specials on the people. Does not that prove thatJ before they can succeed they must capture the machinery of government, and therefore unionism must be political? Mr.' Justice Higgins laid it down in his judgment in the tramways c11se that "the system of arbitration would be unworkable wit.hout organised unions." Does the Pre­mier deny that? DoPs he arrogate to .him­self the position of being able to pass Judg­ment superior to the judgm;cnt of Mr. Justice HiG'gins? He oits silent. It is for the people~ of Queensland to judge. It is laid down by the highest authority in the land that the system of at·bitration would be unworkable without organised unions . Can the hon. member fur \Vindsor explain that awav?

Mr. MACROSS~~N: I am not his apologist. Mr. RYAN: I do not think i\ir. Justice

Higgins would desire the hon. member to be his apologist. The idea of the framers of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbi­tration Acts was to raise all employers into a union on the one side, and all employe+~·s mto a nnion on the other side, and make the unions on both sides the instruments of the court.

Hon. J. W. BL·Am: This Bill does not prevent that.

Mr. RYAN: I say it doe<, and it makes for the destruction of unionism. The non­unionist is allowed to make application to the court, but what is his position compared w!th the position of the unionists? Any man wt~h ordinarv intelligence will understand thts. 'I'ake the Australian ·workers' Union or any other union. A member of the union who takf'S part in a strike is liable to a fine of £50, and £20 com,~ s out of the union funds. That is the position of the union and the unionist. What is the position of the non­unionist?

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE : He has got to bear it all himself.

Mr. RYAN: He bears it all himself, exactly ; and very often he has nothing to do it with. (Opposition laughter.) I am very pleased that .the ,hem. ,r;entJeman has admitt<Jd that, as m admtttmg rt he .gaye away the wholB cas,e. lf the umomst commits an offenr'' his union pays £20.

Mr. FORSYTH: Not necessarily. Mr. RYAN: 'I'he power is given. 'l'he

non-unionist hao no fund that can be drawn on for the penalty, while every member of a union is under the risk of that some irresponsible n1r:'mber in some far distant part of the State ma:c be guilty of an offence under the Act, and !he funds subsc;·ibed to the union may be taken to meet the Jlenalty. Is that no.t prefer~nce to non-unionists? Is that not encouragrng for a man not to belong to a union? I have no doubt that the people of Queensland wiil have sufficient intellig-ence to judge what the object of this Bill is.

:Mr. FoRSYTH: Leave it to them. Mr. RYAN: We are going to leave it to

them, but in the meantime the el,,ctors of Bar<''>O have sent me here to do my dut~ in this Rouse, and I am trying to do it.

JYfr. MoRGAN : So are we.

Industrial Peace Bill. (13 AUGUST.] Indu8trial Peace Bill. 739

Mr. RYAN: I quite understand that the hon. member has a right to do his duty in the way he thinks best; but I am doing my ~uty in the way I consider best, and I say that the whole foundation of the Bill is laid on thB fact that it gives preferBnce to non-unionists.

Mr. E. B. C. CORSER: What a logical argument! The non-unionist has to pay the £50 himself.

Mr. RYAN: And if a man is a unionist, his union is liable for £20. Consequently, ihe funds which have accumulated to pro­vide for misfortune, and to provide for the m<m's wives and children, are liable to be taken away to pay the fine t.hat may be inflicted under this Bill if it ever becomes law. I take it that the Bill shows a ciear intention on the part of the Government to ~estray unionism, Is there any other State in the Commonwealth where a similar pro­yision is brought in?

Mr. PAYNE: No. Mr. LAND: There is none in the world. Mr. RYAN: '.rhe Premier said therB were

~orne novel provisions. This is one of the novel nrovisions.

The -PREMIER: A good one, too. Mr. RYAN: I have no doubt that from

the han. gentleman's point of view it is a good provision because, judging by his remarks just no,w, he admitted that he was .against unionism.

The PREMIER and other GOVERNMENT MEM­BERS: :No, no I,

Mr. RYAN: The han. gentleman said that by some means or other the unions have been captured by this side of the House, and I conclud, therdore he is out to -destro}- them, and he introduced this Bill for that purpose. I may reply to him by analogy by quoting the rBmarks of Mr. Justice Higgins in another portion o£ his judgment.

Hon. J. "\V. BLAIR: The Now South Wales Act provides that the property of the union is liable.

~\Ir. RYAN: Yes, it does; but it does not allow emplo:;·ees who arB non-unionists to make applic.a tion to the court. Is must be <:lone by an organisation.

The PREMIER: They are workers. Mr. RYAN: Perhaps so; but they are not

organised workers, and arbitration is un­workable without organiBation. I pointed that out last night when I was referring to the section of the New South Wales Act, and, by the way, I forgot to read that section last night, and I thank the han. and learned member for- Ipswich for his intBrjection, as it will give me an opportunity of reading that section of the New South Wales Act now. It says-

" 31. (1) Proceedings before a board shall be commenced by-

('t) reference to the board by the court or Minister ; or

(b) application to the board by em­ployers or Bmployees in the in­dustries or callings for which the board has been constituted.

(2) Any such application shall be in the foJ;m, and shall contain the par­ticulars prescribed, and shall be signed by-

(a) <·n employer or employers of not less than twenty employees in any such industry or calling; 01:

{b) an industrial union whose mem­bers are employees in any such in­dustry or calling."

Therefore no application could be made before the New South Wales court unless it is signed, so far as the Bmployees are con­cerned, by an industrial union.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: Don't we allow industrial unions to sign?

Mr. RYAN: Yes, and you also allow people to sign who are not members of a union at all. Twenty strikebreakers can come here from the South and form a bogus union, and invoke the aid of the court. If penalties were inflicted, they would fall upon the funds of the umons, those very funds which fed the women and children of Brisbane during the late strike. (Govern­~nt laughter.)

The HOME SECRETARY: Nonsense. Mr. FORSYTH: They have iust the same

provision as this in the Act passed by the Labour Government.

Mr. RYAN: Han. members opposite may not like what I am saying, but it is true all the sam£. If strikebrBakers came to Brisbane they could invoke the aid of t~e court. If strikebreakers had come to Errs­bane during that strike they could have gone to thB court under a Bill like this, and those on strike would probably have been declared to be guilty of an offence. They would have been unable to pay the penaltiee, and the union funds "'o!lld have been taken. The property m whlCh those funds were invested could also have been taken. They could have taken the Trades Hall, the Worker, and all that proper~y because it says any property wh~re then funds were in vested, or Ill w h!Ch they have an interest. That is why the ho!'. member is so emphatic when he says he will not accept the amendment, because he does not want the inquiry held and reconunenda­tions made to the House. Han. members opposite want no inquiries made at all. . I "ill quote the remarks of Mr. J ustwe Higgins in giving his judgment in the matter against the Brisbane Tramways Company. He said-

" The company's union could not last but for the company's coddling. This creating and fostering of a rival union, this encouragement of its members and discouragement of the members of the other unions is the root of much bitterness as there is; and the companies could easily get rid of thB bitterness by ceasing to bestow exceptional favours on the company's union. The badge is not to blame. The word ' intimidation ' is much more applicable to what the companies have done than to the wBaring of the badge. In 1904 Mr. Badger, as he admits, dismissed several men for at­temnting to form a union; but he rein­stat~d them on the condition that they would drop the idea. The tramway men in Brisbane enjoyed the use of a recrea­tion hall, which they much prized ; but when Mr. Badgei· formed his compa11y:s union. he handed the hall over to It and forbade the others to enter. From the point of view of the companies the endeavours to stifle unionism may seem justifiable ; but hom thB point of view of this court the endeavours cannot be treated as legitimate or r,-,asonable. For the very Act which creates this court f\Xpresslv sanctions and encouran;es union. under section 2 (vi.) one of the ' chief objects' of the Act is ' to facilitate and

lifr . .Ryan.]

740 Indusmal Peace Bik. [ASSEMBLY.j Industrial Pea~e Bill.

encourage the organisation of repre­sentative bodies of employers and of em­ployees, and the submission of industrial · disputes to the court by organisa tiofl,.' The system of arbitration would be un­workable without organised unions; and it is my duty to carry out the Act, and to give effect to the will of Parliament."

:t'Jow, we desire to have full inquiry made mto this matter before we will ailow the second reading of this Bill to go through. Another matt<>r that we desire to have an inquiry int,o is the reason why Government employees are not included within the scope of this Bill. Is that not a matter for in­quiry( \Ve have the Commonwe:tlth Parlia­ment handing over to the Commonwcafth Arbitration Court the right to deal with claim2 made by Commonwealth civil ser­vants. In New South Vi'-ales we have the same thing, and I understand that in West­ern Australia we have the same thing; but in Queensland the employees of the State are not to get the so-called gre:1t advantages to be conferred by this Bill. Do the Go­vernment think that if they included the civil servants within the scope of this measure they would go on strike because they had been included in such a Bill? That must be the rea,on. The Premier, in reply to a ques­tio.n from this side of the House, said in effect that the civil servants were not ,inclu­ded in this Bill because they have the court of Parliament to fix their wages. The leader of the Opposition in the Federal Parliament when he was rete •.Tmg to Parliament deo,ling with the wage"' of ;'ervants, .~aid that was tralhparently impo•,;ible. But the hon. gentle­man leading this Government is unable to see a thing that is transparent. \Vhen a proposal v . .is made in this Home to. fix a minimum vvage in conn<""ction with certain railway con­struction works, what did the then leader of tho G_overument, backed up by the present Prcnuer ~nd every member sitting on the Treasury bench, say to that proposal? He E aid, " I will not allow Parliament to fix wages." Now, when it suits the Govern­m•·nt they tell us that civil servants are not included in this Industrial Pear,, Bill bceausc l'arhament wili fix their wages. What are the people to believe? That Par­liament will not fix the wages of civil ser­vans, as th•- late Premier said, or what the prc-;ent Premier says, that they are not in­clud<:d in this measure be<:Jause Parliament will fix thcit wages?

The PREllfiER: You arc not quoting- me accurately by any means.

Mr. RYAN: I am quoting accurakly. What does the hon. gentleman say he said (

The PRE>HER: Hansard records it. :Mr. RYAN: The hon. gentleman does not

remember what he said. It struck me very forcibly at the time, because I well remem­bered what his previous chief said on the subject. Th,, hon. gentleman, in re1Jly to an in­terjection from this side of the H~use, stated --unless he has had a look at Hansm·d since; I do not know whether he has corrected his proof or not-that civil servants had the court of Parliament. In this Bill we have sections taken from Acts in other States, but they have been mutilated, and I should like to see a tabulated list of sections taken from other Acts and placed side by side with the clauses in this Bill which are supposed to be copied from those sections. There could be no better evidence that the object of this measure is to destroy unionism, because every

[Mr. Ryam.

alteration is in the direction of ,penalising; unionists. I invite hon. members to look at section 26 of the New South Wales Act, which reads-

" Employees employed by the Govern­ment of New South W"ales or by any of its <lepa,rtments, including the Chief Commissioner for Railw.ays and Tram­ways the Sydney Harbour Trust, the­J\!letr~politan Board of Water Supply and Sewerage, and the Hunter District Board of \Vater Supply and Sewerage, shall be paid rates and prices not less­than those paid to other employees not employed by tho Government or its de­partments .doing the same class of work under similar circumstances. But the· fact that employment is permanent, <;>r that additional privileges .are allowed .m the s2rvice of the Government or Its departments, shall not of i~se!f _be . re­garded as a circumstance of diSSimilarity. The court or -an industrial board shall not fix rate·• .and prices for such first­mentioned employees lower than those fixed for such other employees."

There is -a matter which might be gone mro bv th<' Select Committee suggf·;bd b_y the h(m. m<>mber for :Maranoa. I am remmded, too that there is a matter v·hich has cropped up 'in Western Aust~alia. that, ,should .be !he subj-ect-matter of !nqmry. ~he followi!'g paragraph appears m the Brtsbane Courter this morning :- . ,

"The temporary clerks I_n the Govern­ment employ, with the acti':e. encc:urage­ment of Ministers, are Citmg In the Arbitration Court the Treas_ur.er, the Colonial Secretary, and the Mm!ster for Lands for the following wages, Irrespec­tive of sex :-Und-er 16 Y"·'rs, £1 per week; under 17, £1 lOs. ; under 18, £2; under 19, £2 lOs. ; under 20, £3 ; under 21, £3 10&.; thereafter £4. Th<;' Attor­ney-General (Mr. Walker), speakmg at a clerk•,' social declared : "The Govern­ment of thi; country looks _upon. yo;;r movement with pride and satisfaction.

That is a matter ·which this proposed Select Committee might inquire into. . But, of course, the GDvernment are '::,nXIO';'-S that there shall be no inquiry. T~e .L remi-er says that the people have given hn;> ,a '?andate­for whn.t? Is it to pass th1s Bill?

9 Was

this Bill ever submitted to the p:o~le · AnHoxouRABLE lVIE~IBER: Theprmmplewas. Mr. RYAN: The principal provisions were

not submitk>d to the people. The peop!e were not told that the ma!n ;>bject of th1s Bill would be to kill umomsm. On the contrary, they werf' told bv -every member on that si-d•· of the House that they were not opposed to unionism.

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hea~ ! . J\Ir. RYAN: And yet here they bru:g 1_11 a

Bill which gives prderf'nce to non unwmsts. GovER~:.\rENT ~/h~:\rBERS : No, no ! J\Ir. RYAN: A Bill that takes away the

very founclation on which the superdructure is built. nnd when you take away th? founda­tion the superstructure falls. That Is . on the autho.ritv of the Commonwealth Parha.ment, and on ·tho authority of the Comm'?nwealth Arbitration Court. Does the Premier ;;ug­gest that he is g·oing· to set up an Arbitra­tion Co'trt whi~h will be superior to the ['ommonwealth Arbitration Court?

The SECRETARY I•"OR PUBLIC LANDS : It is quite possible.

Industr~al Peace Bill. [13 AUGUST.] Special Adiournment. 741

Mr. RYAN: All things are possible, but my experience--

Mr. MACROSSAN: You are impossible. Mr. RYAN: I do not think that interjec­

tion will eonvince any member sitting on that side of the Hou,0, and it will certainly not convince any member sitting on this side, that I am wrong in my argument.

iYir. ::\1Acnof'sAN: I regard JOU as vox et praetr rea nlhil.

Mr. RYAN: The hon. member interjects in Latin. I suppose that interjection arises from the fact that a Latin oration was ddivucd to-d:ty, but it would be better if the hon. member spoke in plain English. That is th•e scn·t of tactics the hon. member useo, on the platform; he gives his audience a Latin quotation, and says: "There you are; that settles it," and the wholr thing is done. I am satisfied, '"hen the whole facts of this matte.: arc put before the pccJ.ple of Queensland, and when they fullv understand them, !hat they wi!l give an answer that this Government do not expect. The first oppor­tunity that they will have will be at the Federal f\tcctions, when the Federal Labour party fat •S the ele~tors n<:xt J\Iarch or April. If this Dill is carried, and the hon. gentleman said it is c oing tD be carried--

GoVERl\MENT ]\~EMBERS : Hear, hear !

Mr. RY .\N : I my if it is nrried .-:ith ine principk in it that jo now in it--the prin­ciple of d0stroyin;:; unionism-that alone. will carry the Fed< eal L:::bo:nr party iEto power with a solid majD"ity, b~'·'.tuse if the v orkers of Quz en:._1and caLao~ ~,et jEstico in ~t court -9£ their c wn, they y·il! have to give to the CDmmoml·calth Arbitration Court tL''' n£Ce:J­sary power to settle indu·"trial di,,putes.

l\Ir. JUonGAN: Then you ought tD welcome this Bill.

Mr. RYAN: For that purpose, pcbaps, it will render us a service, but for that purpose only will it rondo· any service to the pe-lple of Queenshnd. It will render such 'ervice that the people of Queensland will see the Governm<"nt they have to deal with, who pro­fev; to bn Liberal and dmnocratic~-

GoYERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! l'.Ir. RY .. \N: \VhC>, on the other l1and, use

every po« ible means they can to dcieat the just claim, of the workers of this State.

Gon:nN;lENT l\IE:liBERS: Nonsenoe.

Mr. RYAN: For my part, I cay-the Premier hJ.s chalh:nged us. He says w-~ de­sire to have tlw E.achincry of the Stand­ing Orders in-voked. \V t have 110 such de­sire at :::11. \Ve iwve no de:,ire that the hon. gentleman should use the gac;- or the guillo­tine in the discus,ion on this measure. but thi" party will t~1ro every 1F;;itimi1te oppo,r­tunit\" md every legitimate means of fighting· this Bill, c the leader vf the Labour party ~aid, to th". very la <t elite h. They wiil fight It msiLl th19 Fkase. 'lnd thev Yci!l fight it outside. The Government seem jubilai-rt be­cause ,thev had '' ;najority of 10,000 at the last e>cCtion, b·1t the tin: · may come. and very soon, when that majority will be turned into a n1inority.

Mr. FoRSYTH: They are shaking in their boots.

Mr. RYAN: The hon. member is shaking in hi,; boots. There was a very large num­ber of electorates in which the majority was not a very large one, one way or another.

I have cc;nfidence that that majority will be turned in favour of the Labour candidates as it was turned in Brisbane during the last election.

'I'he PREMIER : There would be a reversal next week if they had a chance.

Mr. RYAN: Brisbane, where they knew all about th,e strike, rei,urn<,d a Labour man a.,;ainst the sitting member. I have not heard any member on the other side of the Hous<l offer any e"planation as to why the electors of Brisbane returned a Labour man at the last election.

The SPEAKER: Order ! l\1r. RYAN: If I am transg;e,ing I will

not proceed on those particular lines. A GOYERNMENT :ii!E:l!BER: You have not

explained it. Mr. RYAN: I do not wish to be drawn off

the track. I my in conclusion that we can prove, and havo proved, that this Bill is £ran1ed against unionis1n; th ~"t it means preferenc<:~ to non-unionist·") and it is gener­ally couched in to··ms iniminl t:J the best interec,ts of the workers of Queensland. If this amendment is carried it will enable the [Jivple of Qucemland to do, when the op­portunity arise·., what "e trust tl•· y "·ill do -hand over to the Commonw8.tlth Parlta­ment and to the Commonwt·,~lth :\rbitration Court at k .rst concurrent powers with re,sard to the qlii·,tion of corwiliation and arbrtr:t· tion.

Mr. "\LLAN (ICurilzJiz) : I beg to move the adjournm0nt of the debate.

Question put and passBd. The re3umption of the debate was madP an

Order of the Day for Tuesday next.

SPECIAL .. \DJOURN:.\1ENT.

The PREMIER: I beg to move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn until Tuesday next.

i\Ir. RYAN: I duire to make a per-sonal explanation. I understand in the report in the Daily lliail of what I said in the House last night on the second reading oi the In­du·•trial PuLe Dill, I am reported to have said that I was not in favour of having a Supreme Court judge to preside over the court. As you are aware, Sir, that is quite contr~rv to ,·hat I stated. I do not thmk I was "misreuort~d intentionally-I think it was a slip-a;.,d I n'erely desire to have the conection made'.

Mr. DOUCI-I \RD (<:!outh Brisbane): 1\'lr. Speaker,-I beg to submit the report of the Selert Committee on th" vVynnum and Manly Gas and Lighting Company, Limited.

The SPEAKER: Order ! It is very un­usual at thi,, stage, unl('ss iv is a matter of urgency, for members to submit reports on Sekd Committees. I suggest to the hon. member that he bring up the report at the next me0ting of the 1Iouse.

l\1r. BOUCHARD: I wish to submit that this is a Inatf>•-:r of ur!jency.

The SPE~iKER : Order ! In a matter of urgency, the proper course to pur·.ue is to make a request to the Speaker. The ques­tion is-That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until Tuesday next.

Question put and passed. The House adjourned at twrnty-three min­

utes to 11 o'clock.

Hon. W. D . .Armstronv.]