[29 JuLY, 1924.] 2

Uouse, and upon the Government, to tell usexactly where we are. I have said to Mr.Collier, "Tell us where we are, as at the30th June last, andI then, so far as I amconcerned, you wdil never be asked to acceptresponsibility for anything prier to thatdate.'' This afternoon I ha-ve tried toanalyse the position, in order to arrive atwhere we stood on the 30th June, 1924.My figures have been compiled from therecords of this Chamber, and they can beverified by any member who cares to takethe necessary trouble. I go further and sayI am prepared to assist the present Govern-ment to smooth the rough road that a greatmany of our citizens have to travel. Thereis no denying the fact that Western hAs-tralia is financially involved, and at everyturn is faced with difficulties that will un-doubtedly require the best efforts of all ofus to overcome, so that our country may bepiloted into a safe harbour. I trust I havenot offended anyone in the course of myremarks. All I have have done is to try tomake a plain statement of facts. Assuredlythere will not be any attempt on my partto harass or attack the Government so longas they pursue a safe and pound policy.Ihave made references to the past, but onlybecause I wished the Government, and alsothe people, to realise the seriousness of ourposition and to use their best endeavoursto pull the State through. I do not thinkI can conclude with anything better thanthis quotation from Abraham Lincoln-

With malice towards none, with charityto sll, let us hind up the nation's wounds.

I think I have shown to-day that there aremany wounds to bind up, and if I can doanything towards bringing about a happierand a better condition of things in WesternAustralia, I promise the Government, hereand now, that my best efforts shall be avail-able. I support the motion before the Chair.

On motion by Hon. J. W. Kirwan debateadjourned.

House adjourned as 8.7 po..

tegelativc B8embIp2,Tuesday, 2?9th Jufly, fY354.

QUestIons: Railways -I, Bridge, Noth Pro-mantle' ,. Merredln tfaliltleB ; 5, Mcr."Ohlintitlon ; 4, 1nazogtn-D'waconstruction .. .. .. ..

Reed-il. Federal grant; 2, Fiaes underTraffi Act

Weights end Measures Act........ ...Wire netting, FederaL ensatnee.......Aplcn1ltnmt-1, Light lands, utilleation;

2, Site for Agricultural Colege ..Lunacy, reception bone ..s .. .Industries Assistance Beard ...........Water Supply ............. ...

Sitting days and bouts .. .. .. ..Government business, precedence13W:1 -supply, 51,58,500, alI stegee .Chairman of Conunittee., election .. ..

The SPEAKER took thep.m., and read prayers.

Item

27

282828

2a29£92929£92929

Chair at 4.30

QUESTIONS (4)-RAILWAYS.

.Bridge, North Frernnle.

Mr. S1IEEMAN asked the Minister forRailways:. 1, Is it the intention of the Gov-ernment to Construct a new railway bridgeat North Fremantle, and, if so, what is:the estimated cost of construction (a) ifbuilt at Worth Fremantle; (b) if erectedaross the river at Dieton at the place al-ready tested? 2, What amount has beea ex-pended on the present raiway bridge atNorth Prewahtle for the year ended 30ithJune, 1924, and what is the total amount -expended on the bridge during the last five-years?

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS re-plied: 1, Not for the immediate present. (a.)Roughly E825,000, including steel bridgewith one lifting span, deviation of main linebetween North Fremantle and F'remantle,.and land resulmption. (b) Approximately£700,000. 2, (a) £3,855. (b) 910,381.

Yorkralcine district. Lay-out of Railwa ye.

Mr. GR'EFFITHS asked the Premier: 1,Will the Government go carefually into thematter of railway facilities for settlers eastgad north-east of Merredia? 2, Is the Pre-mier aware that a new wheat and stock pro-vince is in process of development in those-ares 1 3, Wil he have a general investi-

7hon made into a systematic lay-oat fortra ilways?

The PREMIER replied;, The Governmentore tally aware of the latest developments inthe wheat and stock areas of this State,and one of it's missions is to provide essentialrailway facilities as speedily and as system-atically as9 circumstances permit.

27

[ASSEMBLY.)

Merredin Station, Rebuilding.'Mr. GRIFFITHS asked the Minister for

Railways: 1, Is it the intention of the Rail-way Department to commence the work ofrebuilding the offices, refreshment rooms,and station buildings at Nerredin at anearly date? 2, Was a sunm for this workauthorised by a previous Government?

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS re-plied: 1, Not at present. 2, No.

1%'rrogin-Dwarda Construction.Mr. E. B. JOHNSTON asked the Minister

for Works: Is lie in a position to indicatethe probable date for the commencement 0tthe construction of the Narrogin-lDwardarailway, as autborised by Parliament?

Hon. J. CUNNINGHAM, for the Minis-ter for Works, replied: Not at present.

QUESTIONS (2)-ROAIM3.

Federal Grant.Mr. LATHAM asked the Minister for

Works: I, Is it his itention to lay on theTable of the House papers showing the al-location of Federal road grant to roadboards? 2, Is it the intention of the Gov-ernment to allow the road boards to carryout the work under engineering supervision?

Hion. J. CUNNINGHAM, for the Minis-ter for Works, replied: 1, Yes. 2, Wherethe boards, in the opinion of tjie depart-ment, show that they are able to carryout the work in accordance with theconditions laid down, and if the necessaryplant and facilities for doing satisfactoryand expeditious work are at hand, oppor-tunity will be given them to spend the moneyallotted to the work proposed by the depart.meat.

Fines under Traffi Act.M.%r. GRIFlFITHS asked the Minister for

Works: 1, Is he aware that on 17th No-vember, 1920, on a motion by myself, andcarried by this House, ''That flnes inflictedfor infringements of the Traffic Act, 1919,which are being paid into Consolidated Re-venue, should be paid to the local authoritYinitiating the proceedings, in the same man-ner as was done under the Municipal Cor-poration Act, 1906, and the Cart and Carni-age Licensing Act, 1876,1' has been disre-garded by the late Minister for Works? 2,Is the present Minister for Works awarethat there is a Strong feeling amongst localgoverning bodies as to this disregard of theinstruction given by Parliament? 3, Will herectify the matter?

Hon. J. CUNNINGHA&M, for the minis-ter for Works, replied: 1, Yes; but thees-.Minister for Works baring been ad-vised that effect could not be legallygiven to the resolution, deferred actioniuntil tl'e Traffic Act was amended. 2,

Some local authorities have expressed dis-satisfaction. 3, Instructions have been is-sued that as from lst July all fines imposeda s the result of proceedings taken by localauthorities shall be paid to such total au-thorities.

QL'ESTION-WEIGlITS ANDMEASURES ACT.

M.r. SLEEMAN asked the Minister forRailways: Is it the intention of the Govern-ment to proclaim the Weights and MfeasuresAct, No. 50 of 1915?

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS re-plied: Yes, so soon as a suitable buildingis avilable to house the standard,. Actiounis now being taken to that end.

QUESTION-WIRE NETTING,FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.

Mr. LATHAM asked the "Minister forLands: 1, How many applications have beenreceived for assistance under the Federalwire-netting scheme? 2, flow many havebeen approved by the State, with total mile-

age? 8, How many approvals by the Fed-eral Government are the State Governmentcognisant of?1 4, Have tenders been ap-proved for wire netting, and, if so, at whatprice?

The MINISTER FOR LANDS replied:1. £380. 2, 25 recoinended for lIfl 2 miles1'Ain. mesh; 109 recommended for 454 /miles l1 in. mesh. 3, 25; 109. 4, Yes, 70miles of ly~in. mcsh-f51 per mile. 230mile% 1%4in. meshi-f43 17s. 6d. per mile.

QU-ESTIONS (2) -AGRICULTURE.

Light Lands Utilisation.

Mr. GRIFFITHS asked the Minister forAgriculture: In view of the immense area oflight lands in this State, does he intend tosupport the proposals of certain Wheat Belt,agricultural societies for a thorough investi-cation into the profitable utilisation of lightlands?

The MINISTER FOR AGRICULTUREreplied: A State Light Lands Farm hasbeen established at Wongan Hills, at whichit is intended to carry out investigationsfor the profitable utilisation of light lands.

Site for Agricultural College.'.%r. GRIFFITHS asked the Minister for

Agriculture: Will het cause the commissionappointed to inquire into the question of asite for the proposed Agricultural College tocarefully consider the claims put forth forthe Merredin State Farm as a site?

The MINISTER FOR kaRTPrL'rrREreplied: The suitability of Merredin Experi-ment Farm for an Agricultural College hasbeen fully considered.

(29 JULY, 1924.] 2

QUEST ION-LUNACY, RECEPTIONHOUSE.

Mr. SAMPSON asked the Premier: 1,What progress has been made in respect ofthe erection of a mental reception houseand convalescent home on the site purchasedat Paint Heatheote? 2, Will he inform theHouse when the building iito be commenced,and what is the probable date of comple-tionI

The PREIER replied: 1 and 2, Thismatter is now receivinig the Considerationof the Government with the object of 4e-termining whether the necessary accommno-dation can be provided at a reduced cost.

QUESTION-INDUSTRIES ASSIST.AlICE BOARD, FORECLOSURES.

Ihr, E. B. JOHNSTON asked the Ministerfor Lands: 1, Is it true that a large numberof settlers receiving assistance from the In-dustries Assistance Board have been notifiedthat they should take an early opportunityof selling their farmas, failing which theboard would foreclose 9 2, With a view toassisting settlement, will the Government in-struct the board to defer the proposed actionuntil after the coming harvest has been mar-keted, in order that each case may then bereviewed on its merits?

The MINISTER FOR LANDS replied:1, Yet. 2, No, the Government cannot.

QUESTION-WA TEE SUPPLY.Key Dams for Wheat Belt.

Mr. R. B. JOHNSTON asked the Minis-ter for Works: What action has been takenby the Water Supply flerartment in regardto the construction of key dams or othercentral water supplies on the wheat beltl

Eon. J. CUNNINGHAM (Honorary Min-ister), for the Minister for Works, replied:Surveys, investigations, end plans are nowin hand with a view to the preparation ofeconomical schemes for district water sap-plies in the wheat areas.

SITTING DAYS ANDI HOURS.On motion by the Premier, ordered:

.That th Howse, unless otherwiseordered, shall mecet for the despatch ofbusiness on Tuesdays, Wedinesdays, GadThursdays at 4.80 p~m, and shall sit wntO6.25 p.m. if necesary, and, if requisite,from 7.30 p.m onwards.

GOVERNIMENT BUSINE 55--PRE-CEDE NOB.

On motion by the PrTemier, ordered:That on Tuesdays and Thursdays Gov-

ermyent business shall take precedence ofoll motions and Orders of the Day.

BILL-SUPPLY (No. 1), £1,863,500.Standing Orders Suspension.

The PREMIER and TREASURER (Ren.P. Collier-Boulder) [4.551: 1 move-

That so much of the Standing Ordersbe suspended as is %ecesary to enableresolutions from the Commit tees of Sup-ply and Ways and Mfeans to be reportedand adopted in the same day on whichthey shall have passed tho Coranittees,and -als the yasing of a Sup pht Billthroligh all its stages in one day, find toenable the business aforesaid to be en-tered upon and dealt with before theAddress-in-veply is adopted.Question put and passed.

Message.Message fromi the Licut.-Governor re-

ceived and read -recommending appropria-tion in connection with the Bill.

Chairman of Committees, Election,The PREMIER (Hon. P. Colier-

Boulder) (4.58) :. It being necessary atthis stage to appoint a chairman of com-mittees, I move--

That the member for Brows gill-Ivanhoe (Mr. Lutey) be appointed Chair-mnan of Committ ees.Mr. M'LLINGTON (Leederville):- I

second the motion.Question put and passed.

Jn Comnmittee of Sup ply.The House having resolved into Commit-

tere of Supply, Ifr. Lutey in the Chair,The CHAIRMAN: On taking the Chair

for the first time, I wish to say I feel proidindeed at having been elected your Ch;dr-man of Committees. With the help ot hon.members, I will endeavour to do my best tocarry out the duties of the office with ima-partiality and in accordance with the rulesand regulations laid down by this Assembly.

The PREMIER ( Hon- P. Collier-Boulder) [5.11. 1 move-

Thai there be grunted to His Majesty,on acant of the services of tse yearending the 80th lne,~ 1925, a sums notezeedtng E1,80,5 00.

This is the usual motion for Supply,brought forward at the beginning of earlhsession. I am -asking for authority for ex-penditure in July and August, and theamount is based upon the estimated ex-penditure of last year, that is to say, it isone-sixth of the total estimated expendi-tore for the past financial year. Theamounts covered in the Bill are, hrornRevenue £805,000, from General LoanFund £745,000, from Government PropertySales Fund £10,500, from Land Improve-

29

30 [ASSEMBLY.]

meut Loan Fund £3,000, and from Treas-urer 's Advance 9300,0110, The expenditurelast year under these heads was: FromRevenue £8,094,753, fronm General LoanFund £3,.665 ,615, from Loan Suspense Ac-count E238,363, froam Government Propf-rtyBales, Fund £62,502, and from Land Inm-provement Loan Fund £6,485. The totalloan expenditure last year was just ruder94,000,I00. The cxpenditure under revenuewas: Special Acts-interesit £2,607,416,sinking hand £:226,561, making a total of£E2,833,977. Other special Acts U2-7,374.,The expenditure under the headling; of''Governmental"' was £E1,9M1,121, and onPublic Utilities C3,032,281, making a totalfor tlji year, as I hare already stated, of£8,094,75 3. As against the estimate tN'expenditure showed a slight increase in sallthese items. The revenue collection for theyear was, as lion, members know, £7,M65,595.It was in excess of the estimated r-yvnizeby £323,304, due mainly to the fact thatthe revenue received tinder the heading of''Taxation"~ was considerably in excess ofthat estimated] by the er-Treasurer. Forinstance, the amount received from incomeOtax was £502,265 as against an estimate of£390,000. The receipts from dividendduties totalled £216,895. as against the es'-timate of £180,000, and the receipts fromstamnp duty totalled £194,176 as against anestimate of £174,000. So, under thp head-ingz of "Taxation'' the total receipts were£1,173,567, as against an estimate of£1,016,000. The railway returns prove2d tobe £164,894 above the estimate for theyear and £;303,524 greater than in the pre-riouis year. The railway results, accordingto the Treasury figures for the year, were:R eve nue £3,1899,894, expenditure £2,307,380,interest payment on the capital erpenditlire£737,221, leaviruv a hainneep of £95,293-which is nsually-descriedl ais profit-to rueetsinking fund charges of £ 126,060. Sn, afterallowing f or working expenses, interest andpayment of sinking fund, there was anactual loss of about £31,000. It is notusual, f know, to take into account sinkingfund in respect of railway exp~enditure.

Hon. Sir James M1itchell: It is quiteproper to do so.

The PEMIER: But in the past it baanot beeii the orpetico. in dismissing railwayfinnnes. to incluode exnenditure tinder theheedling of ''Sinking Fund." The profitor loss has generally been ealenlated afterthe parent of working costs and interest.

Mr. Holnman: It wnis the practice before.The PREMIER: No. So far hack as I

can rememberi, the practice has been to lie-regard sinking fund. ft is somewhat mis-leading, because it might be given out thatthe railways had shown a profit for theyear of £93,000, whereas they have actuallyshown a loss of about £31,000.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: The Treasurerhas to find that loss.

The PRERffER: That is so. He has topay the sinking fund as well as the laterest.I do not know that there is much more in-

torniatiou I need tn give the l1Wmse. Tli_'Leader of the Opposition, who lhas .ustvacated the Treasury, will be well ae-quain ted with all the ramifications offinance in recent years, I hope to be ableto bring down the Estimates at an earlydate. Hon. members will then be in a posi-tin. to discuss the finances of the State ointhe information that will be made availableto them in the Budget Speech.

lHan. Sir JA'MES M.%lT(H1FiL ( Nortlisus)[5.101: May I offer you, Sir, my congratu-jations iipon y'u'r appointument to the Chair!You know ve~ry v; %%l how important the ptmi-tion is, and to hon grat anl extent thleCha~irmian can help the husiuess of the Houtie.Occiupants of the CIsair in the lonst haveliroveil highly satiwta-tory, and I in, i-cthat your terum of office will be equallysat i.sfuitnary to usg all, lion, members, particn-lary new mncumbers, having heard the Pre-luier 's figures and appreciatedl the enormous;amount of rve1Lti aolletetl, ms't not thinkthat there is therefore a great deal availahiefor dIishursem~ent. I %hould like to say tothenm that they will find it is not reallyrevenue. The Treasurer has included inthat eight millions the earnings from rail-ways and other puiblic utilities, money eel-leetedl for services rendered. Reall-, he lhnsvery little revenue clear of everything, soI wvarn new members that they need- notexpect favours because of the figuresgiven us by the Premier this afternoon.

The Premuier: I am glad you have giventhen] that warniug.

Hfon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: What awndferful year the people of this countrymust hare had to have been able to pay1 asthey hare, so large a gum in incomae tax!

The Premier: There was a considerablenomnt to va-ry over from previous years.

Honn. Sir JAMES MIfTCHELL: And thisyear, of course.

The T'reuier:. .Net nearly so much thisyear as in previous years. That, I may sny,hass beens due to the assessmients having beenugot ant lateb in the previons year.

Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL_: Of coursethere i-; always a carry-over. Still, the peoplemust tare had a wnderful yeaqr to pay asthey have done.

Mr. Holman: It will improve next year.Hon. Sir JAMfES MITCHELL: Please

God, it will. Of course it will not be neces-sary this year to pass so heavy a taxationmeasure as in past years. I should like tosay to the Premier now that he is entitledto Supplies. It is quite reasonable that heshould have Supplies with which to carryon the services of the coon try. His Sup-plies aire based on the expenditure of lastyear, Just one-sixth of what the Hlousecagreed to pay last year. I do not wish todiscuss in a general way the financial posi-tion of the State, except to say I am de-lightedl to find the deficit that hasq heen withus for so many years barq now reached fairlyreasonable dimensions. namely £22 9,000 thisyear as against £330,000 two years ago.

30

[29 JULY, 1924.J)3

That is highly satisfactory particularlywhen we remember that the Atate's contri-bution to sinking fund is just about equalto the amount of the debit. So really, ifwe compare our finances with those of theEastern States, we quickly see that if wewere to adopt their methods of finance weshould not show any deficit at all.

Mr. Ifughes: Your sinking fund has notkept pace with your debits.

Hon. Sir JAMIES MITCHELL: If wecould set aside from sinking fund an amountequal to our loan expenditure, we should bein a very fortunate position.

Mr. Hughes: Your proportion is the same.You have been bluffing people for years onthat.

Hon. Sir J.AMFS -MITCHELL: I leavebluffing to legal practitioners. It is sails-factory to know that the deficit is so muchless than it was. That is due entirely tothe work that has been done by the men en-gaged in our primary industries, particularlythe men on the land. That position shouldlimprove, because the expenditure of loanmoneys on developmental works is not Yetbringing its full reward. The returns shouildbe greater this year and even greater nextyear, and in the third year we should bereaping the benefit of a great deal of themoney that has been expended in this way.

The iMinister for Lands: It would easemay mind a lot if I thought that could be so.

Hon. Sir JAMER MITCHELL: If I un-derstood the ?Minister's mind I might beable to ease it. Having said that much Idoa not intend to say any more. I shouldnot have risen to say a word against the

psigof Supply, because the Treasurer isenildto the money. That Supply has

been opposed in the past, I have always re-gretted.

The Premier: It was not done luring mytime. I do not remember ever opposingSupply.

Hon. Sir JTAMES MITCHELL: I thinkthe Premier's colleague, the Minister forLanids, had a word or two to say once ortwice. What T desire to do is to call atten-tion to an act of the Government which mustmean considerable additional expense. Ionly know this from a statement which ap-pared in the "West Australian'' in Junelast, emanating from the Minister for Works,Mr. McCallum. I am sorry the Minister isnot here to-day.

Air. Holman: Why not leave it until hereturns?

Hion. Sir TAMPS MITCHELL: T under-stand that illness has necessitated his -talk-ing a sea trip. In this statement the Min-ister said the Government were adopting the44-hour system. Hie said-

As a first step toward giving effect tothe policy outlined by the Premier ('.%r.P. Collier) on the hustings, favourable toa working week of 44 hours, the Govern-ment has decided to restore to those work-ers who previously enjoyed that principle,the period of fo~ur hours a week whichwas token away from them last year. The

forty-four hours will be worked in fiveand a-half days; that is to say, in fivedays of eight hours each with four hourson Saturday. In effect, this is really tocarry* out the principles of the eight-hourday logically. Previously there has al-ways been some comproisiing by workingmore than eight hours on several days, inorder to get time off on another day.Under the new arrangement the workerwill work eight hours on five days, and ahalf-day on Saturday. There will be noreduction of pay-each worker will receivethe same wage under the altered conditionas he does now.

That is to say, he will get the same pay, andnot less.

This decision is merely keeping faith withour electioneering proisies. Prom ourIcader down every Labour candidate de-clared in favour of the 44-bony week, andthe people having returned us with a ma-jority, we are standing up to our under-taking. I have made an agreement withthe unions which will carry them on tillSeptember, when last year 'a award willcome up for review. Roth sides will thenask the Court to embody these terms in anaward.Mr. Panton: It is the first time there has

been harmony for a Thug while.Hon. Sir JTAMES MITCHELL: The Min-

ister continued in his statement-At present the decision only covers thoseemployees of the P.W.D.' who previouslyenjoyed a 44-hour week. In continuousprocess and shift employment there is somedifficulty in applying the principle, but Ihope to overcome that in time and togradually extend the application of theprinciple to other workers. However, thisis a start. The new arrangement willcome into force next week. The men willbe grateful for the consideration shown tothem, and I believe that the reduction ofthe working week to 44 hours will makelittle or no difference to the output. Theunions concerned are: -Water Supply(metropolitan and goldfields), CoastalHarbours and Rivers, Painters, Ship-wrights, Plumbers, Moulders, Amalga-mated Society of Engineers, A.SE. (gold-fields pumping stations), and A.W.U.;and the approximate number of men In-volved is 3,000.

It will be noticed that no attempt is made tojustify the reduction in the hours from 48to 44, by reason of the 44 hours being toolong for men in which to work.

Mr. Corboy : We did not think it waitnecessary to do that.

Hion. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: I must atall events compliment the Minister on hav-ing carried out the promises made beforethe elections.

Mr. Mamo: Whether to do so was right orwrong?

Hon. Sir -TAMES MITCHELL: I con-,gratulate him on having kept his word, butI cannot say that the promise before theelection was justified, and T do not think

31

32 (ASSEMBLY.1

it ought to have becen made. The promise,hoinever, was made, and the people votedknowing well what was promised, and ex-petting to gain some benefit from the pro-posal.

Mr. Holm an: Are you going to attack thepeople now?

Hon. Sir .TAMTES MITCHELL: I am notgoing to attack anyone, I have stood by theworker always, and I shall endeavour toshow that I am standing by him now. 'Mem-bers will thinkt that if I oppose the 44-hoursystem it will be impossible for me to standby the worker. I1 shall endeavour to showthat this so-called boon will moan an in-crease in the cost of living. Nothing wassaid about increasing wages

Mtr. Holman: When the hours were in-creased was the cost of living reduced?

Mr. Marshall:- No.Mr. Holman: Do not attempt impossibili-

ties.Ron, Sir JAMES MAITCHELL: I propose

to make my statement in my own wtay, andlno doubt the hon. member will later on makehig.

Mr. Holman: T will show you what youhave done before.

Ron. Sir JAMES MITCHELB~L: I thiokan eight-hour day is quite long enough forany man to work. Eight hours' work andeight hours' play, and eight hours' in whichto sleep, is a reasonable division of the 24hours. Ifp however, members can show thatthme workers will benefit under the new sys-tem, I will be willing to listen to them.They milst, however, show me that the,worker himself will not lose under the nowsystem. Already many unions have ap-proached the Arbitration Court. inl manyrasps saving they want the 44 hours, butthey want a shilling a day more. They arequite right in their claim. They do wantmore money if they work shorter hours.1 do not sat they can get it. because a mancan be Paid only for what he earns. Sincethe 44-hoer week was determined upon sev-eral unions have asked for more wages.

The Premier: They made that request formany years before this was ranted.

Hon. Sir JAMIES MTCHELL: I shouldlike to point out what happened in Queens-land only the other day. The Premier andMinisters in that State had declined togrant the 44-hour week.

The Premier: You are referring to whatatneared in the ''Courier" of Brisbane.Who would believe that rsgV

Hon. Sir .TAMES MITTCHrELL: I believeit.

The Premier: I do not.'Mr. 'Marshall: Yon are easilyv taken in.Hon. Sir JAMES 'MITCHIELL: Perhaps

the Premier will give me anm assurance ithatthis did not occur.

The Premier: I give my assurance that itdid not happen.

Ron. Sir JAMTES MITCHELL: Will thePremier deny that Mr. Theodore was notrequested to put through a Bill providing

for a 44-hour week, and subsequently agreedto adopt the qystem.

The Premier: T do deny it.Mi-f. Holmniai: Of course it is absolutely

untrue.The Premier:, That is a Brisbane press-

maon's imagination.Hon. Sir TAMNES M.NTTCHELL.: Pressman

are very resj-e{-talile people. Every memberof this Chiamber read what happened inQueensland, and knows that the 44-hour weekhas been granted there, I want to know ifthis system is to apply to nil rGovernmentworkers and to all workers in the State? Itwould be wrong to say to men who are inthe Government servicie, "You work 44hours,'' and to mnen outside the Governmentservice, ''You work 48 hours.'' That wouldset Up an impossible position. The worker.has his labouir to sell. He is willing to workfor 44 hours a wveek instead of 48 for theGovernment, and he is to get, not less paLybut the -same pay. If 44 hours is to be th eweek 's work for workers they must receivemore pay. and not less or the same pay.

Mr. Holman: We agree with you there.Hon. air JAMES MITCHELL: If the

worker is to live in the same degree of com-fort, and if his wife is to have the sameamount of money with which to purchaseher goods, there must be an increase in thewapie. It is impossible for 44-hour bootsto be manufactured as cheaply as 48-hourboots, or for 44-hour clothes to be sold ascheaply as those made under the 48-hoursystem. The baker and the butcher, and4the other tradesmen who call at the homesof the workers, cannot if working 44hours per week, supply goods for the samemoney as when they were working 48hours. Let uas see whether we are doingreal service to the workers when we voteSupply for this purpose. That is all Iask. Let us examine the position.

Mr. Holman. Why deal with the ques-tion on the Supply Bill?

Hon. Sir TAMES MITCHELL: It is theproper time.

Mfr. Holman: No.Hon. Sir JAMES MITTCHELL:. We are

voting money for payment to these men.Mr. Holman: We are voting the same

amount as you asked for last year.Hon. Sir TAMES -MITCHELL: This is

the proper time to discuss the matter, andthat is why I have mentioned it.

Mr. Rolman: This is the amount youasked for last year.

Hon. Sir JAMES 'MITCHELL: It wasthe statement of the 'Minister for Worksthat prompted mep to raise the qulestion.

.%r. Holman: Rut it has never beendone before onl a Supply Bill.

Hon. Sir JAMES MUTTCHELL. Then Iamj doing it now on the Supply Bill.

Mr. Holman: And you are making amess of it.

Hon. Sir JAMES 'MITCHELL: I wantto know if the Premier thinks that goodsmade under the 44-hour system can be

32

[29 JULY, 1924.) 3

sold as Cheaply as those made under the48-hour system. It would be impossible.We know that SO per cont. of the spend.jug power of the community-

The Minister for Lands: They used tosay that before when the workers were*employed 60 hours a week.

Hon. Sir JAMKES MITCHELL: I agreethat an eight-hour day is a reasonarbleday, and I would object to any more,

Mr. W. D. Johnson: How do you arriveat that figure?

Hon. Sir .TAMES MITCHELL : 'Mvfriends opposite set up the eight-hour dayyears ago. We know that 80 per cent, ofthe spending power of the people lieswith the worker, the people drawing lesthan £E300 a year. We also know that 80per Cent, of the disadvantages from thislie with the worker. It is because of thatI wish this House to consider before wepass Supply what it all means. Everyoneknows that the last purchaser pays foreverything. Can we afford to pay morefor our requirements uinder the 44-hoursystem than we paid under the 48-hoursystemI

Mr. Holman: Hare you read the latestreturn I have from Queensland, Mr.'Knibbs' return?

Hon. Sir JAMES b11TCHELL: If :wepay more foe our goods we shall be doingan injustice to the workers of the country.I should be sorry to see the standard ofliving decreased. I wish it could be in-creased, and could be done on an evenshorter day than 44 hours. Everyoneknows that nothing of the sort can hap-pen. 'Under the altered conditions thepresent standard of living will not bemaintained. Everyone has to work forwhat he gets in this world and the altera-tion will mean a different standard ofliving.

Mr. Holman:- Have you perused thelatest statistics prepared by Knibs re-lating to Queenslandl

Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL:; ThePremier has satisfied me about Queenslandand I have accepted his assurance. Thatendls that point. Queensland is not anideal State. rt always has difficulties be-cause of the many unemployed there. Iknow the 'Premnier, Mr. Theodore, verywell. He used to wire me periodicallyas'king what was our deflcit. I got tiredlof it because I did not like always reply-ing that it was £500,000 or £600,000, soone day I wired to him asking how manyunemployed he bad. He telegraphed inreply stating that there were 2,100 un-employed in Queensland.

Mr. Sampson : There were over 4,000unemployed in March.

Hon. Sir JAMIES MITCHELL: I wantedto stop him wiring continually about ourdeficit.

Mr. Latham: Did it have the desiredeffect?

Ron. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: Yes, hehas no asked a question since. It is notvery pleasant to discuss this question. Iknow that it is possible to have a 44-hourweek and I should like to know that wecould cope with our work under such con-ditions. I know, too, that the 44-hourweek will be popular with those who haveto work that period, but very unpopularwith those who will have to work 48hours. We must do our duty to all thepeople.

Mr. Holman: It will be very unpopularwith those who never work -9t hill

Mr. Latham: There are not Lou maay ofthem in Western Australia.

lion. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: Thepeople 1 know do work, and I object toany statement to the contrary. It is idleto say that as much work will be donein 44 hours as is now done in 48 hours.Such a statement is tantamount to sayingthat the workers have been loafing duringthe extra four hours. I do not believe anysuch thing; it is a libel on them. The menwork and work well. I protest against anysuch assertion that men will do as much in44 hours as they do in 48 hours. I do know,however, that the people generally will notbe able to live on the same amount of moneywhen goods are supplied to them by menwho work only 44 hours per week.

Mr. Holmnan: In Queensland they are paidmore money and work fewer hours and theproduction there is greater than Msewherc.

Member: That is rubbish!Mr. Mann:- And what about the unem-

ployed there?Mr. Holm an: The assertion about unem-

ployed ist not correct.Mr. Marshall: You do not want more

uinmployed in Perth, do you?Hon. Sir JAMtES MITCHELL: I merely

wish to point out what the position of thepublic will be when the workers are em-ployed for only 44 hours a week. I objectto one section receivinlg that advantage whileothers have to work the longer period.

Mr. Panton:. Would you support a Billmaking the 44-hour week apply generally?

Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: Thehousewife will find it difficult to carry onwith the money she receives now. When theunions asked for 44 hours and an increaseof Is. a day, they knew that they wantedmore money. Then again the Premier willfind it difficult to raise the extra money re-quired because of the 44-hour week. It willmean that he will have to raise £250,000 ayear more from revenue or from loan forthe varions services. NXot the same numberof men will be employed for the same moneyhut really fewer, because the productionnaturally will be Tess.

Mr. Holman: The prodluction was greaterin Queensland than anywhere else in Aus-tralia.

33

34 ASSEMBLY.]

HOn. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: It willbe very difficult to raise the extra moneyand to secure the funds the Premier requiresto carry out the works outlined in his legis-lative programme. We have had difficultyin raising money du~ring the past two yearsand those difficulties are not growing less.The Premier will agree with that statement.In some services it is possible that less workwill be done, but in other services the pre-sent work must be carried on. I amn sorryto see a decision of the Arbitration Courtso recently given, so lightly set aside by theGovernment. That the Government shouldhave laid violcnt hands upon an award ofthe court is wrong.

Mr. Hughes: Why did you interfere withthe court and put a partisan in charge?You are responsible for interfering withthe court.

Mr. George: That is nonsense.Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: A legal

training, I have been told, tends towardsthe logical. I can only say that I havenever appointed a partisan to the becch,

Mr. Hughes: You took one of your ,'ol-leagues from the Treasury bench and putbin, on the Bench to take the 44 hours awayfrom the men!

Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: I didnothing of the sort and I ask that that state-nient be withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member hastaken exception to the statement anti asksthat it be withdrawn.

Mr. Hfughes: I said that he had tokenone of his supporters from the Treasurybench and placed him on the Bench. I willnot withdraw the truth.

Mr. George: You said he appointed apartisan.

Hon. Sir JAMES MIfTCHELL: It IS re-freshing to have a true statement made andI shall not ask for it to be withdrawvn. Thelion, member said, however, that I put apartisan on the Bench as judge to take awaythe 44 honrs. That is what I object to.

Mr. Hughes: I said you took a colleaguefrom the Treasury bench and put him onthe Arbitration Court.

Mr. George: And you said he was ap-pointed to take away the 44 hours.

'Mr. Hughes: Of course.Honl. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: I ap-

gointed a good man to be a judge of theLpea Court and he was afterwards madePresident of the Arbitration Court.

Mr. Panton: We will take your word.for it.

Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: The hon.member said that I put a partisan on theBench to take away the 44-hour week.

Mr. Holman: I will go further than that.Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: If the

hon. memher did not accuse me of puttinga man on the Bench to take away the 44-hour week, I do not object to his s tatement.

Mr. Hughes: But I did.-Hon. Sir JAMIES MITCHELL: Then I

object and ask that the statement be with-drawn.

The CHAIRMAN: The hoa, member mustwithdraw.

Mr. Hughes: On what ground?The CHAIRMAN: You must not impute

motives, and you dlid so.Mr. Hughes: In deference to you, Mr.

Chairman, I withdraw the statement.l. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: I am

sorry to have eauged so much trouble.'Mr. Hughes: Then you should not have

d]one it!Ron. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: T will

not ask thit that statement bie withdrawn;it is not worth it. It is an abs.olute lie tosay that I put anyone on the Bench to takethle 14-hour week awany from the workers.

Mr. Hughes: I ask that the Leader ofthle Opposition withdraw the statemnt thatI littered an absolute lie.

Ron. Sir JAMES 'MITCHELL: I mustwithdraw that, and I do so. It iq wrong,however, for the Government to lay violenthanids upon an Arbitration Court award sorecently given.

M.%r. Holmn : Are you not imputingmotives?

Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: No\, I amdiscussing an act of the Government. Ifwe a to have an Arbitration Court, thenthe decisions of that court should prevail.Apart from that, however, the parties to heconsidered by the court are the employer,the employee and the general public. Nowwe are told that the court is to register adecision that has been come to by theunions and the MXinister. I do not thinkthat the court will register n decisionmerely at the request of two parties.

Mr. Hlolman: The court will have todo so.

Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: No, notif it is against the public interests.

.Mr. Holman: The court must do so, but,at any rate, how is it against the publicinterest?

Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: I haveendeavoured to show the Committee. Ihave declared emphatically that there willbe less production if the 44-hour week isestablished and that it will represent aserious loss to the State. If it were to bea question of paying more money or grant-ing fewer hours, I should prefer to agreeto the mosey payments, for it would bebetter for the State. A better asset wouldbe created, and there would not be theloss of production represented by the de-crease of four hours.

Mr. Holman: Why not quote figures re-lating to production and give ns some in-formation on the point?

Hon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: If lessis produced with the advent of the 44-hour week, it will he bad for the State.

The Minister for Lands: I am glad yousaid, '"if.''

Honl. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: I with-draw that word, for I am convinced therewill be that loss. Moreover, it is unfair

84

[29 JULY, 192-1.15

to providle 44 hours for one section andnot give it to the others.

Mr. Holman: Then let us give it to mi1workers.

lon. Sir JAMES MITCHELL: f ;,tradto move that Supply be reduced by '5,I'f'v)as ai protest against the action of thoGovernmtent in introducing a 44-hour wetokagainst the decision of the Arbtratio,Court. There are some iqdustri'-s whe-re48 bouts are too much, but uinder our la'vthe Arbitration Court can declare iustwhere those hours shall not app; 'Y. 'I.hecourt is the proper tribunal to deride thequestion of hours. Parliament has de-creed that the court shall determine thiehours of employment. I protest againstthe action of the Government in reducingthe hours of work to 44 against the awardof the court. I move an amendment-

That the total amount be reduced by£5,000.

M.fr. E. B. JOHNSTON (Williams-Karrogin) [5.501 :Permit nie first, Mr.Chairman, to offer you my coagratula-tions on your election to the office ofChairman of Committees. I feel sure thatyou will carry out your duties with fair-ness and dignity. We recognise that theGovernment have, in the usual way, comealong for Supply, and that it has alwaysbeen granted by Parliament. Speakingfrom memory, I cannot recall any attemptto reduce the anmount asked for by theGovernment in the manner that has beenproposed to-day. I wish to say that theviews of the Country Party with regard tothe 44 hours were expressed on the bustings,and are well known. The members of theCountry Party stand for a 48 hours week,which is the standard working week through-out Australia.

Afr. Holman: No.Mr. E. B. JOHNSTON: I recognise that

seated on the benches opposite are mem-bers who have done yeoman service in thedirection of assisting the workers to securethe 48-hour week.

Mr. Panton: The 48-hour week wans in-trodued before we were born.

Mr. E. B. JOHNSTON: We on this sidethink that the Labour Party were wrongin promising on the hustings a week of44 hours. We think that the workinghours approved by the Arbitration Courtshould not be altered except by the courtitself in a regular manner. It is truethat the action of the Government in thismatter has been bound up with the differ-ent policies that were laid before thepeople at the recent elections.

Mr. Marshall: There was only one policy,so far as we were concerned.

Mr. E. D. JOHNSTON : There werethree different policies, aned the policy ofthe Count"y Party was opposed to the poelicyof the Labour Government on this point,and so was that of the Leader of the Op.

position. I regret that men of moderationandi common sense should have put the41 hours proposal before the people, and

Iregret still more that the verdict ofthe electors endorsed the proposal, althoughflu election is fought on one issue. Iadmit, and everyone in Western Australiawvho takes a,' interest in polities knows, thatthe Labour Party promised the fl-hourweek. Knowing the Premier and his Min-isters as I do, I fully expected that some-thing in the nature of what we now havewould be introduced by them, no matterhow disastrous the consequences might he.

Mr. Holman: Can you tell us one Statethat has not the 44 hours?

Mr. E. B. JOHNSTON: New SouthWVales.

M~r. l-olngnn: New South \V'ales hits it.Mr. E. B. JOHNSTON: No, the Leader

of the Opposition did a great service whenli t'' the view of the position before theHouse to-nighit, but I regret that he did nottake the opportunity of placing the positionbefore the people in the metropolis and theindustrial centres five months earlier.

The Premier: How could you expectthat ?

Mr. E. B. JOHNSTON: Thre Leader ofthe Opposition made an excellent speechto-night, and when I heard it 1 thoughtthat it was the right stuff for the electors.I could not, however, understand bow it wasthat the member for Northerm did not de-liver that speech throughout Western Aus-tralia when he haed the opportunity of doingso five months ago. It would have beenwelcomed everywhere. We of the. CountryParty stand for 48 hours.

The Premier: Por the farmers?Mr. E. B. JOHNSTON: The farmers work

more to-day. I am afraid it will mean nowthat the farmers will have to work a littleharder to make up for the innovation. I re-call that when the elections were takingplace, there were in the Katanning elec-torate two members contesting the meat, bothof whom stood with the Leader of the Op-position for 48 hours. I repeat it is a mat-ter for regret that the Leader of the Op-position should have wasted his time in thatparticular electorate and at Toodyay, when,in my opinion, he could have done infiuitelybetter service to the State by addressing thepeople in the metropolitan area where thepresent Premier and his confreres were nmis-leading the electors on this issue. TheLeader of the Opposition has moved toreduce the amount of Supply. I donot remember that having been done be-fore; certainly not with the approval of tlheCountry Party. We are of opinion that theGovernment are entitled to a fair deal.Different measures that ma? be broughtforward will be dealt with on their merits,but we do not propose to support the amend-mnent just moved. (Opposition members:Hear, hear.) Every Government, since Ihave been a member of this House, hasbeen able to get Supply through withoutfactious opposition of this nature.

35

36 [ASSEMBLY.]

Hon. Sir Janm Mitchell: Last year weha d all all night sitting on the Supply Bill.

Mr. E. B. JOHNSTON: I do not re-member any amendment having been movedto reduce the total. If in the pest therehas 'been any such attempt made, I have,after wading through volumes of "'Han-sand,"1 failed in locate it. N%~ considerthat the Government should have Supply,and we intend to oppose the amendment toreduce the total. We do this without pre-judice to any action we may take regardingthe 44-hour week. We consider that if theLeader of the Opposition wishes to dealwith that matter he should do so by aspecific motion of condemnation. If hetakes that course, we shall then discuss iton its merits. We have no desire to reducewages; we would rather give more wagesfor more work. The question of 44 hoursshould have been brouglat forward by directmotion rather than by dragging a red her-ring. across the trail of the Supply B3i1l.

Hon. Sir James Mfitchell: Will youpledge Yourself to support suet a motion?

Mr. E. B. JOHNSTON: If the Leaderof the Opposition will bring forward amotion, we will deal with it on its merits.The desire of the Labour Party evidentlyis for a f-h-our week for private as well aspublic industries. We oppose that alto-gether, and I would like to ask the Premierto tell us how he axpects our industries tostand on the 44-hour week basis, and ~orn-pete with the established industries of theEastern Stp~te, where, in most instances, 48hours per week are worked.

The Premier: The greater number of in.dustries there work 44 hours.

Mr. M. B. JOHNSTON: I support theSupply Bill, and thank the Premier for hisw-omise to arkbmait the Estimates at wp Earlydate.

The P-REMIER (Hou. P. Collier-Boulder-ip reply) f6.1: I have no coi-,plaie-t whatever to make regardling theactioA of the Leader of the Opposition.The ton. gentleman is quite within hisrights. The matter to which his .anend-smnt refers is one he can certainly 'bringforwwa cc supply.

Keron. Sir James Mitchell: The inatterought to be decided by this Chamber new.

The PREMIER: Yes; and I am qoritewiljing to have it decided by the Chambernow or at any ether time.

Hon. Sir Tames Mfitehcfl: The present isthe proper time.

The PREMIER: I agee that the timeis quite opportune, apod I hive no objection-whatever to the taking of a vote as towhether the Chamber endorsob the Govern-anent 'a attitude in this matter. TheLeader of the.Opposition has condemned the

~ovcrament's attitude root and branch. Hestated that the former Opposition, the pre-sent Government, made a promise duringthe general election to grant a 44-hourweek.

Hon. Sir James 'Mitchell: A Ministersaid that. I rend it.

The PREMIER:- The hon. gentlemansays that the promise was not justified. How-ever, the party now on this side of theChamber were perfectly frank and open andhonest to the electors regarding the matter.In my policy speech at Boulder, and againin Perth, I stated, and in no uncertainterms, that if the Opposition were returnedto power they would restore the 44-hourweek to that section of Government em-ployees who had been deprived of it onlyjust townards the ad of last year. r Pon-aider that the time for my friendsi now inOpposition to have made their complaintand declared their policy was whben theywere on the hustings. They should havemade the 44-hour week an issue at the eec-tins.

Hon. Sir James 'Mitchell: It was madean issue.

The PREMIER: I followed closely thereports which appeared from day to day,almost daily, in the ''West Auistralian,'' ofspeeches made by the Premier. The hon.gentleman was fortunate enough to be ac-companied by a newspaper reporter whereve rhe went, and to be reported every time hespoke; and T do not recall one 'single in-stance in which he made a reference to theLabour Party's policy of a 44-hour week.He did not come out and declare to theelectors that he and his party were roundlyopposed to a 44-hour week. Nor do I recol-lect ich a declaration by any one of hissuppporters. Neither the member for Perth(Mr. Mann) nor the member for Subiaco(Mr. Richardson) declared to the electorsprior to polling dlay that he was opposedto a 44-hour week. Not on your life! No;there were Keconid preference Labour votesinUvolvedl in that question. Those two bon.members are courageous enough now on the44 hours question, having a safe three yearss2 kead oif them before they will he calledupon to face their electors again. But theircourage oozed out 4t -the toes of their hootsas regardls this particular question when theywere before the electors- We, on the otherhond, told the electors what we would do,and the electors endorsed Our proposal andsent vs back bete -to carr it into effect-

Mr. Latham: You did not tell them youwould pay them for 48 hours.

The pFMIER: The Leader of the Op-positon says he stands by the workers; butin this matter he is not standinDg by theworkers in the same manner as he stood bythem in former years.

,Ron. Sir 3lAmea Mitchell! Yes, I am.-The PREMIE: He says the 44-hour week

will increase the cost Of living. He )it iethe housewife, and wonders how she is goingto get along and make ends meet with theincreased cost of living. Furtber, he sayshe objects to the 44-hour week because itapplies Only to a section Of the workers, andnot to all the workers He says it i% oh-viously wrong that the Government shouldgrant a 44-hour week to a section and not to

36

(29 JuLY, 1924.] 3

all, Then he referred to the increased costof commodities; such as boots, which wouldresult train the 44-tour week pranted by theGovt rnient. I am bound to say the hon.gentleman hasq not a very good memory.Fr-m his statements one would imagine thatthu revent action of the Government repre-seated the first time in the history of West-ern Australia that a 44-hour week had beengranted voluntarily by a Government.

Ion. Sir Jvmps Mlitchell: Oh, no!Tl.e PREMIERI: I want to show-and I

am 4orr-r to have to show it-that the 41-hour wi-i-i wvas first granted in this State,no.- 1)v Labour Government, bat by theGovernment of which the Leader of the Op-ponitiou was the head.

lHon. Sir -Jnmvs Mitvhell: Following onan award of the Arbitration Court.

The PRFXIEP: I will deal with that as-pect too. The 441-licr week was first intro-duted in u general way as the result of anaward of the Arbitration Court deliveredat the eiid of 1919 and applying to railwayemployees. The 44-hour week was grantedby Mr. -Justice Booth, but it applied onlyto those workers 'who were before the Court.An award of the Arbitration Court is bind-ing only upon those who are actually beforethe Court, who are parties to the applicationand are, represented at the hearing. Butwhbat did the present Leader of the Opposi-tion and his Government do? Because theArbitration Court had. awarded a 44-hour,week to eertain railway employees, princi-pally iron workers ill th Midlanld Junctionworlishors, the Government of the dayfreely, of their own volitionl, granted-

Hon. Sir James Mitchell:. No. It wasdoite under agreement.

The PRE"MIE: There was absolutely noagreement.

Hoa. Sir Tames 'Mitchell: Yes, there was.The PREMIER: Before I sit down I will

prove from correspondence, and from state-ments made by the responsible Ministers ofthe time, that it was not done by agreementc,and that the Government were not under anyobligation whatever to extend the 44-hourwt-ek to any section of Government em-ployees other than that to which the awardapplied. I have here the report of an inter-view with the former Minister for Works,at which 21 separate onions were repire-sented, apart altogether from the Onionsconcerned in the award-the AustralianWorkers' Union. the Federated Coaehmakers'Union, the painters, the Australian engin-eers, the earpenters and joiners, the plumb-ere, thre amalgamated engieers, the engine-drivers, the moulderra the boilermakers; anAvarious others. Tn the cete of discussionas to wages anid conditions of cuployftent.the 44-hour question aros; and the thenMinister for Works, relerrirni to that quies-tion, said that while the Government hadadlopted the Uls. wage, they, were not pre-pared to adopt- the 44-hetir wt. flatstatement shows that' the late Governmentwere quiter free wihren discussing the atuestion(with thfe umioms. It is plkit, then, that the

Government were not in any way bound togrant a 44-hour week. The late Ministerfor Works went on to say-

That is absolutely definite. We arekeeping to the 48 boors,

Thereupon the Nmister proceeded to dealwith 'the wages aspect, saying further-

My friend, Mr. Watts, gave me a shockthe oither week. He sierved on me a list'which was very well drawn Up and nicelytyped. le wranted a 44-hour week, andnothing else would satisfy him; and inaddition he wanted i~s. 4d. for labouirers.We could not look at the 44-hour week.

Notwithstanding the declaration that theGovernment would not look at a 44-hourweek, the Government did later on, of theirown f-er- will, grant the 44-hour week. Thatwas in 1920, following on the award of theArblitration Court.

Mr, George: What was the date of thatdeputation?

The PREMIER: On the 21st January,1920, the unions weat to the Government andasked for the 44-hour week; and here againI want to emphasise the point that the Gov,-ernment were absolutely free.

lon. Sir James Mitchell: No, they werenot.

The PREMIER: Emphatically they were.Everybody who knows anything about arbi-tration matters and arbitration awardsknows that in this particular instance therewas no obligation whatever on the Govern-ment to grant a 44-hour week except tothese employees whom the award covered.The Government could have said to all theother unions, ''The 48-hour week is our prin-ciple1 and we are standing by that, and shallnot reduce the hours." The Government werefree to do that, hut they did not adopt thatattitude. Instead, they granted the 44-hourweek to the bricklayers, ahipwrights, carpen-tens and joiners, painters, plumbers, docksand harbours and rivers employees, metro-politan water supply employees, goldhteldswater supply employees, members of the Aus-tralian Workers' Union, engine drivers, Boysquarry employees, and others. To all thornthe late Government in 1920 freely and vol-untarily granted the 44-hour week. Here isthe, letter ofl the responsible Minister con-veying thie deision. It is dated the 5thFebrttary, 1920. and addressed to Mr. Me-Gallant at the Tradies Rall, and is signed bythe responsible Minister of the day. Thsletter reads-

Re the Railway award delivered hi' Mr.Justice Rooth1 President of the Arbitra-tion Court, Perth, onk the 15th Dlecember,1919, and its propose aplleation to tfieDepartmenlts of Public Works and WaterSsppW. In ftithee- reference to the in-terview you, together with the represerta-tiws,. of, the vnrions unions, have had withthe Hon. that Premier, and the letters youforwarded th him setting forth the claimsOf, your memnbers, I am directed it theHon. the Premier tar communicate to youthe final decision of the Government: (a)The mainiruM' rate Of pay for labonrerS

37

88 [ASSEMBLY.]

will be 12s. per day of eight hours, as pro-vided for in the Railway award of De-comber 16th, 1919. (b) The date fromwhich this minimum rate wll be paid isAugust 1st, 1919. (e) The 44-hour weekwill be adopted and paid for as from Jan-uary 18st, 1920, instead of from ]February1st, 1920, as named in my letter of the27th January,

Sitting suspended from G.15 to 7.30 pm.

The PREMIER: I was endeavouring toshow that the late Government in 1920 wasrealliy responsible for doing something whichthey now condemn the present Governmentfor having done. Io pursuance of that ob-ject I was quoting the correspondence thattook place between the then Minister forWorks and the present Minister for Works,who at the time was secretary of the TradesHall. Paragraph (e) of tbat letter sets outthat the 44-hour wveek will be adopted andpaid as from the 1st January, 1920, insteadof f rem the 1st February, 1920, as namedin his letter of the 27th January. Mark thewords that the 44-hour week ''will be ad-opted.'' If the Government wvere not en-tirely free either to grant or withhold the44-hour week there should he no need toemploy those words. If it were an award ofa court or any form of compulsion by pro-mise or otherwise, there would be no need tosay they would ''adopt'' it. The Govern-ment odopted it freely and voluntarily.

.Mr. Latham: But that was after the de-cision of the Arbitration Court.

The PREMIER: It was after a decisionwith regard to a particular case affecting therailway employees. Hut the hon. membermust understandl that the award of the Ar-bitration Court with regard to railwvay em-ployees was not in any way binding upon allthose other employees.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: It -was.The PREMIER: If the Government had

been consistent in their support of a 48-hourweek they could have said, ''We shall haveto concede the 44 hours to the railway em-ployees under the provisions of the court'saward, but outside of that we stand firmlyby our policy of a 48-hour week." Theywould have replied to all those otter unionsI have enumerated, 19 or 20 of them, "No,the 48-hour week is our policy. We willnot reduce it unless you go to the Arbitra-tion Court and obtain an award to that ef-fect. "

Mr. Latham: Possibly the Governmentgave it, knowing they were sure to lose inview of the previous decision.

The PREMIER: 'No, the courts fre-quentlv grive an award for 44 hours in oneweek ind 48 hours in the net week. Onlylast wreek the Arbitration Court gave anaward of 44 hours for the painters.

Mr. Latham: The railway award includedmany of those industries.'

The PR EMTEX': I have quoted a longlist of those it did not. include. As a

matter of fact the 44-hour week that weare told has recently been granted by thepresent Government applies only to thosesame unions and sections to which it wasgranted in 1920. We hare not given a 44-hour Naeek outside or to any more unionsthan those to which the late Governmentglave it in 1920.

Mr. Mann: Would the Arbitration Courtreverse it?

The PREMIER: The previous Govern-nient, without reference to the ArbitrationCourt, decided to grant the 44-hour week.If the late Government, in the exercise oftheir discretion and the power they pos-sessed, decided to grant the 44-hour week,what is wrong with the present Governmentdoing exactly the same thing? We aretold there was an award of the court, batI remind members opposite that it is not anunusual practice at all for employers andemployees to vary the terms of an awardgiven by the Arbitration Court. I haveknown instances of the court having deliv-ered an award and reduced wages, and thereduction has never been given effect to.The employers and employees have met andagreed to continue at the higher rate,

'Mr. George: The circumstances are alto-gether different.

The PREMIIER: Th what way?Mr. George: Instead of having a whole

lot of eases in the court, we agreed to abideby the Arbitration Court's award.

The PREM.NIER: Which shows that thehon. member was. not sincere in his advo-cacy of a 4 8 -hour week.

Mr. George: We were quite sincere, buthad to decide according to our discretion.You have made a. decision before you knewwhere you were.

The PREMIER: We have known wherewe were for years past. When members op-posite granted the 44-hour week, we en-dorsed their action, and we stand to-daywhere wre hare stood all these years. Wehave known all along where we were, butthe hon. member does not know where he ison the question of hours, because he wasin one place from 1920 to 1923 and in 1924he is standing somewhere else. Re stoodfor a 44-hour week during those three years,but to-day he says it was all wrong and thathe stands for a 48-hour week.

'Mr. George: We had a surprise pnekrtsprung on us by the Arbitration Court, andVon have sprung one on the people.

The PREMIER: There could be no spring-ing anything on the people by us when ourattitude and -policy were proclaimed fromevery platform throughout the length andbreadth of the State. But the hon. mem-her and his colleagues, in objecting, arcspringing something on the country, becausethey did not make it an issue at the elec-tions. Theyr did not come out and sayboldly, "If you return this party you shallhave a 48-hour week. We are opposed to the44-hour week." When'the hon. membher was,addressing the electors at the Peel Estate,

38

[29 JULY, 1924.1

those members of the A.W.Uh, he did notstress his policy of a 48-hour week.

Mr. Mann: You do not think him foolenough to say that and expect to get anyvotes?

The PREMIER: He got only two votesout of 617 in one place.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: He deserved theother 65. They are very sorry now they didnot vote for him.

The PREMIER: If they had known thehon. nmember' p lrinciples better they mightnot have voted against him.

Mr. George: I got very fair support fromthe old gang.

The PREMIER: Rut in the gang wherethe hon. member got only two votes, heslipped a bit. The letter written by thees-Minister for Works was written pur-suant to a decision of Cabinet. I hare acopy of the Cabinet minute of the 21stJanuary. It says, ''Cabinet decided toadopt the railway award as; to pay and hoursso far as it does apply to men employed inthe Government departments; to date fromtFebruary 1st, 1920. Signed, James Mit-chell.''I

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: We had agreedto it.

The PREMIER: But the bon. memberwas undler no obligation to agree to it.

Hen. Sir James Mitchell: Of course wewere.

The PREMIER: The hon. member freelyconceded the 44-hour week.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: No, noMr. George: There is a report of a whole

lot of deputations months before, and anagreement was come to.

The PREMIER: Of course the unionswere asking the hon. member to grant a44-hour week, bitt the fact that he wasasked for it placed him under no obliga-tion to agree to it if he did not wish to.

Mwr. Mann: Did not he agree to complywith the court's decision?

The PREMIER: He may have done so.Mr. Mann: That is the point.The PREMIER: 'No. Why should a mem-

her who does not believe in a 44-hour weekpledge himself to apply a decision of thecourt to thousands of employees covering alarge number of unions to whom the awarditself did not apply? Why should he doit? The whole thing is rank inconsistency.Members opposite have forgotten theevents of 1920.

Mfr. George: We have not forgotten any-thing.

The PREMIER: They have forgotten andnow they want to blame the present Gov-ernment for doing something for which theythemselves were responsible, which theyinitiated and carried on for a period ofthree years, namely, from January, 1920,till September, 19231.

Mr. George: The circumstances are alto-gether different.

The PREMIER: Of course they arelThey are different when an Opposition is

trying to make out a case. I bave beenthere myself. With an Opposition desper-ately hard up for something on which toban~g an attack, circumstances, of course,nre always different.

Hon. .1ir James Mitchell: Are YOU goingto give it to the lot of themst

The PREIER: To just those unionsthe bon. member gave it to.

Mr. MNann: You are drawing the line.The PREIETR: For the time being at

any rate. The motion for Supply coversonly those. We have granted the 44-hourweek to the same section of Governmentemployees as the late Government grantedit to.

Mr. George: And without the same cir.cumista&-es.

The PREMIER: It is contended that wehad no right to d@ this because there wasno award of the court.

Mr. Mann: That is the point.The PREMIlER: It is a very dull point.The NMster for Lands: You did not

say anything about it.Mr. -Mann: I said as much as did the

hon. member.The PREMIER: The member for Perth

was careful not to say anything in con-demnation of the 44-hours.

Mr. Mann: I answered all the questions.The PREMIER: The hon. member is

very courageous now that the electionsare behind him, but he did not stress iton the hustings.

Mr. Mann: I did not evade it.The PREMIER: That is the insincerity

of the whole ease put up by the Opposi-tion. A few members may have beenhonest about it. Although it was pro-claimed and published in the Press whatour policy was, not one member of theOpposition, so far as I know, and certainlynot the Leader of the party or the ex-Minister for Works, ever asked the elee-toys to make an issue of it. They weresilent on the Government's policy of a44-hour week.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: My views arcwell known.

The PREMIER: The hon. member spokein a good many places, amongst othersunder a spreading chestnut tree, and I amsure he was so fully and faithfully re-ported by the ''West Australian'' thathad he given any expression of his viewson this question, it would not have failedto obtain publicity.

Mr. Mann: Are you going to apply it tothe rural workers?

The PREMIER: We are going to applyrit to some of the bon. member's constitu-ents. That is enough for the moment.An award, we are told, is sacrosanct andmust not be interfered with. I have along list shoring awards that have beenvaried by employers and employees. An

39

40 ASSEMBLY.]

award of the court is not binding uponthoem concerned if they mutually agree tovary it. There is nothing illegal in de-parting from an award of the court in thatway. The court lays down a minimumwage; it would be a breach for any em-ployer to pay less than the minimum rate.The court lays down the maximum hours;it would be a breach of the award to workanyone above the hours prescribed. Butthere is nothing to prevent any employer,whether Government or private, from pay-ing a wage in excess of the minimumtawarded, or from granting working hoursof less than the maximum fixed.

Mr. Latham: But it is not a sound policyfor a Government to do that.

The PREMIER: Of course it is.Mr. Latham Thea you could go on

varying the award for ever IThe PREMIER: One of the greatest

Arbitration Court judges Australia hasknown, namely Mr. Justice Higgins, hascomplained from his place in the courtthat Governments have not fixed the hoursof labour. He said it was % matter ofpolicy that should be decided by Govern-meats, not by the Arbitration Court.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: By Govern-ments or by Parliament&?

The PREMTER: By Governments-andGovernments are responsible to Parlia-ment. The bon. member did not alwayscome to Parliament before he acted. Fre-quently he did things and came to Parlia-meat for their endorsement; because hehad the majority behind him. And so theGovernment in this instance consideredthey were justified in giving effect to thisaspect of their policy. That is all theGovernment have done. And they havedone it openly and in the full light of day.It is inconsistent in our friends to adopttheir present attitude. The ArbitrationCourt does not regulate industry; itmerely acts when there is a dispute be-tween employer and employee. There wasno dispute in this ease. The Governmentbelieve in the policy, and there wasnothing wrong in the action of the Gov-ernment in doing what they did. And I sayagain, it is rather late in the day for theLeader of the Opposition to be concernedabout that unfortunate housewife who willhave her troubles intensified by the risingprices he predicts. The granting of a 44-hour week now will have no greatereffect upon the cost of living thanit had when the bon. member grantedit. There is in the minds of many hon.members an idea that in granting theM4-honr week we attempted to initiate some-thing entirely new, or something that doesnot obtain in other parts of the world. Asa matter of fact Western Australia to-day is behind, not only every other State ofAustralia in the matter of working hours,but nearly every other country in the world.

Hon. Sir James 'Mitchell: What aboutthe engineers all over Australia, with their48-hour week?

Hon. S. W. Munas: No, they are work-ing 44 hours in Queensland.

The PREMIER: The 44-hour week ap.-plies to fewer trades and occupations inWestern Australia to-day titan it does inany other State of the Commonwealth or inmost countries of the world. And when theacting Leader of the Country Party saysthat by this action we are going to handi-cap this State in respect of manufac-turers-

Mr. Mann: And the farmers too.Mr. Hughes: flow many hours doa you

work on your farmgThe PREMIER: The bon. member has

a, farm, it is true, but he directs it fromthe Terrace. I venture to say that in thulinstance the hon. membe 'r has a dividedallegiance. As a farmer he is concernedabout the working hours of farm labbolrers,while as a metropolitan member of Parlia-meat he is concerned about the workinahours of his electors. So he has a divide3

allegiance.Hon. Sir James Mitchell interjected.The PREMITER: T remind the hon. mem-

ber that by way of interjection he has midmore to-night on this subject than he saidin six weeks on the beaitings. The workinghours have been coming down all over theworld, and just in so far as attempts havebeen made to reduce the working week, sohave the opponents of that principle inevery country of the world attempted toraise that '-ry. They have said, ''The 44-hour week will have the effect of increasingthe cost of production, and will hamperevery State or c-ountry that adopts it and isin competition with nther countrieq in themnarkets of the world' However, all his-tory shows that those prophecies -ire false.The leading countries of the world to-dayare those that give the best pay and theshortest hours to their people.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: The best pay,I agree.

The PREMrIER: And the shortest hoursas well.

Mr. George: Eight hours a day will nothurt anybody.

The PREMIER: Precisely that artru-mnent was used by the opponenits of the pro-posal to shorten the 12-hour day. Theysaid, ''Twelve hours a day will 'not hurtanybody?'0 It was contended that it wouldnot hurt even little children eight years ofage who were put into the cotton mills ofEngland.

Hon. Sir James Mitchell: That wassweatiuhf.

The PREMIER: It is all a matter ofdegree. With the March of science agreater volume of production can be oh-taied to-day in a 44-hour Week than oidbe obtained 15 years ago by working 12hours or 14 hours per day. Are we to saythat all the industrial improvements, theifruit of man's genius, are to go to the em-

40

(29 JuLY, 1924.)4

ployer alone, and that the workman is notto receive any benefit from them? Is it allto go in increased profits to employersa, andnone of it by way of leisuare and reer.'ntioafor the workers? In all the building tradesin England and in engineering, ship build-

inrailways and agriculture in SouthWales, hours have fallen from 54 and 60,even 65 per week in 1914, to 48 hours pierweek to-day

Mr. W. RL Johnson: In some trades 44hours are being worked in England.

The PREMIER: That is so. The ten-dency is; to reduce hours. During a periodof six years in England, hours hnvi beenreduced by from 11 per cent, to 33 percent. I have here the hours of labour: forcarpenters in England and Wales, 44 hours;in Ireland, 44 hours; in Scotland, 44hours;in the 'United States from 40 hours to 44hours; in Canada 44 hours for the woodworkers; in New Zealand, 44 hours; inBooth Africa 44 in 22 towns, 45 hours iftone town,, and 48 hours in 12 towns. Thatreview covers a pretty wide area of theworld where 44 hours are being observed.In America-and( America, I am sorry tosay, has never been amongst the advancedcountries in regard to working hours andconditions--at the time of Mr. JustlemeHliggins' award in 1920, the 44-hour weekfor boilermakers was observed in 11 of thechief manrifacturing cities of the UnitedStates. In America, too, the blacksmiths,the machinists, the iron moulders, the sheetmetal workers, the structural iron workers,the carpenters, the bricklayers, the plumbersthe painters, the plasterers, the hod carriersthe stone cutters, and the wirezaco all hada 44-bmwu week in 1920.

Mr. Latham: America can better affordto carry it than can we.

The PREMIER; That is a pitiful oldcry. "We are at the dead end of things'The lion, member's Government have beenin office for the past eight years, and sothings here are not very bright, I admit.

Hfon. Sir James Mitchell: I think thatwith reduced houirs they get also better pay.

The PREMIER: Of course everybody isbetter off than are we. Yet the bon. ancul-ber will be heard at some functioin to-morrow night or the night after, clnimingthis as the one great State in the world, aState better than any other State in theCommonwealth. He will say that if andwhen he goes to give a word of welcome toour migrants. He will tell them they havecome to the best country in the world. Yetnorw he says we are a poor old State andcannot afford to observe decent workingconditions. In 'New Zealand the classes oflabour enjoying the 44-hour- week are theengine-drivers, the motor men and firemenin gold mines, electrical workers, the build-ing trades, the quarry workers, the clothingtrades, freezing works, the furniture tradcq,the harbour employees, the railway work-shop employees and the municipal em-ployees. It is as well that hon. me-mbersshuld be made aware of the fact

that we in this State are not pioneer-ing the 44-hour week, but are trailinga long way behind other countriesin thi respect. I have mentioned thewood workers in Great Britain and Ire-)end as having the 44-hour week. Thenthere are the building trades, the coal minarathe quarry men, the printing employees, thetransport workers, thread mill employees,the labourers in sawmills, and the werkeitin the furniture trades. All these occupationsin Great Britain embrace mifllions of menwho have had the 44-hour week for someyears past. In Canada the same thing ob-tains. Here are the trades and occupationsenjoying the 44-hour week in Canada~

MVr. Mean. Did you not read that before?The PREMIER: No, I quoted Canada

in regard to the wood workers only.Mr. Lathamn: The difficulty we have is to

prove that all this is not sro.The PREMIER: If tbe bon. member will

but wake up, he will find that in opposingthis principle be is one of the polities!trugloditee of the age. Coming to Australia,it is contended apparently that the 44-hourweek dot's not operate in the Eastern States,and that therefore it will handicap us asagainst those States. Among the industriesin Victoria that hare the 44-hour week isthe boot trade. Seeing that Western A-us-tralia draws its chief supply of boots fromVictoria, at all events those who are en-gaged in bootmaking here will not he handi-capped in competition with Victoria, wherethey have bad the 44-hour week for manyyears. The list includes also bricklayers,builders' labourer;, carpenters, quarrymen,ehaffeuitters, cigar trade workers, coaltrim-mars, farriers and engravers, headwearmakers, knitting machine operators, limeburners, organ builders, painters, photo-graphers, plasterers, plumbers, and sewerworkers.

'Mr. _Mann: From what source do you getthose recordat

1fr, Pant on: From the Trades HaDl.The PREMNIER:. A little energy and re-

search would enable the hon. member to getthem for himself. These ame authenticfigures, and facts that have been usedofficially over and over again. The bon.member would not suggest that I have comehere with faked figures.

Mr. Latham: Ohi, nol'Mr. Mfann: I wondered where you had got

them.Mr. "Marshall: Hre has had a lot of ex-

perience himself.Ron. S. WV. Mansie: There is no Chinese

balance sheet about this.Mr. Marshall: And no Quong sandal-

wood.The PREMI7ER: When the award was de-

livered in 1920 in the Railway case, Mr.Justice Rooth said it was a test. He wasrather dubious about granting it, but hesaid he was prepared for the time beingto accept the statement of the union repre-sentatives that it would not result in any

41

42 FASSEMETAY.

decreased production, that there would bethe same output under the 44-hour week asunder the 49-hour week; but he said he wasgoing to give it a trial, and that if it didnot result in the manner stated by theunion, it would be no use their coming backand asking him to change the hours lateron. The award was put into operation at thebeginning of 1920. At its expiration thematter came before the Arbitration Courtin 1922. The parties were unable to agreeas to the wages and working conditions, sothe ea'u- went to the court for barinmg.This time M~r. Justice Draper presided. Ifthe contention of the opponents of the 44-hour week ..old he supported, there was anopportunity in 1922 of showing the courtby evidence that the effect of the 44-hourweek had been a reduction in the output,or an increase in the cost of the work per-formed at the Midland Junction workshops.That should have been an easy matter, be-cause the costs are kept in the workshopsvery clearly, and the details of every itemare available. It would have been an easymatter for the Commissioner of Railways.He asked to have the 44-hour week reversed.If he had been able to make out a ease, hehad at his disposal all the costs prior to the44-hour week award, and all the costs of op-eration from 1920 to 1922, a period of nearlythree years. It was only a matter of puttingin a statement

Mr. Hughes: He had it all ready, but wasnot game to go on with it.

The PREMItER: We must bear in mindthat the Judge stated he would not agangrant the 44-hour week if it resulted in anyincreased cost. The Commissioner, however,did not go on with it.

Mr. Mann: He contended it..Mr. Corboy: But did not attempt to prove

it.The PREMIER: He contended it. The

only time he made the contention was inhis annual report, six months after the sys-tem bad been inaugurated. He went to thecourt in 1922. There was presiding 'Mr. Jus-tice Draper, who gave the award last Sqp-tember in the ease to which this now applies.The Commissioner was unable to convincethe jvdge that the hours ought to be in-creased. '.%r. Justice Draper, therefore,awarded the 44-hour week, just as Mfr. .Tus-tiee Routh had dome in 1920. When we ana-lyse the awards of the Arbitration Courtduring recent years we Eind that they bristlewith inconsistencies. It is impossible to fol-low them. That is one of the reasons whyor industrialists have become so dissatisfien

with the Arbitration Court, and the admin-istration of our industrial laws. nov donot know where they stand. There is nodegree of consistency in the awards. 'Mr.Justice Draper in 1922 awarded the railwayemplo 'yees a 44-homr week. Tn 1923 all thoseclasses of men, to which we are nowreferring, were awarded by him a48-hour week. Where is the consist-ency? The Leader of the Opposition corn-

plains that we applied this only to one si C-tion. Why did the Ahitration 'Court judgesapply the 48-hour week to one section, andthe 44-hour to another. It is the functionof the Government to do what they think isfair anid rigilt by their employees. Whydoes the Arbitration Court deal with thematter in this ineonsistent manner?

lon. Sir James Mitchell: In some indus-tries a 44-hour week is quite enough.

The PREIER: If the lesser week is toapply to all, it should apply to that sectionof the industrial army whose work is themost disagreahle. I rider to those whohave to go out in all weathers---this appliesin this c-ase-'to the labourers who are work-ing long hours, and are mainly in casualemployment. That is the section that is en-titled to consideration equally with those inpermanent employment, the latter being com-.paratively well off as against the others. Iami unable to understand the point of viewof our Arbitration Court judges, when theycan give such inconsistent awards as havebeen delivered in this country during recentyears. If I had time I would quote a fewof the opinions of Mr. Justice Higgins whenPresident of the Federal Arbitration Court.I am speaking with some practical personalexperience and knowledge of the subject.I am not v-iewing the question of a 44-hourweek from the comfortable surroundings ofa luxurious club. T am not referring tomembers of this Chamber, but to some of thecritics of the actions of the Government.I know that some of those men who sit inwell-appointed lounges and sitting rooms inthe city, work only 25 or 30 hours a week,from 10 in the morning until 4 in the after-noon- They sit back in their comfortablechairs and say how shocking it is that theGovernment should grant a 44-hour wveekto the poor devils who are toiling away inall weathers. T am afraid those men havenot much consideration for the State, or forhumanity. I have not heard of any outcryon behalf of the farmer, for instance, whohas to work such long hours, as indicatedby the member for York. The men I speakof do not worry about that. They thinkmore of the rainfall, and what it will bringthem.

Mfr. Latham: They are more concernedabout the State.

The PREMIER: The hon. nmember is notmore concerned about the State than I andmy colleagues are. I am Just as much con-cerned about it as he is.

Mr. Lathamn: T am glad of that assurance.The PREMTTER: The Government have

not taken any action, and will not take anyin the future, that n-ill be harmful to thebest interests of the State.

Mr. Latham: Hear, hear!The PREMIER: According to our judg-

ment, of course. T have worked 10 and 12hours a day, and 8 hours a day, and 44hours a week. T am working long hoursnow, but get no overtime. T know fromPractical experience, notwithstanding whatmay be said as to the output and the cost ot

42

[29 JULY, 1924.)]4

production, that metn will, taking it month inand mvonthi out, and year in and year out,produce just as much, and in many C.Ipmore, %%ith s-horter hours as with longerhours. All the official figures and recordsgo to %uhstnntiate that contention. Thereis a limit to human endurance. A manmay stand at a machine or at a job for 10houirs a day, but he has to spend a tremen-dous amonunt of energy in doing it. If hehas to do this for long hours he maust con-serve his energy, and he cannot work withthe same vigour as if his hours were shorterThe whole trend of the world 's history istowards shorter hours.

Mfr. Latham: So long as this applies toaill workers, it will not matter.

The PREMVIERl: Then if ive grant a 44.hour week all round, that will meet with thebon. member's approval?

Mr. Lathama: Let the farmers be includedas well.

The PREMIER: We thought we wouldfollow the excellent example set by our pre-decessors, and apply it for the time beingonly to that section to which they applied it.Later on we may extend it. The remarksof Mr. Justice Higgins would have beenworth quoting. He has given half his lifeto the qrestion of wages and working boutsand conditions, and his views should carrya fair amount of weight. After full andarious consideration in 1920 that Judgeawarded a 44-hour week. Mr. Justice IHig-gins was hearing an application for a 44-tour week when the Government of the daytrought down legislation that had the effectof preventing him from giving an awardwith regard to hours. It amended the Arbi-tration Act by stating that anything lesthan a 48-hour week should only be awardedby a court consisting of three members. Fol-lowing that they appointed two membersof the Court. I do not say they were f riendsof theirs.

Mr. Panton: They were very old.The PREMIflER: They were very old, and

not likely to have to endure any of the hoursof labour they were going to* prescribe forother people, Our Government hare donenothing to regret and nothing illegal orwrong. Everything has been dlone in theopen light of day. That is where the ineon-siatency of the Opposition comes in. Wedid nothing more than was done by the Op-position in 1920 and maintained by them forthree years. There is,,I have no doubt, anidea. in the minds of the people that we haveinitiated something new. T want to dispelthat idea. This is not new. We have merelyadopted the excellent example of the meni-.her for MNurray-Wellington (Mr. George)whs'n Minister for Works. We hare merelyfollowed in the footstepp of our friends op-posite, and I think they are inconsistent inthe attitudle they are taking up on this ~oce-sion.

Mr. GEORGE (Murray-Wellington)[8.151: T t is not necessary to say muchon this question. When members of the Corn-

mittee and the public read the reports of thisdiscus-;ion, I think they will find it has notbeen altogether unporofitable, if only for thefact that the Premier has been good enoughto give certain information to the Assem-bly, which wve ac--ept, as we must do, as au-thientic. The difference between the atti-tude of the Mitchell Government and that ofthe present Government is that we were ademnocratic Government and the Collier Oov-erunient is an autocratic one. The MitchellGrorernmenot felt that in dealing with mat-ters relating to labour questions, it was onlyright to allow the Arbitration Court, whichwas established to deal with such questions,to decide them. The present Governmentevidently felt that, although that courthad been established through the per-sistency and at the request of membersof their party, they were justified inputting the court on one side. I thinkthey are wrong, not only so far as theState is concerned but wrong where theMinisters themselves are concerned. If 2tin-isters are to cope with what I, as Ministerfor Workcs, had to deal with in connectionwith labour matters for several years, theywill find themselves in difficulties. In fact, ifthey go very much further on these lines wewill have no trouble in taking up the reinsof offiec again and resuming the functions o±government.

The Premier: I do not know why youretired and why you could not have kepton with us as 'Minister for Works!

Mr. GEORGE: There is a limit to physi-cal endurance, and after a man has passedthe 73st milestone, he has to consider him-self in these matters. The Mitchell Govern-ment had to deal with labour questions, andreceived constant demands and requestsfrom the various unions which were pressedupon me as Minister for Works. I did what-ever I could to deal with the matters be-cause I wo-ld rather settle industrial dis-ptites myself. I forund, however, that thedemands upon my time were such that Icould not cope with other work that was ofimportance to Western Australia. Cons-quently, we appointed a labour commissioner,'Mr. Munt, who bad to devote the whole ofhis time to securing a complete knowledge otmodern labour conditions. It was ridiculousto suppose that a Minister of the Crown,however experienced he might be, couldkeep himself in as complete touch with thoseconditions as was necessary, because he couldnot find the time to do so. By the appoint-ment of the labour commissioner, it was pos-sible, when that officer furnished the Gov-ernment with full detaila to deal with mat-ters as they cropped up, in concrete form.The present Government have appointed a'Minister for Labour in accordance with theirpolicy. They have done away with the labourcommissioner and incorporated him with the

safof the 'Minister for Labour. Now, ap-parently, they are acting in a manner that isreally superseding the Arbitration Court.

The Premier: You are Wroug-

43

44 ASSEMBLY.J

Mr. GEORGE: I am not disputing thefact thfit the Government are carrying outwhat they have the power and right to do.

Mr. Corboy: And what we told the peo-pie we would do.

Mr. GEORGE: Whether such an actionis wise in the interests of the whole of thepeople, or is in the interests of one sectionof the community only, is