[25 SErnnza, 1912.1 92

Mr. GEORGE: I am not worrying somuch about the rivers as about the smallercreeks.

The Minister for Works: Even thenthe water in the creek may come frombeyond his boundary. How will you getover that

Mr. GEORGE: The man above him isunder the obligation to allow sufficientwater through to supply the people be-low him, with enough for domestic pur-poses. It is the old question of riparianrights. I do not know that it is necessaryto say anything more in connection wvitbithe matter because it is wore a Bill forconsideration in Committee than anythingelse. I cannot sit downw~ithout congratu-lating th6 Government upon the intro-duction of this Bill. Those of my con-stituents who will be affected feel verystrongly with regard to it, and althoughI do not sit on the same side as the Gov-ernment, my sense of justice tells me thatif anything is done which is beneficial tomy constituents I should express mygratitude for it.

On motion by Mr. Turvey, debate ad-journed.

House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

2Leoistatipe Cona1cti,Wednesday, 25th September, 1912.

Paespresented 1929.oin Coroner tor the Metropolitan District 1929

Bills:- Unclaimed Monoys, SR.. ...... 1930Roman catholic nnwrh Property Amend-

meat, 3as............. 0Tramways Purchase, petition, 33k . 1030,84Yrenactlc.Kslgoorlle (Merredlu*Ccoligardle

Section) Railway, Message - 1034University lands, 1R.........1984Industrial Arbitration, 2R.........1939Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Assembly's

message..............1954Adjoanment, special..............94

The PRESIDENT took the Chair at4.30 p.m., and read prayers.

PAPERS PESEN'TED.By the Colonial Secretary: 1, Forma-

tion of an aboriginal native reserve ;n theunsettled portion of the Kimberley cotta-try, Papers (ordered on motion by Ron.J. D. Connolly). 2, Map of the reservesproposed to be surrendered by the Fre-mantle Municipal Council to the Govern-ment for the purpose of workers' homes.

MOTION - CORONER FOR THEMETROPOLITAN DISTRICT.

Hon. M. L. MOSS (West) moved-That in the opinion of this H7ouse a

duty qualified medical practitionershould be appointed coroner for themetropolitan district.

He said: This is an important matter. Atthe piesent time honorary justices per-form this important work. The stipendi-ary magistrates, of whom there are twoin Perth, and one at Fremantle, havetheir hands full with other work. ',%r.Roe is almost continuously engaged inthe police court in Perth and Mr. Cowanin the local court in Perth, while at Pre-mantle the duties of 3%r. Dowley, theresident magistrate, do not give himsnfficient time to perform this work; andin addition to their cidinary duties bothMr. Cowan and Mr. Dowley performcircuit work, Mr. Dowley's district ex-tending as far as Pinjarra. Some yearsago there were medical men acting ascoroners. Dr. Black carried out theduties for some time in the metropolitan

lag]

1929

1930 [COUNCrI.i

area satisfactorily, and subsequently Dr.Lovegrove performed the duties in asatisfactory manner. It is no new prin-ciple that this work should be performedby medical men. Everywhere else through-out Australia, where there are centres aslarge as Perth, Fremantle, and Kalgoorlie,properly qualified persons, namely quali-fied medical practitioners, perform theseduties. Hon. members need not be in-formed of the grave consequences thatvery frequently arise when these inquestsare held. Charges of manslaughter,murder, and arson are often formulatedas a result of coronial inquiries. Thelast thing If want to do is to cast theslightest reflection on honorary justices,because they have performed a lot ofvery useful work throughout the State,and I do not think I am casting any re-flection on them when I say the largepercentage of them, being business menand working men, are not competentto decide upon the important issues thatare raised in many of these cases. If acoroner is appointed to perform thiswork in the metropolitan district he canhe coroner for the whole State, arid whena grave case arises in a centre like Kal-goorlie or in fact in any other centretapped by the railways, lie can hea avail-able to perform the important dutiesattached to the office. He need not becoroner for Perth and Fremantle only;lie would necessarily perform the coronialwork for the whole State. There is avery long business paper to-day and itis not my intention to take up the timeof lion, members. I think their goodsense wvili direct them ia voting for mymotion. It has everything to recommendit. I can see nothing against it. Theex1)en(iitn ic in connection with it is avery small mnatter in comparison with thebenefits and advantages the populationof the State will derive from the appoint-ment I suggest. I hope the Governmentwill not put any opposition in the wayof its being carried into effect.

Hon. J. CORNELL (South) : I will notdetain lion. members long, and I onlyspeak with the idea of gaining informa-tion. I am in accord with the propositionof the lion, member. I take it that tocarry out his proposal it will necessitate

the payment of a coroner. Where I comefrom coroners have done good work,though unfortunately they are called uponto do it too often. I think the procedureof the past in asking men to give valuabletime to such work should be recognisedand recognised immediately in the wayof some payment being made to them. Ihope that this motion will have someeffect in bringing about a radical changein the procedure of asking men to do animportant work and neglect their ownbusiness and occupations for no remuner-ation.

On motion by the Colonial Secretary,debate adjourned.

BILLS (2)-TmlRD READING.1, Unclaimed Moneys (returned to the

Legislative Assembly with amendments).2, Roman Catholic Church Property

Amendment (passed).

BILL-TRAMIWAYS PURCHASE.Petition.

Order of the Day read for the con-sideration of the following petition re-ceived on the previous day from themayor and councillors of Perth: -

The humble petition of the mayorand councillors of the City of Perthshowveth as follows :-1, A Bill is nowpending in your honourable House in-tituiled "An Act for the Purchase bythe Government of Western Australiaof the undertaking of the Perth ElectricTramways, Limited." 2, By the saidBill power is sought to enable the Stateof Western Australia to purchase fromthe Perth Electric Tramways, Limited,the undertaking of the company as de-fined in Clauses 1 and 2 of ani agree-ment dated the 23rd day of May, 1912,and expressed to be made between thePerth Electric Tranmways, Limited, ofthe one part and the Honourable SirNewton James )loore on behalf of theGovernment of the State of WesternAustralia of the other part, for thesum of £475,000. 3, Youir petitionersunder an agreement dated the 17thday of April, 1897, and expressed to

[25 SEPTEmBER, 1912.]19)

he made between the mayor: councillors,and citizens of the city of Perth of theone part and Charles Preston Dicken-son of the other part, have the follow-ing rights in the abovementioned under-taking from the said company :-(a)Right to purchase in 1925 without pay-ment for goodwill; (b) if that right benot exercised the right to putrchaseagain recurs in 1932 without paymentfor goodwill; (c) if the above optionsto purchase are not exercised then areversion to the council in 1939 of thewhole of the undertaking within thewhole of the boundaries of the city ofPerth and all extensions made withinten years after the date fixed in theabove agreement for the completion ofthe said works, without payment ex-cept the actual sum paid for the free-hold lands; (d) three per cent, of thegross earnings to be paid by the com-pany to the council; (e) the council tohave the right to use the tramway polesfor lighting purposes; (f) the comnpanyto maintain the tracks; (g) the councilto have the righit to use the lines be-tween midnight and 5 a.m. for scav-enging or other purposes. 4, Powver issought by the Bill to transfer to theGovernment the said undertaking freeand discharged from all obligations andliabilities to your petitioners under theabove agreement save and except thepayment of the three per cent. of theross takings until the year 1039 andthe rights to repair the track and touse the p)oles as before mentioted. 5,The Bill contains no provision for corn-pensating your petitioners for the lossto them of the options to purchase andthe reversionary rights in the event ofsuch options not being exercised. 6, Theeffect of the purchase proposed to beauthorised by the Bill would be to de-prive your petitioners of rights whichare exceedingly valuable, the value ofwhich is shown by the fact of the Gov-ernment being prepared to purchasethe concession of the company for thesum of £475,000 having only a thirteenyears' life, while the concession ifacquired by the council subsequent tothirteen years would be in perpetuity.7, If it had not been for the options

to purchase acquired by the council andthe reversionary rights which they holdin the undertaking, it would not havebeen possible for the Government topurchase the undertaking for the sumof £:475,000. 8, The only compensationfor your petitioners provided by theBill is that contained in Clause S there-of, and such compensation is in-sufficient, inequitable, and unjust. 9,The said Bill if passed into lawv willprejudicially affect the property, rightsand interests of your petitioners. Yourpetitioners therefore humbly pray thatthe Bill may not be allowed to passinto law as it now stands, and thatyour petitioners may be heard byThomas George Anstruther Motley, the-Mayor of the city of Perth, before yourhonourable House against the clausesand provisions of the Bill, and mn sup-port of other clause and provisionsfor the protection of the interests ofyour petitioners. Or that such otherrelief may be given to your petitionerin the premises as your honourableHouse shall deem meet.

Hon. C. SOMMERS (Metropolitan)The prayer of this petition is that themayor of Perth may be heard at the Barof the House so that he may put beforeus some fresh matter, which I understandhe is able to give, showing that the Billnow before us does not deal fairly withthe rights of the Perth City Council. Ihave no desire to delay the House, there-fore, I move-

That the prayer of the petition hegranted and that the Mayor of Perthbe heard at the Bar of the House.

Hon. W. RINGSMILL (Metropoli-tan) :I second the motion.

The PRESIDENT : Before puittingthis motion, it is my duty to make a fewstatements with reg&ard to it.

Hon. 3f. L. MOSS: I wish to speak be-fore the motion is put.

The PRESIDENT: The hon. membercan speak after I put the motion. I canfind nothing- in the Standing& Orderswhich provides for a motion of thischaracter, but I have referred to May'sParliamntary Practice, 10th edition.

1931

1932 [COMTJCIL.J

page 450, ini which the following pass-age occurs :

The second reading is the stage atwhich counsel bare been heard, whenthe House has been of opinion that apublic Bill was of so peculiar a char-acter as to justify the hearing of par-ties whose interests, as distinct fromthe general interests of the country' ,were directly affected by it. It is ageneral principle of legislation. that apublic Hill, being of national interest,should be debated in Parliament uponthe grounds of public expediency; andthat the arguments on either sideshould be restricted to members of theHouse. while peculiar interests arerepresented by the petitions of the par-ties concerned. Questions of publicpolicy can only be discussed by mem-bers; but where protection is soughtfor the rights and interests of publicbodies or others, it has not been unusualto permit the parties to represent theirclaims, either in person or by counsel.Counsel have also been heard atvarious other stages of Bills as well ason the second reading.

As will be seen from this, the secondreading is the stage at which publicbodies can represent their claims eitherin person or by counsel. In the presentcase we have reached the third readingstage of the Bill, and the mayorand councillors of Perth have had an op-portunit 'y of presenting their case beforithe select committee which was appoint-ed to inquire into the Bill, an opportunityof which they have fully availed them-selves. Under these circumstances, asthe House has the power to control itsown business, it rests entirely with theHouse to decide whether the mayor shallbe heard in accordance with the prayerof his petition. It has been moved andseconded that the prayer of the petitionbe granted. and that the mayor of Perthhe heard at the Bar of the House.

Hon. 3M. L. MOSS (West) : From theobservations which have fallen from your-self it is quite obvious that the attemptwhich is being made to allow the mayorof Perth to address the House will beregarded in any other place as a most

unusual application, and one whichlIwasalmost inclined to think from your re-marks you were going to rule out oforder. Up to the present I have opposedthe Bill. Certainly I have not spokenon it, but I followed 'Mr. Colebatch in,I think, every division and, therefore, inrising to oppose the motion which hasbeen moved by Mr. Sommers I cannot beaccused of doiiig it because I am anxiousthat the Government should take overthe tramway system. The question nowraised is an entirely different one fromthat of wvhether or not the Bill shouldpass. In my opinion a very bad pre-cedent is about to be set up if the Houselistens to the prayer of this petition andgrants it; because if the mayor of Perthis entitled to come into this Chamberand air his eloquence for an unlimitedperiod of time, the same opportunityought to be afforded to every other in-terest.

Hon. W. Kingsinill :It rests entirelywith the House on each occasion.

Hon. M1. L. MOSS :True, but if yougive the privilege to the mayor of Perthvou ought also to giv-e the privilege toevery* other interest affected by the Bill.If you listen to the one side of the ques-tion, then by the same reasoning youmust listen to the other side. It is notas if this matter had been dealt withby the House in a hasty manner. Per-sonally, I am sure that before this ques-tion reached Parliament everybody whohad taken any interest in the questionat all must have been surfeited with allkinds of matter relating to it publishedin the daily Press for a long while past.When we take the evidence which hasbeen given before the select committee,and when we see that the evidence ofMr. T. G4. A. liolloy occupies exactlynine pages of closely printed matter, andwhen I am informed by hon. members ofthat select committee that Mr. Molloywas there for the best part of two hours,and talked himself to a dead standstill-one him. member interjects that thatis impossible-when on the top of thatfie was followed by Mr. Northmore, thecit 'y solicitor, who put the legal aspectof the question, when in turn came Mr.

1932

[25 SEPTEMBIER, 1912193

Bold, the town clerk of Perth, whoseevidence occupies four pages, and their'Mr. Corbett, the city treasuArer--surelyin face of this it cannot be said thatample opportunity has not been given tothe representatives of the city council.Yet onl top of it all 'Mr. Sommers tellsus that there is fresh matter to be putbefore the Hfoiise. I have always takenthe hon. member's word onl every pre-vious occasion, but in the abscnce, of anystatement as to what that fresh mattermay be, he really will have to excuseme if onl the present occasion I admit tohaving my doubts. I do not know whatattitude my friend, the Colonial Secre-tary, is going to take up in regard tothis matter, but looking at it from thepoint of view of the House itself I thinkit is a prave reflection on the House,because it almost suggests that bon.members have not been sufficiently inter-ested in the matter to 'read the evidencegiven before the select committee.

Hon. J. Cornell:- Or have not bad in-telligence enough to understand it.

Hon. Al. L. MNOSS: Yes, if the hon.member likes to put it that way. Becauseof this we have to be obliged to listen tothe muayor of Perth for an unlimitedperiod while he elucidates the evidencefor us. I think it is obvious there is nonew matter to be put before the House,and that this precedent of admitting agentleman not a member of Parliamentto give his views here is one that ouightnot to be resorted to except under verygrave circumstances indeed. There arein the House three members represent-ing the Metropolitan province and threeothers representing the Metropolitan-Suburban province, and I think they arequite capable of advocating the claimsof the districts; served by the tramwaysystem. I think the House will be actingin a moat ill-advised wvay if it is decidedto listen to an application of tbis kind.Nothing whatever was shown by Mr.Sommers which would justify the Housein departing- fromt the usual practice. Itis the duty of hon. members to give theirown views for and against measures, andnot to allow an advocate from outside,whether be be the mayor of Perth or any

other person, to come here and advkmethem on any question whatever, particu-ladly as the gentleman alluded to has hadfull opportunity of going before theselect committee. I am reminded by MAr.Gawler that iu addition every memberhas been circularised in respect to thequestion, and I think it is idle to sup-pose there is one fresh piece of evidenceto put before hon. members.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY (Hon.J. 31. Drew):, I thoroughly agree witheverything Mr. Moss has said. He clearlyand definitely expressed my own views onthe question. I would be the last in theworld to attempt to close any person'smouth in connection with a great andmomentous question, but Mr. Molloy hashad ample opportunity for expressing hisopinions and stating his ease before theselect committee. It would be a gravemistake if a precedent were to be estab-lished in this respect. To my knowledgethere are scores, of persons in WesternAustralia who have grievances, not onlyagainst the present, but against past Gov-ernments, back to the days of Sir JohnForrest, and if this precedent were es-t'ablished of allowing those who imaginethey have grievances to come before thebar of thle House and state them, nodoubt there will be -many demands madefor such a privilege. I must, therefore,oin the ground of principle, reluctantlyoppose the motion.

Hon. J. CORNELL (South): I an'going to oppose the motion. Had Mr.'Molloy not been given ample opportunityof ventilating the views and wishes of thecity council I would, perhaps, have beenin favour of his being heard, but everypossible facility has been given to Mr.Molloy and the institution he represents.I heartily agree in all the remarks of thleprevious speakers, and with what you,Sir, have said. I recognise that Mr. Mot-Iy, in his advocacy of his cause,can only be likened to Tennyson'sBrook. He wvill go on for ever ;and I think if he be admitted to thebar of the House he will carry out allthe attributes featured in that grat poem.I hope the House will not create some-

1933

1934 I(COUNCIL.]

thing that will go down to posterity asa tradition, namely, that Mr. Molloy wasthe first individual in Western Australiato appear at 'he bar of the LegislativeCouncil. I oppose the muotion, and willoppose Li similar motions unless suffi-cient grundts are given for their beingagreed to.

Hon. C. SOMMERS (in reply): .Ar.Moss in the course of his remarks usedthe words "grave circumstances.' Surelythese are very grave circumstances in thehistory of the city council. T~hey arehaving taken from them a uight to whichthey attach great value, not for their per-sonal interests but for the ratepayers ofPerth for all time.

The PRESIDENT: The motion isthat the prayer of the petition be granted.

Hlon. C. SOMMERS- And also thatthe mayor be heard at the bar, in orderthat under these grave and exceptionalcircumstances, entailing, to his thiaking,a great wrong upon the corporation, hemight put the viewvs of the city councilbefore us. I hold that grave cireum-stances have arisen, sufficient to give himthat privilege. Rion, members seem tobe afraid that his worship would goon like Tennyson's Brook, that he wouldbe unlimited in his address. Yet we weretold by Mr. Moss that when the mayorwas before the select committee his po0w-ers of endurance were not unlimited, thathe broke down in two hours. So we seethat the extreme period for -which hon.members would have to listen to him istwo hours. The mayor is an advocatefor the ratepayers. It is no imaginarygrievance, but a very real grievance, forthey consider that the right to be takenfrom them is -worth many hundreds ofthousands of pounds. Seeing that thereis no urgency in this matter, and that itis not all-important that the measure

shudpass this very day, I hope that apossible delay of two hours will not heregarded as an absolute bar to grantingthe prayer of the petition, and giving theratepayers an opportunity of being heardthrough the mayor.

Question put and negatived.

BILL - }'IEMANTLE-KALGOORLIE(MERREDIN-COOLOARDTE SEC-TION) RAIL-WAY.

'Message received from the LegislativeAssembly notifying that it had agreed toamendment -No. 1 and had disagreed withamendment No. 2 made by the Council.

BILL-UNrVERSITY LANDS.Reeived from the Legislative Assem-

bly and read a first time,

BILL-TRA-MWAYS PURCHASE.

Third Reading.

Debate resumed from the jpreriouis day.Hon.' A. G. JENKINS (Metropolitan) :

I julst want to make a few remarks inreply to the statement made by Mr. Cole-batch in referring to that portion of theselect committee's report in which it isestimated that the profits for the yearwould be £48,000. The hon. member pro-ceeded to say that these profits would notbe £48,000 or anything like that amount.The select conimittee took evidence fromcertain witnesses and it appeaired thenthat the profits of last year were £,41,000.Those were the net profits. From thatamount we deducted £4,000 representingthe cost of London expenses and remit-tances which reduced the amount to£37,000. It was also given in evidencethat the profit of last year exceeded theproft of the previous year by £11,000,and it was thought that the profit for thecoming year would increase in the sameratio. The committee decided the ques-tion practically on that view of the mat-ter because they had evidence both fromMr. Corbett and Mr. Weir who estimatedthe profits this year at £4,1,000, and basedthe figures regarding what they consideredthe city council's rights were worth on£48000. I have had an opportunity ofchecking these figures to satisfy myselfsince the report of the committee wagsubmitted, and I find that the profit forthe present year is likely, to be £52,000.which is £6,000 more than last year, andthe select committee therefore were wellwithin the mark when they estimated the

1934

[2-5 SEPnsman, 1912.1 13

profit at £4S,000. That ought to satisfymembers that the figutres quoted by 31r.Colebatch were not correct, and that thefigures quoted by the select committeewere correct.

Hon. R. J. LYLN (West) : I have nodesire to prolong this debate. Ampleopportunity has been given to all to dis-cuss the question from every standpoint.I merely desire to draw attention to oneor two of Mr. Colebatch's remarks as towhy this system should not be takenover. Mr. Jenkins has mentioned howthe comnmittee arrived at the surplus of£45,000, and I can confirm his statement.The receipts for tbis year show a sur-plus of £8S,000 in excess of the previousyear, and it is anticipated that the netsurplus this year'will be at least £50,000.A further remark made by the hornmember was that the eoncession, as beinggranted. at the present juncture to theemployees of that system, was likely tocreate a deficit ini connection wi4th theoperating expenses. I desire to informthe House that for many months nego-tiations have been proceeding in theEastern States between the TramwayEmployees' Association and the varioustramway systems, and the concessionsconceded to the employees of the Perthtramway system to-day are only thosewhich have already been agreed uponfor thie Fremantle municipal system. Inarriving at that settlement with the Fre-mantle employees the concessions givenwere based on an tagreement entered intoby the Melbourne Tramaway Companywith their employees. I have no desireto prolong this discussion. bnt merelywish to assure members in regard towhat Mr. Colcbateh had to say respect-ing the financial Aspect that the condi-tions conceded to the men are only inaccordance with those of similar systemsthroughout Australia to-day.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY (inreply) : The methods adopted boy Mr.Colebatch in repeatedly returning to thecharge after being severely repulsedtime and again do not to my mind con-stitute a flattering compliment to the in-telligence of members of this House. Thequestion of the nationalisation of the

Perth tramways has been before theLegislative Council since the Sth August.We had the second reading speech, and

then we had the famous amendment ofAlt. Coichatch that the Bill be read thisday six months. He delivered a vehe-ment address, but the amendment wasdefeated on the voices, and he had niotthe courage to call for a division. Thatwas defeat number one. Mr. Kingsmillthen moved for -a select committee andwas successful. Mr. Colebatch opposedthe appointment of a select committeeand delivered another vigorous address.The House was then unsympathetic, andhe found himself in a minority. Thatwas defeat number two. The committeemnet; they called a fairly large numberof witnesses, aud made a thorough in-vestigation; they reported to this House;the Bill reached the Committee stage,and we then found Mr. Colebatch stillmilitant. He delivered another lengthyaddress extending over six teen columnsof Hiansard, sixteen columns of vigorousdenunciation, but the whole of his attackwas wasted; the House was against him,and that was defeat number three. Thebon. gentleman again came forward forthe fourth time, and endeavouredl to de-feat the measure on) the third reading.He attempted this on Thursday last,when several members were absent whowould have supported the Bill, the palp-able object being to defeat the Bill on acatch vote, but fortunately I was able tosecure an adjournment, and now an op-portunity has been afforded for everymember to be present, and if the Bill bedefeated, it winl be defeated on fair andhonourable conditions. In speakingagainst the third reading, the hon. mem-ber fulminated violently, but to a largeextent it was the same old thunder. Heprofessed to make a few startling dis-coveries; but they were mostly mae'nests. He said the Government weretaking over a concession the capitalisa-tion of which was three-fourths water:I have been thinking over this for somedays, and have 'been unable to follow thebon. member. The eapitalisation, of altoompanies of this class to a more or lessextent is watered, but I would impress

1935

1936 [COUTNCIL.]

upon members that we are not buyingthe liabilities of the company; we arenot agreeing to pay off the debentureholders, and wre are not purchasing theshares. It is immaterial wvhether thecapitalisation is watered or not. Thequestion we have to consider is wvhetherthis property is worth £475,000, that isthe point at issue and not the ancestryof the company. The hon. member statedthat on account of this excess of water-ing the people of Perth would have topay high fares indefinitely. Mr. Cole-batach has a very high opinion of thefinancial ability and businesslike qualitiesof the mayor of Perth, '.%r. -Mlolloy; in-deed he made very invidious comparisonsbetween the business ability of Air. M'ol-lay and that of the Colonial Treasurer.Ifr. 'Molloy admitted, during the courseof his evidence, that he tried to acquirethe tramways for £450,000, and had itnot been for the neglect of his councilhe would have been able to complete thedeal. The price subsequently rose to£00, 000, and Mr. Molloy was still tryingto gather up the watered stock whenMr. Scaddan effected the present deal.What had Mr. Corbett to say with ref-erence to the f475,0001 On page 17 theevidence of Mr. James Corbett, citytreasurer, is given. In reply to quaestion183 he said-

Assuming it is open to the councilto purchase just as the Governmentare doing, and at the same price, andestimating the gross profit of £4,000,less £15,000 for depreciation, andallowing four per cent, interest on the£475,00, a net profit of £14,000 a yearcould be shown. That £14,000 wouldbe sufficient to pay interest at four percent, on £350,000.

That £350,000, 1 presume, is the amounthe wished the Government to pay to thecity council. Question 184 states-

By Hon. R. J. Lynn-Is that yourvalue of tte system to-day 1-The Gov-ernment would be in the position ofearning a profit of £14,000 if theytook the trains over at £475,000. Thecouncil proposed to purchase the trainsbefore the Government came in, and ifthey could have secured them at that

amount they would have paid at thatrate. That is the basis upon which Icalculated.

Now coming back to Mr. Molloy he re-gards the tramways as a very greatprofit-making concern. On page 5 of theevidence, in reply to question 16, Mi-.Molloy stated-

Some people say, and I do not knowwhether it is True, that the companyhave not provided sufficiently for de-preciation, but if they take that intoaccount, it would as a commercial ven-ture be a very valuable asset indeedand the present worth of that, roughlyfrom what I can make out, would be£466,180,' that is at the right of pur-chase in 1025, and f-543,214 in 1939.

As a commercial venture the mayorstated that it would be a very valuableasset indeed. He differs from Mr. Cor-bedt who valued the reversionary rightsat £543,214. Mr. J. L. B. Weir, an ex-pert accountant of considerable status inthe City, expressed his opinion. He goeson to say-

The purchase price offered by theGovernment is £475,000. Assumingthat the city council purchase at thatprice, the profits for the present year,I am informed, are £46,000.1 Takin-the system on that basis, and allowing£15,000 for depreciation, that woulleave a net annual pr-ofit of £14,000after paying four per cent on the£475,000. If we assume that the profitis going to remain stationary and thatthe tramway system has reached itszenith, so far as profits are concerned,I estimate the reversionary interest ofthe Perth City Council on that basiswould be £350,000. As against thatview of it I have taken out a tablefrom the reports of the Perth Tram-way Company, showing the annual in-crease in profits for the last eightyears. According to their experienceover that time there has been a con-tinual increase. Taking the initialprofit in 1902, which was £20,592, wefind that in 1903 the increase wasC2.379; and 1904, £9,038; 1905,£11,449; 1906, £14,668; 1907, £10,585;.190S, £$,000; 1909, £9,569, and 1910

1936

(25 SEPTEMBER, 1912.1 13

(the year of the strike), £6,110. Theactual annual increase of profits forthese years works out at 934 per cent.Of course I quite appreciate the factthat profits cannot go on increasingindefinitely. Profits of this systemwould increase somewhat abnormallyfor the first few years until a settledbasis was reached, but if the popula-tion of Perth is going to increase, andthe probabilities are in that direction,the profits of the tramway companycan be expected to increase to a cer-tain extent every year. Experience ofthe tramway company for the lasteight years has shown an average rateof increase of 9 / per cent. I haveassumed for the sake of argument thatthe profits for the nest ten years in-crease by 5 per cent. each year. As-suming they increase 5 per cent. everyyear, if they made a profit of £4S9,000this year they would add £2,400 profitto that every year for ten years. andwe assume that with such an increasethe profits would then reach theirzenith and there would he no furtherincrease. I have made out a table toshow you how this would work. Theywould make an annual profit of£538,800 instead of £E48,000 as at pre-sent- Tf that profit were realised inperpetuity, and I do not think it is alarge profit to expect the tramwaycompany to earn, that is after provid-ing interest on £475,000 and £13,000denreciation, the cash value would be£620,000.

I am quoting this statement to show thatthe tramway company proposition isnot a worthless thing as suggested byMr. Colebatch. I have read wh-it Mr.Weir states. He says nothing about thcedeleterious effect of watered stock whichappears to be only a phantomn of theimagination of Mr. Colebatch. Thi lion.member insinuated that we were buyingan incubus which would sit on the chestof the State for aUl time. It must berecollected that the late Premiery (M1r.Wilson) endorsed this purchase by th~eGovernment, and he stated publicl,- thkihie would have grasped the oppoituniryto purchase the concern for P.47.5,000.When we recollect that Mr. Wilson is not

only in opposition to the present Covern-ment, hut is also leader of the Opposi-tion, a statement like that coming fromhim is enititled to considerable weight. Icannot follow Mr. Colebatch in his deviouswanderings. He branded tbe Govern-ment as confiscators out to rob the citycouncil, but if half of what he said becorrect, then the city council ought tothank heaven that the Government havecome to their rescue and prevente-d thetafrom securing this ruinous proposition.We are told that the purchase right,which is maturing in thirteep years, willlimit the period in which the companycan harass the citizens of Perthi. Thelhon, member is under the impression thatthe council can take over at a valuationthe plant and land, but there is a widedifference of opinion on that point. Mr.Pilkington is a lawyer of high repute inthis State, and he has a very big repita-tiun. This is what lie says in regard tothat question-

Hon. D. G. Gawler: He was nol called,you know.

The COLONIAL SECIRETARY: I donot know whether it is the praclice oflawyers to write opinions to order.

Hon. J. D. Connolly: First read thequestion that was put to Mr. Pilkington.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: Thereis no question here, but the statement ex-plains the matter. He says-.

The chief question upon whichi 1 amasked to advise is whether the tram-way company is entitled, upon theexercise of the rights of taking over itsuindertaking by the various localauthorities, to be paid for the statutoryrights and privileges which it at presentenjoys. In my opinion this ques.tionmust he answered in the affirmative.Trhe words whicht appear in all theagreements ar-"'the whole of the lines,plant, rights, undertaking, land, andbuildings, of the promoter."Hon. J. D. Connolly: In ally case they

can get over that by taking it in thirteenyears.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY-: Ofcourse 31r. Connolly may hold a differentopinion-which is entitled to respect. Itseems to me from this opinion ncrt onlywould the city council at the endl of

1937

938[COUNCIL]

thirteen years have to purchase the Mlanitand the line and the land, but would -alsohave to lpurchase the rights and tinder-takings, and these rights have a curiencyof something like 14 years, and (n thebasis of the evidence given by Mr. \'olloybefore the select committee. I am certainthe city council would have to pay thetramway company a considerable sum,and if they refused to fall into line andendeavoured to secure the tramts withoutpaying for the rights and privileges, well,it would run itself into a big lawsuit. Wehave had experience of this in connetionwith the gas company purchase, and weknow that the city council was lai,de.i ina big sum of money. There wvere differ-ences of opinion among lawyers titan,. andthere are differences of opinion aironglawyers nowv, so that the whole thing is amatter for serious thought. 31r. Cole-batch said that the company made verylittle profit, and that until now thely couldonly pay shareholders two and a half percent. The answer to that is ver3 simnpleindeed. The company have been payinginterest on the debentures, and they- bavebeen redeeming the debentures, expen4dinigtheir profits on extensions and establish-ing a reserve fund. Since 1903, the de-benture fund has grown to £47,392. Theamount expended on extensions has been£27,6253, and the reserve fund is nowV£18,500, and this year they paid a divi-dend of five per cent. A great deal ofcapital was made bythe hon. member outof the alleged £E48,000 profit. That matterhas been clearly explained by Mr. Lynnand Air. Jenkins. 1 never stated in thecourse of my previous address that thecompany was making a profit of L48,000 ayear. I said that the gross surplus receiptsover expenditure for last year amountedto £C41,087. This should have been£40,892. 1 made a mistake there. I wasout £195. The city treasurer, I discovered,in giving evidence, originated the £:48,000profit, but that had reference to thepresent year. The profits to the 31stAugust of this year were £6,071 in ad-vance of those for the same period of listyear. At the same ratio, this means !iatthe profits this year, after deductingPerth expenses, will be £50,000. Mr.Colebatch pointed exultantly to the rise

in the price of shares. The rise in theprice of shares is easily explained. It ;due to the increased profits of las. year,the increase being £C11,000, and the 'lros-peets for this year being even hri2:aer.The preference shares have gone up, hutthat is owing to the rumour that the pre-ference shareholders would participntt inlsome of the surplus. For some years thepreference shares have stood at 20s.: nowthey are 23s., in anticipation, as I havealready said, of a share in the purchasemoney. The hon. member talked aboutspoils andi plunder and opening the eyesof members. The whole thing is tooridiculous for words. The report of thecomipany's meeting was published in theWest itistralian a few days ago, andthere is nothing at all in that report towvarrant the hysterical outburst oil thepart of Mr. (1olebatch. Now he says thatthe tramway company, on the eve ofparting with the property, are makingcoiicesions to their employees. This iallinsinuation that they are trying to curryfavour with the Labour party. There isno ground whatever for the innuendo,and it is another of Mr. Colebatch's emupty,bogeys. The increase was made to bringup the wages of the men to the level ofthe wages paid to the Fremantle tramwi~aymen, and the Fremantle tramway em-ployees had their wages increased tomake them in accord with those paid inthe Eastern States, more particutoth' inMelbourne. It is a pity that Mr. Col)e-batch did not make more deeper invt'osti-gations before letting himself loose in :.hisway. We had more from that lion.gentleman. He said, "that there is von-fiscation of the city council's rights therecan be on doubt, and we are giving themnothing whatever for the taking away oftheir valuable rights." In one breath thebon. member argues that the companycannot pay more than two and a half percent., in fact that it is tottering on theverge of financial ruin, and in the n:extbreath he insinuates that it is a little goldmine which the Government propose tothieve from the property owners ofPerth. The "valuable rights" vanish intothin air if forty per cent. of the argu-ments of the hon. member are worthyv ofconsideration. The position in this

1938

[25 SEPTEMBER, 1912.1 13

House should be clear in connectioui withthis question. The Bill came fromanother place and it came under uniquecircumstances. There was not one partyalone behind it; both parties in the Legis-halive Assembly supported this measure.The second reading there was carriedwithout a division, and that too in aHouse where the parties are divided onalmost every other great question. Inconnection with this question, however,both parties presented a united front.There were some advocates for Perthrights, but there were no disputanits asto the jprice. The Bill arrived here. Itwas submitted to a select committee whichcalled evidence. That select committeereported, and the House endorsed its re-port in every detail. The House amendedille Bill in accordance with the dirtetionand advice of the select committee, andtile amended Bill was forwvarded toanother place. The Assembly acceptedthe amendment and sent the Bill back,and then on the third reading of tine Billna attempt is made to destroy' it oin theevidence submitted by Mr. Colebatchi th-eother evening, evidence which he said wasnew evidence, but which wvill not beareven the most superficial test. Mr. Cole-batch asks members to alter their judg-ment and to go back on wvhat has b~eend]one during the lust seven weeks. Itseems to me that is a very tall request.Events may occur to justify him. mom-.hers changing their mainds should therebe new developments or should some-thing occur which might lead themto believe that some wrong has been done,or that they have acted erroneously, andany member is perfectly justified undersuch circumstances in changing his ' jews.No such thing, however, I submit, hasoccurred in connection with this ques-tion. A few assertions have beer. madeby .1r. Colebatch, and I have attemptedthiis ufternoon to answer them. It is forlion, members now to say wvhether I havedealt with tile matter successfully or not.This House has a reputation to sustain.It is a deliberative assembly, and it shouldponder well airy course that it decides totake, and pause before coming to a conclu-sion. I do trust that before memnbersdecide to reject tis Bill-I do not thinkthey wvill reject it-they will consider all

the possible consequences. It certainlywill not redound to the credit of thisHouse if, after adhering to the Bill forseven weeks and assisting it forward inevery possible way, we reject it withoutgood and sufficient reason. What wouldthe outside world think, and what wooldthe people of Western Australia think, ofthis House? They would saj that it wasshifty, unstable, and unreliable. It mat-tens not to the Government in a sensewhat the fate of the Hill may be. Wecan say, "We have striven to nationalisethe tramways of Perth, but the LegislativeCouncil threw out the measure. It is notour fault, but thle fault of the UpperHouse." I would remind members, too,that this meiaure has been supported byboth parties in the Legislative Assembly.It is not necessary that I should say anymore. I believe the House is fully seizedwith its responsibility, and that it willscnd this amendment to keep companywith the one rejected about six weeks ago.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a third time and passeo.

BILLrINDtSTRIAL ARBITRATION.

Second Reading.

Debate resumed from the previous day.Hon. J. F. CULLEN (South-East) :I

understand that the House will be prac-tically unanimous as to the second read-ing- of this Bill, and that the debatablework will fall to the Committee. There-f ore, 1 shall not touch on mere mattersof amendments to clauses, but I wouldlike to say a few words on the leadingprincipile of tile Hill, that is, the tribunalon which the whole utility of the mea-sure must depend. In the first place, Iwould commend the moderate speech ofthe Honorary' Minister in moving thesecond reading. In fact, if any faultis to be found with that address, it is asto its over-moderation, suggesting thatthe lion. member is not too enthusiasticabout the Bill; and I am satisfied thathe arid I will differ very much on theremarks that I am about to make. Ifeel sure that he wvill like the main prin-ciple of this Bill as little as I do. Now,I hold that the saving feature of the

1939

1940 COUNCIL.]

present Act is the president of the court.Ile mulst be a judge of the Supreme Courtand the whole country has confidencein the integrity, impartiality, and abilityof our Supreme Court judges. I do notthink that any party attaches much valueto the rest of the court, because what-ever Nalue either lay member may haveis practically nullified and discountedby the influence exerted by the otherlay member. These two lay memberspractically cancel each other, and reallyadd very little to the public confidencein the tribunal. The new Bill was heral-dled with a great deal of rant Outsideof this House. It was to be an ''instru-ment of peace,'' something decidedlyhumanitarian, and far above all earlyconceptions of a tribunal in the indus-trial world. But what is the main changewhich the new Hill makes' It is saidthat the mail change is the sweepingaway of technicalities; but what do wefind ? The oniy technicality reallyswept away is the judge, the savingfeature of the present law. And yetthe Bill is heralded as an instrument ofpeace, on the supposition, I take it, thatif we have anr entirely one-sided courtits business will be short and it willsuggest to disputants the futility of evergoing to tile court again. I can quiteunderstand that if a one-sided partisantribunal is established, one side to everydispute will keep away from the courtif it can manage to do so. That partywould say ''It is useless to go there; bet-ter any ills than go to the court.'' In thatway the court might end disputes, butI think it would threaten the industriesof the country. Possibly champions ofthe Bill will say that I have no right toassume that the appointment of a par-tisan president is intended. The newBill provides that the president shallbe appointed by the Governor in Council,that is, by the Government of the day.With every disposition to attribute thehighest motives and the soundest judg-ment to Ministers of the day, will anyrational mail have the courage to believethat the Ministry would appoint someonewho would commend himself to the con-fidence of the employers than would a

judge of thle Supreme Court ? I cannotbelieve that ally Minister would assertthat. Very well, if the Ministry wantall entirely impartial president can theydo better thanl appoint a judge of theSupreme Court? If they do not wantsomeone who will commend himself en-tirely- to the employers, and they are do-ing away with the impartial president,whom would they be likely to appoint IIt is impossible to believe that they couldavoid partisanship in that appointment.So far as this Bill has gone, there isthis remarkable hlistory, that everyamendment brought forwvard from oneside ilas beeii welcomed, every alterationsuggested by the unions outside has beenwelcomed and placed in the Bill; butevery amendment proposed from theother side has been voted down by asolid party vote. What ground of hopeis there for the fairest-minded man inthis House thant if the new tribunal isaccepted by' this House, the Governmentuill appoint anybody but a partisan tothat position '?

I-Ion. J. E. Dodd (Honorary Minister):Do you refer to the amuendmen'ts made inanother place?

Hon. J. F. CU'LLEN :I refer to theamendments already made in the Bill.At its first introduction, the Bill wasprepared in the light of Miniterial know-ledge of the Labour party's wisheq, andwhen onl behalf of the party amendmentswere brought forward they were admit-ted. I ask members with even, dis-position to think the best, can anyrational mail believe that the Govern-ment of the day in filling the president-ship of this tribunal could get awayfrom a partisan appointment? is itlikely ? Very wvell. Can this Bill thenbe looked upon as anr instrument ofpeace? Need Ministers wonder if.hon.members whor have followed the historyof the Arbitration Court and who reallywant an instrumenit of peace, are dubiousabout allowing the Ministry of the dayto appoint a man who they know wouldbe acceptable to their supporters?

Hon. J. E. Dodd (Honorary Minister):Would not your argument apply justthe same to thle appointment of a judgetI

1940

[25 SEPTEMBER, 1912.] 94

Hon. J. F. CULLEN : No, becausejudges have received very high appoint-ments and are above any partisan con-sider'ation. Alwrays the Governmentselect the outstanding member of thebar, recognised by the public as the man.for the position, and no Governmentdare do otherwise.

Honn. J. E. Dodd (Honorary Mtinister):Suppose the Government appoint alegal practitioner ats president of the Ar-bitration Court, would not your argumentapply just the same?

Ronn. J. F, CULLEN:. No. Thatwould be a spcial appointment to thiscourt, and] would be made in accordancewith the colour of the Government of theday. F'untbermore, it. would be no savingclause at all to say that the Governmentmight appoint any legal gentlemanto this position, because there may bemembers of the legal profession who arebitter partisans, and at a salary of£1,001) per annum is it likely 'that a mailof w'eight and independence of judg-ment would he available for thepositionI It is not likely at all.Whereas if the Bill provides that the Gov-ernment mnust go to the Supreme Courtbench as all of the judges' appointmentshave been mnade apart from political con-sideration, made because the appointeewas the outstanding member of the pro-fession when the vacancy arose, and asI said before no Government dared to 61llthe Supreme Court judgeship on any, rulebut that of appointing the leading mem-ber of the bar at the time the vacancyoccurs-any Government that departedfrom that would have a badl time. I havenever heard of a Government departingfrom that rnle in any State. The Su-preme Court is looked to with such sac-redness that no Government would dareto allow partisanship to enter into theappointments. The present law providesthat the position should be filled from theSupreme Court beach as it exists, and thewvhole country is conversant with the im-partiality and the ability of the judgesof the Supreme Court. But is it possiblefor the members of this House, no mat-ter how disposed they may be to put thebest construction on everything, is it pos-

sible for them to believe the Governmentof the day, in filling this position, notexceeding £1,000, would go beyond a manwhom they knew would be grateful totheir own supporters?

Hon. F. Davis: If the Government ap-pointed a judge to-morrow they wouldsay he Wouild be a partisan.

Hon. J1. F. CULLEN: "They say."The people who would say that would notbe considered at all. I as a member ofthis House am not going to allow thishigh appointment to be made on partygrojunds. That is one feature of theproposed new tribunal. The next featureis even worse, The Bill proposes thatthis tribunal shall be composed of threelaymen. two on one side and one on theother, and of course if this Mfinistry wentout of ollice and another Ministry camein, and the occasion arose for making an-other appointment, there would be thesame liability for the new Ministry toplease their friends and appoint a parti-san on its side. This court of two laymenon one side and one on the other is to bemade an absolutely f ree and easy tribunala kind of back-woods-American-go-as-you-please. They are not to be bound byany rules of court; they are not to bebound by any rules of evidence. I canunderstand an ignorant man saying."'Yes that is a good idea, 'we will havethree men and they will make the lawv asthey go along, make their own rules;they will be a law unto themselves; theywil not be a court but a little legislativebody making the law as they go along,and applying it." I can understand theignorant man taking that view but howis one to understand a r-esponsible Min-istry taking that view? Suppose we saidin this House these rules of debate arevery hampering we will go as we please,Ins tend of simplifying debate and savingtime, every hon. member knows that wewould plunge the House into chaos. Timewould be wasted and the debates wouldbecome ineffcient. I submit the proposalin the Bill is to degrade this tribunalfrom its status as a court to a kind ofAmericani-back-woodis-go-as-you-please; norules of court; no rules of evidence.Just imagine the court constituted of

1941

1942 [COUNCIL]

three laymen, two on one side and oneon the other, and the two men fightingon the one side against one on the other.At present we have one man fighting onone side and one on the other, and an im-partial judge holding the scales of jus-lice between the two. But just imagineanother vourt having two men on oneside and one on the other with no rulesof court and no rules of evidence, andthey would be helped by a nnmber ofbush lawyers. T am not prepared to saythe legal profession includes nobody whois not the pink of honour, but I am pre-pared to say this, that if there is a memberof the legal profession not sufficientlybound by a sense of the honour of hisprofession, he is restricted by the rule.,of court and he dare not go beyondt hose rules of court, and thereis that safeguard for a decentand hononrable administration of jus-tice. But when yon imagine this freeand easy court, with their crew of bushlawyers, and a bush lawyer is the mostdangerous man on earth, a bloodsuckeralways. a time-waster always, one cannotbut be' amazed at the dream of takingaway the technicalities and rules of court.What is the history of the bush lawyer inthe Arbitration Courtl First of all, heblunders his citation, then he comes andwastes the time in arguing that that oughtnot to matter, and that because he hascited a dispute, the court ought to waiveevery technicality and let him go on.After wasting his client's money and thetime of the court, and the judge has torule that the eitrition is bad, then thereis an ignoran( outcry that we shouildsweep away technicalities. 'We want tosweep away the hush lawyers first of alland then sweep away the clauses of thisBill that tend to degrade the court byleaving out the judge and putting in apartisan. There is no doubt this Housewvill have to do as it did when the prev-ious Bill wvas before it. It will have toinsist that the president shall he a judgeof the Supreme Court. I will not noticemere details beyond calling attention tothe two points on which the deadlockarose, or on which it pleased the Govern-ment to make a deadlock when the Billwas last before us. These two points

have been put back in the Bill. The Billproposes to give the court further powerafter it has dealt with all the legitimatematters that may be in dispute betweenthe two sides before the court, such aswages, hours of labour, and general con-ditions, to come in and make any rule thatit thinks fit. I want to lpoint out thatwhat may be very amusing and great funto the eight-hours-a-day worker, may bevery harassing and hampering to the un-fortunate employer who, after the eighthours are over, has to carry night andday the responsibility of finding the wagesordered by the courts, and fulfilling allthe conditions-some of them necessary,some absolutely unnecessary- that thecourt chooses to order. It may be veryamusing to the agitator, and great fun,to go to the courts and have them alwaysbusy. It may be a matter of death tomany an employer's business. I say donot hamper the employer any more thanyou can help, and get away from theignorant notion that what hampers theemployer and makes it hard for him mustin some w.ay benefit his employees.

Hon. 3'. Cornell: Not many have diedof the complaint.

Hon. 3. F. CULLEN: Many have died.

Hon. J. Cornell: Not from your com-plaint.

Hon. J. F. CULsLEN: And many arein extremes to-day largely through ham-pering conditions imposed at the instanceof the political agitator. The other pointthat is valued in the Bill is this: the Billgives the court power to enter into at busi-ness and classify and grade the individualemployees in that business; a monstrousproposal. Any bnsiness man must seethat. It would be very serious to hisbusiness. For instance, here is a littlebusiness, and we will say Bill Smith isdrawing the highest pay. The employerwho knows his men says, "Bill Smith ismy best man, I regard him as my fore-man and pay him my highest wage"'; butthe couirt can say, "Tom Jones is a betterman than Bill Smith," and the courtorders you to pay Tom Jones your highestwage; and so on through all the em-ployees of that business. That is what ismeant by, classifying and grading the em-

1942

[25 Srrnxssa, 1912.1 14

ployces of a businessc. The thing is mon-strous,. There is no objection to the courtattaching a certain wage to a certainposition, but to allow the court, whichknows very little about the details of thebusiness, to come between the employerand his men and exercise judgment forhim as to who are the best and whoare the least worthy of high pay, thething would be absurd. When the Billgoes into Committee there is a number ofamendments referred to by Mr, Moss.which I shall certainly feel it my dutyto support. I shall not detain the Houseby touching the ground that he has soably covered, hut I hope members willnot allow the fact that this is the secondtime of asking them, to lead them togive up matters of principle, matters thataffect the life and death of a business. Nodoubt the House will he considerate, butin matters of principle, and especially asto the constitution of the court, I anmsatisfied that this House Will stand firm.

Ron. D. G-. GAWLER (Metropolitan-Suburban) : This Bill has been produc-tive of some interesting speeches, andnot the least interesting speech we havehad was that delivered by the HonoraryMinister in introducing the measure- Thespeech which the Honorary Minister de-livered was worthy of the Well-knowncharacter which hie bears in the labourranks, and I think the speech with whichthe Bill was introduced will go a longway towards commending the measure to-the House. The chief thing that struckme throughout the speech of the Honor-ary Minister was rather the note of hope-lessness referred to by previous speakers.I do not think the Honorary Ministerfelt altogether hopeful, firstly, as towhether strikes woulid evor come to anend, and. secondly, whether in itself themeasure before the House Would assistin doing that. The Honorary Ministerattributed the strikes that had takenplace very largely to the workers' dislikeof the Act, and to their being unwxillingto take advantage of it. I do not thinkthat is so. I think we all know f rom thestrikes thtat have taken place that thetechnicalities of the Act and the difficul-ties under the Act to which the bon.

member has referred had nothing to dowith the workers' not taking advantageof the Act. To my mind the workers donot believe in compulsory arbitration.At any rate a large number of themdo not, in support of which, if welook at the figures of the workersincluded tinder agreements and underawvards we find that the numberof workers nder agreements is 16,836,there are only 2,84 under awards. Ithink that goes to show that the workersprefer agreements outside to going tothe court for awards.

Hon. J. E. Dodd (Honorary Minis-ter) : Those figures apply only to union-ists. There is a large number of workersother than unionists under awards aswelt.

Hon. D. G. GAWLEfl: I do not thinkthat detracts from what I say. Thereis a very small proportion of workers,whether unionists or not, Working uinderawards of the court as compared withthose working under agreements.

Hon. J. Cornell: The present Arbitra-tion Act has made agreeements possible.

Hon. D. 0. GAWLER: I quite admitit, but the agreements at-a the result ofconciliation between men and their em-ployers- The only other way to obtainsettlement of a dispute is by means ofcompulsion. I also contend that whathas transpired during the last twelveor eighteen months has shown that theGovernment themselves do not altogetheragree with cornpulsory arbitration. Wehare bad three prominent strikes duringthe last twelve months, and I think thatI am iight in saying that they have beenstrikes against awards. The engineers'strike at Midland, the aerated waterworkers' strike, and the tampers' strikeare the eases referred to. The engineersrefused to go to arbitration, and whatdid we find? The Government appointeda special conciliation board for thesemen. The aerated water employees re-fused to go to arbitration: what did wefind? Thte Honorary 'Minister, to hiscredit, offered to mediate between themand the employers. The lumpers' strikewvas a direct breath of an agreement. Itwas settled hy a hoard proposed by the

1943

1944 [COUNCIL.]

Government with a chairman appointedby the Government themselves. I sub-mit that it all shows the Government donot believe in their own Act. If theydo, wvas it not their duty to say to thesemen "There is an Act on the statute-book for the settlement of your disputes;why do you not go to arbitration ?"

Hon. F. Davis: The engineers couldnot go to the court.

Hon. D, 0. GAWLER: I am not quiteaware that in all these cases it was pos-sible for them to go to the court, and Iwill give the hion. member that the en-gineers could not go, lint there is nodoubt with regard to the other two cases,and I say-is it to be wondered at inthese circumstances that the workers dorefuse to go to arbitration when theyfind that the Government, with an Acton the statute-book, practically refuse torecognise it? There is another point inthis connection iii regard to the dutiesof the registrar under the Act. Theregistrar is there for the purpose of pro-tecting the public; I take it lie is thereto act as a non-party man; and amonghis other duties he has to inquire intoany inidustrial trouble that takes place.randee Mr. Conuolly's regime there wasa minute issued by Mr. 'Connaolly in July,1910, in which lie instructed the registrarthat when any industrial dispute wasbrought to his notice he was to go to theCrown Law authorities and inquirewhether or not a prosecution would Bie,and if so, he was to take the necessarysteps. Now I asked the Honorary 11ria-ister a question the other day with re-gard to this, 1, whether that instruction'i-s still in force; 2, if not, why not;and 3, whether any instructions hadsince been given to the registrar in thisconnection. The reply was-

1, No. 2, It is considered that underthe existing law no good purpose isserved by making inquiries with a viewto a prosecution. 3, Yes, to the effectthat inquiries are not to be made un-less instructions are giveni by the 'Min-ister.

I particularly refer hon- members to thereply to my third question. I venture tosubmit that 'Mr. Connolly's instructions

were the only honourable instructionsthat could have been given under thAAct. He said to the registrar, "Donot come to me if you hear ofanything, but, if advised, prosecute." Thepresent position is that no inquiries areto be made unless instructions are givenby the Minister. I venture to say it istaking away the character the registrarshould bear under the Act. I cannotundertand the second reply, where it issaid it is considered that under the exist-ing law no good purpose is served bym-aking inquiries with a view to a p rose-cution. Whether this is because thestrike provisions of the Act are inopera-tive I cannot say. At any rate I ventureto say that it confirms what I have al-ready said about the Government goingover the heads of their own Act, anid ittends to discredit the Act in the eyes ofthe workers. I venture to think thatcornpulsory arbitration is a failure. Ihave said it before in the House; and Ihave not seen any necessity to alter myopinion. I think it is a failure forseveral reasons; one of them is that itis economically a failure, and it is boundto be economically a failure. I do notthink we can stop economic progress oraffect economic laws by legislation anymore than we can stop the waves of thesea. It seems to me that many considera-tions may decide what wages are to bepaid and the relationship between em-ployers and their workers. -There mybe many economnic causes for that. Forinstance, a change in the fiscal policy ofthe country may do it, a great commer-cial failure may do it, or a drought;- andwe bad the instance not long ago occur-ning, an economnic cause which cannot bestemmed by legislation, that is, the in-creased cost of living. That will inter-fere with any legislation. It has beenbrought up over and over again thatwages must be regulated because of theincreased cost of living. How can wedeal with that by legislation? I submitit is impossible. Then we have a clausein the 1Bil1 which seems to show that thesame idea occurs to the Government. Itwas in the last Bill also. It is a elauseproviding that at any time under certain

1944

(25 SEPTEMBER, 1912.]194

conditions the worker or the employermay go to the c:ourt and ask for anaward to be varied. Why? Becauseconditions change. If that is the easeone is inclined to ask the question, "Whymake an award at all?"l How can wemnake an award for a given period whenconditions may change and we may haveto go to the court to ask for the awardto he varied. This is a complete answerto the theory that it is necessary by legis-lation to regulate the conditions andrates of wages between employers andemployees. Mr. Justice Burnside madea very apt remark the other day that weshould he ealled upon soon to fix theprice of goods. Why not? If the con-sumer is to he protected on the one sideby the fixing of prices of goods, on theother hand the worker is protected byfixing the price of his wages. Why itshould not be just as right in the inter-ests of the consumer to fix the price ofgoods as it is in the interests of theworker to fix the price of wages, I donot know. But it would be absolutelyabsurd to attempt to fix the price ofgoodis. I believe so far back asr the mid-die ages an attempt was made by law tofix the price of goods. What was theresult? The law was repealed aftertwelve months, and the reason stated inhistory is that the vendor of the goodssold the cheapest and nastiest he couldpossibly sell, and what the purchaserained in the reduction of the price he

lost in the quality of the goods. Oneis tempted to ask on what principle areawards made by the court? Prom myknowledge of the conditions and policyat the time the Act was introduced orig-inally, the idea was to take into consid-eration the capability of the industry topay certain wages. I think that if wedo not take that into consideration awaymust go our industries and away mustgo our prosperity and progress. It ap-pears to me that the idea now is to fixthe worker's wages according to theneeds of the worker. I quite agree thatlareecly the needs of the worker shouldbe taken into consideration, and I thinkevery one of Lis is largely in sympathywith the idea of a living wage. Of course,

under the Act the provision is that theworker shall get a minimum wage, hut inaddition to the minimum wage, as Mr.Cornell has told us over and over again,the worker asks for just as much moreas he can get. 'No doubt it is right fromhis own point of view, but the questionis where that will stop; and unless thecourt has some guiding principle onwhich to work in fixing wages, does itnot seem a loose sort of tribunal or aloose sort of idea to net on ? If thecourt lays it down that wages are toform a certain proportion of the p~rofitsof the industry, one can understand itthough one does not agree with it. Theo ofcourse the reply is-what about the losses?If a man is to share in the profits surelyhe ought to share in the losses. It is notright for the worker to share in the pro-fits and not be a sharer in the losses.That is what profit-sharing means, Ofcourse we all know that in times of de-pression the workers ask all the more.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 7.30 p.m.

Hon. D. G. GAWLER: Before tea, Iwas speaking on the question of the in-crease in wages. I think I anm right insaying that the commission which sit inNew Zealand came to the conclusion that,although the cost of living had increased,wages also had increased fi equal, if notgreater, proportion. It is -rather a pecu-liar fact, so far as I can gather from thedetails which are given in the statistic4 .that the Savings Bank increases up tothe 30th June of last year were in advanceof tlhose for the previous year. What theincreases are uip to the present time I am.not inl a position to state, hut they reure-sented an increase of £C1 1s. per head lastyear over the figures of the pre-ceding year. while the savings ofthe children depositors also increased.I mention thin to show that, a]-though the workers may say that thecost of living has increased, still all thecircumstances point to the fact that ]heyare not so badly off after all. Withboutany disrespect to the working mien itmight be asked, who, at the present time,do we see on holidays crowding all theholiday trains and the places of awme-

1945

1946(COUNCIL.]

menti Is it not the working men?7 £ (10not deny themn this privilege. In fact, Iam glad to see them enjoying them.elvts,but to my wind amusements of that sortare indulged in to a far greater extentthan are those of the so-called iuprerclasses. There is very little of what wemight tall necessity to he seen in thisState, at all events during the holidlayseason. After discussing the matter tothe extent I have done, I come baek towhat Mr. Cornell referred to when hesaid the workers will keep on asking formore, no matter what they might get. Thequestion therefore occurs to us, when wvillthey be satisfied?- Mr. Cornell's idea, ofcourse, does not stop short of socialk m,so there is every reason for his putting itas he has done. I would like to refershortly to the unusual character of thistribunal which has been set up by thisBill for the settlement of disputes. Doesnot the Bill have a far-reaching eifeet,and is that far-reaching effect not seen inthe difficulty of compelling the meni toaccept an arbitrary value for their labouir,and that a value fixed by one man with-out any possible qualification for theoffice? Is it not natural that the workershould have great diffiuty in agreeing-with the awards in many instances? Isit not natural that the worker w'ill objetto a value being placed on his labour, andthat his ideas of law and order will beconsiderably strained when he is told thatit is an offencve to disagree with the valueothers place on his labour? I verylargely sympathise with the working muanunder these conditions, It all shows- thedifficulty of compelling men to acceptthe decision of this court which we haveset tip. I have often referred to thisaspect of it, too, namely, that the whboledesign of these courts seems to he tocreate antagonism from first to last ie-tween the employers and the workers. Adispute has to he very largely manufac-tred before the machinery of the courtis put in motion. When the parties comneinto court, they sit practically at armn'slength from one another- The procetd-ings partake largely of some of thelitigious proceedings of our courts ufjustice. There is cross-examination ofwitnesses, and a good deal of acrimtony

is manifested, and after the decision isgiven one side or the other is bound to bedissatisfied, and very often that dissatis-faction is carried into the workshop. Itis useful at times to see ourselves asothers see us. I would like to show hun.members what is being thought of thisprinciple of compulsory arbitration, notonly in England but in the other Statcs.Addressing the British Association atDundee on September 7th, Mr. RamsayMacdonald, the leader of the Laourparty, made this statement-

The Australian experience showedthat so long as the people who controlcommodities could raise prices increasedwages would be of little v'alue. Headvised the union to abstain from com-pulsory arbitration, and he said hebelieved the imposition of fines was theonly method of enforcing awardsA. Itwould be impossible to get fines fromtunorganised labour.

On the same occasion Dr. Barrett, ofMelbourne, declared that the industriallegislation in force in Australia did notprevent strikes. He urged the membersoif the Association to go to Australia, in1914 in order to find enlightenment forthe settling of social difficulties. At theTrades Union CongrTess at Newport onSeptember 5th, Mr. Ben Tillett's resolu-tion proposing an inquiry into th%3 Gov-ernment's powers of prospective action inconnection with compulsory arbitrationwas rejected. The opponents of tk- reso-lution, we are told, feared that its adop-tion might be interpreted as an Accept-ance of the principle of compulsion. Onthe 5th of March of this year, in Donlon,Mr. W. E. Harvey, Labour rep re-sentative, stated that he would alwaysfight against compuilsory arbitration,which had absolutely failed in Australia.Dealing with these remarks, Mr. T. WVad-deli, es-Premier of New South Wales, ina letter to the London Times commentedupon that statement in these termis-

Mr. Har-ey has told the naked truth.Human ingenuity never devised afairer tribunal th~an the wages bocid,and yet nearly all the larger unionshave flouted the law. Anyone i-, blindif he believes that arbitration has beenotherwise thanl a gigantic failure in

1946

[25 SEPTEMBE, 1912.]194

Australia. The arbitration leg-islationwill be scattered like chaff if a depres-sion comes. The most hopeful indica-tion is the growing public feeliiigagainst tyrannous unionism.

In Melbourne, Air. King O'Malley echoedthe remarks made by Mr. Griffith~r, theMinister for Works in New South Wales,who attributed the losses of the Labourparty of late to the Brisbane and otherstrikes. Ifr. O'Malley said-

The workers must decide which theypreferred--strikes, wages boards, or teArbitration Court. They must be pre-pared, whichever course they ado~pted,to make war with that alone againstthe serried ranks of the capitalists.Strikes meant economic waste, andshould not be resorted to.

We bave no less a gentleman thtan 11r.Fisher, the Prime Minister, giving utter-ance on Mlarch 3rd last to these sentimentson wages boards. He is reported in theseterms--

Alluding yesterday to the coal strike,(lie Prime 'Minister (Mr. Fisher) ex-pressed his belief in the efficacy ofwages boards as an adjunct to arbitra-tion. He said that local disputes couldbest he determined by wages hoardls."I understand," he added, "that theclaim is for a minimum rate for anhonest day's work, the rate varyiugaccording to locality. In my opinion,no coal miner should be asked to workfor less than 7s. a day. I do not knowof any industry in which a man candestroy himself quicker than ill thatof coal mines. In his younger yearsa man may by thle most strenuous exer-tion earn a fairly decent wage, bat lieis old before his years, and this eatingup of young manhood is neither goodfor the man himself nor for his coun-try."

I submit these extracts show, whateverwe may think about compulsory arbitra-tion, that right up to date in Englandthey do not believe it has been a successout here. Clearly a very influential bodyof opinion in England is against it. Theyhave never yet attempted to introducecompulsory arbitration in England.

Ron. J. E. Dodd (Honorary "Minister) :They always have been against it, butnow they are coming round.

Ron. D. 0. GAWLER: They areagainst it still. I quote a remark by 'Mr.Knibbs in his latest Year Book. HeI saysthat the popularity of wages boards; isshown b3 T the increasing number of unionsdesirous of coming under them. IlvervState, I believe, in the Commonwealth,except Western Australia, has watgesboards. Of course, it might he said,""Well, suppose that is the case; if yousay compulsory arbitration is no good,and that people are not prepared tointroduce wages boards, what is thealternative?" To my mind, if we wentback to the dlays before this Act was in-troduced, and allowed things to go onas they then did, with the additional in-formation and education we have at pre-sent, public opinion would do the vest.It might be well if we could go back tothe old days when strikes were legal.

Hon. F. Davis: You would be verysorry- if you did.

Eon, D). G. GAWLER: Why? Wehave now this position, that strikes aredeclared illegal, and yet they take place.Surely, that is detnioralising to the com-munity. For any man to know he is al-lowed to break the law as he pleases isdemoralising to any community. It breedsa contenmpt for any law on the statutebook. That is what I object to in thepresent legislation. If it were possibleto introduce methods by which we couldprevent strikes taking place, there wouldbe some reason in the legislation.

Hon. J. E. Dodd (Honorary M1inister):W11e have never attempted to give the sys-tern a fair trial.

Hon. D. G. GAWLiER: The only wayin which the Act can be effectivelyamended is by making the penalty againststrikes more stringent. That is whatshould have been done. I have endea-voured to quiote instances to show thatthe Government themselves hare knownthat these strikes were taking place andhave condoned them, I do not say cor-ruptly condoned them, but they have at-towed the strikes to take place, and theirinstructions to the registrar are not to

19-i-.

1948 [COUNCIL.]

make inquiries into disputes without coma-ing to them first.

Hon. J. E. D~odd (Honorary 'Minister):The Act is obsolete.

Hon. D. 0. GAWLER: Not in regardto the penal clauses;. A strike is a strikejust as it was in 1D02. The provisionsays that, if a man strikes, he is to beprosecuted; but that is never done. Itreally looks as if it were not expedientto lprosecute. Is; it any wonder underthese circumstances that a worker disre-gards the law? Compulsory arbitrationwhich involves;, of c-ourse, the compulsoryobservance of awards, is impossible whilethe unions refuse to give up the right tostrike; otherwise the whole foundationfor the exidsting Act disappears. I canremember when 1Mr. C'artwright who wassecretary of the railway men's union atFremiantle when this measure was finallypassed, lproposed the health of the Rail-way Commriissioner and almost the firstwords he uttered were that he was thank-ful, and hoped the whole of the men-hers present were thankful, that the bar-barous strike would now disappear. Ican remember that distinctly. That Actwas given as a bargain between the unionand employers. The nnion asked forrecognition and collective bargaining andsaid they would give up the right to strikeIf that was the original conception of theAct, has it been carried out? It cannothe said to have been cardied out. Underthe Act ample provisions are made forthe unions to prevent strikes. There is aprovision that unions shall provide intheir rules against strikes and the ex-penditure of their funds on strikes,and the registration of a union canhe cancelled if the rules are notobserved. We have had instances ofrules being broken over and overagain, but have we ever had an in-stancze of the registrar applying to thecourt for the cncellation of a union onthese grounds? The union under the Actmay take up a worker's case against theemployer and obtain an award and enterinto an agreement, and the union is re-cognised as aefing for the worker. Why,therefore, should they not take the lia-bility for the worker's proper observance

of the awards and agreements and con-trol him? That was my reason for pro-po&,,ing, an amendment to the measure lastsession making onion funds liable forstrikes. If they get the benefits of theaward why should not they see that theworkers carry out the award? Mr. Doddsaid it niight be possible for one memberto involve the union in proceedings be-cause he had struck work. Not long agoa motion was carried by the council ofthe Australian Labour Federation "Thataffiliated societies before taking any de-cisive steps in anl industrial dispute mustfirst report to the executive of the fed-eration in order that the matter may beput before the council. In the' event offailure to do so no sup~port. moral orfinancial, would be accorded by the fed-eration." They said they could not pre-vent a body of men from striking butwould deny financial assistance from thecouncil if they did not first receive theconcurrence of the couincil. That -wasa very wise p~rovision, and if thatwere canied into effect it would be pos-sible for the council to hold complete con-trol over the members of the union. Isit to be supposed that if the members ofa union knew that their funds would beattached for a breach of an awardthey would not take good care that noman struck? They would soon teach aman who did strike, as we know they doin other instances, that they would nothave their funds attached on account ofhim. The whole control of these mat-ters, it seenis to me, is in the hands ofthe unions. There is the matter of theconstitution of the court, and I am notgoing to touch on it at any length. Mfyides has always. been that the man at th~ehead of affatirs in that court should havetechnical knowledge. Several speakershave urged that the decision of the courtis a decision of one man, and that thetwo men who sit with the president mightas well be in the body of the court, thatit is the president who has to decide be-tween the two, and that the two men whosit with him are really advocates. I sub-mit that 31r. O'Malley's suggestion as tothe settlement of disputes could be verywell cardied ont by men sitting around a

[25 SEPTEMBER, 1912.]194

table and discussing thie matter in anamicable way. If we are to have a courtI entirely disagree with the proposal thatthe president should be a 'Jayman. I up-hold the proposition that be should be ajudge of the Supreme Court. I am notgoing to labour that point; it has been'-ommented on by several speakers. Ithas been suggested that a judge of tileSupreme Court is not a fit man for theposition, but what about Mr. JusticeIsaacs, who is a judge of the FederalHigh Court and judge of the Common-wealth Arbitration Court? The workershave every confidence in him; there is nosuggestion that he is unlit for the posi-_lion, and surely the same argument up-plies to our own State. I object to thiscourt because, as Mr. Cullen pointed out,hie really took the words out of my mouth-this Act is setting up a small legisla-ture and not a court at all. In fact someprovisions go so far as to enable thepresident to Oveirride statutes already inforce. Be might disregard the provisionsof the Health Act, or- some other statuteand say that men should not have towork, unless so many cubic feet of airspace is provided for them, or he mightprescribe conditions of work and imposehardships on the employers. That isgoing beyond the functions of an arbitra-lion court whichl are to settle disputes be-tween the employer and employee and itis putting too much power in the handsof the president. The president shouldbe a man of absolute impartiality. An-other qjuestion is that of the definition of"industry." An attempt is being made inthe present Bill to meet the situationcreated by the shop assistants' dispute.This position has been set uip in regardto the shop assistants, and they by nomeans to my mind carry out the idea ofan industry; still they are to be permittedto bring the employers to court althoughtlley may bring an employer before thecourt whose workers have absolutely nodispute with him. Those who know no-thing of his affairs and have nothing todo with his establishment can bring himbefore the court in the guise of a so-called dispute. That is a complete changein the original meaning of the word "in-

dustry." I would like members to notesome remarks made by Mr Justice Isaaesin a case not long since. He said-

In the Jumbunna ease, I expressedan opinion-though not a final one--that the Parliamentary use of "indus-try" in the Commonwealth Act was nar-rower than the Constitution required,and I there stated that it had refer-ence to the business in which the em-ployer was engaged as well as the em-ployee. Fuller consideration, now thatthe point has become essential, has con-firmed me in my former opinion, andI shall more explicitly state the reasonsfor my conclusions. The keynote ofthe Act is the prevention or the quel-ling of industrial strife which threatensor produces an interruption of indus-trial operations by which the wants ofthe community are satisfied. The pub-lic welfare is always the end in view.If the industrial operations necessary,for instance, to produce or distr-ibutethe means of satisfying the require-ments of the people of Australia, arein fact, or likely to he, interrupted bya dispute between those who are co-operators iii those industrial operations-that is, both employers and employees-then that dispute-with a certainqualification which is material-is inobedience to the statute to be preventedor settled. These industrial operationsare in common parlance called "Indus-tries," and each of them is an "indus-try.",

Mr. Justice Isaacs to my mind rightlyindicated the fundaumental principle ofthe Act. It is an industry in which thedisputants are co-operated. Mr. JusticeBarton, in speaking on the same thingand discussing how the word "voca-tion" could by any stretch of imaginationbe called an industry-I may say this isamended by the Act of 1011-said-

Such expressions as those quotedfrom Sections 7, 38, and 41 couldscarcely be used in relation to a numberof sections of persons performing workof only one sub-division or class inscores of hundreds of concerns, notmerely widely separated but widelydiffering in nature as well as in name,

1949

1950 [COUNCIL.]

carried onl by many employers betweenwhose business no identity, nor anyresemblance, nor indeed the slenderesttie of common interest exist. How cana number of employers thus diverseand unlike in their aims combine to anypurpose for mutual protection in theabsence of the common interest whichis the very motive of defence? Howcould conciliation or arbitration operatein the full measure contemplated bythe Act under such conditions?

He there says that it is impossible, wherethe relations of employer and employeedo not come together, that a dispute canexist, and it is, therefore, impossible thatthe provisions of the Act with regard to"industry" can come in. The Common-wealth Arbitration Act has lately beenextended in order to cover this. This Billis based on the Commonwealth law, butit goes further for the benefit of the shopassistants and by the insertion of a littleprovision it allows groups of kindredbusinesses to register though they may notbe related to the same industry. Ob-viously the intention is to allow the shopassistants to bring their case before thecourt. The injustice of allowing themto do that is this: it is a misuse of theEnglish language to say that "industy'can include a vocation of that sort. itis a straining of the word which is in-troduced into this Bill for the purposeof the Shop Assistants' Union. It is amisuse of the term. Is it possible to con-ceive that a vocation of that sort can becalled an industry? They might createa~ dispute between employers and em-ployees; the workers of one employermight not wish to create a dispute, butthe dispute might he created by the restof the shop assistants. The shop assist-ants, for the sake of argument, compris-ing all sorts of different trades. may callon a softgoodsman to appear before thecourt at the bidding of the shop assistantsas a whole. What interests in commonhave butchiers, ironmongers, and soft-goodsmen, for example?

Hon. J. E. Dodd (Honorary Minister)Surely all the employees in places likeFoy & Gibson's have interests in com-monl?

Hon. D. G. GAWLEB,: Yes, bat theMinister does not restrict it to that. Hewill allow butchers to have a say in a dis-pute between the assistants, say, of Foy& Gibson. If a dispute could only existbetween Fey & Gibson's and their em-ployees and no outside influence was al-lowed to come iu then I should say thatwould be a dispute in an industry.

Hon. 3. D. Connolly: Foy & Gibson'sas wvell as being shopkeepers may be em-ploying cabinet-makers and girls in mak-ing hats.

Hon. D. G. GAWLER: At the sametime there would not be an injustice doneto a firm like Foy & Gibson's such aswould be done by the provision in thisBill which would make Foy & Gibson'semployees organise with other shopkeep-ers in Western Australia. That kind ofthing would be an injustice to the em-ployers. My friend is quoting anl extremecase when he refers to Foy & Gibson.This hits many other industries. Take thebutchering industry; there would be veryfew in that except those ordinarily em-ployed in connection with butchering. Itwould be very different from an estab-lishment like Foy & Gibson's, which wouldbe an extreme case.

Hon. J. E. Dodd (Honorary Minister)The interests of the assistants at Foy &Gibson's are identical with the interests ofthe employees of Brennan Bros.

Hon. D. G. GAWLER: That may be;then let Brennan Bros. have a disputewith their own employees and Foy &Gibson with theirs. I do not think thehon. member sees the possible extremeramifications of this provision. If thespirit of the measure is followed out andcarefully gone into 1 think it will be seenthat it will be impossible to carry outthis particular portion of the Bill. Thereare other clauses to which I might barereferred and which are against the ideaof industry as introduced by this pro-vision. With regard to the amalga-mation of the industries as was ex-emplified in the building trades reso-lotions the other day, this might be ofexceeding advantage not only to the em-ployer but to the employee, but I saykeep, it outside the Act. If this is done,

1950

[2-5 Svurrsnza, 1912.1 15

it will be of advantage for the reason thatit my assist considerably in preventingdisputes. Where they are amnalgamnating,the central body might say, "You peopleshould not go on strike until you refer thematter to us; we are aUl interested in this,and it may threaten the livelihood ofother sections of the workers hesidesyourselves, and if you do strike wve shallnot supply you with funds." There, ofcourse, amalgamation of bodies mighthave a beneficial effect, but that can onlybe done outside the present provisions ofthe measure.

Hon. J. E. Dodd (Honorary Minister):The trouble at Kalgoorlie to-day is owingto sectional unionism.

Hon. D. 0. GAWLER: Yes, but thereyou have an industry, the mining indus-try. In the Chamber of Mines you havenot Fey & Gibson's, or the butchers, youhave one body of men whose interestsare identical.

Hon. J. K. Dodd (Honorary Minister):But you quoted the building industry.

Hon. D. G. GAWLER: Yes, that is inorder that all builders may convenientlycombine for the protection of their inter-ests. I was alluding particularly to theshop assistants' union, which stands onquite a different footing. I would liketo refer briefly to the very importantquestion of preference to unionists. Thisprinciple is only permissive. The court'nay order or direct preference to union-ists, other things being equal.

Hon. J. D. Connally: Other things,would not always be equal.

Hon. DA G. GAWLER: I question, ifthe matter gets into the hands of a parti-saii president of the court whether otherthings would be equal; it is an im-mensely wide term. There are amongstemployers those who say that pref-erence will not be a bad thing, thatin fact it may be good; some of them be-lieve that outside the unions there are agood many sensible men who if they getinto a union -would make things different.The avowed object of preference to union-ists is undoubtedly to force. all workersinto unions; that is, no doubt, right fromtheir 'point of view, but it binds them toone brand of polities aird one brand of

politicians. However, if you allow themfreedom in regard to this, there may besome justification for the provision. Itis my intention to submit an amendmentto this clause when the Bill reaches thecommittee stage, to the effect that thefunds, industrial and political, be keptseparately, and that no man is to behound to contribute to these funds, andI shall ask hon. members to assist me tocarry this amndmenL It will simplyallow freedom to every worker with re-gard to this question.

Hon. 3. D. Connolly: The amendmentwill not have the least effect.

Ron. D. 0. GAWLER: On this ques-tion of preferenee to unionists we arefaced with the fact that the unions havesome turbulent spirits amongst them -whomanifest anything but cordial feelings, orI might say feelings of humanity, to thosewho 'will not join the unions. I have herea notice which appeared in the DailyNews the other day. It is stated to havebeen handed to that newspaper by Mr.McCallum, who received a copy of thisremarkable circular in connection withwhat is called the "staring"' campaign atpresent being carried on in London. Thisseems to have appealed to Mr. McCallum,who handed it to the paper. It reads-

To the men of the port of London!--If you want to see blacklegs who havetaken your places you can have theopportunity. Every morning between6 and S o'clock, 4,500 'Scabs' leave Fen-church-street station for the Royal Al-bert Dock and the West India Dock.Five thousand men have resolved onMonday morning next at 6 o'clock tobe at Fenchurch station. They willprovide themselves with railway ticketsso as to be in the same carriages asthe 'blacklegs.' Remember, the Rail-way Company, as common carriers, arebound to carry you when you tenderyour fare. Don't 'boo'! the 'blacklegs.)Just LOOK at them, and they will nothave the courage to go to work androb you and your wives and familiesof their bread. Get your tickets ingood time, so as to leave very littleroom for the 'scabs.' Byr order of TheFlying Picket.

1951

1952 [COUNCIL.]

1-cannot say whether that has been is-stied by authority, but it was.handed to.he Daily News by Air. McCallumn, whotakes a leading part in labour politicsand presumably was, handed to them asanl illustration of the way in which black-legs are treated, and wvhich apparentlymeets with Mr. McCallumn's approval.Can you ask the public to force outsidersto join unions if that is the way they aretreated when they do not do so9 Again,here I have an account of a meeting inconnection with a municipal election atBoulder. and my friends opposite mayrecollect it. It is headed, "A StormyLabour Meeing"1-"Union Secretary'sVrote Questioned"-"- Boulder MayoralElection" and reads-

A meeting of the Goldfields Councilof the Australian Labour Federation,held at Boulder onl Monday iiight, wasof a particularly stormy chiaracter. Theprincipal business of the meeting wasto deal with a charge laid against Air.H. C. Gibson, secretary of the Engine-drivers' Association, to the effect thatat the last mayoral election at Boulderat which he acted as returning officer,he had voted for a person other thanthe Labour candidate. A warm discus-sion ensued, in the course of which -per-sonalities were flung around with forceand freedom. The chairman (Mr.George McLeod) had the greatest diffi-culty in keeping the meeting in hand.Mr. Gibson admitted that he had exer-cised four votes at the election in ques-tion and that he had given two to Mr.Waddell (the Labour candidate) andtwo to Air. C. R. Davies, the presentmayor; thereby nullifying the effect ofhis votes. He gave as the reason forhis action that he did not consider Mr.Waddell a suitable person to representLabour in the council. This statementof opinion caused a long and acrimon-ious discussion. Eventually Air. Brown(F'ilterpress Union) moved that Mr.Gibson, by his action in voting for anopponent of the Labour candidate, hadforfeited the confidence of the membersof the Australian Labour Federation,and that he wvas unfitted to remain amember of that organisation. On a

vote being taken 28 votes were recordedfor the motion and 28 against it. Thechairman gave his casting vote againstthe motion.

That is another illustration of what I donot say my friends in this House, orsonme of them, would approve of.

Honl. J. E. Dodd (Honorary Mlinister)You ale arguing on a wrong basis; thatis not a union, and the matter would nothave affected his rights at all.

Hon. D. G. GAWLER: I am arguingthat hie acted against labour in voting foranyone but a labour man, and his ownparty went so far as to lay a chargeagainst him.

.Ron. J. E. Dodd (Honorary Minister):It has nothing to do with this Act; be-sides there are meli in That organisationwho are not unionists; it is a totally dis-tinct society.

Hon. D. G. GAWLER: Of course theHonorary Minister knows more about theconstitution of these bodies than I do. Atany rate, whether they were unionists ornon-unionists, it was a Labour meetingand the action of Mr. Gibson was againstLabour principles. The charge was thathe was unfitted to remain a member ofthe Labour party.

ll. WV. Kingsmill: Because he exer-cised his own discretion.

Hon. J. E. Dodd (Honorary Minister):That is entirely apart from this measure.

Haol. D. G. GAWLER: There is onljone other small item I desire to read tolion, members bearing on this same 4ues-tion, and that is a motion by the Nor-tham~ branch of the AJL.F.-"That nounionist be allowed to remain affiliatedwith the A.L.F. who proves disloyal tothe Labour cause." On the face of it,that is no doubt very patriotic andpraiseworthy, but I am afraid it all pointsto a considerable element of partisanshipand the sacrifice of conscience and free-dom of action once a man enters a union.There is one other point I will deal withbefore sitting~ down, and that is the con-nection between the political and indus-Trial organisations. I contend, as otherspeakers have done, that so long as theconnect ion between these two continues,so long will compulsory arbitration fail.

1952

[25 SEPTEMBER, 1012.]1.5

Mr. Cornell pointed out in his speechthat the Labour party sought to obtaintheir industrial ends through politicalaction within their own ranks, and thatthey would continue to do so. I thinkthey are perfectly justified in such a step,but where 'Mr. Cornell and the rest of uswill part company is on the question asto whether that political action taken inthe interests of one party is to dominatethe laws of the whole community. It iswvell known that the laws are passed fromthe members of a union right on to theCabinet, and Mr. McCallum gave us anillustration of it not long ago when hewas reported as follows-

In responding to the toast of theA.L.F. at the G.W.U. social at theTrades Hall, Perth, the other night, Mir.Alex. McCallum made some forcible re-marks on the subject of the LabourGovernment and the power which stoodbehind it. He traced the growth of theA.TLP. during the last year. The num-ber 6f financial members affiliated withthe State executive had increased from12,000 to 24,000, while in the local(metropolitan) council they bad grownfrom 1,'200 to over 6,000. The financeshad increased, and the federation was-the proud possessor of a magnificentsite for the Trades Hall, which wouldultimately be the finest Trades Hall inAustralia. The combining of the in-ilnatrial and the political sides of themovement had been accountable for agreat deal of their recent progress.Each member of an affiliated organisa-dion had equal rights with Mr. Scaddanor any Minister to have placed uponthe party platform any matter he liked.'The individual, through his union, andthe union, through the district council,-and the district council, through theState executive, were the forces thatmade up the party strength.

Later on. attention was drawn to someremarks made by Mr. Glance at the con-ference of the rduners' federation atNorseman. I admit that when those re-marks were quoted in this Chamber on aprevious occasion they were questionedby Mr. Dodd, but. so far I have not seen

any withdrawal of them. 'Mr. Glance witsireported in the Press as follows-

Mr. Glance opposed the motion onhumanitarian grounds. He believcdthat the question should be dealt wit;.by legislation, and the whole oaui notthrown upon the unions. He movedthe Adjournment of the debate. andthat the arbitration committee shouldbe requested to make a recommenda-tion in the direction indicated. Theyhad a Government placed and kept inpower by the trades unionists,. andthat Government should legislate comn-pelling preference to unionists in everyarbitration award and industrial agree-ment. He believed that there was noother satisfactory way of bringingabout the necessary reform.

I quote those two extracts to show thatthe political movement here dependsupon the industrial, that laws are con-trolled through successive stages fromevery member of a union to the Tradesand Labouir Council, from the Trades andLabour Council to the A.L.F., and so onto the Government and eancus; 4everymember of a union is practically the con-troller of the policy of the country. Ifthose are the circumstances, and I cannotsee that the position can be denied, is itright that the interests of the whole comn-munity should be dominuted by the legis-lation passed in the interests of oneclass 9 If that is so, so long as the in-dustrial and political movements aze con-nected, there is no opportunity of comn-pulsory arbitration being successfultlycarried through. I am afraid I havekept hon. members somewhat long, andI do not propose to say anything f urther.I have touched on the principal ques-tions, but I do wish to add that I recog-nised, 'when the last Bill came before theHouse, that it was in the eyes of theLabour members in this Chamber, anhonest attempt to deal with the position.I am going to accept the principle ofcompulsory arbitration, although I donot believe in it, but I do believe that thepresent Bill is a more thorough attemptto deal with strikes; than the last Bill orthe present Act, and I give the Govern-ment every credit for bringing in some

1953

1934 ASSEMBLY.

useful legislation bearing on that subject.1 think that some of the provisions inthe Bill are worthy of every commenda-tion, and it is the effort on the part ofthe Government to improve the arbitra-tion legislation in that respect tbatmakes me willing to overlook the defectsin the Bill. Whilsut endeavouring toamnend the Hill on the points I have men-tioned, I shall do my very best to seethat the Bill does nlot suffer in regard tothe principles in which we cannot giveway.

On motion by Hon. R. G. Ardagh, de-bate adjourned.

BILL-PREVENTION OF CRUELTYTO ANIMALS.

A ssem big's Message-In Committee.Conrsideration resumed, from the pre-

vious day, of Assembly's reasons for dis-agreeing with two amendments made bythe Council.

Hon. W. Kingsmnill in the Chair, theColonial Secretary in charge of the Bill.

No. 2-Clause 9, Subelause 2-Strikeout the word "Justice" in lines 1 and 4,and insert "magistrate":

The COLONIAL SECRETARYmoved-

That the amendment be not insistedupon.Ron. J. F. CULLEN: The Committee

would be inclined to give way for thesake of the Bill, but there would still berisks. He did not believe in that portionof the Message which said that the powerof the justices was sufficiently guarded.It was still open to anybody to swear aninformation, and that might be donesometimes in spite or without properconsideration of the seriousness of theaction. Still lie recognised that theremight be a difficulty in getting a magis-trate in many parts of the State.

Question passed; the amendment notinsisted upon.

No. 4--.Clause 16-Strike out Sub-clause 4:

On motion by the COLONIAL SEC-RETARY, amendment not insisted upon.

Resolutions reported, and the reportadopted.

ADJOLTRMENT-SPECIAL.

Oil motion by the COLONIAL SEC-RETARY, resolved, That the House atits rising adjourn until Tuesday next.

House adljourned at 8.29 p.m.

leaislatvc Essembip,Wednesday, 25th September, 1912.

PA08BillsR: University lands, SR..........1954

Public Service Act Amendment, 2z Comn 1954Itoman Catholic church Property Inend-

meat, returned...........196iUnclaimed lioneys, returned 1982Premaentle Harour. Trust Amendment, Corn. 1982Sherm and Agricultural labourers, Ac. I

cominodation, Recoin.... . ..... 19oRaulway Deviations Select committee, conaldorn-

tion. of report.............1t

The SPEAKER took the Chair at 4.30p.m., and read prayers.

BILL-UNIVERSITY LANDS.

Read a third time and transmitted tothe Legislative Council.

BILL -PUBLIC SERVICE ACTAMENDMENT.

Second Reading.

Debate resumed from the previous da.Hon. FRANK WILSON (Sussex): I

have looked into this small amendingmeasure introduced by the Premier yes-terday, and it seems to ime there can be noobjection taken to it. I agree with himthat the temporary officers of the civilservice are entitled to consideration andthat many hardships have resultedthrough our present legislation. I knowthat temporary officers have felt it very,hard-having served for many years andsome, I know, have been engaged in the

1954