1910-11-02 4 1 0 REPS 5484 0 HouseofRepresentatives. 1910-11-02 Mr. Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. 5484 bill Bill presented by Mr. Tudor (for Mr. Thomas), and read a first time. 5484 Questions 5484 5484 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - Is the Minister of Home Affairs in a position to state when the proclamation taking over the Federal Capital area will be issued? 5484 K5D ALP 1 0 O'MALLEY, King Mr KING O'MALLEY - That matter is under advisement now. 5484 5484 KLM ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 0 0 MALONEY, William Dr MALONEY - I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Home Affairs to the leading article in this morning's Argus, headed, " Spoils to the Victors," and particularly to the statement that - If the Labour party goes along the track indicated by the P.L.C.. and not very earnestly refused by Mr. O'Malley, it will fall into public contempt. As I was one of those who introduced the deputation, I ask the Minister if such a thing as is suggested by the Argus was desired by it? 5484 K5D ALP 1 0 O'MALLEY, King Mr KING O'MALLEY - The deputation did not make such a proposition. Surely my honorable friend ought to know that when the Argus praises us we are going down, and that to be condemned by it is the best thing that could happen to us. 5484 Aerial Navigation - Sergeant-Ma jor Artis. 5484 KLM ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 0 0 MALONEY, William Dr MALONEY - Will the Minister representing the Minister of Defence place on the table the papers containing a letter from the late Sir Thomas Bent, then chairman of the Conference of Premiers, showing the advisability and economy of defending Australia by the use of airships ? 5484 JX9 ALP 1 0 FRAZER, Charles Mr FRAZER - I shall put the honorable member's request before the Minister, and do not think there will be any objection to the course proposed. 5484 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice - What officer on the General Staff is charged with the duty of advising how far the constant improvements in aerial navigation in European armies make it advisable for the Commonwealth to take dirigibles and flying machines into account as a factor in military operations? How many (a) aeroplanes, (b) dirigibles, and (c) captive balloons were in use during the most recent military manoeuvres in Germany, France, and Japan? Has the General Staff reliable and up-to-date information as to the details of Q.-F. artillery used from dirigibles, and of ground artillery with high elevation for attacking airships? Will the Government send for special instruction in England such officers as will offer some guarantee that Australia will not be so late in taking advantage of the science of aeronautics as she has been in the matter of wireless telegraphy ? 5484 JX9 0 0 FRAZER, Charles Mr FRAZER - The answers to the honorable member's questions are - No officer of the General Staff is at present specially charged with this duty, but on the initiative of the chief of the General Staff, an officer attached to the staff of the High Commissioner in London was in August last directed to keep in touch with the latest developments in connexion with aviation, and report, giving the fullest possible details, to this Department. The Minister has also asked one of the exchange officers now in England to keep himself informed on the question. This information would certainly be kept confidential by the nations concerned, and it is not considered that accounts published in the press and service journals by correspondents and others should be accepted as a reliable guide. In an experimental stage, but certain information is published from lime to time in the service journals. Information is also furnished by the War Office. It is not considered necessary at present to send an officer to England specially for this duty. 5484 KQT 0 0 MCDOUGALL, John Mr McDOUGALL asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice - Is it a fact that certain money, for which repeated claims have been made, is owing by the Department to Sergeant-Major Artis, of Warnambool ? If the money is due, why has it not been paid ? Is it a fact that, about the 25th of August last, the Military Board received a letter from Sergeant-Major Artis stating his case? Did the Military Board acknowledge Ser geant-Major Artis letter; and, if it did not, why not? 5484 JX9 0 0 FRAZER, Charles Mr FRAZER - The answers to the honorable member's questions are - Sergeant-Major Artis claims that he is entitled to certain payments for services performed in connexion with the Militia Field Artillery, at Warmambool. Similar payments had been made from the Corps Fund until May last, when the procedure was questioned by the Audit Department as irregular. Inquiries have been proceeding since May last, but, so far, the Commandant is not satisfied that the claim is correct, and will not recommend its payment. If any such liability was incurred by the officer commanding the unit it was so incurred without proper authority. Yes, and some days after a similar communication was received through the honorable member for Wannon. The course adopted by Sergeant-Major Artis in sending a communication direct to the Military Board was irregular. He should have sent it through his commanding officer. A similar communication was received through the honorable member for Wannon and an acknowledgement was sent on the 6th September, stating that the Commandant had been asked to expedite a report on the matter. In order that the matter may be finally disposed of the Minister has given instructions for an officer of the Pay and Accounts Branch to visit Warrnambool and make a personal investigation. Upon receipt of his report the honorable member will be informed of the result. 5485 5485 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice - Have any qualified medical women been appointed consulting physicians - Were applications invited in any and what way, or if not invited, why not? The names of those appointed? 5485 K5D ALP 1 0 O'MALLEY, King Mr KING O'MALLEY - The answers to the honorable member's questions are - Yes- Sydney and Melbourne. On the recommendation of the Public Service Commissioner. To medically examine candidates before permanent appointment to the Service, and to report in special cases of illness referred to them by Departments. Applications were not invited, as the appointments are not under the Public Service Act. The doctors referred to are not paid regular salaries, but a small retaining fee. The two doctors were selected because they possessed the particular qualifications required for the positions. Sydney, Dr. Iza Coghlan ; Melbourne, Dr. Muriel Davies. 5485 bill 5485 Debate resumed from 18th October(vide page 4715), on motion by Mr. Hughes - That this Bill be now read a secondtime. 5485 009MD Ballaarat 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN .- The Acting Prime Minister passed very lightly over this amendment of the Constitution, when he referred to it with numerous others when moving the second reading of the Constitution Alteration (Legislative Powers) Bill. The brevity of this Bill is in no sense a measure of the importance of its contents. These call for a great deal of justification, whether as independent pro positions or in relation to the other amendments of the Constitution, all of them related, and some of them going to the very root of the grievances cited as a warrant for the introduction of the Bill. When this carving of the Constitution is to cease, one cannot foretell, but under this proposal it is being carved a second time, in exactly the same place, for the same ailment. This Bill can be justified only on the plea that the extraordinary powers already taken in respect to our commercial, industrial, and producing interests are not adequate to our emergency. But, so far as one can form an idea on so vast a subject, the whole sphere of this Bill is already occupied, much of it doubly and trebly covered, by the amendments of the Constitution to which the House agreed last week. Consequently, whatever case there might have been for the submission of this Bill if those amendments had been rejected, there is none under existing circumstances. It is only right that this proposal should be dealt with separately. What is sought is not an amendment of either section 51 or section 52, the two great power-giving provisions of the Constitution, because I suppose even the Acting Prime Minister, whose audacity is more than equal to any contingency, dare not venture to assert that what he is now asking for is in any way necessary for the peace, order, or good government of the community to which those clauses are confined. He has stepped out of the familiar and customary paths of government hitherto pursued, in order to enter a field which has been safeguarded by every previous Government of this country. I again repeat, that if you consider the grounds on which action of this kind is now excused you will find that they all fall under one or other of the amendments of the Constitution which this House has already agreed to recommend to the people. For such a departure as this in any community under a Federal Government, you will look in vain for a precedent. Of course, under an ordinary unitary government of the British pattern, without clearly marked boundaries in these directions and with an unsounded depth of unexercised powers, capable of being called upon at any time and by an ordinary Act of Parliament, this argument does not specifically apply. But under no Federal Constitution can any raid of this kind be defended under our present circumstances. Nor in any country has a proposal of this drastic character, or of such extent, ever been submitted by a prominent party. 5486 KXK 0 0 WEBSTER, William Mr Webster - Is not that an argument in favour of it? 5486 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - It depends upon the point of view. To most of us, I think, the path of experience is always the safest. When other countries have been considerate enough to make experience for us we are very glad to take advantage of it instead of venturing out into the void. 5486 KYV 0 0 RILEY, Edward Mr Riley - This amendment is required to cope with monopolies. 5486 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - We have coped with them already and directly by three out of four amendments of the Constitution already approved, and, if they cannot be coped with as monopolies under them they cannot be coped with in this way. My first point is that this Bill constitutes almost in form, and certainly in fact, a distinctly new departure. Moreover, it is an entirely needless new departure having regard to the amendments to which we have already assented. Let me remind honorable members in a very few words that we have given the trade and commerce power a scope which no one has yet ventured to attempt to define. Under American conditions that power, wide as it already is, though limited to Inter-State commerce would, if extended to Intra-State in this fashion, suffice of itself to meet all the practical difficulties which are alleged. But it is sufficient for my purpose to call attention once more, first to the unknown extent of this power, next to point out that almost all the trusts and combinations sought to be dealt with being corporations, are brought specifically under Federal control ; while over and above all this, we have approved of a third specific amendment putting trust and combines at our mercy. Thus in addition to the trade and commerce power, which goes a very long way, we have the new corporation power which goes still farther in the same direction. Then we have both supported by an express provision empowering the Commonwealth to deal with "combinations and monopolies in relation to the production, manufacture, or supply of goods or services." What more is needed ; what more can be given ; what more control could be asked for so far as combinations and monopolies are concerned ? Again the cumulative effect of those three amendments of the Constitution, is strongly buttressed by the whole control of labour and employment which is to pass into the hands of this Parliament. There is now absolutely nothing left, relating to trusts or combines, or of the possible injustices or injuries to be occasioned by trusts and combines which cannot be dealt with out of hand. Remember, too, that under labour and employment, in the industrial clause, you command all the conditions of all the labour of all the community. You deal with these interests indefinitely under the extended trade and commerce power, over part of the same field, but without borders. Projecting still further, you manacle all corporations. You rule specifically all trusts and combines. You already have them tied down by a triple or quadruple knot, so that the addition of another knot is of no real assistance or practical value so far as coping with, and controlling of, trusts and combines is your aim. I therefore submit that the House is simply duplicating legislation by adopting this proposal in this particular aspect. Of course, I have been reminded by interjection that the one avowed object of this particular amendment - the nationalization of monopolies - is to crush trusts and combines. That was set out briefly, but very distinctly, in the Labour (now the Ministerial) platform, signed by the head of the party and its secretary, issued to the country before the late general election, and expounded by its members. The Federal Labour platform says - The nationalization of monopolies demands the urgent attention of the people. It may be admitted that trusts and combines have not yet attained the same giant proportions in Australia as elsewhere, but notwithstanding our youth, (he capitalistic system is developing here upon the same general lines. Then it names certain alleged combines, and continues as follows - In 1907 the Federal Parliament passed an Act to restrain Trusts and Combines. . . . The experience of America shows that nothing short of nationalization of these monopolies will prevent their exploitation of the public. That is the whole of the case made out in the Federal platform of the Federal Labour party for the introduction of this Bill. But now this House has brought all the trusts and combines under its heel ; has enlarged the measure for their restraint which was ineffective and supported it by the corporation and the trade and commerce powers. We have already fulfilled every requirement of the Federal platform in relation to trusts and combines, which was and is the only justification put forward to excuse this proposal for the Commonwealth ownership and working of particular industries. Concerning the great advantages which may flow from some of these amendments controlling trusts and combines, let me, for the third or fourth time, remind the House that to that clause there was no opposition offered from this side. No amendment was sought' except that the trusts and combines dealt with should be operating in restraint of trade. Beyond that essential condition no exception was taken to the full power in regard to trusts and combines asked by the Government. That was approved by us at once, and, in addition, the widest power of dealing with a trust or combine which exists only within a single State. Hence, without this Bill, and with our assistance, this Parliament is already equipped with authority to deal, not only with trusts and combines in existence, but to prevent them as well as cure. Under the existing amendments of the Constitution it would be possible for this Parliament, not only to deal with every trust and combine in existence in Australia, but to so legislate as to prevent the formation of any other trust or combine, or, if it is attempted, to nip it in the bud. Without pushing those powers to anything like their full extent, we should have legitimately and readily within our reach, not only the effective control of every combine or trust in Australia, coupled with the power of regulating wages and conditions of labour in every industry, but of dealing with all trust operations, whatever they are and wherever they are, holding their chiefs responsible for any abuses, and penalizing them to any necessary extent for breaches of the law. These trusts and combines could be either eradicated or, better still, allowed to exist under conditions equitable to the country, their employes, and the employers. If legislation of this kind is to be pushed to its fullest extent, surely that is not only the legitimate but the most prudent, and in every other respect the wisest, way to deal with any real trust and combine. Draw its teeth, remove its opportunities, and destroy its powers for evil, but allow those who have chosen to unite their businesses to conduct them under the control and supervision of the Commonwealth, so long as their operations are such as to make for the general welfare of the community. Now, that being easily within the reach of this Parliament by means of the amendments we have already made, what possible justification on that score is there for this further amendment. The Labour manifesto issued in Victoria follows exactly the same line as the Federal. Under the heading of "Nationalization of Monopolies ' ' the manifesto says - In every country the production and sale of commodities in genera] use, and the conduct of general public services naturally fall into the hands of monopolists. Australia is following the lead of older nations in this matter. Then the same reference is made to alleged monopolies. The controllers of these monopolies dictate their own terms to the people. Under the amendment we have already passed they can do nothing of the sort. They charge what prices they choose. Under the powers taken they can he forbidden to do that or anything like it - They dictate retail prices to shopkeepers, and impose other conditions rigorously. Under the amendment already passed they cannot do that or anything like it. Except where they have been prevented by labour legislation, or by trade unions, they have paid such wages and demanded such services as they please. Under the industrial and other amendments which we have passed they can be forbidden to do that or anything like it. 5487 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - It is a case of making assurance doubly sure. 5487 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - The memorable sentence is - Labour's policy is to acquire where it cannot establish all such large business concerns and to manage them in the interests of the community. There you have at last, in one sentence, the frank confession of the true reason for this proposal. It has nothing to do with trusts and combines, monopolies as monopolies, the conditions of employes, or the prices paid by the public. All that has already been provided for. What I wish to make clear beyond challenge, without being guilty of undue repetition, is that this amendment is superadded not for any reasons given in the Labour platform, not for any reasons given in this House by the Attorney-General, not for any reasons given by a single member of the House to whom I have listened, or whose speech I have read. It is being pressed on, not because it has anything to do with the trusts or monopolies or abuses to control which it is placed in the Labour platforms. It is made for another purpose altogether - that of acquiring large businesses and carrying them on at Commonwealth expense. Ministers are not able to allege that this is necessary to cope with any of the injurious conditions or to meet any of the drawbacks associated with trusts and combines. First, Combines are already constitutionally dealt with and disposed of ; Julius Caesar is not more dead than every trust and combine will be if even a part of the amendments of the Constitution already passed become law - everything that has been complained of will be cured. 5488 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - I wish that were true ! 5488 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - I say so on my own personal responsibility j and challenge the verdict of lawyers in the House or out of it, who are qualified to criticise. That being the case, the whole foundation upon which this claim for nationalization has been built, both in the country and in the House, is no longer available for this proposal. That foundation has been built upon three or four stories high in the amendments already carried. There is nothing more that the foundation needs, or, indeed, will stand. When, therefore, Ministers and honorable members wish to justify this proposal, they will require to break entirely new ground - to point to some injustices, handicap, or injuries which the amendments already approved cannot cure, and which this particular proposal will. The question now is, What is this for? 5488 JM8 0 0 ARCHIBALD, William Mr Archibald - Why should the National Government not have this latent power ? 5488 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - It is quite sufficient for us to deal with patent powers ; latent powers are beyond the purview of practical discussion. We are now dealing with a proposal to take patent powers; and my objection, in the first instance, is that those powers, having been taken already, cannot be taken over twice as an excuse for further measures. Next, that this new departure is not only needless, but dangerous. Of course, I am not forgetting that this is a proposed amendment of the Constitution, and is, therefore, drafted in a form suitable to be placed in the Constitution. But even after that allowance is made, we have only to read the clause attentively. It needs no legal education to see that we have here a proposal, not for dealing with monopolies, or, at all events, with monopolies only, but with any and all private businesses. The Government, declining to attempt a definition of what they mean by "monopolies," give future Legislatures of the Commonwealth a blank cheque for purchasing the property of anything they choose to call a "monopoly." The word "monopoly " is left for future interpretation. That word has already a chequered history of its own, and is susceptible of a great variety of meanings. Whatever, and wherever it be, within a State or within the Commonwealth, it can be appropriated by us under this Bill. 5488 KZA 0 0 WEST, John Edward Mr West - Parliament does not need to do that under the clause. 5488 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - But Parliament will have the power if this Bill be passed. It means, in plain English, that anything this Parliament chooses to place under the heading of a "subject" of monopoly may be dealt with, though we do not know what " monopoly " is until the High Court helps us. 5488 KZA 0 0 WEST, John Edward Mr West - Parliament should have that power. 5488 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - Why refer to monopolies at all? Only because, like "Mesopotamia," it is a" " blessed " word, and being associated with a number of questionable and tyrannous commercial transactions, and also with underhand bargains and lawless privileges abhorrent to every Democratic community. It becomes a very convenient word for Ministers to shelter under. If this clause frankly declared that anything Parliament desires to take over should be taken over, it would give in plain Saxon English the intention of this proposal. If, now that we have elaborately dealt with trusts, combines, and monopolies, we desire to deal with some thing else, why not say what that something else is, where it is to be found, and how we shall know it when we see it? It is not fitting to place in the Constitution of a Federal Commonwealth grants of power which may exhaust the subtleties of the legal profession for generations. To repeat, whatever "monopoly" may be held to cover under the trade and commerce powers, the subject of hundreds of cases which have discovered continuous extensions or alterations of their boundaries, the word " monopoly " may be, coupled with them, even more pregnant. Therefore, this departure is dangerous, because it is not taken within guiding lines, or with any precise goal, but opens a way to all sorts of divergencies. Is this new departure essential to the Commonwealth? Is it a proper function for the Commonwealth ? Is it a business in which the Commonwealth Parliament ought to be engaged ? Having authority to dictate the conditions of labour and the conditions on which, not only trusts and combines, but every privately-owned business, manufacture, or calling in the country shall be carried on, supported by the power to protect the public against the levying of an undue toll or an unfair charge by any capitalistic combination, what reason can we give for seeking to acquire monopolies? Here we have a definition whose centre is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere. What use will it be to us ? " It is not as if this power existed nowhere unless we created it ; it exists in every State, and it has been used sporadically and occasionally by different States in different directions. Not only in regard to the great national service of the railways, but in other directions where the States have been brought into hopeless conflict with difficult conditions, they have exercised their privilege of acquiring property and carrying on business for themselves. They will be able to take the same course in the future. The States having all the powers necessary in this regard, that which we are now asked to take will be the seventh of the kind in Australia, the only difference being that, whereas the others operate in particular State territories, ours will operate in every one of the six territories, and, therefore, create all over Australia a duplication of legislative .authorities. Of course, this subject affords all sorts of opportunities for caricature and humour, of which the Attorney-General, were he in my place, would make abundant use. I am sure there must be fleeting through his mind already a dozen effective and ludicrous images of the Commonwealth nationalizing absurd " industries " of Australia ; but I have no leisure for that. There is one more cardinal objection, and this is that the whole clause is distinctly anti-Federal. If the Commonwealth is to use this power, the authority of the States within their own boundaries already being more than ample for anything they may desire to do in that way, we should be subject to the indispensable condition of all Federal powers of this kind - that is, it should apply only to industries the operations of which extend beyond a single State. If there is to be any running of State businesses within State borders, surely such a power belongs to the State Governments and the State Legislatures? If the Commonwealth Parliament is to venture into this field, all we require, in order to make the power of the Australian people complete, is to ask from them authority qualifying us to deal with any conditions with which the States severally are unable to cope. The words that ought to be inserted, therefore, if this preposterous proposal is to be pressed, should, at all events, leave it applicable by us only in the strictly Federal sphere, and not make it, as in every other instance, an invasion of State opportunities. This clause will enable us to deal with industries or " businesses " - the industry of producing, and, I suppose, the business of supplying goods or services. In those cases it appears to me that the Federal line could only be preserved if the businesses " to be dealt with were those that the States themselves within their own borders could not deal with effectively. That must mean " businesses " which overflow State boundaries - there must be very few, except those of a strictly personal character, which do not overflow to some extent - and, in that case, the wholesale businesses to be Federally controlled must possess features which prevent a State dealing with them thoroughly within its own border. For honorable members will realize, without my further impressing it on them, that, under this proposal, we can deal not only with any business, no matter how small, in a single State, but with any business in a single municipality of a single State, and also with a single shop in the lane of a municipality. There is absolutely no recognition in the Bill either of the Federal character of our Constitution or of the authority of the State, which is ample, in this regard. There is nothing to show that it is intended to form part of a Federal Constitution. It permits of the pettiest, as well as of the largest, intervention. 5489 KZA 0 0 WEST, John Edward Mr West - Cannot we leave that matter to the States? 5489 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - -Why should not the Commonwealth Parliament show that it is governed by national considerations, reserving its national strength to cope with national difficulties? Why should it come down to possible municipal incursions here or State incursions there? If any one of the amendments of the Constitution more than another points directly to the abolition of our Federal system, and to the establishment of a unitary Government, it is the amendment proposed in this Bill. I do not think it material to enter into a consideration of the question of the efficiency of the management of State industries. We have practically had none of sufficient scope to permit of that being done - the railway services being a monopoly, and, therefore, out of this comparison. It is true that there have been minor attempts made in the various States to establish State industries - some of which have been attended with very unfortunate results from a business point of view. But these have been so small and scattered that I do not point to them as sufficiently confirming any contention. We have, however, sufficient knowledge of the administration of our Public Service to watch with apprehension the enlargement of its area to such wide fields and the steady increase of the pressure placed upon those officially in control to prevent it from getting out of all bounds. If the power which is embodied in this Bill be placed in the Constitution, it will be placed there with the intention of being used. And if it is to be used, it will be used - judging by the illustrations which have been given to us - in connexion with half-a-dozen or a dozen of the greatest employing agencies in Australia. We have to remember, too, that it will be used after all these industries have been deprived of the opportunity of earning more than a fair profit for themselves - after they have been rendered unable to pirate the public or to unfairly burden their employes. After they have been rendered harmless, or, possibly, very beneficial by reason of our trust and combine laws, returning only ordinary interest on the money invested in them, the conditions of their employes improved to the best standards, while at the same time they have been rendered impotent for evil, in Heaven's name in whose interests shall Ave be called upon to interfere? It would not be in the interests of the persons employed, nor in those of the employers, nor in those of the general public in such a case. 5490 KYV 0 0 RILEY, Edward Mr Riley - That will be a question for Parliament to decide. 5490 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - It will be. But why should this proposal be brought forward unless strong grounds can be given for an indefinite extension of the national power of interference without good cause. Legislatively it is piling Pelion upon Ossa. Personally, the extraordinary condition in which we are likely to find ourselves suggests to me one general condition upon which we certainly ought to insist in all the cases in which this new tyranny is to be exercised, though it should not be the only condition. Certainly it would be wise to require that the taking over of any industry by the Commonwealth should only be authorized tentatively by an Act to which no effect should be given until after the next succeeding general election. At that all candidates would have an opportunity of consulting the electors as to whether it was or was not a desirable extension of the Commonwealth power. I am assuming, for the moment, that the fellow Bill to this, which has already been approved by this House, has received the popular indorsement, and that the amendment of the Constitution which it contemplates has been made. That would be a very moderate, a very simple condition to impose, and it is only one of the conditions which will require to be imposed for the protection of the public if this extraordinary power is to be prevented from breaking loose, and shattering without warrant the fabric of business society. If the prior Bill does not find favour with the people no doubt the reasonable proposals submitted by us would. The amendment of the industrial powers nf the Commonwealth specifically bringing State servants within its control, has also a significant relation to this proposal. The employes in any industries taken over by the Commonwealth as Commonwealth services will become Commonwealth servants, and I presume that means will be taken - as they have been taken in the case of railway servants - for meeting any grievances which they may allege. Thus, unless the greatest caution be exercised, a future Parliament of the Commonwealth may find itself saddled with" responsibility for many thousands of persons engaged in various occupations all over the Commonwealth whose wages and conditions of labour will require to be placed to some considerable extent outside the power of this Parliament. It will be impossible to deal with those conditions all over a great continent by legislation sufficiently elastic to apply of itself in ordinary course. Complaints must of necessity be dealt with through some development of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court adapted to public servants. Not only will Parliament have the future burden of this legislation to face, but it will also have to face a condition of things hereafter in which some considerable portion of the population will be public servants needing such a semi-independent control of their wages and conditions. These considerations involve a host of industrial problems, which, even in their simplest and most primitive form, have already forced on us a great deal of research, and occupied a large share of public time. I do not wish to dwell upon this matter. Industrial disputes between the Commonwealth itself and its own employes are possibilities of the future with which the future must be left to deal. There are straws already. Only to-day the Minister of Home Affairs was questioned with regard to a leading article in a newspaper, reporting a deputation that waited upon him to protest against certain appointments being made in his Department on the ground that they were of a particular political colour. I do not know that any evidence was adduced in support of that astonishing assertion. During the whole of my association with our Public Service under the Commissioner I have never known a case in which political influence was attempted' or in which it operated in connexion with any appointment. I think that is the universal experience of members of Parliament. I believe that our Public Service Commissioner, and the officers who advise him, are absolutely free from any touch of partisanship, political or otherwise. If there has been any such development as has been alleged, it must be of very recent date indeed. In the absence of very strong proof to the contrary, I venture to say that there is no ground for any such complaint. Some very sinister inferences are to be drawn from the representations which were made by the deputation in question. That body attempted to reach, through the Minister, officers who are under oath to be absolutely impartial in their choice of the best men available for any position. The very worst legislation that we have ever enacted will not have so injurious an influence upon this country, as would the appointment of officers to any grade in our Public Service as the result of favoritism. Once let that element enter into the Service, and the whole scheme underlying it will break down, and we sholl find ourselves engaged in discussions of a degrading character. I am very sorry that the deputation waited upon the Minister without just cause, and am equally sorry that publicity was given to representations evidently intended to react. When I read the report yesterday morning, it was with grave apprehension of the results which may follow it. Under these circumstances, there is one golden rule in connexion with our Public Service, from which no departure should be made. It is that every appointment, whether large or small, within the gift of the Commonwealth, should be advertised. Every person who wishes to apply for any vacancy should be afforded an opportunity of doing so, and thus we should have some guarantee that the most qualified applicant would obtain it. In the case of the medical officers to which I called attention to-day, I have not one word to say regarding the qualifications of the ladies chosen. No doubt their qualifications must be ample. But my point is that they were selected by some one, and we do not know by whom. 5491 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER - Order- The honorable member is now going beyond the question which is before the Chair. 5491 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - I think not. I am merely using the appointment of these medical officers in illustration of one of the effects of the extension of the Commonwealth services under this Bill. 5491 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - The Bill deals with the nationalization of monopolies. 5491 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - And the nationalization of monopolies means that the employe's in our so-called monopolies, already numbering thousands, may become Commonwealth public servants. They must, therefore, be dealt with in Public Service fashion. To this end, it is absolutely necessary that applications should be invited for any vacant positions, and that the choice of the Public Service Commissioner should be made on non-political grounds. While it is dangerous for us to find, I think for the first time, a suggestion of political influence brought under notice, what would be the dangers of its extension indefinitely ? 5491 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER - Order. The honorable member must not follow that course If I allowed him to discuss that particular matter- 5491 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - I am not going to discuss it. 5491 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER - The honorable member is making certain statements, and if I allowed him to continue to do so, I could not stop other honorable members if they desired to follow the same line of argument. If I allowed the honorable member to follow that course, I can foresee a discussion taking place on that particular matter, and the question really before the Chair not being mentioned at all. 5492 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - Of course, I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as I always have done and always will do. 5492 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hope you are not going to rule that we cannot discuss the effects that will follow from the taking of monopolies into national control. If you do, you will cut away the only argument that we can use to demonstrate the fallacy of the proposal. It seems to me that that argument is more relevant than any other. We should be allowed to show how dangerous and hopeless it is to take monopolies over into the control of the State. 5492 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER - The honorable member will be allowed ample latitude to discuss the question before the Chair, and to use any illustrations which he desires to being forward in the course of his argument; but what was being dealt with was a matter regarding which certain questions have already been asked today, and the discussion of which might lead to a very contentious debate, quite foreign to the Bill before the House. I allowed the honorable member for Ballarat to make a casual reference to the matter, but when he went further I stopped him. 5492 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - For once, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the grounds of your ruling, but, of course, bow to it. Among the incidents of political life which arouse in this Chamber most exasperation, evoke most feeling, and produce the least results, are those which turn upon the real or alleged grievances of people in the employment of the State, or the manner in which they shall be dealt with. In the last Bill, the introduction of the control of the railway servants added more heat to one debate than any other single proposal submitted. My point is that so it always must be. In proposing to extend the powers of the Commonwealth so as to make the Government not only the greatest employer in Australia, as it is to-day, but indefinitely more the greatest employer, as it would soon be, quite a majority of the public might be directly or indirectly in Commonwealth or State employment. We are tending to a condition of things which will make the exclusion of all political bias in appointments or promotions more and more necessary to preserve us from grave national clangers. These considerations demonstrate once again how wise are (he conditions of our Public Service Act, which require that everything shall be done in the light of day, nothing behind closed doors, every position advertised for, all who think themselves competent entitled to be considered, and a definite choice made, not from some unknown number by unknown persons, but by responsible persons in the sight of all. The whole of the people of the Commonwealth must be given freedom to compete, if they choose, for public employment. I do not think this principle can be too much enforced. I attach the greatest importance to it as the only way in which we can prevent friction in this House, and the absolute destruction of discipline in the Public Service. 5492 KTU ALP; NAT from 1917 0 0 SMITH, William Mr LAIRD SMITH - Does the honorable member mean to say that no political influence is brought to bear to get men into the Public Service? 5492 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - I do not know of a single instance. Our system is an excellent one, and I am protesting in advance against any attempt to introduce the thin end of the wedge. 5492 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - The honorable member must have been living in a rare atmosphere. 5492 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - In the same atmosphere as any one else. 5492 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - The honorable member must have been oblivious of the facts. 5492 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - If the honorable member can point out relevant facts to prove that in a speech and not by interjection, I shall be glad to hear and reply to them. 5492 L4X ALP 0 0 MOLONEY, Parker Mr PARKER MOLONEY - The social influence is worse than the political. 5492 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN - Social influence amounts, in Australia, to next to nothing. Whatever social influence there may be about a particular officer, what is he to know even of the rest of his own State, not to speak of the neighbouring States? The applicants for positions are but names, in the majority of cases, to the officers who eventually deal with them. Many honorable members are, perhaps, thinking of State services. That sort of thing is possible in localities, or small States, but it is usually an absurdity to suggest it in the Commonwealth Service. The proposal in this amendment is nationalization without justification - naked nationalization. It is without reason, lt is a nationalization, federal neither in its character, conditions, aim, or limitations. It is absolutely not required as we have met, or can meet, the only conditions which have ever been put forward as calling for Government monopolizations. The only ideal which justifies it is the ordinary Socialistic one. That arises from a Socialism which was framed in countries and under conditions quite unlike our own. There existed then an honest belief that no regulation of industry, and no safeguarding of the weaker members of the community, consumers, or employes, was possible. Therefore, there being no other escape, some took the extravagant leap from privately-controlled ownership and activities to Statecontrolled activities and ownership. That is no longer the case to-day. The old forced choice has practically disappeared. All the world over, Governments, with a keen sense of their responsibilities, are making steady, and, in some countries, rapid advances. All are being made without the State appropriation of industries. In the Mother Country, although they have not yet got very far in some directions, the change in the last few years, to those of us who remember the atmosphere of opinion there a few years back, is really remarkable. There has been a transformation in the whole lone of public feeling. There has also been a transformation in America, where to-day one of the strongest of her statesmen is heading a great crusade against the trusts and combines with which the nation is confronted. Of course, the Americans have not, under their Constitution, anything like the power which we possess, and have partly used, and not a shadow of the unstinted authority we can exercise under the constitutional amendments lately approved by this Chamber. Consequently, the choice is no longer between abominably unfair conditions, the grinding and sweating of labour, with the fleecing of the public, all finding themselves helpless against bodies of organized capital, on the one side, or, as an alternative, the conduct of all industries by the Government on the other. It is being proved perfectly possible to regulate conditions of trade, commerce, and industry. It is being done gradually in all civilized countries. But a fraction of the amendments of the Constitution to which this House has already consented would enable results to be accomplished in Australia, not only in advance of anything attempted elsewhere, but in such a way as to take the whole of the sting out of any of the complaints made. We could, by the few amendments we have ourselves suggested, meet the reasonable and fair demands made by humanitarians of all parties. Hence this proposal is a belated survival which has really no place here. There is no room for it. The old limit has been removed. We have grubbed it up by the roots. We have, in the last Bill, gone far beyond what was necessary to remove all the evils of which complaint was made when this proposal was launched in the Labour platform. They have no cause of complaint left. I am putting the case from their stand-point. In these circumstances, I submit that the amendments which I have suggested are necessary to bring this Bill into line with the Constitution in form and spirit, but that nothing can make it properly a part of our Federal Constitution. The circumstances of the Commonwealth as a whole do not call for it. The power of the States is ample, while our declaration of legislative control over all the subjects of ' ' monopolies " could not possibly be just or workable. We should be wise, therefore, to say at this stage that, having already sent a measure sanctioning an enormous transformation in the whole of our commercial, industrial, producing, and business interests to the country, we refuse to authorize another departure which would bring upon us new throng of evils of its own, without lending us a. scintilla of extra power to deal with the ills and difficulties of which honorable members opposite have been complaining, and for which they have already obtained all their own remedies. 5493 KIN Hume 0 0 LYNE, William Sir WILLIAM LYNE , - After listening to the long speech just delivered, I think it is about time that we came to something practical. The honorable member for Ballarat perhaps forgets that when I was dealing with the iron question, there arose a desire that the Commonwealth should take over the iron industry, but we found that we had no power to do it. The honorable member was the head of the Ministry at the time, and we had to apply to the State to ask it to take over the industry, and it refused. It is about time that the Commonwealth was given power to take steps in that direction. 5494 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - Does the honorable member say that the then Commonwealth Government asked the State of New South Wales to nationalize the iron industry ? 5494 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir WILLIAM LYNE - Yes ; we asked the State of New South Wales, and I think all the other States, and they refused to do it. That power should be in the hands of the Federal Government, and this Bill will remove the difficulty which obstructs action in that direction. Reference has been made to the American Constitution, but the trouble which that country has to face now is caused by the huge monopolies that have grown up, and its National Government has no power to deal with them, or is prevented from dealing with them by the money behind them. This Commonwealth desires to stop such monopolies growing up in Australia to the enormous extent to which they have grown in America. The whole burden of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was that there was no necessity for the measure, because the amendments of the Constitution that have already been carried by this House in another Bill are sufficient to give the Commonwealth all the power that is required. If that is so, where is the harm in this Bill ? It only makes the matter quite sure. On a casual look at it, I do not quite like its wording. There ought to be some better definition of what a monopoly is, but I have no doubt whatever that the Commonwealth should have power to deal with monopolies. The Bill provides that the Commonwealth can take effective steps " when each House in the same session has by resolution declared that the industry or business of producing or supplying any specified goods, or of supplying any specified services, is the subject of a monopoly." I think that the term "monopoly" should in some way be defined. Suppose that Parliament decided by a majority that a monopoly was something altogether different from what is now generally supposed to be a monopoly. Suppose that a company owns a number of stations, and that it is decided by Parliament that that is a monopoly. Such a decision might cause some amount of trouble. Therefore, I should like to see words inserted in the Bill to remove any fear of departing from the ordinary idea of a monopoly. I should also like to ask the Attorney-General whether it is true that defects in the law have been found which prevent the Government from dealing effectually with monopolies? I noticed a short time ago that the Government instituted legal proceedings against certain monopolies. I am told that those proceedings have ceased for the time being. If that be so, I should like to know the reason. We know that there are in Australia at the present time several monopolies. There is the sugar monopoly, the shipping monopoly, and the tobacco monopoly, for instance. Why have the prosecutions stopped? Is it that there is some defect in the law which would prevent a successful issue? 5494 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - The prosecutions have not stopped. 5494 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir WILLIAM LYNE - The general impression outside Parliament Is that they have. I was spoken to on the subject yesterday, and was asked why the proceedings were not being continued. Perhaps before the debate closes the Attorney-General will give us some information on the point. 5494 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - I may say at once that the law affecting the existing combines is most unsatisfactory. 5494 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir WILLIAM LYNE - That, perhaps, is the reason for what I have stated. 5494 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - We have already passed a measure to cure the difficulty. 5494 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir WILLIAM LYNE - According to the Leader of the Opposition, this Bill is merely a duplication of the existing law. 5494 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - Is that an argument against the Bill, or for it? 5494 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir WILLIAM LYNE - It is an argument for the Bill, if it does nothing more than duplicate the law, and if there is some doubt as to the weakness of the existing law in certain respects. If the Bill does nothing more than duplicate the law, that is a strong argument in its favour. 5494 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr Fuller - The question is whether the Attorney-General has stopped the prosecutions. 5494 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir WILLIAM LYNE - The Attorney-General has told us that the existing law is unsatisfactory. 5494 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - I will say that it is inadequate, as well as unsatisfactory. 5494 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir WILLIAM LYNE - That is an answer to my question. The difficulty should be overcome as soon as possible. 5494 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - This Bill puts another rail on the fence. 5494 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir WILLIAM LYNE -The Bill makes assurance doubly sure, and that is a good thing to do. I wish it to be understood that I do not think that private enterprise should be stopped merely by Parliament declaring an industry to be a monopoly, as long as the private enterprise is carried on properly and legitimately, and is not in any way a monopoly in the ordinary sense of the term. I should not like to have an industry declared a monopoly merely by a majority in Parliament. I should like very much to have some board or other authority appointed to declare what is a monopoly. It would be very much better to make quite sure that no trouble shall arise owing to the vote of a majority in Parliament on this subject. I have no doubt that when the Constitution was framed it was intended to give the Federal Parliament a great deal more power than we have now in regard to the control of trade and commerce. But the High Court on several occasions has given decisions which have restricted our power, curbed it, and curtailed it. That was not the intention at the time the Constitution was adopted. 5495 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - The honorable member's argument at the time the Constitution was adopted was that it gave too much power to the Federal Parliament. 5495 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir WILLIAM LYNE - I beg the honorable member's pardon. Ever since I have had to deal with these matters in the Federal Parliament I have always said that we were supposed to have certain powers which have been curtailed by the High Court. Does the honorable member mean to say that it was not supposed that we were to have power to deal with civil servants in the event of a dispute extending beyond an individual State? And does he not know that the High Court has held that it is scarcely possible for the Federal Parliament to exercise that power under present circumstances? I quite approve of the introduction of this measure by the Government. By means of it we shall make it clear that we intend to deal with huge monopolies, and to prevent them from growing into such powers as they have become in America. In Australia to-day the monopolies that exist are comparatively powerless, because they have not .yet been able to accumulate very large amounts of money. But take the Steel Trust of the United States, which has been able to absorb 95 per cent, of the iron and steel trade of the country, and has rendered it practically impossible for private individuals to engage in the industry. The United States Government has endeavoured to deal with the difficulty, but has found that it has not sufficient power. We have a great lesson to learn from America in this regard. The object of this Bill is to enable the Federal Government to deal with such corporations effectually. Unless we have that power we are second to the States. Surely a member of this Parliament does not desire to place the Commonwealth Government second in authority to the States in matters that affect the whole of Australia? We are supposed to represent the people of Australia. 5495 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - Hear, hear; supposed to ! 5495 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir WILLIAM LYNE - And we do. 5495 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - Quite a fiction ! 5495 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir WILLIAM LYNE - Unfortunately for him, the honorable member does not belong to a party that represents the people of Australia. That is the whole trouble with him at the present time.. The Leader of the Opposition just now was speaking almost with fear and bated breath about interfering with the powers of the States. The Federal Parliament should deal fairly with all the States, and it will, deal fairly with them. But the States should not - as some of them have done - assume that they are going to dictate to the Federal Parliament. That is what the Leader of the Opposition, and his colleagues at the last election, wished to help them to do.' But the people said " No. That was not the intention when Federation was accomplished. The Federal Parliament must be first. Everything that is national in character should he dealt with by that Parliament." I do not desire to make a long speech, but I was very much struck by the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Throughout it manifested the spirit of fear that we were assuming too much, and were going to injure the States. I fail to see that. I am also of opinion that it would be very much better for the country if full authority in regard to two or three subjects, to which I shall not refer in detail, were in the hands of the Federal Parliament rather than of the States at the present time. I have no wish to deal with this subject in a theoretical or lecturing spirit. I wish to deal with it in a practical way. 'The Attorney-General has told us that the existing law is unsatisfactory. If that be so, we require to apply some remedy. If we cannot apply that remedy otherwise, we have a right to ask the people to allow us to have the power that is required to enable us to deal with monopolies. 5495 F4S Parramatta 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK . - The honorable member for Hume has just concluded an argument which, if it means anything at all, means that we should not vote with the Government upon the proposal which we have now before the House. His argument means that those who believe in regulating these huge corporations and remedying evils which the honorable member says he wants to regulate, should vote against the Bill. But, as a matter of fact, the honorable member wants nothing of the kind. He wants the industry, which is a very different thing from a remedy for the monopoly. Therefore, the honorable member seemed to me to be quite illogical. 5496 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - The ' honorable member need not argue about my speech; he will not alter my view. 5496 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I do not suppose that I shall alter the honorable member's view. I know how impervious he is to any appeal to reason in regard to anything he may choose to say or do. But I am entitled to show how absurd and illogical the honorable member's arguments were, in that he contended that there is a necessity for regulation, whereas what he really wanted was not to control monopolies or strip them of their excrescences, but merely to own them. 5496 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - No, I do not. 5496 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - Where I join issue with the honorable member is here. The mere process of owning an industry by the Commonwealth will not necessarily strip it of any one of its undesirable features. 5496 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - What about the iron industry? 5496 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I do not know of any industry that is so unfit to be taken over at the present time by the Commonwealth, or an industry which requires so much skill and experience, or which has so many ramifications involving delicate handling and expert knowledge - no industry that is so little susceptible to what may be called the red tape of the Public Service - as the iron industry of Australia. I know what I am talking about, because I was brought up amongst the rolling of iron and that kind of thing ; and I say that if the Government is foolish enough to take over an industry of that kind at present we shall have to pay for our whistle. 5496 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - We are paying for our whistle now. 5496 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I do not think we are paying for it at all. The Attorney-General is referring to the bonus? 5496 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - Yes. I am not saying that the bonus is not a good thing, but I say that we are paying it. 5496 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - It is a good thing. But I do not quite understand where we are. Here is the Attorney-General telling us that he believes in paying bounties to industries to encourage private enterprise. Yet he is talking of taking them from the proprietors, and abolishing private enterprise. At one time he tells us that he is in favour of encouraging proprietors, of helping them in continuing their industries, and at another time he says that he believes in taking their industries out of their hands. 5496 L6Z 0 0 HALL, David Mr Hall - Did not the honorable member vote for nationalizing the iron industry ? 5496 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - Not that I remember 5496 L6Z 0 0 HALL, David Mr Hall - Is the honorable member sure ? 5496 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I do not think I did. 5496 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - I would give them a larger bonus than they have, if I had my way. 5496 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - Wherein lies the wisdom of giving them a bonus if the Government are going to take the industry from them? 5496 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - At a time when no one would take the responsibility of establishing iron works, we asked the States to do so. 5496 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - Does the honorable member say that the Government of which he was a member asked the States to nationalize the industry? 5496 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - Yes. 5496 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr Deakin - The honorable member is referring to the power given a State, under the Manufactures Encouragement Bill, to acquire the property. 5496 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - That is quite a different proposition. It was only a sop to get the Government proposal through, and was demanded by the same honorable members who are now supporting this measure. It was a mere political sop. 5496 F4Q 0 0 SCULLIN, James Henry Mr Scullin - That is rough on the Leader of the Opposition. 5496 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I think not. The Leader of the Opposition has done in his time what every Prime Minister has had to do - he has adopted many compromises to facilitate the business of the country. 5496 L1P 0 0 WISE, George Mr Wise - " Sops " was the word used by the honorable member. 5497 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I shall not withdraw the word. It was a sop offered to the great party which even then was controlling the business of the House. 5497 F4Q 0 0 SCULLIN, James Henry Mr Scullin - There is no need for any sops now. 5497 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - No; we are getting the slops now. An Honorable Member. - We are giving the honorable member " slops." 5497 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The Government are emptying the political slop pail on the House and the country. 5497 KTU ALP; NAT from 1917 0 0 SMITH, William Mr LAIRD SMITH - The honorable member is getting very vulgar. 5497 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I simply quoted a remark made by one of the honorable member's colleagues. However, I am sure that the honorable member is an authority on good manners. I know him to be an authority on telling the truth. He tells it sometimes, but accidentally only. 5497 L6Z 0 0 HALL, David Mr Hall - I ask, Mr. Speaker, that that remark be withdrawn. 5497 KTU ALP; NAT from 1917 0 0 SMITH, William Mr LAIRD SMITH - I do not mind it. The honorable member is well known. 5497 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I withdraw the remark. When these disorderly interjections occurred, I was referring to the iron industry, and I wish to return to the question of what is happening in the United States of America, where the honorable member for Hume went in his search for an argument to support the taking over of the industry. It is true that there is a large steel trust in America, and that its ramifications are almost world wide; but it is not a fact that the people there are asking that it should be placed under the direct control and operation of the Federal Government. Certainly Mr. Roosevelt is not. He is simply asking that the Federal Government shall have power to control it as an alternative to nationalization. He says, rightly enough : " Unless you can control it, and unless you can repress these evils, you will be compelled to resort to the alternative of nationalizing the industry ' ' ; but his attitude to-day is not that of the man who would nationalize all industries. It is that of the statesman who desires to regulate and control the trust, strip it of its evils; and make it what it ought to be - a combination acting bonâ fide in the interests of the people, earning fair and reasonable profits, and giving fair and reasonable wages and advantages to those employed by it. That is precisely the attitude of the Opposition. We say, with Mr. Roosevelt, that trusts must never be allowed to get the upper hand of the Parliament of any country, as they undoubtedly would if permitted to do so. Our contention is that we can so control, and regulate these enterprises, that we may develop their better side in the interests of the community and do away with that ugly black side of them which has already made itself so apparent in the United States of America. As I said the other day, trusts in Australia can never become as harmful as are the trusts of the United States of America, the simple reason being that in the latter country they are based upon the ownership - the monopoly - of right of way and the facilities for carrying on their enterprises. The Steel Trust owns railways which are at the very base and root of its power. More than once it has wiped out competitors by purchasing railway rights which those competitors used but did not own. The very last enterprise of the kind of which I have read relates to a company which established an up-to-date plant in Pittsburg. The plant was better than that of the Steel Trust. It cost, I think , £7,000,000 or , £8,000,000, and comprised the most up-to-date appliances for the manufacture of steel. What the Steel Trust did was not to go into the market and compete with this company in the selling of steel, but to carry out a much simpler operation. It knew that its competitor had to depend for its ironstone upon a railway and an iron mine many miles distant, and it simply acquired, behind the backs of the new company, the iron mine and the railway. 5497 L6Z 0 0 HALL, David Mr Hall - It is a good thing that we have Socialised our railways. 5497 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - Yes ; in the honorable member's view it is a good thing that we own anything in the nature of a monopoly as to which there cannot be useful competition. 5497 L6Z 0 0 HALL, David Mr Hall - Hear, hear. That is all we ask. 5497 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - That is not all the honorable member and his party ask, and I shall prove my statement out of the mouths of Ministers themselves. They desire very much more - they want to nationalize monopolies whether harmful or harmless. They wish to nationalize mines which they themselves declare are useful monopolies, and are being carried on with advantage to the people. Whether they are good or bad, the honorable member wishes to nationalize them. 5498 L6Z 0 0 HALL, David Mr Hall - That is not so. 5498 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - Let us see whether it is or is not so. I have here a few statements that have been made, for instance, with regard to the Coal Vend. 5498 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - The Commonwealth should have power to own coal mines if it wishes to do so. 5498 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The honorable member believes that we ought to have everything that we wish to have. 5498 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - I do not. 5498 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The honorable member is quite logical, but he and those acting with him would be more politically honest if they told the people straight out that they sought to wipe out the States and reduce the. State Parliaments to the status of provincial councils. 5498 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - That is what the honorable member is always telling the people, so that it is quite unnecessary for us to do so. 5498 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - That is what the honorable member and his party are doing all the time. 5498 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - No. 5498 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - That is the object which the Government have in view, and if they carry all this legislation they will largely accomplish it, unless all these measures are mere political placards. 5498 JWC 0 0 CARR, Ernest Mr Carr - The honorable member is going to quote some campaign slanders. 5498 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I am going to quote something taken from Hansard. Concerning the Coal Vend, Mr. J. C. Watson declared on 3rd July,1906 - I am quite with the honorable members that we should take care that nothing is done to prevent such legitimate combination amongst coal mine owners as may be found necessary to enable them to get a fair profit on their capital invested and to insure fair wages to their employes. So far as my limited knowledge of the operations of the vend amongst coal mine owners is concerned, I have not heard that any outrageous price has been fixed as the result of their operations. In fact, I am inclined to think that, from the New South Wales stand-point, and also from the national point of view, we were for years pouring out our national wealth from the coal mining districts to outsiders in particular at a ruinously low price. Any system that would overcome that and operate in the direction of fair and reasonable trading might be welcomed by any person. 5498 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - That is quite the opposite to what the honorable member said of us. He has got hold of the wrong quotation. 5498 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I have not, and I do not understand the honorable member. I am quoting statements by honorable members opposite to show that they believe that there are such things as good combines which ought not then to be interfered with. My point is, however, that they are going to operate against combines whether they are destructive or harmless. 5498 JWC 0 0 CARR, Ernest Mr Carr - Who said so? 5498 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The honorable member did by his vote a few days ago. When we proposed to insert in a measure before us last week words of limitation providing that action should not be taken against combinations unless they were in restraint of trade, the honorable member deliberately voted against their insertion. 5498 JWC 0 0 CARR, Ernest Mr Carr - Because I am prepared to trust the good sense of the House. Has it none ? 5498 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - Not very much. I have not an abiding and abounding faith in the good sense of honorable members opposite just now. I think they are acting very foolishly. Other honorable members spoke up for the Coal Vend, and declared it to be an admirable institution. The honorable member for Newcastle, the present Government Whip, said - Before this clause is agreed to,I wish it to be clearly understood that the position at Newcastle ought not to be disturbed, because I believe that to disturb an arrangement of that description would be to do something which would bring an injury, not merely upon the combination of proprietors (the Vend), but on all the employes at their collieries. Clearly the honorable member was then against the nationalization of trusts and combines, and against anything but leaving them absolutely alone. There has, unfortunately, been a strike up there since, and that may have modified the opinions of honorable members opposite somewhat. Everybody knows that the Newcastle miners actually insisted upon this Vend. I speak subject to the correction of the honorable member for Hunter, who was on the spot, and has his knowledge of the matter at first hand; but my impression is that the last strike but one at Newcastle was for the establishment of a vend to regulate prices. The proprietors were getting then, I think, 9s. a ton for coal, and the hewing rate was, I believe, 3s. 6d. per ton, or something like that. Mr. Bowling, and those who acted with him at that time, insisted that there must be a combination, and that prices must be regulated so that the wages of the miners might be kept up, and the profits of the employers be fair and reasonable. The result of the operations at Newcastle has been that whenever there has been no vend, there has been cutthroat competition of the most disastrous kind to men and masters, and whenever there has been a vend, it has resulted in the steady maintenance of good prices, and better conditions for all concerned. 5499 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - Not better conditions for the public, as a rule. 5499 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - What does the honorable member mean? I suppose he means that it meant an increase in the price of coal. 5499 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - Yes. 5499 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - Here is the great apostle of cheapness ! He wants cheap coal, cheap wages, and cheap profits ! 5499 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - I did not say any thing of the kind. 5499 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - Thus speaks the great Protectionist leader ! 5499 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - The honorable gentleman should not tell an untruth. 5499 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I say that11s. a ton for coal is not an exorbitant price, and a hewing rate of 4s. 2d. per ton is certainly not too high a rate. But the honorable member for Hume says that these rates have resulted detrimentally to the public by adding to the price of coal. 5499 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - So they did. Coal was 32s. a ton in Melbourne. 5499 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - That is quite apart from the operations of the Vend in the Newcastle district. 5499 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - The Vend did its part. 5499 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The late Government were instituting a searching inquiry as to why it was that the price should be11s. a ton at the pit mouth and over 30s. a ton here in Melbourne. I agree with the honorable member for Hume that that was something that needed careful looking into. 5499 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - What did the late Government do? 5499 009MD 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr Deakin - They instituted proceedings. 5499 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - They did not do anything. 5499 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - No, because the honorable member and his BashiBazouks over there made an attack upon us, and prevented us from doing what we desired to do. Honorable members opposite are in that matter simply doing now what we were in the act of doing when they hurled us from our positions. I agree with the honorable member for Hume that the matter referred to is one which requires careful looking into. But my point just now is that it is not necessary to nationalize the coal industry in order to remove the evils associated with it. 5499 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - I should have a coal mine belonging to the Commonwealth if I had my way. 5499 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - What for ? What should we do with a coal mine if we had one? 5499 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - The Government should never be in a dependent position. 5499 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The Commonwealth possesses no railways, and conducts no service in connexion with which the ownership of a coal mine by the Government would be useful. But the honorable member for Hume is so obsessed with the idea of owning something that he desires that we should own a coal mine when we have not the slightest use for it. Had the honorable gentleman not better wait a little while to see what will be the result of the State ownership of the mine at Powlett? Things do not seem to have been going on too well there. Ever since the State Government became possessed of that mine there has been a chronic condition of agitation and trouble there. 5499 L1P 0 0 WISE, George Mr Wise - Unfortunately we have an Upper House to deal with in Victoria. 5499 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - What has that to do with it? 5499 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - They refused a Wages Board. 5499 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I understand that the real reason for the trouble is that the control of the mine has been delegated to a capable and experienced manager who does not think that the men should get all the perquisites out of this State-owned enterprise that they think they should. I ask honorable members whether that is not the real cause of the difficulty. They say that they are not getting enough wages, and the manager of the mine says they are. They say that they are not working full time, and he says that it is impossible that they should, because there is not enough trade to justify that. 5499 L1P 0 0 WISE, George Mr Wise - That is the fault of the Upper House. 5499 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The honorable member, I suppose, refers to the fact that they have prevented the selling of coal to the public. 5499 L1P 0 0 WISE, George Mr Wise - Yes. 5500 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - Then the honorable member believes that . the State should own this coal enterprise, and should sell coal to the public? 5500 L1P 0 0 WISE, George Mr Wise - I was merely replying to the honorable gentleman's statement about the Powlett mine. 5500 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The honorable member contends that the Upper House in the Victorian Legislature prevented the sale of coal from the Powlett mine to the public, and that if that had not been clone, the enterprise would have been a success. I take it, therefore, that he believes in the nationalization of the coal industry. This Bill is not introduced for the purpose of curing evils, but for nationalization purposes, and. whether its effect be to cure evils or not. My fear is that if we take over these enterprises that are working well to-day. and giving good results to those engaged in them, as well as to the public, they will not be managed as well as they are being managed to-day, and our action will, in the long run, bring about more evils than we can possibly cure by nationalization. Only a year or two ago, the present Attorney-General, speaking of the Vend, said that he looked upon it as a really good thing for the miners, and that he did not think it was altogether prejudicial to the public interests. That was the statement of the honorable gentleman who is now proposing the possible nationalization of the industry. 5500 L4X ALP 0 0 MOLONEY, Parker Mr PARKER MOLONEY - The Vend might never come within the scope of this Bill. 5500 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I appeal to the honorable member, as a reasonable man. to say whether he does not think that we ought to be shown the necessity for passing this legislation, especially in view of the fact that we have already passed legislation which aims at a very strict regulation and control of all these affairs. If the legislation we have already passed is confirmed by the referendum, we shall be able to shut out the possibility of any monopoly in connexion with these matters. Perhaps I should do well to quote a definite opinion on the operations of the Vend from a member of the Labour party in another place. I find that Senator Henderson said of it - It has materially increased, not only its selling price, which I candidly believe it is entitled to do, but also the wages paid to the men who are producing the coal. The coal combine has done very good service up to the present moment. So much for the combine. Now, what do honorable members opposite say about other combines? The present Attorn ey- General delivered a speech in connexion with the Industries Preservation Bill. 5500 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - I do not agree with the speeches quoted in reference to the Coal Vend. I had to deal with a dispute of the kind myself, and I know what the Vend is. 5500 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The trouble is that the honorable gentleman does not agree with the Government at all, although he supports them. He argues against them every day, but still votes for them. The honorable gentleman is doing that constantly. 5500 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - I am not. 5500 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - If the honorable gentleman's argument to-day means anything, it means that he does not support this Bill. He contends that if a private enterprise is being carried on properly it should not be interfered with. 5500 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - But I do not say that we should not have the power to interfere with it. 5500 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The honorable gentleman has stated our position precisely. What do we want the power for if we do not intend to take advantage of it ? Surely honorable members are not indulging in political speculation? 5500 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - A man may be a saint to-day and a sinner to-morrow. What are we to do with him? 5500 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - On the same reasoning the honorable member might propose to abolish the State Constitutions and State powers. Because of some development which might take place in about 900 years hence honorable members suggest that we should secure all these powers for this Parliament. One would think that we have enough to do to deal with the troubles which arise out of the present complexity of our industrial development without seeking reserve powers of this extensive character. As a Federalist, I say that a good reason should be advanced for asking for any additional grant of power. We should be faced with some practical and pressing necessity before we ask the States to surrender powers they have exercised up to the present time. The onus is upon us to show why there should be a readjustment of the constitutional machinery. If we can prove that it is absolutely necessary, I have no doubt that the people will be willing to give us all the power that we desire. Here are the Government asking for power which they declare they will very rarely re- quire, and no instances have been quoted in which the exercise of such a power can be shown to be necessary. We are waiting to hear of such cases. If honorable members opposite believe that there are injurious monopolies operating in Australia, let them say what they are, and what are the injuries they are inflicting on the people. We shall then be upon common ground, and may consider the wisdom or otherwise of the proposals made for remedying them. 5501 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - The honorable gentleman is arguing that black is white. 5501 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I am dealing with the arguments used by honorable members opposite. I am never so intellectually conceited as to ignore an argument, no matter whence it comes. My arguments against this Bill are taken from the protestations of honorable members opposite, who, time and again, have declared that there are no injurious monopolies in Australia at the present time. 5501 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - We want to stop them coming here. 5501 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I am satisfied with that answer. All that this legislation means is that we should take a reserve power, to be used in some future time in the case of some emergency. The present Attorney-General has declared in this House that there are practically no injurious monopolies in Australia at the present time. First of all he referred to the Coal Vend, and then he went on to refer to another enterprise, which I understand honorable members opposite are going to nationalize at the earliest possible moment. Speaking of the same enterprise, the honorable member for Werriwa declared from his election platform that if it were not nationalized in three years' time, and that if the people were not travelling in State-owned boats, as they now travel in State-owned railway trains, he would confess to them that the Labour party had failed. What has the Attorney-General said about the shipping combine? This is part of the official report of a speech delivered by him in this Chamber on the 3rd July, 1906, page 921- The shipping combine, I repeat, is not a destructive monopoly at all. On the contrary, it is a very good monopoly, and one which is for the benefit of the people of Australia. "That is an answer to the honorable member for Hume, who says that if private enterprise is acting beneficially it should be left .alone. On the occasion on which this speech was made, the party to Which I belonged wished to make the penal provisions of the measure under discussion apply only to destructive monopolies, and the present Attorney-General was arguing that it should apply to all monopolies. In doing so, he spoke of the shipping monopoly as beneficial, not only to the owners and seamen and others connected with it, but also to the people of Australia. He also defended the oil corporation. 5501 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - The honorable member is peacocking my speech. 5501 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - What would the honorable member have me read that I have not read? 5501 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - The remarks in the second column of page 920, in which I state that we should have power to repress all monopolies, good or bad. 5501 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The honorable member said - As for monopolies, we should repress them the more when they are destructive; but we want the power to repress them, anyhow. The honorable member has declared that these monopolies are good. 5501 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - No, I alluded to one particular monopoly as good. 5501 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The honorable member took as his first illustration the shipping monopoly, which he declared to be good and beneficial to the people of Australia. Yet he says that it should be repressed anyhow. 5501 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - I have said that we must have power to repress all monopolies. 5501 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds Makes ill deeds done ! Under a Federal system of Government there should be no readjustment of constitutional machinery until the need for it has been actually proved. The need for nationalizing monopolies has not been proved. On the contrary, according to the Attorney-General, the shipping combine works beneficially for Australia. I am' aware that many honorable members of the Labour party have denounced all monopolies - the coal monopoly, the oil monopoly, the tobacco monopoly, and every other one. The contention of the Attorney-General is that we should have power to repress and nationalize all monopolies, no matter how beneficial their operation may be. He said, on the occasion to which I have referred - It is a good thing that there should be uniformity in many cases. What, does the Standard Oil Monopoly say? It says that its existence is a good thing because it regulates rates without levying excessive charges. The evidence given before the Tobacco Commission was to the same effect, namely, that it did not increase the price of tobacco, and that the only benefit conferred was to be found in the lesser number' of persons who are employed by the combine in the manufacture and distribution of the article. Therefore, I hold that it would not be wise to insert the word " destructive " in the way that is proposed. We require power to repress monopolies, and to regulate them. I hope that the Minister will not consent to emasculate this Bill. The amendments which are already before us are sufficiently formidable. They cover four pages of print, and represent only a fractional part of the proposals that will doubtless be considered by the Committee and accepted. If the Bill is to be cut about in the way that seems to be threatened it may as well be put under the table at once. The insertion of the word " destructive " would confine the title of the Bill- 5502 L1N CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910 0 0 WILSON, John Gratton Mr WILSON - That word is already in the Bill. 5502 DQC ALP 1 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES - But we can alter that. 5502 KEA 0 0 KELLY, William Mr Kelly - Only by altering the Bill. 5502 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES - I propose to alter it by striking out the word " destructive " in the title, whereas the honorable member for Wentworth wishes to amend it by inserting the word "destructive" before the word " monopolies " in this clause. There are always two ways of doing a thing. I desire to do something in one way, and the honorable member proposes to do it in another. I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Customs that he should not agree to the amendment. 5502 KIN 0 0 LYNE, William Sir William Lyne - I do not intend to. The remark was superfluous, because every one knew that the Minister would do what the present Attorney -General said he wished to have done, and at the time I drew attention to the marvellous quickness with which things like that were decided at the table, the honorable member for West Sydney merely having to say that he wanted a thing to get it settled as he desired. I believe in preventing monopolies from getting the upper hand in Australia, and to do that would go any distance with honorable members; but the constitutional amendments which have been proposed will, if agreed to, give us power to deal with all the abuses which have arisen, or to repress them at the moment that they arise. But let it be understood, on the authority of the Attorney-General, that all these monopolies which have been denounced from the house-tops by other members of the party are not bad, the patient investigation of a Royal Commission having shown that some of them work in the interests of the Commonwealth. I hope that the Attorney-General will make that clear when this matter goes before the country. Why do we need the additional power now being asked for? The Bill seems a confession that the other proposals of the Government are useless, and will be ineffective to control and regulate enterprises. If so, why waste time in referring to the people ? Why spend money in taking a referendum on them? No sooner is one piece of legislation passed than another is prepared. The Attorney-General has taken power to repress, control, investigate, and prevent the formation of combinations likely to be harmful, and should that prove to be insufficient, he now asks for power to take them over and work them as State concerns. And all this, be it observed, in relation to industries which we declare in the same breath are not monopolistic in the bad sense of the term, but only harmless and beneficial combinations which lead to the good of the community by better organization, by decreasing prices, and by insuring good wages and conditions to the workmen employed therein. What more than that do honorable members opposite want? Can they hope to get more? Are they getting more than that in any Socialistic enterprise to-day? Are they getting more than that from the Post-office? Are they going to repeat the conditions prevailing there? Would the miners of Australia submit to some of the conditions obtaining to-day in the Post-office? 5502 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - No. 5502 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - There would be a strike to-morrow, I am afraid, if some of the things which are alleged to take place in the Post-office were done in relation to the mining industry. That is the Socialism about which my honorable friends are always boasting. I do not regard it as Socialism. My idea of Socialism needs a little more careful definition than the popular propagandist usually gives it. I cannot see that anything is a pure piece of Socialism the first duty of which is to pay interest on money borrowed for its development and expansion. 5502 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - That is the honorable member's definition. 5502 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - Oh, no. 5502 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - What is the honorable member's definition? 5502 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The one which the honorable gentleman used to subscribe to, but found a little inconvenient in later years. 5502 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - There is a number of things which the honorable member used to subscribe to, but which he found a little inconvenient in later years. 5503 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I know that, and I am not complaining. The honorable gentleman had better get some more functions taken over for his Department, as he seems to have nothing to do here but to play the schoolmaster. I do not want to take up any more time on this question. I can conceive of no proposition which is further reaching, or more distinctly marks the parting of the ways, so far as the general trend and purpose of our Australian civilization are concerned. We have to make up our minds, and the people will require to make up their minds, as to whether they are going along the road of control and regulation, whether they are going to exercise the police powers of the State over the private enterprises of the country, so far as to insure that they are carried on bond fide and beneficially ; or whether, on the other hand, we are going into socialistic speculative enterprises, as to which we have no guidance from the other countries of the world. Indeed, the little that we have, in my judgment, ought to make us the more wary in betaking ourselves to any such concerns, for which we have neither the experience nor the proper machinery, or the proper motive for causing them to succeed, as they do to-day? I know that there are many evils connected with our industrial society and organization. I am open to consider any proposal to do away with any existing evil, but I shall not take a step which I believe would lead to the race going backwards, instead of forward ; which would lead, in my judgment, to the quiet, silent it may be, undoing of that which it has cost us thousands of years to build up. I profoundly believe, as I have said here before, that our civilization largely represents the strain of existence, and you can relieve that strain to a point which will lead to the taking down of the great superstructure, and all those embellishments of it which we mean when we utter the one word " civilization." Believing that honorable members opposite are putting the axe to the root of the tree of private enterprise, and private property, and so, I believe, to the root of the tree of civilization, I protest against the passing of such legislation as this, in face of the fact that no reason for its introduction has been shown. But, on the contrary, reasons exactly in an opposite direction have been furnished in the quotations I have made from the speeches of members of the present Government. 5503 JXA Hunter 0 0 CHARLTON, Matthew Mr CHARLTON . - I should not have risen but for the remarks of the last speaker in regard to the Coal Vend. It appears to me that he admits the necessity for preventing monopolies coming into operation. To that extent he is with us, and with him the question is as to whether there are any monopolies at present. He has quoted from speeches made here by honorable members their statement that it is not .1 monopoly. I do not intend to go into that question to any great extent, because I recognise that in this discussion a sense of fairness should be observed inasmuch as certain proceedings are now pending, and anything which might be said here might prejudice the determination of the case. Consequently, my remarks will be few and brief, and are made only in order to clear up one aspect of the question. 5503 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - If what the honorable member says is correct, that should be a reason for postponing the consideration of this measure. 5503 JXA 0 0 CHARLTON, Matthew Mr CHARLTON - I propose to state my view in regard to the Coal Vend, without saying anything which might interfere with the consideration of that case, because I think that the honorable member, and probably other honorable members, do not fully realize the nature of the pending proceedings. I admit that I know nothing of the particulars ; but I do know that it is not so much the Coal Vend which is brought into question as a shipping combination which is supposed to exist in regard to the supply of coal. The two things are, to a certain extent, so far as the Vend itself is concerned, distinct. Up to a certain point the Vend is, as the honorable member has stated, a good thing. For the purpose of preventing undue or cut-throat competition, and thus preventing workmen from obtaining a reasonable wage, the formation of the Vend was necessary. The honorable member for Paramatta knows that, previous to its institution in the Newcastle district, we had undue competition. At all times competition should only take place on fair lines, but in the case of coal it was a cutthroat competition, and the workmen's wages were regulated accordingly, and, of necessity, they suffered. What the honorable member said in regard to the cause of the strike in relation to the Vend is hardly correct, but it has some bearing on the question in dispute. The men had- been contending that it would be better if the cut-throat competition could be put down, and the only way to achieve that result was to bring about a better feeling amongst the proprietors. To that extent the men would benefit, but at the particular time to which the honorable member alluded they were asking for an increase in the hewing rate, quite apart from the question as to whether the Vend was in existence or not. 5504 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - Hear, hear. The proprietors said, " Competition is so keen amongst us that we cannot get a better price; " and then the men said, " Form a vend, and regulate your price." 5504 JXA 0 0 CHARLTON, Matthew Mr CHARLTON - At that time there was no vend in existence, and by some means it was formed, though the miners did not know how the proprietors came together. I quite agree with the quotations which have been made from the speeches of honorable members in regard to the Vend and its application at that point- to deal with the price on a reasonable basis, should meet with the approbation of every one. Eleven shillings a ton is, as the honorable member stated, a fair price for Newcastle coal; but the rate of 4s. 2d. a ton which the miner gets only enables him to make a living wage. There is something between the cost of producing the coal and its price free on board at this end which has to be explained. I know nothing about the cost of distribution, and do not want to discuss the subject, because it would be very unfair to do so at present. I take it that the inquiry which has to be made is not so much as to regulating the price of coal in Newcastle as the additional cost which is charged to the consumer. The honorable member for Parramatta has admitted that the Deakin Government made an inquiry into this matter. Indeed, he went so far as to say that they left behind a minute to the effect that proceedings should be instituted against the coal proprietors. They recognised that some injustice was being done to the people of Australia, and that there was some necessity for making an inquiry. Whilst the honorable member, as an ex-Minister, has freely admitted that the price which was paid Tor coal at Newcastle was only a fair and reasonable one, we say that, in the light of additional facts, evidently the late Government must have seen something to induce them to adopt a course of action which practically backs up the position taken up by the present Government. I can see no reason in the contention of the honorable member for Parramatta that the Coal Vend should be the subject of an Act of Parliament, that we on our side intend to take it over. This measure only provides that the Common- wealth should have power to take over any monopoly which may be found to exist in Australia. Assuming that no monopoly exists at present, that is not a sufficient reason for saying that this power should not be taken. It only goes to show that we are taking time by the forelock. We have gained experience from what has happened in other parts of the world, more especially America, which has been quoted to us. It has been found in those countries that monopolies do exist, but with its present legislative powers the Federal Parliament has been powerless to suppress them. What we are contending is that the same thing is likely to happen here. Nobody can deny that of recent years great strides have beer made in that direction, and that persons in almost every calling have come to some understanding as to dealing with its industry. Therefore members of this Parliament, or public men in any part of Australia, would not be justified in sitting idly by until a monopoly had come into existence and then asking for suppressive legislation. If we have no monopolies at present, what objection can honorable members opposite possibly have to our taking this power? I cannot see why they should object to the proposal. Under this measure who would be called upon to deal with a monopoly which might spring up? The people of Australia, through their representatives, would have to decide whether it was a monopoly or not. Do honorable members on the other side think that we should be likely to decide that any industry was a monopoly, unless we were satisfied on that point?What would be the result if we acted otherwise? We are only elected for a brief period, and if we were to rush in and nationalize a business without reason, the people would naturally resent our action, and the first time we appealed to the country they would send us about our business and put another party on the Treasury bench. 5504 L4X ALP 0 0 MOLONEY, Parker Mr PARKER MOLONEY - They know that. 5504 JXA 0 0 CHARLTON, Matthew Mr CHARLTON - Of course they do. Not only would the people remove from power the party which fathered such legislation, but they would return to Parliament representatives who would be prepared to repeal it as soon as possible. 5504 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - It will all depend upon whether you have any leg irons jangling. 5505 JXA 0 0 CHARLTON, Matthew Mr CHARLTON - I do not think that we ought to bother ourselves about leg irons here. It has nothing to do with the question before the House. 5505 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - Is not the State election over now ? 5505 JXA 0 0 CHARLTON, Matthew Mr CHARLTON - At the State election I addressed many meetings, and whatever I said was by way of condemning the State Government for passing unnecessary legislation, and it was on that question that the people gave a verdict. The Government were really condemned on account of the legislation which they had passed, but that is of no consequence here. What we want to obtain is not only power to control, but also to nationalize, if necessary, any industry which appears to be a monopoly. The only objection which has come from the other side is that in their opinion we have sufficient power under the amendments which have already been passed. The Attorney-General intends to reply to that argument at a later stage. I take it that neither he nor any Government would bring in a Bill asking for further power if they had sufficient. If there is a doubt on the subject why should we not make our position sure? 5505 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - So far we have no power to nationalize. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. 5505 JXA 0 0 CHARLTON, Matthew Mr CHARLTON - The criticism this morning of the Leader of the Opposition and the honorable member for Parramatta shows clearly that honorable members opposite realize the necessity for power to control and regulate monopolies. The only difference is as to whether we possess sufficient power at present, and we contend that we have not ; but supposing, for argument sake, that the contention of honorable members opposite is correct, what objection could there be to making assurance doubly sure if it be admitted that the Commonwealth ought to have this power? It would appear, however, that the real objection to this measure lies in the fact that it is sought to give the Commonwealth power to nationalize any monopoly ; and only on that point is there any great difference of opinion. The honorable member for Ballarat contends that this is a matter that should be left to the States ; but when the whole area of the Commonwealth is affected, surely such legislation becomes the business of the Federal Parliament? I have always contended that on all these questions there ought to be uniform legislation : and I have seen no reason to alter my view. Indeed, the honorable member for Angas is evidently of the same opinion, if we may judge from the following extract from his memorandum - On the other hand, if the Parliament of the Commonwealth possessed power to legislate in respect of combinations or monopolies in restraint of trade, State as well as Inter-State and external, the law and administration would be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. One proceeding, instead of several, would suffice ; and the judgment of the Court would apply to all, not, as at present, only to the InterState operations of the defendants. The scope of the operations of the most powerful interests is so wide, and touches at so many points those parts and relations of the industrial power which are admittedly federal, that it seems a clear case for comprehensive and effective power. With that I entirely agree. I do not see how we can deal with questions affecting the whole of the Commonwealth without uniform legislation, and I am glad the honorable member for Angas, in his carefully compiled document, takes the same view. In the United States of America the necessity for more extended Federal powers of this character is thoroughly realized. There are in that country great combines which are eating the vitals out of the community, exacting the utmost alike from producer and consumer; and yet the Federal authority is unable to deal with them without the additional power for which the people are now clamouring. All this affords additional argument in favour of the measure before us ; and there need be no fear as to its misuse because we, as public men, are responsible for our actions. If this legislation be left to the States we might find a monopoly in one of them to which the people did not object for the simple reason that, by employment or in other ways, they were reaping a benefit. For instance, in a State a large portion of the population might be employed by a monopoly in producing a commodity which they themselves obtained at a reasonable price, but which was sold on exorbitant terms to the people of other States. This brings us to the contention of the honorable member for Parramatta in regard to the coal industry. Coal is sold at a reasonable price in Newcastle, but at much more than its fair value in Victoria and can we imagine, if the whole of the coal were obtained from New South Wales, that the Government of that State would nationalize the monopoly simply because the people in Victoria suffered? Of course, I do not say that the people of New South Wales would so act; but the danger is there, and, unless there is uniform Federal legislation, trouble may arise. There are representatives in this Parliament from each State, and all questions of the kind will be dealt with from a national point of view. Unlike the honorable member for Ballarat, I contend that this is truly a national question affecting the well-being of the great mass of the people, and that it requires legislation by a National Parliament. Do honorable members think for one moment that the Commonwealth would nationalize any or every industry in regard to which there was some trouble? I have read in the newspapers statements to the effect that this legislation will give us power to take over, for example, a fruit business; but, as I said before, we are responsible men, and will have to pay the penalty if we do anything to which the people take exception. It might as well be argued that the State should own nothing - should conduct no enterprise whatever. But how many are there in this country who would contend that the State should not control the railways and tramways? In Victoria the people are agitating for the State or municipal control of the tramways, simply because they realize the great advantages enjoyed by the people of New South Wales in this connexion. The same argument applies to any commodity or business which the public consider should, in their own interests, be nationalized ; there is nothing to prevent the Commonwealth taking over any industry or calling, just as the States have taken over the management of the railways. With all its defects, very few honorable members would be prepared to hand over our postal system to private enterprise; and I doubt very much whether we should shortly have a uniform system of penny postage if our postal business were managed by private individuals. And so, in regard to all industries, we shall have the power to nationalize if we think it necessary ; and, in my opinion, the people will give us the necessary power. Of course, if we abuse that power, then will come the opportunity for the Opposition to regain possession of the Treasury bench. To leave this matter to the States might simply lead to the establishment of monopolies in spite of all legislation, and I am sure no honorable "member would be prepared to accept such a position. There is not the slightest doubt that if the Commonwealth Parliament be given this power, it will tend surely to prevent the creation of monopolies to the detriment of both producer and consumer; and for that reason alone the proposed appeal to the people is justified. If people choose to form monopolies after this legislation is passed that is their business ; and it is our business to do our utmost in the direction proposed to prevent such organizations. Any steps to be taken in the future in regard to nationalization will be thoroughly considered by this representative House; and, if the majority think that in a given instance there should be nationalization, I am sure we shall not hesitate to do our duty. 5506 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - Has the honorable, member no industry in his mind? 5506 JXA 0 0 CHARLTON, Matthew Mr CHARLTON - Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, and I do not think it is fair to prejudice any industries by mentioning names. I have heard several industries mentioned as monopolies, and I do not know whether they are or are not ; but if the Commonwealth Parliament be given this power, it will be our duty to look into the evidence, and act accordingly. 5506 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - Power first, and performance next ! 5506 JXA 0 0 CHARLTON, Matthew Mr CHARLTON - If we get this power we shall have very few monopolies to deal with. Those who put their money into such concerns are keen business men, and will fully realize the position. In the butter trade, wood from New Zealand is regarded as the most suitable for boxes, and producers are pretty well compelled to use it; and the result is that the suppliers of the boxes have combined and raised prices throughout Australia. With such legislation as that now before us, such a state of affairs could not arise, and we should have reasonable competition. I do not believe in monopolies with a view to raising prices ; there should be fair, but, of course, not cutthroat competition. I expect the same thing in the matter of the butter boxes. If the makers could obtain a reasonable profit by selling their butter boxes at much less than they are charging to-day, they are not justified in increasing the price. The cooperative butter factories are now considering whether they cannot manufacture their own boxes, but their difficulty will be in getting the pine, because the people who have entered into that combine may have taken precautions to prevent the factories being supplied with the necessary wood. If they have, the factories will be shut out. I quote these facts to illustrate that monopolies should be left for the Commonwealth to deal with. If we think well to nationalize them, it is for the people to indorse or condemn our action. There need be no fear of the ultimate result. One would imagine, to hear certain speeches, that anything passed here is law for all time.- As a matter of fact, there are no people quicker than the Australians in resenting anything of which they do not approve. Even a Parliament must face the people in three years after its election, and if the people disapprove of its actions, they are masters of the situation, and can dismiss its erring members. I can therefore see no danger in this proposal. The Leader of the Opposition claims that before we take action we should go before the people to ascertain whether they indorse the proposal. There is no necessity for doing so. If we have been returned as representatives of the people, we ought to stand up to our positions and accept our responsibilities, instead of being afraid of them. It is our duty to legislate in a way that we believe to be in the best interests of the Commonwealth, and when we have done that the people will decide once and for all whether they approve of our actions. 5507 KCO Angas 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN .- This is a Bill to enable the Commonwealth to nationalize certain industries. It is not a Bill to enable us to control them, because the other amendment of the Constitution covered that proposal. Its purpose is to enable the Commonwealth, through the two Houses, to declare what is a monopoly, and, having done so, to assume it upon terms about which I wish to offer a few words of criticism. I agree with the honorable member for Hunter that we ought not to assume that the people, acting through this organ of Government, are likely to make mistakes of policy or of common sense, from which the State Parliaments, their other organs, have a sort of continuous immunity. I can apprehend that in the national sphere quite as much intelligence as to the limits of State interference is likely to be displayed as in the States' sphere. Perhaps, on the whole, leaving the matter of the personal standing of this particular Parliament altogether out of account, being based upon a wider area, we are, at all events, more likely to fit in with what would be the average sense of the Australian community than a State Parliament would be. From having, therefore, a wider representation, it is more likely that we should rise to the consequent efficiency which a sense of very great and dignified responsibility always entails, or at least inspires. So that, if it can be shown first that the power can be better exercised in the interests of the public good in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, then, so far as the power is concerned, apart from its exercise, which is a matter of expediency to be determined by events on each particular occasion, I see no reason why it should not be vested in the Commonwealth Parliament as well as in the States. On the point of expediency, which is the likelihood of it being better exercised by the Commonwealth Parliament, one might, on a view of all the conditions, offer a few suggestions. There has been, no doubt, a great deal of controversy in recent years as to the extent to which the State ought to go in its encroachment upon a domain hitherto left, in cases, perhaps, considerably to the detriment of the people, in private hands. I have always advocated, as the honorable member for Hunter seems to have done that policy in respect of monopolies should not stop at what are really natural monopolies. If, in operation, competition is, as a matter of practical effect, excluded,- I consider that a monopoly exists. For instance, a railway, considered in the abstract, is not a monopoly, because there is nothing to prevent another man making application to Parliament, and getting permission to run a competitive line in the same direction within a few yards of the other. But, as a matter of fact, it is a monopoly in its operation, because no man would be so foolish as to do it. The loss of part of his capital would be certain, even if resort were had to the expedient, so common in America, of putting lines under one general management, and forming a trust, -with its consequent check upon cut-throat rates, and its indirect effects to the detriment of the general public. I believe, with the honorable member for Hunter, that not only the railways, but the post-offices, can be included in that connexion. I hold that the post-offices are managed by the Government as well as, and perhaps better than, they would be in private hands. As regards coa] mines, if necessary, there is no obstacle ir common-sense or expediency, except what the conditions of the moment prescribe, in the way of a State running a coal mine, or even of the Commonwealth doing so if it became necessary as an instrumentality of government. We know that tramways, notwithstanding a strong force of opposition, are gradually becoming municipalized. A report upon the effect of the municipalization of tramways was presented to one of the Departments of the American Government and published about 1905. In that it was shown that the result of municipalization under very deterrent conditions on the Continent of Europe had been very beneficial, giving lower fares, a better sense existing between the municipality and its employes, a regular provision for accidents, old-age pensions, and the other conditions of life which are unfortunate, although they cannot always be controlled by the person. It was shown that these were all on a better basis than they had been previously ; and that there were on the continent models which would stand comparison with the Glasgow system, one of the best examples of municipal enterprise in tramways. Water supply, no doubt, ought to be controlled by the State, and I do not know why some States have for so long allowed their water frontages to be monopolized by particular persons. One born in the Old Country has still a sort of reflex antipathy to certain ownerships in Australia, as the result of a few of the experiences of one's childhood, when a man dared not cross from one field to another without his right being challenged, or take the slightest advantage of those opportunities of peaceful enjoyment given by rivers throughout the length and breadth of the country. These rights of the people are denied to them through trie stupid, absurd, and obsolete rights of private ownership that still exist in parts of the Old Country. I refer in that regard to the conditions that are annexed to private ownership under the generic term, strongly condemned years ago by the Times, when Lord Brougham raised the question of the sacred rights of property against necessary amendments of the land laws, under the general statement that they were rights of property, and therefore sacred for all purposes. I would almost go to the length in the case of a State - I do not know that the Commonwealth should do it - if the events came with such a cogency pf suggestion that one would have to yield to it, even of allowing the food supply to be more directly controlled by the public, should the health of the people require it. It is, therefore, altogether a question of common-sense and expediency, to be determined my circumstances. The point is whether the power ought to be in the Commonwealth or in the States so far as concerns the nationalization of monopolies, or their destruction by State assumption. 5508 JM8 0 0 ARCHIBALD, William Mr Archibald - Suppose both Commonwealth and State have the power, what harm would there be? 5508 KCO 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN - I do not think that, up to the present, I have seen any justification for asking us to interfere before the States have made the necessary experiments. This power stands by itself. It is not required to give efficacy to the other powers which die Government are endeavouring to assume, or that we already have under the Constitution as it stands. What it really does ask the people to do, if the Bill is passed, is to allow us, over the wider area of Australia, to experiment within the limits of apparent necessity in the region of Socialism to the extent to which it is justified, because to some extent, of course, we all know that it may be justified. Some years ago Professor Ely, in his work on Socialism, mentioned that almost every book on Socialism was utterly worthless, because they were all so clouded in reason by the prejudices with which the authors approached the subject. He said - The authors start with such an intense hatred of all Socialistic systems that it is simply impossible for them to understand those systems. One therefore endeavours to clear his mind of cant and prejudice in this matter by looking at the facts on each occasion. Professor Caird, of Glasgow, and Professor Foxall, of, I think, Oxford, have mentioned in some of their public lectures that many of the principles of Socialism are a legitimate deduction from acknowledged economic doctrines. We ought, therefore, to keep clear of prejudice in approaching the problems as they present themselves from moment to moment. The question then is : Is it better that we should give this power to the Commonwealth? It is at present purely a question of power in the abstract, unless it is being asked for the purpose of exercise, and then we touch the question of expediency as regards policy. Unless that is meant, this is a sort of academic discussion as to the expediency of giving this power, at present not pushed to undue exercise by the States, or perhaps not unduly restricted to the Commonwealth, without having as yet shown that, within the limits of acknowledged necessity, the States, which I believe are the most effective organs of government to deal with the problem, have neglected their opportunity. 5509 KNH 0 0 MATHEWS, James Mr Mathews - The worst monopolies are those against which the States could not provide the necessary safeguards. 5509 KCO 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN - That is a question of control. First, now, as regards the effectiveness, I would ask honorable members opposite, is it more likely that you can work an industry on a Socialistic basis throughout a continent or within the sphere of a particular State, where interest is direct, knowledge close, and the operations of the Parliament are watched from day to day by men who have a far more effective control over them than they have over the administration of a continent? At all events, under our present system of representation there is no doubt that a minority, amounting practically to a nation in size, may be for long years disfranchised, and therefore practically powerless to check the operations of the majority in power. That evil is corrected, even under our present system, if you confine it to the smaller area, because the minority has a greater chance of having its will expressed in a smaller area, from the more direct control it has over persons, than it would have over the wider. At all events, you will not have in the smaller area that acknowledged evil that has been referred to by writers on the subject of minorities amounting almost to a nation in size disfranchised for three or six years, and powerless to check the legislation which for the time is being placed on the statute-book. 5509 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - That is a matter for consideration with each concrete proposal. 5509 KCO 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN - No; I am now dealing with the power. The honorable member thinks the wider power is the proper one. I am endeavouring to find out if there are any reasons which should affect judgment on that question. It is easy enough to say things, as we do on the platforms, when people's reasons are often asleep, but in a deliberative assembly we ought to advance reasons and throw dogmatism to the winds. I remember reading, in 1905, a series of articles, entitled " A study of popular Governments," appearing in the Quarterly Review. They are dispassionate, fairly balanced, and with no undue leaning to one class or another. I might mention, that the writer refers to the fact that mobs are cruel, but that all men are cruel when excited, and qualifies that by saying that well-dressed mobs are said to be the worst. He adds - There is usually more kindliness and helpfulness among the humble than among those whose life is less simple. When sentiments of humanity enter into national policy it is the humble whom they chiefly affect. I mention that to show that, if there is any prejudice in the writer's mind, it is not against what may be considered the more popular theories of government. Summing up the efficiency of Governments over large areas in the National sphere, as against their efficiency in a smaller sphere, this writer seems to think that experiments are more likely to be successful in the smaller than in the wider areas. He is not directly dealing with the problem, but that is the effect of his reasoning. He mentions that - The larger the assembly the more is it influenced by emotion, the less by reason, and, as a rule, the higher does passion rise. Arguing against a large federal House of Representatives, (Alexander Hamilton observed, " Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, an Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." He cautions men against permitting their benevolence to be misled by the professions of men of forcible character but of rather limited sense. 5509 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - According to that reasoning, the Senate, being the smaller House of Parliament, should possess the purer reasoning power - I mean smaller in the sense that it comprises only half the number of members that we have in this House. 5509 KCO 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN - I was dealing with the point that in the smaller areas - that is to say, the States - it should be possible to secure better results than in the wider areas. What this writer urges is that we have a greater degree of unreasoning turbulence in our larger, than we have in our smaller, Assemblies. I am merely citing this authority for what it is worth. 5509 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - There is often more turbulence in municipal councils than in Parliaments. 5509 KCO 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN - There is no doctrine that cannot be challenged on some ground, but I say that, so far as Socialistic experiments are concerned, we are far more likely to have an industry successfully managed upon Socialistic lines within a State than throughout the length and breadth of the continent. Apart from the question as to this being the opportune moment at which to propose such an amendment of the Constitution, any one who thinks that the power would he more efficiently exercised over the larger area will find great difficulty in objecting to the abstract right being given to the National body. The writer continues - Masses of men, inasmuch as they like to be led, and wish to be saved the trouble of thinking for themselves, are attracted by force, or the semblance of force, in a leader. They can seldom judge if he is wise, still less, perhaps, if he is honest. But they can see if he is positive, confident, audacious. They like audacity. The self-confidence of a party chief, or a demagogue, inspires confidence in them. Incapable of understanding fine distinctions, they are attracted by broad and sweeping statements, and are apt to suspect the man who qualifies. 5510 KNH 0 0 MATHEWS, James Mr Mathews - The Quarterly Review is not very democratic. 5510 KCO 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN - I shall not make any further reference to it, lest we get too near the lines of personal experience. Coming to the Bill itself, I think that, notwithstanding the skill that the Attorney-General's Department possesses, this clause, which it is proposed to embody in the Constitution, will be one that the lawyers will very much admire. It has been the ambition of the present Attorney-General, judging by his speeches on the measures to amend the Constitution, to relieve the High Court, as far as possible, of the burden of having to deal with questions of legal construction. lt is exceedingly difficult, however, for a politician to co-ordinate his aspirations with his practice, and we find the honorable gentleman now proposing an amendment of the Constitution which, from the point of view of a lawyer, is entitled to a good deal of moral respect. In the first place, I acknowledge that there may be some difficulty in determining what is a monopoly. If honorable members think that this Parliament ought to have the power - apart altogether from its effect upon the nation as a whole - to arbitrarily declare what is a monopoly, that is certainly the best way of getting over the difficulty. 5510 KNH 0 0 MATHEWS, James Mr Mathews - It will not give the High Court any work. 5510 KCO 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN - If it is left to the discretion of Parliament to declare what a monopoly is, the High Court will not have very much work in this respect. I acknowledge that there is some difficulty in defining what is a monopoly, and I do not think there is any necessity for us to provide a definition for the purposes of the Constitution. If the trade and commerce clause is accepted by the people, and embodied in the Constitution, we shall have arbitrary power to deal effectively with the question of monopolies, and we shall be able to define them to our heart's content. At present we cannot go beyond the region of Inter- State trade because our power is limited to that extent; but if the people agree to the amendment of the Constitution, in regard to our trade and commerce power, our capacity to define what is a monopoly will be as ample as regards domestic trade as it is at present in respect of Inter-State trade. If there is any difficulty in obtaining a conviction of a monopoly under anti-trust legislation, it arises less from our power under the trade and commerce section than from the failure of our legislation to give effect to that power. The failures in the United States have all been due to the terms of a particular Act. They have been due to the fact that a particular definition of "restraint of trade" has not covered the particular cases before the Court.- It was found, for instance, that rebates were not monopolies under the Sherman Act of 1890, and some big cases failed on that ground. Congress accordingly amended its Act of Parliament. We had a doubt last session as to whether rebates were monopolies within the meaning of our Australian Industries Preservation Acts of 1906 and 1908, and the late Government, with that prescience which characterized all its members, introduced an amending Bill, declaring that rebates, granted with a view of securing exclusive dealing, were monopolies. In other words, the Bill provided that fairly heavy fines should be imposed in cases where it was proved that an endeavour had been made by a system of rebates to monopolize trade as between State and State. If the amendment of the trade and commerce section is accepted by the people, it will be far-reaching, and so far as that provision is concerned, and so far as our power exists at present as between State and State, I do not think we shall have any difficulty in defining monopolies to the extent necessary for preventing an unfair restraint of trade. Beyond that I see no reason why we should go. We must allow men to conduct their operations in trade as well as in any other direction as long as in doing so they do not take an unfair advantage of others. The moment they try to secure an exclusive right to trade to the detriment of the public, there can be no doubt that they are acting in restraint of trade in an unreason- able way, and that action should be taken to prevent them from doing so. We have power at present to deal with all these conditions; and I fail to see, except from the point of view of the desirableness of perfecting this abstract and unnecessary power, why we should place, for the first time in history, a grant of power in the hands not of the people directly, but in two Houses of Parliament, to be exercised not by Act, but by motion. 5511 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - In the hands of a Parliament elected by the people. 5511 KCO 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN - No doubt that is so. but what does it mean ? It means, if this proposed amendment of the Constitution be carried, that the necessary check against precipitation which the passing of a Bill through its various stages gives, will disappear, and that two Houses, in perhaps a flush of philanthropic emotion, will be able to pass a resolution that a certain business is - whether it is or is not - a monopoly. The two Houses will have that power without the procedure of reference to a Committee such as exists in connexion with Bills affecting private interests. 5511 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - The States can do that all the time. 5511 KCO 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN - That is why I began with a reference, to the comparative degrees of efficiency we were likely to secure from the exercise of this very wide power by the National Parliament as against State Parliaments. 5511 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - But the honorable member needs to be reminded of that fact in this connexion. 5511 KCO 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN - The honorable member is entitled to make such a suggestion, but I am entitled to reply that if that be the answer to all criticism of the assumption of this power it must apply against every criticism of every power that we attempt to assume, since we can assume it only from the States. It might be said, " If the States have this power why should we not also possess it? " The question is, Which is the better body to exercise it? Under this proposed amendment of the Constitution is the Commonwealth Parliament to have power to declare once and for all what is a monopoly ? Will there be power to repeal these resolutions ? If an Act of Parliament is passed »t can be repealed, but what will be the position in this case? If we vest the power in the Parliament, as we shall do by the resolutions for which the Bill provides, is that power to be divested after wards by the repentant note of another resolution? I doubt it. When I held office as Attorney-General I had occasion to consider what would be the effect of a transfer by delegation from the State Parliaments of certain portions of their industrial power. I had to consider the question of whether or not they would be able to repeal or modify their grant in any way. These are questions that have not been settled in Australia, but I hold certain views with respect to them. In this Bill, consisting of only a few lines, the Government are introducing questions of construction that may be discussed in the High Court' for years to come, as the exercise of this power develops, although one of the professed objects of the Attorney-General is to pass industrial legislation such as will diminish to a large extent the work of the High Court in dealing with what he considers useless points of construction. There is another matter in reference to this power which has to be considered. Why does the Attorney-General in this draft vary the terms that he has adopted in other Bills? The Bill providing for an amendment of the Constitution in regard to our industrial powers gives power of control over production, manufacture, and supply of services. Control is one remedy, and we have in this Bill another. But why do the Government vary their terms ? Is it due to careless drafting, or is it designedly done? Whatever the explanation, it is reprehensible. We have declared certain things in reference to the industry or business of producing in specified cases, and why is this proposed amendment of the Constitution limited to production? Doubts have been expressed whether manufacture within a State would be affected by our trade and commerce power if widened as proposed. At all events, when honorable members are talking of Socialism, manufacture cannot be out of place in this Bill. 5511 KFK 0 0 GROOM, Littleton Mr Groom - Who produces sugar - the grower or refiner? 5511 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - Both. 5511 KCO 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN - In amending the Constitution we ought not to be careless about the co-ordination of terms. We should not throw doubt on the scope of one power varying the remedy by omitting words used in relation to the object of the power in another contemporaneous amendment of the Constitution. Does the Attorney-General wish to alter our express power of eminent domain? In America the power of eminent domain is, I think, implied; in other words, the power of assuming property for public purposes depends on implied powers, and it has been held in one case that, being an implied power, it cannot be exercised against the instrumentalities of a State. Is this power to be exercised against the instrumentalities of" a State? Let us look at the Constitution. By section 51, paragraph xxxi., the Commonwealth Parliament is empowered to make laws with respect to the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws. We have here a proposition to assume power to make laws in respect of any business or industry that we may define as a monopoly, no matter to whom it belongs. This is an express power, and it is not or may not be subject, to the same extent, at all events, as the implied power of eminent domain, to the limitations in respect to instrumentalities. The High Court has denned the railway administration as an industry. It did so in the Railway case decided in 1904. While the Constitution gives us power to take over on just terms, there is no reference to, just terms, or to any terms, in the Bill. Our language should be clear. We should not, by the looseness of our phraseology, unmake the reputation we have acquired of having framed an instrument almost perfect. Gladstone described the American Constitution as one of the most perfect instruments of government that ever came from the pen of man, and it has been acknowledged by writers like Mr. Bryce that as an expression of Federal powers our Constitution stands on as high a plane for skilful draftsmanship and necessary prescience. Under the Bill we may have power to take over the railways, though that may not be intended. Is 11 intended? If so, under what terms are they to be taken over? No terms are mentioned. If there is to be an acquisition under section 51 as it stands, the words " it may acquire for that purpose any property used in connexion with the industry or business " are superfluous, because we can acquire now for any purpose in respect to which we may make laws. The Courts will have to give some independent meaning to this provision. They will seek the meaning which Parliament must be assumed to have had in passing the measure, because, with the shortness of view which in this instance characterizes courts of justice, they assume 0m11iscien.ce in regard to Parliament. We have power to acquire property on terms that the Parliament of the day may prescribe,, and therefore may, perhaps, take over the State instrumentalities known as railways on terms far more advantageous to the Commonwealth than has hitherto been, thought possible. As a test of the ability of the State Governments to overcome great- financial difficulties, we might leave them the debts, taking from them the assets. John Stuart Mill says that principles are always best tested by extreme cases, and that applies to powers, too. I do not know what the Bill means, but there are possible- interpretations of it which may not have occurred to the draftsman. Therefore, the sooner its language is clarified the better for all concerned, except lawyers. This power is not a concurrent power in the ordinary sense, nor is it an exclusive power. We have power to nationalize ; to indulge,, within certain limits, in Socialistic enterprises. 5512 KFK 0 0 GROOM, Littleton Mr Groom - Would not the power to nationalize imply the power to prohibit?- 5512 KCO 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN - Perhaps it would. Concurrent power does not give the power to prohibit. _ The Privy Council decided in the Canadian case, Attorney-General of Ontario v. Canada, that the Dominion Parliament has no power to expressly abrogate State Acts, but only power to modify or override them by its legislation, if concurrent. If its power is not exclusive, it may not be concurrent in the sense of overlaying the power of the States. Are we now assuming exclusive power of nationalization? That is a matter of" doubt. I wish to know what version is to be put before the people at the referendum. In asking the people in their dual capacity as citizens of the States and citizens of the Commonwealth, you should' clearly define what is meant, apart from the possibility of remedies being successful. It is because I think that the meaning of the proposed amendment is not quite as clear as is thought by the advocates of the measure, that I offer these words of criticism. 5512 KNH Melbourne Ports 0 0 MATHEWS, James Mr MATHEWS . - The honorable member for Angas has admitted the need for the prevention of monopolies, and no Bill has given me greater pleasure than this. I look forward to the extension of the powers of Government until practically everything is controlled by the State. I have not had the legal training necessary to follow the honorable member's criticism of the drafting of the measure, but, narrowed down, the question seems to be whether the power to deal with monopolies should be in the hands of the Commonwealth or of the States. The honorable member quoted an authority to prove that the smaller the community the greater the opportunities for controlling monopolies. We all admit that. But we know that in some countries - the United States of America for instance - monopolies have got control of many industries, and that their operations extend into nearly every civilized country. The honorable member asked, " Are not our powers under the trade and commerce provision of the Constitution sufficient ? ' ' All those powers permit is the prevention of the monopolies from doing harm in certain directions. Should they think fit, they might stop production in certain lines, and the people would be worse off were no production taking place than with production under a system which is bad. As to whether the Commonwealth or the States should control monopolies, it is conceivable that one or two of the States may be able to produce commodities which other States could not produce. This might prejudicially affect a State like Victoria. A State Government might set itself to get all the profits from the distribution of a natural production, whereas the whole of the people should be treated alike. It might, therefore, be harmful to allow the States to nationalize monopolies. None of the State Governments has yet made the attempt to get rid of monopolies, trusts, and combines. I expect that South Australia and New South Wales will do so, though, in one respect their system of government is unchanged. Landed proprietary and other vested interests will not accept any law which will curtail the advantages they have to-day, so that the people of Australia have to look to this Parliament, and this Parliament only, to remove the baneful effects of monopolies. There are many monopolies in the States in which this Parliament might very well interest itself. For instance, in the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company there is, I suppose, one of the most baneful monopolies Victoria ever had. This is a company of capitalists who have amassed large fortunes ; and yet those who conduct its affairs show themselves to be absolutely blind to the interests of their shareholders. They are imbued with the fossilized ideas of forty years ago, but, at the same time, they know well that if they lowered the fares the dividends would be greater. In this, of course, they have robbed their shareholders, and all because they think that by keeping the dividends down they may obtain an extension of their lease. Thanks, however, to the advance of democratic thought any extension is extremely unlikely. If the Upper House of Victoria is so corrupt, or the company itself is so corrupt, as to continue in the old way, it is not asking too much of the people to give the Commonwealth Parliament the right to interfere in a matter in which the State Government either cannot or will not interfere. This company sells city tickets at eight for is. , but on the two busiest days of the year - one of which was yesterday - they have the barefaced effrontery to refuse to take those tickets and make the people pay a higher fare. Owners of every other system of transit in the world on such an occasion lower their fares instead of increasing them ; and this the tramway company would have to do if they did not enjoy a monopoly. We know, of course, that there are other vehicles plying in the streets of Melbourne, but the trams are still a real monopoly, because they afford the only means of carrying by far the largest section of the community. Would any law be too drastic to " down " a company of this character ? I know there are honorable members opposite who admit that such a monopoly as this should not be permitted ; but it is only one monopoly of many. As I said on the second reading, we must deal with monopolies that are baneful in their effects ; and the tramway company of Melbourne affords a signal instance. Throughout Australia there are other monopolies; and I believe that the people generally are with this Parliament in the view that the States have had ample opportunity for years past to deal with these organizations and have in noway attempted to do so. Now we have a National Parliament elected on a broad franchise; and I believe that next year,, if not by an enormous majority, at any rate by a good majority, the people will give us the power to legislate for the regulation and control of these octopus monopolies which have their tentacles throughout the country. Even a monopoly in one State has a prejudicial effect on the rest of Australia. If there be a bad crop of oats in Victoria the price of oats rises throughout the Commonwealth, and the same may be said in regard to butter and other commodities; all the States are interdependent, and the only panacea is Federal control. The Labour party have advocated legislation of this kind for years, and there are honorable members opposite who have gone very near to advocating similar measures. The most sorrowful feature of the present situation is that honorable members, like the honorable member for Angas, who realize the detrimental effects of monopolies, are afraid to take advantage of the present opportunity for legislation in case we go too far, and do some harm, perhaps, to a few people. It is idle to hide the fact that we intend doing certain harm to the pockets or banking account of those who form monopolies ; indeed, if we do not effect that purpose this legislation is unnecessary. The Labour party have fought out this question on the hustings, and it is scarcely necessary to reiterate our well-known views. 5514 KFK 0 0 GROOM, Littleton Mr Groom - Does the honorable member advocate nationalization on payment' of compensation ? 5514 KNH 0 0 MATHEWS, James Mr MATHEWS - If it can be .proved that a huge monopoly, which exercises a baneful influence, has paid 50 or 60 per cent., I for one shall refuse to buy it over at the capitalized value of such dividends. To my mind, such profits are acquired wrongly by robbing the public; and, rather than buy them over on such, a basis, the Government ought to enter into an opposition enterprise, and then show whether, with the people behind them, they are not stronger than some of these boasted private concerns. If the monopoly be such that the Government could not well start in opposition, then we should, of course, purchase, but not at their own price, or at the capitalized value of their swollen profits. I do not believe in confiscation, but in justice; and I should not give the proprietors of a monopoly enormous fortunes at the cost of the rest of the community. We know, of course, that the numbers on this side are strong enough to pass this measure. In the past we have had to bow to the decision of the people ; and the Opposition, if the verdict should be against them, will doubtless have the satisfaction of knowing they have done the best, from their own point of view. Many of them, I know, have expressed the wish, and I hope the sincere wish, to improve the measure ; at any rate, they must remember that we cannot nationalize one monopoly unless the people give us express power to do so, and no business can be declared a monopoly unless by a majority of both Houses. This insures full debate, and will have the further advantage of making perfectly plain what is a monopoly, so that no outside private interests, however powerful, will be able to take any case to the High Court, the meaning of the word having been made quite clear by the vote of Parliament. 5514 JPC Kooyong 0 0 BEST, Robert Sir ROBERT BEST . -I take great exception to the attitude that has been assumed by honorable members opposite. I have had the advantage of hearing only two speakers from the Government side ; but each has emphasized the idea that honorable members of the Opposition favour monopolies, as contrasted with honorable members opposite, who are root and branch against them. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports knows that honorable members on this side are just as anxious to control monopolies of a tyrannous, injurious, or detrimental character as are any honorable members opposite. Actions speak louder than words ; and a number of honorable members on this side have, like myself, been the means of introducing anti-trust legislation for the purpose of controlling, as far as our Constitution permits, monopolies that are detrimental to the public. 5514 KNH 0 0 MATHEWS, James Mr Mathews - And every one of them ineffective ! 5514 JPC 0 0 BEST, Robert Sir ROBERT BEST - The only two honorable members I have heard have evaded the discussion .of the Bill before us, and have devoted their attention to a measure which has already been passed, and which has for its object the complete control of monopolies. It will be seen, therefore, that where it can be demonstrated that power is necessary for the control of monopolies, we on this side have been prepared to give it; though it is true that we have felt ourselves limited by the terms of our Constitution in this connexion. I took part in introducing, first, the parent measure, and then two amending measures, each of which had for its object the increasing of the power of this Parliament; so that absolute and complete control should be exercised in the public interest. I have admitted that the Constitution is limited in this regard ; and hence, as mentioned by several honorable members, the late Government fully intended the introduction of the necessary legislation to give that increased power and control to the Commonwealth. This, therefore, demonstrates clearly that we on this side of the House would gladly assist in giving complete control over monopolies that are injurious to the public. 5515 KFN ALP 0 0 FOSTER, Francis Mr FRANK FOSTER - Will the honorable member vote for the Bill? 5515 JPC 0 0 BEST, Robert Sir ROBERT BEST - No; because it is quite another proposition. 5515 KNH 0 0 MATHEWS, James Mr Mathews - The honorable member will not vote for it because it settles the question. 5515 JPC 0 0 BEST, Robert Sir ROBERT BEST - If the honorable member had remarked what I said earlier, he would have learnt that the Bill which we have already passed deals with the control of monopolies. This measure, on the other hand, deals with the substitution of State enterprise for individual enterprise. 5515 KFN ALP 0 0 FOSTER, Francis Mr FRANK FOSTER - That is what the honorable member is against? 5515 JPC 0 0 BEST, Robert Sir ROBERT BEST - Yes. The honorable member for Hume asked the Attorney-General whether it was true that certain proceedings in a particular case under the anti-trust Act had been stopped. The Attorney-General was not sure whether that was the case or not; but went on to say that the present law was unsatisfactory and inadequate. The honorable member for Hume based the whole of his support upon the necessity for increased power to control monopolies. The answer given, no doubt unintentionally, had a most misleading effect, because the adequacy or otherwise of the present law has nothing to do with this Bill. That question has been dealt with to a large extent, so far as the Constitution is concerned, by the Bill which has been passed ; and will be further dealt with by a Bill already circulated. Several instances have been mentioned of American monopolies ; but the very essence of their tyrannous character lies in the fact that they have the control of the means of transit in that country. Fortunately, we were wise in our generation, and secured the ownership of those public utilities, the railways, for the States. I trust that that ownership will always be retained by them. There is, therefore, no possible chance of monopolies in any circumstances reaching in Australia anything like the dimensions of those in America. That, however, does not mean that we should not take every precaution to avoid the possibility of their development. Wherever it can be proved that monopolies are injurious, the duty is incumbent upon this Parliament of regulating and controlling them effectively in the public interest. 5515 KZA 0 0 WEST, John Edward Mr West - Why not give us power in this Bill ? 5515 JPC 0 0 BEST, Robert Sir ROBERT BEST - The power has already been given by the amendment of the Constitution in the Bill recently passed. The Attorney-General has also circulated a Bill amending the anti-trust law, and giving the Commonwealth increased power to control monopolies, even under our present laws. That measure will meet with a large share of approval from this side of the House. We have now reached the stage when we are right up against the question of State or individual enterprise. It is for this House, and, subsequently, for the country, to decide whether any improvement is to be secured by the practical suppression of individual enterprise. So far, no reason has been adduced for so vast an economic change. The States have the fullest and most complete powers to nationalize monopolies if they so desire. Have monopolies at any time been of such a character as to justify State action? As a matter of fact, we know they have not. Notwithstanding the broad franchise exercised by the States, monopolies have not, up to the present, reached such a stage of injuriousness to the public interest as to justify any action whatever on the part of the States. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports was most unfortunate in the instance which he gave to show his idea of a monopoly. He referred to the Melbourne Tramway Company. They may be a monopoly so far as certain streets are concerned; but they are not so far as the whole metropolis is concerned. They own a concession to utilize certain streets ; but the present law secures to the municipalities the right to construct tramways throughout all other parts of the metropolis. The various municipalities are at liberty to initiate their own tramway system and, as a matter of fact, some have already done so. The honorable member also forgets that, in granting the concession, the Victorian Parliament provided that after, I think, 1897, the Parliament should have control over the question of fares to be charged by the company. There is now sitting a Committee which has for its object the securing of the fullest information in regard to this matter. When it reports, it will be within the power of Parliament to legislate as to what are fair and reasonable fares in the public interest. 5515 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - Hear, hear ! It is a most beneficent institution! 5515 JPC 0 0 BEST, Robert Sir ROBERT BEST - I am no defender of the company. I have not the remotest interest in it one way or the other; but, when it started, the concession which it secured was not madly rushed after. If it has built up a. large and valuable business, and made it a considerable success- 5516 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - They have not made it a success. The people have simply come and lived here. 5516 JPC 0 0 BEST, Robert Sir ROBERT BEST - But for the enterprise of the company, the success that lias been obtained would not have been possible. Anything in the shape of individual enterprise is discredited by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. He, of course, fails to take into account the many failures that have taken place, and in which the public had been invited to join. Where an enterprise has proved a success, my honorable friend's idea is that the State should step in and take it over. He would leave it to private enterprise to test the question ; and if it was a failure, so much the worse for private enterprise; but if it was a success, the honorable member would have the Government step in at once and take it over as a profitable concern. Mark, also, his idea as to the compensation which should be paid in these circumstances. The business is not to be taken over at its fair market value. His idea is that, if an enterprising company has been sufficiently successful to make a considerable profit, its market value should be brushed aside, and that it should be taken over at his price. He would not leave the value to be assessed by a fair and impartial tribunal. He does not believe in confiscation, but he does believe in not paying the fair market price of a successful concern. This demonstrates, most conclusively, the unfairness of the proposition in the Bill that, whatever Parliament declares is a monopoly, shall be a monopoly. We have heard the honorable member's idea of a monopoly. He thinks that where a company has the use of certain streets, it is a monopoly, and must be taken over by the Federal Government. I am glad to say that the tramways, as means of transit, have been, in many places, taken over by the municipalities. They are a matter, not for State enterprise, but for municipalization. It is by local concerns of that sort that the most successful management has been secured. The honorable member, however, is not content with the municipalities taking the tramway system over. He would have the Federal Government take it over. The (lease in connexion with the monopoly that he speaks of actually expires in 1916. It cannot, therefore, be very much of a monopoly. The honorable member's illustration shows the idea that certain honorable members have regarding the enactment of this measure, and, in the circumstances, I ask if it is fair or just. Is it fair to the States or to the municipalities? Surely the States may be relied upon to more successfully cope with difficulties such as these as they arise? It is for them to say whether monopolies are injurious to the public; and by their legislation to exercise control of them in the best interests of their own people. Further, I complain that the whole basis of union is being' fundamentally departed from by this measure. The proposal for union, from 1891 down to the final enactment of the Constitution, had as its fundamental idea that the whole jurisdiction and power should remain with the States, save such as was surrendered to the National Parliament. That principle is now being ignored, and the Federal Parliament is asking for power- to take away another large slice of State jurisdiction in a direction where local control should be most successfully and beneficially exercised. The Government have not attempted to show how individual enterprise has failed, or how the experiment of State enterprise is to be more successful. Experience in connexion with trade and commerce throughout the world demonstrates conclusively .'.hat there is no justification for the suggestion that individual enterprise has failed. If we turn to our own States and study the work that has been done by them, we find nothing of a specially successful character about it. I have already indicated that I thoroughly approve of the State ownership of public utilities. 1 have specially emphasized the railways; but I would remind honorable members that the railways of Victoria were carried on for many years at a serious annual loss, amounting in some six or seven years to something like ,£2,500,000. 5516 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - But consider how they developed the country. 5516 JPC 0 0 BEST, Robert Sir ROBERT BEST - That is my justification for believing in the State ownernlP ( of railways. What I am pointing out, however, is that there will be no such justification for the Government taking over the various profitable businesses, the management of which my honorable friends opposite would like them to assume. Even in regard to the railways, there must be some regard to their commercial basis, and it is only of recent date that it has been found that they can be worked both in New South Wales and in Victoria in the interests of the country, combined with a due regard, to some extent at all events, to commercial considerations. Waterworks are also State enterprises, and during my term of office as a Minister in the State Parliament we wrote off in connexion with our waterworks a sum exceeding £1,000,000. These undertakings, together with the Post and Telegraph Department and other State enterprises, go to show that there is nothing to justify the suggestion that the State has some panacea which will make State enterprise more successful than individual enterprise. The onus is upon honorable members opposite to establish the two propositions that individual enterprise has failed, and that State enterprise Is going to be more successful. As honorable members know, I have assisted in every way to encourage private enterprise, either by the payment of bounties or by ample Protective duties. Those are reasonable and legitimate methods of encouraging private enterprise. Under this Bill, however, there will hang over the various businesses throughout Australia - and particularly those which are being carried on at a profit' - a sword that may fall whenever a majority of honorable members of this Parliament declare that they are a monopoly, and should be taken over by the Commonwealth. In this way we shall exceed anything that was ever contemplated by the Constitution. The Government are certainly proposing an amendment of the Constitution that has not been demanded by the country, and which necessity does not demand. Certainly no business experience has justified such a proposal. In all these circumstances this Bill must be completely differentiated from the character of the Bill to amend the Constitution which has already passed this House, and we should deal with it on its merits. I admit the right of Parliament to control our industries, and we have already taken steps to do so by factory legislation and antitrust laws. In bringing them under control in that way, we are doing all that the public have demanded, and all that circumstances have so far justified. 1 am not aware that it has yet been proved that we have in our midst any trusts that are injurious to the public. The late Administration, like this and other Governments, made the fullest investigation, with a view to ascertaining whether trusts or combines injurious to the public existed in Australia; but it has not been established that they do. The best evidence in support of the contention that they do not lies in the fact that in only one case has a prosecution been instituted. That prosecution was launched and carried as far as possible by the late Government, and I hope that the present Administration will bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, in order that it may be ascertained whether or not it is true that a monopoly to the detriment of the public exists in that connexion. I urge that it is not right to discuss the question of the full and complete control of monopolies in connexion with this Bill ; that this is a new proposal, having for its object ownership et businesses on the part of the Federal power, and that nothing has justified the enactment of such a measure. 5517 L1P Gippsland 0 0 WISE, George Mr WISE .- The honorable member who has just resumed his seat seems to have misconstrued the object of this Bill, since he declares that there is cast upon the Government the onus of showing that State enterprise has been successful where individual enterprise has failed. The object of this Bill is not to enable the Federal Parliament to take over individual enterprises that have failed ; but rather to empower it to take over private enterprises which have been so successful as to have become a menace to the welfare of the people. After listening to this debate, honorable members must come to the conclusion that there is no serious opposition to the Bill. All who have spoken have expressed a desire to see monopolies put down, and the only difference of opinion relates to the question of whether or not this measure is necessary. The Leader of the Opposition delivered a speech which, condensed, was, " The Government will have all the power they need, under the proposed amendments of the Constitution that we passed last week, and this will only be a duplication." The honorable member for Parramatta made a speech to the same effect. I always listen with pleasure to the honorable member for Angas, for he seems more than any other honorable member to approach every question submitted to the House from the point of view of its merits, rather than from the stand-point of party considerations. The honorable member pointed out very clearly that this was a Bill, not to nationalize any industry, but rather to give a grant of power to the Federal Parliament. He proceeded to point out that the exercise of that power would be a matter of commonsense and expediency, and would depend upon the matters that might be placed before Parliament. If we have sufficient power to control monopolies, there can be no harm in granting this further power, since, in that event, it will not be exercised. On the other hand, if we have not sufficient power to deal with them, it is well that we should have this power. I shall always be prepared to support any grant of power to the Commonwealth Parliament that it may have an opportunity to possess. Whether or not any power granted to the Commonwealth will be exercised must, as the honorable member for Angas said, depend upon the question of expediency, and the merits of each particular case will guide me in determining whether it should be exercised. I agree with the honorable member for Ballarat and the honorable member for Hume, that the wording of the Bill is capable of improvement in two or three particulars ; and, whilst I am prepared to support it, I shall hold myself free to vote for any amendment likely to make it more satisfactory. There is a good deal of force in what the honorable member for Hume and the honorable member for Angas said as to a chance majority, as the result of a general election, having power to decide what is a monopoly. I think that the honorable member for Angas observed that the responsibility should rest with Parliament; but I should be prepared to take a step in the direction suggested by the honorable member for Ballarat, who urged that an Act nationalizing an industry should not become law until after a general election, so that the electors might have an opportunity of saying whether or not they approved of the action of their representatives in voting for it. I do not approve of the means by which the honorable member proposed to obtain the view of the people, for a more unsatisfactory method of ascertaining the will of the people on any one subject than that of a general election could not well be devised. I shall, however, be prepared to support a proposal that a Bill providing for the nationalization of an industry shall be submitted to a referendum of the people, and must be approved by them before coming into operation. Mr.Fenton. - The Government would be able to buy out an industry for the money that it would cost to conduct a referendum. 5518 L1P 0 0 WISE, George Mr WISE -I am surprised that an honorable member on this side of the House should object to the principle of the referendum. 5518 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - On any and every question ? 5518 L1P 0 0 WISE, George Mr WISE - This power will be rarely exercised ; and I agree with those who have said that its existence may do away with the necessity for its exercise. In any event, it will have to be exercised so rarely that I think it would be reasonable to ask the people to say whether or not they approve of such a proposal. I do not hesitate to say that there are some industries that I would prefer to see controlled by the State rather than by private enterprise. It is to be regretted that the iron industry was not nationalized many years ago by New South Wales. If it had been, we should not be in such a weak position in the matter of the production of iron as we are to-day. I also think that the coal industry should be nationalized. The State Governments made a huge blunder in parting with the control of the coal supply. The enterprise is one that ought to be preserved and conducted by the State for the benefit of the community as a whole. It ought not to have been handed over to private individuals who are able to make fortunes out of it at the expense of the manufacturing section, and, indeed, all sections of the community. That, however, is beside the question. This is simply a Bill providing for a grant of power; and I am prepared to agree to that grant, and to support any amendment that will make the proposed alteration of the Constitution more workable and likely to operate with justice than it may possibly do if passed in its present form. 5518 K99 Lang FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON . - Free competition is the only cure for monopolies. It is amusing to me to hear honorable members on both sides of the House deprecating the existence of monopolies, when the general trend of the legislation which they have assisted in passing during the last ten years, has been in the direction of creating them. Bill after Bill has been introduced in this House and has received their support, the direct result of which, it was pointed out at the time, would be to create monopolies. Only a few days ago Labour members introduced and carried a Bill to continue the bounty to further entrench the sugar monopoly. Monopolies are beginning, so to speak, to show their noses above ground in Australia. They have not yet assumed large proportions ; but, when we have more population, and a better field for the exercise of monopolistic privileges, they will become more pronounced. Now that they are beginning to appear, as the inevitable result of the legislation which w7e have passed, those responsible for that legislation complain of its effects. 5519 F4Q 0 0 SCULLIN, James Henry Mr Scullin - To what legislation does the honorable member refer? 5519 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - To a number of measures; more particularly to Tariff legislation. New members have not these sins of commission to answer for. The legislation to which I refer has created monopolies by restricting competition, and by giving to local manufacturers the absolute control of the trade and production of the Commonwealth. I notice [hat there is not now a Minister in the chamber, which is a very peculiar position of affairs. I think that this is the first time that such a thing has ever occurred here, and I doubt if it has occurred in any other Parliament. It shows an extraordinary looseness and disregard of Ministerial responsibility to have no one in charge of the business. When I and others foretold that this legislation would create monopolies, no heed was taken of our warnings, and now that they are coming into existence, those responsible for their creation feel compelled to denounce them, and propose remedial measures to nullify the effect of their misdirected energy. The legislation which is now proposed makes it evident that when we on this side recently warned the people that the proposals of the Labour party tended towards Unification and Socialism, we were quite correct, although Labour candidates said that we misrepresented their intentions. The speeches which have since been delivered iri this Chamber show that their pretence is not to be persisted in. Of course, the election is now over, which accounts for throwing off the mask. It would not have been safe to tell the people before the 13th April that the goal of the Labour party was Unification and Socialism, but now its members are not afraid to come out into the open, and to declare that they have the people's mandate to do things which they assured the people they had no intention of doing. The leaders of the Labour party in New South Wales were taken to task by various organizations for their opposition to the Federal Labour party, the Hunter Labour Political Council agreeing to this resolution - That this Council protests against the utterances of Messrs. McGowen, Holman, Dacey, and others of the State Labour party with re gard to the question of unification, and that the delegates to the Congress be entrusted to uphold the idea of unification. That showed at the time the trend of Labour political thought. About the same time, the North Melbourne Political Labour League declared - That, in the opinion of this branch, the time has arrived when a demand should be made by all democrats that State Parliaments and the present method of appointing State Governors be abolished, as our present method of Government is too cumbersome, and is consequently subversive of the best interests of democracy ; and, further, the question of unification in a modified form should be made a leading question at the next State Labour Conference. A delegate of the Women's Conference - a Miss Mathews - said about the same time that Unification was the foremost question of the day, and advocated it very strongly. 5519 L6Z 0 0 HALL, David Mr Hall - Hear, hear; Miss Mathews says so. 5519 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - I am glad to hear honorable members admit it. 5519 KZG 0 0 ROBERTS, Ernest Mr Roberts - No one on this side has admitted any such absurdity. 5519 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - The refutation of the honorable member's interjection is the Bill just passed and the Bill now before us. Had the admission been made before the 13th April, some who arc now here would not have been elected ; their places would have been filled by men standing for individuality, liberty, enterprise, and the rights of the. States. The general trend of contemplated legislative action proposed by individual members of the Labour party before the party came into power can be shown by reference to the notice-paper of past sessions. These are, some of the proposals made by Labour members ; they are all now embraced within the provisions of this small but comprehensive Bill. The Honorary Minister gave notice of his intention to move - That, in the opinion of this House, it is advisable the manufacture of tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes should be a national monopoly. The honorable member for Werriwa wished to move - That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that Inter-State shipping should be nationalized. Another motion of which the Honorary Minister gave notice was - That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the educational system of Australia should be brought under Federal control. He wished to take the control of educational matters from the Parliaments of the States, and give it to the Commonwealth. Senator Lynch gave notice of his intention to move - That, in the opinion of the Senate, a Commonwealth Bank of issue and deposit should be established. Something of that kind has already been accomplished. 5520 K5D 0 0 O'MALLEY, King Mr King O'Malley - It will all be done next session. 5520 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON -Yet the honorable member for Adelaide just now said that to suppose so was an absurdity. The honorable member for Wannon asked the question - In view of the fact that the Governments of the various States are unable to find suitable land for their own people, and seem indisposed to assist in the development of the immigration policy of the Commonwealth Government, will he consider the question of amending the Constitution so as to give the Commonwealth Parliament control of the lands and railways of Australia ? The Bill empowers the Commonwealth to take control of, among other things, the State railways, and a measure has already been passed to give it effective control of the lands of Australia. The Minister of Defence, before taking office, gave notice of this motion - That in order that the Parliament may be able to effectively protect the people from the depredations of trusts, combines, and monopolies, it is essential that power should be conferred on the Parliament, so that it may, where it thinks it necessary and desirable, own and control such monopolies in the interests of the people. The Senate therefore affirms the desirability of so amending the Constitution as to confer the necessary power where it is not already given, and calls upon the Government to introduce the necessary legislation during the session. 5520 KZG 0 0 ROBERTS, Ernest Mr Roberts - The honorable member seems to have purloined a string of pearls. 5520 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - The members of the Labour party may think them pearls, but, in my opinion, they are merely " paste," and will not bear critical examination. Whenever it was pointed out that these proposals tended toward Socialism and Unification, there was a chorus of indignant denial, but the provisions of the Bill show that our criticism of them was correct. Planks of the Federal Labour platform and of the State platforms of to-day show that the whole Labour political movement to-day is in the direction of Socialism. 5520 KHE 0 0 HIGGS, William Mr Higgs - The honorable member seems to have altered his views since he and I were members of the Labour Conference which met in 1892. 5520 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - The honorable member is mistaken. From the beginning of my political career, I have been a consistent advocate of freedom, as opposed to restriction. I have always pointed out that the cure for the evils of restriction was not the imposition of further restrictions, but the giving of freedom. That is the bed-rock principle on which my political life, action, and thought have been steadily and consistently built up. However, that is a digression, pardonable, perhaps, under the circumstances. When I look at my friend, the honorable member for Capricornia, and think of those old days when he and I stood shoulder to shoulder fighting against troubles which have long since disappeared, I cannot help regretting that he has chosen the path of restriction, while I have continued to follow the road upon which we both originally , set out - the road to freedom. We have the keynote of this Bill, and a previous Bill, together with other legislation promised, in the significant words of Senator Pearce, a member of the present Government, when speaking at Hobart some little time ago - Individualism is doomed, and Socialism must take its place with the means of production manipulated and controlled by the whole people. There we have the whole hog of Socialism, and it is embodied in this apparently innocent clause, which is, however, a perfect dragnet, leaving no loophole for the escape of any industrial enterprise, public or private. Then the present Postmaster-General, in the course of an address to his electors at Broken Hill, said - This, then, is what the Labour movement means. In one precise, pregnant word it means Socialism. Well, Socialism is your scheme as apart from all other schemes. It is based on social growth. It is the common holding of land and the means of production and exchange, and the holding of them for the equal benefit of all. I do not blame the Postmaster-General for being a party to a measure of this kind, seeing that he has frankly told the people that the ultimate goal of the Labour movement is Socialism - that what he desires is the absolute control of the means of production and exchange by the whole people. All these powers can be exercised under this Bill. 5520 KFN ALP 0 0 FOSTER, Francis Mr FRANK FOSTER - The Labour party go further, and believe in Christianity ! 5520 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - Then I wish the Labour party would practice a little more Christianity; but, unfortunately, as in other directions, their professions are great, while their performance is lamentably weak. Here is a significant reference to this phase and trend of the Labour movement from the Brisbane Worker - The pledged caucus man who is running against the Prime Minister at Ballarat declared that the objective is collective ownership, but it is being kept in the background because it is at present unattainable. The objective was not, however, to be lost sight of. He did not wish to deceive his hearers in the slightest degree, but his party was leading direct to Socialism. There cannot be the slightest doubt in the mind of the most sceptical that the objective of the Labour party is leading directly towards Socialism - that it is not merely the ultimate objective, but the present objective, towards which they are journeying as fast as they can. 5521 KZG 0 0 ROBERTS, Ernest Mr Roberts - The people are no more afraid of the honorable member's pictures of Socialism than they are of the tiger in Cole's window. 5521 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - The people have not had any experience of the Labour party's Socialism yet. Unfortunately the majority of people are not willing to profit by the experience of others, but prefer to buy their own, often at a heavy price. The records of history for many generations past show the utter and absolute futility of Socialism wherever it has been tried. Of this ignominious failure evidence is piled on evidence. America is shown to be the graveyard of Socialistic experiments. I cannot recall a single instance where any experiment of the kind has not been an unqualified and dismal failure; and yet, in the light of this experience, we have a party, professing up-to-date ideas, and with a splendid library at their disposal for the acquisition of knowledge, seriously proposing measures which, so far from being new, are centuries old, and for centuries have failed. This new country of ours has not yet really started its development; and yet we are face to face with proposed experiments which can only retard its substantial progress. 5521 KHE 0 0 HIGGS, William Mr Higgs - Would the honorable member propose to sell the State railways? 5521 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - The State railways are public utilities which do not come within the ordinary category of the means of production, distribution, and exchange as understood in a commercial sense. Railways are of necessity monopolies, because they are such gigantic concerns, and involve the acquisition of so much territory, and such a heavy outlay of capital, that competition, except to a very limited degree, is impossible. We have, therefore, to leave such public utilities out of consideration when we are dealing with ordinary private enterprises connected with commerce, production, and manufacture. Some honorable members claim that the national ownership of the Post Office and the Railways is Socialism ; but prominent Socialistic writers deny that that is so. For instance, Mr. Hubert Bland, one of the Fabian essayists, whom the ex-Leader of the Labour party, Mr. J. C. Watson, was very fond of quoting, and who is one of the highest authorities on Socialistic questions, condemns in the roundest terms the idea that the State ownership of railways and post offices has the slightest resemblance to Socialism. What constitutes Socialism, he says, is not the mere fact of State ownership, but the end for which the State ownership exists - that before there is Socialism the State has to own the enterprise for the specific purpose of running it in the interests of the whole community and for the benefit of the whole community, sharing equally, and not for commercial profit. Our Post Office and our Railways are not run on these lines ; they are for the purpose of assisting commercial manufacturing and industrial development, and encouraging private enterprise and initiative for private gain, and so with our Railways. Neither is conducted for the purpose of giving equal dividends to all the members of the community, but for the purpose of opening up the country and providing means of communication from the interior to large centres of population and the seaports, so as to assist private enterprise, commerce, and industry, and all those human activities which are engaged in for profit under private control. How can it be held for a moment that the State-owning of the Post Office and the Railways is an example of Socialism? In the case of the Railways, it was found, when they were conducted directly under political control, that all kinds of favoritism, jobbery, and other abuses were rampant; and so great was the failure and the scandal that, in New South Wales at any rate, the Parliament considered it advisable to place them under the direction of an independent Commission. ' A similar step had to be taken in regard to the Public Service, where favoritism and other abuses had crept in, with the result that the least competent men had often the best chance to get into the best positions, and the most competent, without political influence, could not get their merits recognised ; and we have taken the same precaution in regard to the Commonwealth Public Service. If such results have followed the political control of the Public Service, how much more are they likely to follow when all the industries of the country are under such control ? When there is one huge political organization as employer, there must be endless abuses and petty tyrannies, and the most venal and incompetent men will be placed in the most responsible positions. The men who are the most popular will be those who pander to ignorance, popular prejudice, and the meaner instincts of human nature, and merit will not be taken into account under direct political supervision. Could there be a worse illustration of political mismanagement than that afforded in our Post and Telegraph Department? That is an evidence of what governmental institutions and political control will do when dealing with what should be business concerns. The Postal Department is a standing warning to the whole of the Commonwealth against trusting the Government with the direction of any more great concerns. While I admit that the people have the right to do this if they so desire, I sincerely hope the day is far distant when they will consent to give the Commonwealth far greater powers in the direction of the acquisition of, control with a view to the nationalization of, industries, so as to secure more Government billets under Government direction. I hope that the people will not consent to any such innovation as the nationalization of ali our commerce, production and industry. At the same time, I recognise the right of Parliament to step in and regulate and control industries within certain limits. That is not denied on this side of the House. The business of Parliament is to see that no injustice is done, that no section of the community gains an advantage over any other section, and that every one has fair play, and no special privileges which can be used to the disadvantage of others. Parliament has no need to concern itself with active participation in natural private enterprises. That is not the purpose for which Parliament or Governments exist. 5522 F4Q 0 0 SCULLIN, James Henry Mr Scullin - Is that possible? 5522 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - It has always been possible and practicable hitherto, and will be practicable again the moment our legislators turn their eyes in the direction of freedom, instead of restriction. The cure for these monopolies is freer competition, not the restriction of competition to limited areas and to a limited number. As sure as you get that, the natural trend is to form combines, trusts, and vends for the purpose of regulating the price, controlling the output, and preying all the time upon the consumer. That is the inevitable consequence of establishing such conditions as make for monopolies. Monopolies grow out of the conditions which are created by our legislation. We must remove those conditions by altering our legislation. When we remove them, and recognise and conform to the natural law, we shall not have to complain so much about monopolies. In the freer atmosphere they must disappear. But what is now proposed is to establish a Commonwealth Government monopoly beside which every other monopoly pales into microscopic proportions. 5522 F4Q 0 0 SCULLIN, James Henry Mr Scullin - What does the honorable member mean by the natural law? 5522 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - The natural law of production, distribution, and exchange. It is governed very largely by climatic and other considerations. The Creator has wisely given various climates in different countries suitable to various types of people and to the production of various things. He has provided waterways, ports, and harbors for the natural interchange of commodities between countries widely differing in their natural resources and the diversity of their natural products, thus showing that free commerce is the natural order of things. That is why harbors exist. 5522 10000 0 0 DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Is the honorable member going to connect these remarks with the question before the Chair? 5522 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - They are directly connected with it, because the Bill aims at destroying the whole fabric of freedom in regard to trade production and industry. We have first legislated so as to prevent the natural flow of trade, and now we are dealing with monopolies that have arisen out of the restrictions imposed on free commerce and free production. Instead of going back to the point where we made the mistake and rectifying it. we propose by this measure to create a still greater monopoly. What does the clause mean? It says that - when each House of the Parliament in the same session has by resolution declared that the industry or business of producing - that covers manufacturing as well as all other forms of production - or supplying - that covers the whole of the distributing centres - any specified goods or of supplying any specified services - that covers all services, including ferry or coach services; they are all roped in, for any of them can be specified - is the subject of a monopoly, the Parliament shall have power, &c. The Parliament, therefore, under this Bill will have the power to step in, and not only control all avenues of private industry, but even conduct them as politically bossed Commonwealth concerns. Thus it will be able to nationalize them and work them directly under its own management. Here is the whole hog of Socialism and Unification embodied in those few words. It is further provided that for that purpose the Parliament can " acquire any property used in connexion with the industry or business." There is no limitation of the kind of property that the Commonwealth can acquire. It may be not only machinery and buildings, but also the land. Thus the power of the Commonwealth will extend over the whole sphere of production, distribution, and exchange, as well as the lands upon which those operations are carried on. The powers sought to be obtained could not cover a wider area without absolutely wiping out State and private ownership. We have, first, one measure practically depriving the States of all their powers over production, trade and industry, and now we have this Bill to deprive private individuals of all their powers. In these two measures, therefore, we aim at wiping out the State Legislatures by depriving them of all their functions and powers, and also at wiping out all private enterprise. 5523 F4Q 0 0 SCULLIN, James Henry Mr Scullin - Then is all private enterprise a monopoly ? 5523 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - It is easy enough to declare any enterprise a monopoly, because the clause provides that when each House of the Parliament in the same session, by resolution, declares that an industry or business is a monopoly, it shall be brought under the provisions of the Bill. What is easier than to get a Parliament containing a majority of Labour members pledged up to the hilt to Unification, and to socialistic views and ideas, to declare that any business or industry is a monopoly ? What is to prevent them passing a resolution that any industry they choose to name is a monopoly? No attempt is made to define what a monopoly is. The matter rests entirely with the Parliament, which means the dominant party in the Parliament. If the dominant party happens to be the Labour party, it means that the caucus, and the Political Labour Leagues outside the caucus, will decide what is a monopoly. Then the Labour Government will have the excuse and also the power to acquire industries all over the Commonwealth. 5523 KEX 0 0 FINLAYSON, William Mr Finlayson - The honorable member knows better than that. 5523 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - The honorable member, if he is serious, has evidently not realized what this Bill means. It is as plain as a pike-staff. With a Labour party, pledged to Socialism, pledged to Unification, and pledged to the nationalization of monopolies, in power, nothing is more certain than that when it suits them to declare any industry a monopoly they will do it. If they do not intend to use these powers, where is the need for rushing this legislation through? 5523 KEX 0 0 FINLAYSON, William Mr Finlayson - The honorable member will have a say in it. 5523 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - Just as much say as I have now in regard to this Bill. Although I am protesting against it in the strongest way possible, I know that my protest is futile, because the caucus on that side has decided the matter, and there is not a member opposite that is not already pledged to vote for the Bill, even though apparently there are some who do not realize or understand its scope. All the reason, all the argument, and all the logic may be on this side, but that avails nothing so long as the votes are on that side. If the people at the referendum indorse this proposal, the power will unquestionably be put into the hands of the same set of men or their prototypes, with the result that, so long as they are in a majority in both Houses of the Legislature- 5523 KXO 0 0 PAGE, James Mr Page - Hear, hear ; that is what we have been attempting to achieve for the last twenty -five years. 5523 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - Therefore argument is of no avail, common-sense is of no avail, facts are of no avail, and the history and experience of centuries is of no avail. Honorable members opposite have come to this House pledged to do a certain thing, right or wrong, and, whether it is good or bad for the community, they are going to do it. The community will surfer for it, and will not find it so easy to rectify it once they have made the fatal mistake of indorsing it. 5524 KEX 0 0 FINLAYSON, William Mr Finlayson - The honorable member has not a monopoly of patriotism. 5524 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - I am afraid there is not a monopoly of it on the other side. The Government may declare that the Labour party have a monopoly of patriotism, and nationalize it. If they do, we on this side will have no show. They may even proceed to nationalize myself and other honorable members sitting on this side of the House, and we may protest in vain. I realize the futility of any argument we can offer, however sound or logical it may be, or however much it is backed up by facts or experience, so long as honorable members on the other side have the numbers, and the determination to carry a certain thing into effect. All I can do is to do my duty to my own constituents by entering my protest against the acquisition of powers so foreign to the principle of Federation on which the Constitution is based, and against further restrictions being placed upon the liberties of the people. I believe that what is being done now will retard the progress of Australia for at least a generation. At the same time, I recognise that the people have the right in a Democratic country such as this to say whether or not they will give these powers to the Federal Parliament. If they choose to do so, they must abide by the consequences of the use which the Federal Parliament makes of them. As a believer in Democracy, I have to recognise the right of the people to decide a question of that kind when the need for such a decision arises. That need, however, so far has not arisen. While we have our .present franchise, and believe in Democratic rule, we must trust the Democracy, and must put up with its mistakes. 5524 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - Just as Democracy has had to put up with the honorable member's mistakes. 5524 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - So far as I am aware, I have made none, and perhaps that is due to the fact that I have not had an opportunity. Present prospects do not suggest that I am likely to have an opportunity for some little time, but I can conscientiously say that ever since I have been in Parliament I have done my very best, from my own point of view, to assist in the passing of legislation on lines which I have conceived to be in the best interests of the Commonwealth. 5524 KFN New England ALP 0 0 FOSTER, Francis Mr FRANK FOSTER . - I have listened with pleasure to some of the speeches of the Opposition on the proposed amendments of the Constitution in this and other directions, whilst 1 have read others with a good deal of interest, for I can see in them an attempt to elucidate the question before the House. I am pleased to observe a recognition on the part of the Opposition of the fact that it is useless to try to keep back trusts and combines. Some statements have been made by one or two honorable members of the Opposition which are in themselves peculiar. Whilst listening to them I have been reminded of the fact that representatives of other mainland States travel to Melbourne by express trains, choosing the quickest possible means of arriving at the Seat of Government. But having regard to the views taken by some of the Opposition with respect to the carrying out of our ideals, I should not be surprised to see them travelling in bullock drays from the other States to Melbourne. The adoption of such a method of transport would be just as justifiable as are some of their statements as to the means by which monopolies or combines should be restrained. The evolution of trade and commerce has brought us to the stage of large business concerns which, in America more particularly, have developed into combines and trusts. We have before us a map of the Commonwealth, and as I gaze at it my mind is carried back to the position of the United States of America, when, with a population about as large as that of the Commonwealth, it took up the cudgels on behalf of its people and set to work to develop its territory. At that time there was only a fringe of population along the Atlantic coast, but since then population has stretched out further and further in a westerly direction until it has reached the uttermost shores, and is now, so to speak, turning back upon itself. During that period of progress men of large brain were organizing capital and industry and developing the great schemes which to-day have matured in the form, of trusts and combines. Whilst millions were settling on the lands - whilst the population in the United States was growing from 4,000,000 to 90,000,000, and the people were absorbed in wealth production - these trusts and builders of monopolies were seeking to secure a greater and greater share of the wealth of the country. The problem that confronts us is exactly that which confronted the Americans when they entered upon the development of their nation. The only difference is that we have their mistakes to guide us, and can benefit by their experience. Any one who takes up the position that we should endeavour to prevent the saving of wastage which is secured by organization and- centralization - which is obtained by that united action which trusts have shown us how to secure - ought to be relegated to the troglodyte stage of commerce. It is waste of time to discuss the question from that point of view. What we in Australia have to decide is that instead of wealth going into the pockets of a few combines as our population grows - and we hope to see it increase by leaps and bounds - it shall be diverted into the pockets of the people who are producing it. The people who are settling on the land and opening up our large mineral fields must have a larger proportion of the wealth they produce than they can now obtain. That is what lies at the basis of our demand that monopolies shall be nationalized in their infancy. When we talk of guarding Australia from a military invasion, honorable members opposite are willing to stand out for what is practically solid Unification. They believe in one distinct control of the army which is to fight an invading foe ; and I fail to understand why they should be opposed to a union of forces to fight an enemy that is already within our gates. Why should we not stand together to defend the people against monopoly, poverty, the aggregation of the land in the hands of the few, the aggregation of manufactures, impure foods, and jerry-built houses? Why should we not unite to defend the people against any trouble that besets them? It is our duty, as defenders of the people of the Commonwealth, to so organize our forces that we may strike co-operatively, with all the power we possess, and with the united wealth of the Commonwealth behind us, at the enemies of Australia. The honorable member for Lang, in discussing the policy of our party, caused me some amusement. He painted a picture of a party and of a programme which can exist only in his own mind. I regret sincerely that he did not adopt the profession of a lawyer- 5525 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - So do I. 5525 KFN ALP 0 0 FOSTER, Francis Mr FRANK FOSTER - I am sure that the honorable member does. Since he can make out such a decent case from his own point of view, where there is no case at all, .1 am sure he would have been a success at the Bar where, when a man has no case, his policy is to abuse the other side. The amusing feature of his condemnation is that " the other side " to which he referred does not exist. He set up a political Aunt Sally only to knock it down again. The statement made by the honorable member that Socialism, wherever tried, has been a dismal failure, is worthy of some attention. If the honorable member means Socialism in the shape of the nationalization of a monopoly, I challenge him to show where a monopoly has been nationalized and has failed. He knows that the great Public School system of New South Wales is a Socialistic one ; and if he says that it is a failure, I must emphatically contradict him. Then, again, our railways are under Start control ; and it has been admitted by the Deputy Leader of his own party, 'hat the one great lever that has assisted trusts, pools, and combines in the United States, has been the private' ownership of railways. It has been pointed out by the other side that trusts and pools in the United States of America have been able to control the means of transit, and thereby to fix their tentacles on all other sources of industry. 5525 K99 FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 JOHNSON, Elliot Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON - The honorable member is suffering from a confusion of ideas. 5525 KFN ALP 0 0 FOSTER, Francis Mr FRANK FOSTER - Even if I were, I think that I ought 10 be forgiven, after listening to- the honorable member's speech. I never heard a greater confusion of ideas hurled at an unoffending House. Our excursions into State enterprise in Australia have been very successful from the stand-point of the general public. Our control of the post and telegraph system enables us to give the people a cheaper service than is obtainable elsewhere. Our telephone system is absolutely the cheapest in the world j and, under the new Administration, I have no doubt that it will be most efficient. Then, again, although there have been failures in connexion with our railways, an improvement is likely to be effected. I thank the honorable member for Lang for the castigation which he gave Administrations preceding the Labour Government, for the abominable way in which they had conducted the Public Service. He indulged in a most scathing criticism, which was justly deserved. As one who has sat in a State Parliament, the honorable member must know of the absolute failure of previous Governments in New South Wales to carry on the Departments in a fair, square, and. honorable way. I thank him for having given them such a shaking up as he did, and feel confident that, with a Labour Government in power, the old state of affairs will be remedied. It has been said, again and again, " Look at the enormous cost to which the country would be put in nationalizing a combine." Some combines are capitalized up to £10,000,000 ; and we hear of a combine in the United States with a capital running into hundreds of millions. There is one point, however, that I desire to make clear. When we decide to take over a monopoly, it will be in the name of " The Australian People Limited." The people of Australia will then be a business firm. If the people said that a business concern should be nationalized, they would immediately take from it that which any persons about to purchase it would be prepared to pay for - they would take- away the good-will. As the good-will belongs to the public, the nation will not be called upon to pay for it; all it need pay for will be the real estate and up-to-date plant it may possess. Eliminating the goodwill, there will be very little to buy back. I admit that difficulties will crop up in connexion with the nationalization of coal mines and similar industries, but we need not pay much in connexion with the taking over of general business concerns. Of course, if we had to give the shareholders what they would ask, the Commonwealth would be bankrupt after a few operations. But our business, as representatives of the people, is to safeguard the public interest. We shall approach these matters in a business-like way. There is no intention to indulge in wild-cat experiments. As for nationalizing all production, distribution, and exchange, I cannot understand why honorable members opposite say that that is our intention, seeing that the Bill clearly states that our object is merely to nationalize monopolies. Some honorable members have said that if we do this, the result will be a dismal failure. If we have dismal failures, they will recoil on us at the next election. The system of triennial Parliaments is the safeguard of the people, and gives them confidence. We merely ask now for the power to control monopolies. I trust that the people will, by an overwhelming majority, give us this power. While in one or two of the States there are now in office Governments whose views are similar to those of the party in power in the Commonwealth, it must r.ot be forgotten that the Upper Houses of those States are able to block legislation at their will. For that reason I am not prepared to wait for the State Parliaments to di'.'il with monopolies. 5526 KFK 0 0 GROOM, Littleton Mr Groom - If the Labour party had a majority in both Houses of the State Legislatures, would the honorable member be prepared to leave this matter to the States ? 5526 KFN ALP 0 0 FOSTER, Francis Mr FRANK FOSTER - Not wholly. The great American trusts do not confine their operations to one or two States, but take the whole country, and, as far as possib le, the world, for their sphere of action. There is no limit to the ramifications of their enterprise. Thus we feel here the result of a " corner " in wheat, or of the dealings of the Oil Trust, which is hampering and keeping back the Australian oil industry. There is much to be said for local control and supervision: Our programme shows that we believe, not only in national, but also in State and municipal, control and administration. At present, however, both State and municipal control may defeat the" object at which we are aiming. In my opinion, we should nationalize industries where that would be in the interests of the whole Commonwealth, but there is no need to abolish State or municipal control where either is effecting good results. I trust that all the Commonwealth, State, and municipal Governments will work in harmony for the good of the whole people. In the Federal arena, there are two democratic Houses elected directly by the people, and ready to carry out their will. 5526 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - Is the Senate a democratic House? 5526 KFN ALP 0 0 FOSTER, Francis Mr FRANK FOSTER - Yes, as at present constituted. It would not be a democratic House if there were a majority of Fusionists there. 5526 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - Is its Constitution democratic ? 5526 KFN ALP 0 0 FOSTER, Francis Mr FRANK FOSTER - That is a question with which I am not now concerned. A majority of the senators were elected on a democratic ticket, and are willing to give effect to the desires of the people. In the State Legislatures there are Chambers which are Conservative, and stand in the way of progress. These hamper the proper control of monopolies. In my opinion, the only cure for monopolies is to nationalize them, so that the whole people may share in the benefits of their enterprise. 5527 KFK Darling Downs 0 0 GROOM, Littleton Mr GROOM .- The importance of the measure makes it necessary to ask, " What justification is there for the transfer of power from the States to the Commonwealth?" The scheme of distribution of powers hitherto has provided for the leaving of power regarding local matters to the Legislatures of the States, and of essentially national matters to the Commonwealth. What case has been made out for the transfer to the Commonwealth of the power to nationalize monopolies ? No instance has been adduced to justify it. I should like to say that I would not be deterred from supporting any measure merely because it was said to be Socialistic in tendency, my view being that every proposal for State action must be dealt with on its merits. In some instances State control is not only desirable, but essential. In every case in which it is proposed to extend the industrial activity of the State, it must be shown that to do so would be beneficial and in the public interest; that the people would be better off than they are under individual enterprise. The control of railways and other means of communication, telegraphs and telephones, has been amply justified, and a case may be made out for other public utilities. As a rule, however, enterprises of this kind must be left to the States or to the municipalities, because then their management is conducted by those on the spot, and is open to the criticism of those who are directly concerned, who have an opportunity to test the methods of working, and to discover their defects. Where the Commonwealth takes over an industry, local criticism is largely out of the question. In my opinion, the general right to nationalize industries which are on the whole local in their actual operation should be left to the States. As to the way in which the transfer of power is to be exercised, I do not think that the provision in the Bill is very satisfactory. It is desired to insert in the Constitution a provision declaring that - When each House of the Parliament, in the same session, has by resolution declared that the industry or business of producing or supplying any specified goods, or of supplying any specified services, is the subject of a monopoly, the Parliament shall have power to make laws for carrying on the industry or business by or under the control of the Commonwealth. The power of legislation is to be exercised only after the Houses have found a certain matter of fact, namely, that an industry or business is the subject of a monopoly. No direction is given as to how that determination is to be arrived at. It is not required that the industry must be national in its operations. Under this provision, Parliament might pass a law for the nationalization of an industry like that of nail-making, now carried on in, perhaps, only one suburb of a city, or of some small tropical industry existing in the northern parts of Australia. The power to legislate is not conditioned by the limitation that the industry must be national in its character. Under this Bill the smallest tin-pot industry can be subject to nationalization, unconditioned even by the fact that it must be a monopoly to the public detriment. The Attorney-General has declared that there are certain combines and monopolies that are beneficial in that they regulate prices to a reasonable extent, and are thus able to pay fair wages. There are other combinations, again, that are useful in preventing waste of capital without any prejudice to the public interest. The Bill, however, makes no exception of combinations of this character, and it may be that, under the influence of some extreme Socialists, a purely beneficial organization of that character may be nationalized under the Bill, which gives a wide unlimited power exercisable on nothing more than the mere passing of a resolution. Doubtless honorable members have in their minds some combination or monopoly which really acts in restraint of trade, but there is no condition to that effect laid down in the Bill. Further, no evidence is required to prove that there is a monopoly, beneficial or otherwise, and it is quite possible, on a mere catch programme put before constituents at election time, for any industry whatever to lie nationalized. The wording of the clause, too, is indefinite ; the question arises, Is there any provision made for power of revocation? If once the power is exercised, and an industry is acquired by the Commonwealth, is the decision to be final ? At a time of heated political feeling, a Parliament elected on an entirely different cry, might proceed to nationalize the pastoral industry, the agricultural industry, or the dairying industry, under the complete sovereign power given by this measure. 5528 KZA 0 0 WEST, John Edward Mr West - The people would have something to say at the next election ! 5528 KFK 0 0 GROOM, Littleton Mr GROOM - But the industry would then have been acquired, and, unless some limitation is provided for, a most serious question is raised. The Bill, further, empowers Parliament not only to nationalize an industry, but all the property used in connexion with it. For instance, in the dairying industry there are large co-operative concerns which not only control the production, but also the distribution ; and if, under this Bill, that industry were nationalized all the lands and property in connexion with it could be taken over So that really the Commonwealth could obtain control of the whole of the pastoral, agricultural, and dairying lands of the Commonwealth. I do not know whether honorable members opposite really intended such a result. 5528 KZA 0 0 WEST, John Edward Mr West - We understand it all right; it is the will of the people all the time ! 5528 KFK 0 0 GROOM, Littleton Mr GROOM - But when we ask for a power it is assumed that we intend to use it. No doubt the will of the people will prevail ; but the power proposed is so far reaching that its full extent, I am afraid, is scarcely realized. I am quite with those who claim that the Commonwealth should have power not only over combines and monopolies in the Commonwealth, but even over combines and monopolies in a State. The Commonwealth ought to have full power in both respects ; and the Governments of which I was a member took measures to that end. In 1905, the second Deakin Administration introduced and passed the Australian Industries Preservation Act, dealing with combinations in restraint of trade. When that measure was put into operation still greater powers were found to be necessary ; and in 1908 an amending Bill was introduced enabling the Government to put direct questions to those engaged in what were considered combines, and to obtain evidence in other ways. When the honorable member for Kooyong was Minister of Trade and Customs and I occupied the position of Attorney-General, the first prosecution was instituted under that Act against the Huddart Parker Proprietary, and the question was raised as to our power, not only in regard to Inter-State trade, but also in regard to Intra-State trade. The prosecution in Appleton's case was successful, and a fine was inflicted. Under the third Deakin Administration, the honorable member for Angas asked for further amendments in the Act, showing that the Government were prepared to take all the necessary action. That honorable member held, and I agree with him, that the Commonwealth must have greater powers to deal with combines; and I have always been of opinion that in several respects the Constitution is defective. A previous Government found the power fail because the combines were able to split up, and confine their action to particular States. It will be admitted that for years past many anxious inquiries have been made by the Department as to the operations of trusts and combines, but the great majority of these were found to be within the purview of the States. In the case of others of an Inter-State character, action was always taken; and the late Government had every detail ready for the prosecution that is now taking place. We used every effort to restrain big combinations whose operations were really injurious, but that is quite different from a proposal for complete nationalization- by the Commonwealth of all industries and businesses. I cannot see my way to support the Bill before the House. 5528 DQC West Sydney ALP Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General 1 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES . - I desire to say a word or two in regard to some of the criticism directed against the Bill. I shall be very brief, as an opportunity will be afforded to set forth in detail, if such be again necessary, the objections to the measure in Committee. Generally speaking, the same objections have been taken to this proposal as to the proposal contained in the previous measure. It is perfectly true that not such great emphasis has been placed on the invasion of State rights, which played such a prominent part, and, indeed, formed the backbone of the criticism in the discussion of the previous proposal. Still, however, the invasion of State rights is apparently the real objection entertained by my honorable friends opposite. Looking at the question broadly, one is irresistibly reminded of the march of public opinion, and the efforts of our friends the reactionaries - if I mav so call them without offence - to adjust themselves to the advancing movements of the day by changing the name of their objection without changing the objection itself. For years every reform affecting economic or social problems was declared to be an invasion of the right of freedom of contract. We have lived that down, and not the faintest murmur of this has been heard during the discussion on these Bills. Then the objection raised was the interference with private enterprise generally without special reference to freedom of contract. This we have also lived down, and during the whole of this debate private enterprise has not had a friend courageous enough to say one word straight out in its favour. That is something to have accomplished ; but now we are face to face with a new terror - the invasion of State Rights. Truly, this seems at first blush to be something quite new, but, analyzed, I declare it to be neither more nor less than those same old objections presented in the form of interference with the freedom of contract and interference with private enterprise dressed up in another guise. Invasion of State Rights ! What State right is invaded by an attempt of the Commonwealth Government to nationalize a monopoly? Has it come to this - that a State right is a right to buttress up and uphold a monopoly ? If not, how is any act of this Government an invasion or impairment of State Rights? We do not propose to nationalize a State or take from a State any of its rights; but we ask for power to nationalize a monopoly if the occasion should arise when it is necessary to do so. The general remarks offered to-day by the Leader of the Opposition would have served equally well on the previous measure, and will be appropriate on measures yet to come. Looking down the long vista of the future, we fail to mark one shadowy and fleeting occasion to which the remarks of the honorable member this morning might not be conveniently applied. The honorable member said we ought not to do this thing; that the Bill went too far, and that it was wholly unnecessary. He viewed the situation with brooding gloom. I regret the fact; but I do not think the circumstances warrant it. This matter must be faced. No power h too great to deal with the most notorious and powerful factor in modern civilization. Every country is being forced to deal with it. In America, the people are being drawn up in battle array; and the next Presidential election, in spite of all efforts to decide it on the issues covered by the shadowy differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, will inevitably turn on the question of whether the trusts or the people are to rule. I cannot conceive of any power being too great to cope with the trusts and combines, nor any question being more urgent. It is perfectly true that the trusts here are not as powerful as those in America ; but I re-echo with enthusiastic appreciation the remarks of the right honorable gentleman who previously represented East Sydney on this point. He used to say, in regard to our party, that it was well to catch the tiger when it was young. Some of these trusts appear now in the guise of benevolent and philanthropic associations ; but they may, in the fulness of time, if we do not treat them properly, become so strong that we cannot control them with any power available to any Legislature, or that any Legislature in Australia would dare to use. We have to deal with the most formidable and elusive power on earth - the power of accumulated money. No authority vested in the hands of the representatives of the people can be too great if we are to cope with it. It must not be forgotten that we in this Chamber represent the most democratic form of government in the world. Every man and woman in Australia has a voice, if he or she chooses to exercise it, in returning us. When we come here, as we have come, fresh from the battlefield, and armed in the clearest and most unambiguous terms, with a mandate to do this thing, are we to be told that we are infringing State rights or taking an unnecessary power? Were not the people told a thousand times by the honorable members opposite, and by their organizations, that if we were returned in a majority, it would mean the beginning of Socialism, or something equally horrible and indescribable? We now say to the people who sent us here that we must have power to nationalize monopolies if occasion should arise. It is no answer to our demand for more power to say - and it is not true to say - that this will impair State rights. It does not threaten State rights; what it does threaten is National wrongs : The intention is not to restrict State rights, but to set real limits beyond which the great combines in this country will not be permitted to go. There are limits to be set to the power of accumulated money in this country. Just where they are to be set lies in the future discretion of this Parliament. It is not true, and would be incredible and monstrous if it were so, that this Parliament, merely because it asks for this power( proposes to exercise it at once to the uttermost limits. The thing is, on the face of it, ridiculous, and an unjust aspersion on the representatives of the people in a deliberative assembly such as this. When we are told that there is nothing to prevent us encroaching upon every field of private enterprise, commercial and producing,I reply that there exist those very real barriers which have proved a sufficient protection against extreme and violent legislation in every democratic country in the world. The fact is that no Parliament dares go beyond the point to which the people are prepared to permit it to go. There is nothing to prevent the State Parliament passing a law that the stocks shall again be erected in the streets, or that a man who is guilty of a certain offence shall have his ears cropped off, his nose cut off, or his eyes burnt out. 5530 KFJ 0 0 FORREST, John Sir John Forrest - What is the use of talking like that? It is unworthy of the honorable member's position. 5530 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES - It is true. 5530 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - The honorable member for Swan did not hear what the Attorney-General said. 5530 KFJ 0 0 FORREST, John Sir John Forrest - I did. He was talking about cutting people's ears off - unworthy and vicious clap-trap. 5530 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES - The criticisms and comments of the right honorable gentleman upon these measures are worth about as much attention as the remarks of a troglodyte of the post-pliocene epoch upon the latest applications of science to the mechanical arts. What does or can he know of the requirements of the present day? 5530 KFJ 0 0 FORREST, John Sir John Forrest - The honorable member ought to be ashamed of himself. 5530 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES - I resent these fretful, childish, and banal interruptions which men who are rightly concerned with the welfare of their country have to endure from the right honorable member. His interjections arise from nothing but his intolerant ignorance. 5530 KFJ 0 0 FORREST, John Sir John Forrest - What has the honorable member done all his life except mischief ? 5530 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER - I must ask the honorable member for Swan to cease interjecting. 5530 KFJ 0 0 FORREST, John Sir John Forrest - I think the honorable member for West Sydney ought to be called to order for his impertinent personal observations. 5530 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER - I would remind the honorable member for Swan that he alone is responsible for whatever trouble occurred. I must ask him to cease these continual interjections. I called him to order immediately; and shall not do it again. 5530 KFJ 0 0 FORREST, John Sir John Forrest - I shall never disobey you, sir. 5530 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES - When we are asked what protection the people of this country have against the extreme use of the powers which we are requesting them to give us, I reply that they have the same guarantee that the people have in the case of the British Parliament or in the State Parliaments of Australia. I have pointed out, time and again, that there is nothing that the British Parliament may not do. It may remove the existing dynasty, topple over the established Church, or repeal the union between Scotland and England. It does none of these things, because behind every Parliament stands the people, and no man, unless he is an utter fool, or worse, will disregard the voice of the people. Some of whom we know something have dared to do it in the Commonwealth, but very few are here to tell the tale, and they are sadder and wiser men. And the right honorable member, crying like one in the wilderness, will not persuade me, cry he never so loudly, that he is a host. He stands almost alone; his comrades are all gone. The people have an ample guarantee that the power asked for will not be unwisely used, and will never be used unless occasion amply warrants it. I was asked this morning by the honorable member for Hume whether the law, as it stood, was sufficient to deal with trusts. The best answer to that is that the two gentlemen who have preceded me in the office of Attorney-General have declared that the law was insufficient, and each of them recommended its amendment. Nay, they have gone farther. The honorable member for Angas even recommended an amendment of the Constitution to deal with this very question. It is true that he stopped short of nationalization, but since we are to deal with trusts, and no power short of nationalization can deal effectively with all corporations and monopolies, we have a right to ask the people to give us that power. For experience has proved that nothing short of the power to nationalize will serve as a check to these great combines. It is for the people to say at each election how far we shall go in the exercise of it. No doubt the law as it exists within the powers of the Commonwealth with regard to corporations and trusts ought to be amended, and we propose to do this; but if we absolutely exhausted our power under the sub-section we should not go farther than the United States Legislature has done, and be, therefore, in practically the same helpless position. I would point out how futile the law is with regard to massed money, when it reaches the size that it has done in the United States. The Sherman Act, of which ours is but a weak imitation, does not involve proving intent or detriment to the general public. It simply declares in set terms that every combine in restraint of trade, whether for a good or maleficent purpose, is illegal. Yet it has absolutely failed to check the advance of the great trust movement in the United States. It is over twenty years since that Act was passed, and in the intervening period the trusts of America have developed to a point never contemplated in 1890. The Steel and Oil Trusts have risen since then. They were but infants in swaddling clothes then compared with the mighty giants that they are to-day, and they have grown in the teeth of the most severe legislation possible short of nationalization. Let me read to honorable members the operative terms of the Sherman Act - Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the Court. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the Court. Every contract that carries out, or attempts to carry out, those things is null, void, and illegal. After that law has been in force for twenty years, there is no country where trusts have developed at the rate that they have in America. Is any more crushing indictment of the utter futility of legislation that stops short of nationalization, if the case needs it, than is shown by the digest of cases in the American Courts possible? We want power to nationalize. This Bill gives it to us. The honorable member for Angas and the honorable member for Darling Downs both said that nationalization experiments were best carried out on a small scale, that municipal enterprise was under the eye of individuals, and that a State enterprise was in its turn better than a national one. With those arguments I have nothing to do. I do not deny for one moment that there is much to be said for localized effort, but the most effective and crushing answer to my honorable friends' argument is that great undertakings are now carried on under private enterprise in such a way that local control is merged into district, district into State, and State into national control, until to-day in Australia we are fast advancing to - and, indeed, have practically reached - a condition of affairs in which the bulk of all industries is controlled by combines representing and embracing every State in the Commonwealth, and not by various districts. Are we, then, to take a step backward, and declare that the people of the Commonwealth should adopt a method that has become almost tribal in its crudity? There is only one effective method of carrying on a great industry. We should follow, so far as methods of management are concerned, in the steps of the great organizers who have built up enormous industries. The sugar, tobacco, and shipping industries are controlled from one place by one authority.; These determine what the rates and prices ia New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and other parts of the Commonwealth shall be. What better example could we have of the futility of returning to that system which private enterprise has declared effete? The best answer to our opponents is that the world moves with ever-increasing rapidity to a state of affairs in which it will be no longer possible to ignore the position. It is a question of the people or the trusts. No longer can any good purpose be served by babbling about the rights of private individuals. The private individual is as helpless as a fly on a wheel. The poor trader, the moderately well-to-do trader, the man who struggles to hold his footing in business, are alike swept away by the great combines, and go down helpless to their doom shrieking of the glories of competition. But the day of competition has gone. Speak to Rockefeller, murmur to the Steel Trust, or talk to the American Sugar Trust of the benefits of competition. Speak, if you like, to the Colonial Sugar Refining Company of the benefits of competition. I invite honorable members to ask themselves whether there is not on every side an ample and ever-accumulating body of proof in favour of the substitution of co-operation for competition. And since we have arrived at the stage at which there must be cooperation instead of competition, should we not resolutely face the situation like men, and ask ourselves whether, if there is to be co-operation, it should be co-operation for the benefit of the people rather than for the benefit of a few individuals? Our party is pledged to the nationalization of monopolies, and my honorable friends opposite ask, " Where is your definition of 'monopolies'?" In reply, I would hand them these two volumes of Eddy on Combinations, and ask them to show me in any part of them a definition of " monopoly " which will stand good. Definitions, after all, are, upon such questions as this, mere means whereby the opinions and desires of the people can be evaded. What is a monopoly? A monopoly, strictly speaking, does not exist except in regard to patents or grants by charter. Patents are a monopoly, but we are not proposing to deal with them; the tobacco industry is, strictly speaking, not a monopoly, for there are persons carrying on the business outside of a combine. The whole question depends, not so much on the nature of the combine, as upon the scope of its operations. It is not a question of whether this man or that exercises a monopoly. A man might have, for instance, a monopoly in carrying mails between Charleville and Cunnamulla, but public interests would not be prejudiced, but very greatly advanced, by his activities. A man might have a monopoly in carrying people across a ferry, yet that would not hurt, but benefit, us. But when a combine has a monopoly of practically nine-tenths of the sugar we consume, we know that it affects every human being in the community, and, may be, affects us prejudicially. What man has a right to say what price the community shall pay for its sugar? He might fix a fair price, but there should be vested in the National Parliament the power to say that if he does not fix a fair price we will compel him to do so, and that if that does not meet the necessities of the situation, we will go further, and the Commonwealth shall take over the industry, and in that way provide that the people who consume the sugar shall regulate and control the production, manufacture, and distribution of sugar. I have said that we have had on our platform for some years the nationalization of monopolies, so that we are making no demand for which the people have not been prepared. We are asking for nothing that the circumstances do not amply justify. We are not asking to go further than I believe the people will readily consent to our going. It is not a question in which they have any option. They have to choose between running certain industries themselves or allowing a few people to run them in their own interests. That is the hard alternative to which modern society is reduced. It is useless for people to preach about Socialism, or to prate about anti-Socialism. We have to face facts, and the facts are hurrying the people along this road. It is a broad 'road, and there are deviations to the right and to the left. If we go to the left we follow a road along which America has started, and is hurrying, at the risk of its social and economic liberty. My honorable friend has said that nearly all the combines in Australia are confined within the limits of a State. That is perfectly true, but I would say that the majority of the monopolies in Australia are of such a character that, although they contrive to evade the law - although they deal with manufacture and production rather than with trade and commerce - as a matter of fact there is hardly one of these so-called Intra-State monopolies that does not affect the conditions and prices of the commodities with which it deals in every other State in the Commonwealth. It may be that the Brickmaking Combine is an exception. But take the Confectionery or any other combine which is nominally a State monopoly. A monopoly in this State fixes the price, say, of confectionery, and contrives not to be an Inter-State enterprise; but is it not perfectly clear that it regulates, affects, and virtually controls the price of such goods in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, and other parts of the Commonwealth ? It is not conceivable that there should be such a margin between the prices here and those prevailing in Sydney as would exist if a combine raised prices here and yet did not affect prices in other States. The facts relating to combines and their methods are known all over the civilized world. The Leader of the Opposition said that we were asking the people to give us a power anything less than nothing of the sort. We are asking them to give us a power, anything less than which would be inadequate. We are asking them to give us a power which the State Parliaments possess to-day - to give the National Parliament the power to do that which the people want them to do, and no more. How absurd it is to say that we are asking the people to do something which they do not desire when they themselves have declared what they want, and are to decide if these Bills will give it to them ? We are asking them for power to do that which hereafter they shall declare in a constitutional way that they think ought to be done. I need not refer to the interjection by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that this power should be confined to Inter-State monopolies. We ought to have the power in this respect to deal with a monopoly wherever we find it, unless it can be, and has been, dealt with satisfactorily in some other way. We desire to have power to deal with monopolies, whether they be of an Intra- State or of any other character. We have to consider the welfare of the whole people, and I am perfectly satisfied that no right of any State will be impaired by the grant of this power to the Commonwealth Parliament. The welfare of the whole of the people will be best considered by the granting of it to this Parliament. I would remind honorable members once more that today, in the United States of America, we have, on one side President Taft, and, on the other, ex-President Roosevelt, representing the opposite poles in this struggle. The one is for the regulation of trusts by a rosewater policy, and the other is for dealing with them in the only effectual way in which they can be dealt with. I venture to repeat that in America, as here, and in all civilized parts of the world, the great issue is whether the people or the trusts should rule. The Leader of the Opposition said something about the ineptness of State control. That is a most amazing statement to make, and it is certainly not warranted by the facts. We have ample evidence that State control has been successful in numberless cases throughout Australia. The State railways are, at least, as well managed as private railways; they are certainly better managed in the interests of the people than are private lines. We have had dozens of instances during the last decade of where the States have launched out in directions in which private enterprise has notoriously failed. Private enterprise has failed to commend itself to the buyers of our produce in the Old Country. There the people demand some sort of State recognition and guarantee of the products of private enterprise. The Commonwealth is now coming in, and has been asked to come in, and to declare that that which private enterprise produces is that which private enterprise declares it to be. I would remind honorable members of the Government workshops of this State. The Newport railway workshops are able to turn out work as good in design and in workmanlike qualities as any produced by private enterprise, and they are able to do so at a lower rate, whilst paying better wages than does private enterprise. The same remark will apply to State workshops in other parts of the Commonwealth. My honorable colleague, the Minister of External Affairs, reminds me that in the Glanville workshops, in South Australia, iron pipes are now being turned out at a saving of us. 6d. per ton compared with the contract price of Messrs. Hawke and Company, during the years 1906-9. These pipes are in themselves eminently satisfactory. Higher wages are being paid in the Glanville workshops, and business there is being carried on in a business-like way to the satisfaction of producer and consumer alike. Projects for the substitution of collective for private control are constantly mooted. Here, in Melbourne, it is proposed that the Government, or the municipality, shall supervize the sale and distribution of milk; in Sydney the Municipal Council conducts the sale of fish; while the new Secretary for Public Works in New South Wales proposed to establish a State brick works, an enterprise fully justified by the extortionate prices charged by the local brick combine. On every side suggestions which, a few years ago, would have been scouted, are acclaimed by the public. The people approved of the Labour party's platform, and in pursuance of it we ask for power to deal with monopolies in the only way in which they can be dealt with. Combinations which are monopolies defy attempts to define them as such, because, directly a definition is drawn up, they bend their efforts to make arrangements which evade the definition. Therefore, we propose that the representatives of the people in Parliament assembled shall' say what industry or business is a monopoly, and that we shall have power to make laws for the carrying on of such undertakings under Commonwealth control. I hope that the Bill will pass, and that the people, when appealed to, will, by an overwhelming majority, give us the power for which we ask. Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put The House divided. 40 21 Majority ... ... 19 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 5534 Sitting suspended from 6.25 to 8 p.m. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 - The Constitution is altered by inserting, after section fifty-one thereof, the following section : - " 51A. When each House of the Parliament, in the same session, has by Resolution declared that the industry or business of producing or supplying any specified goods, or of supplying any specified services, is the subject of a monopoly, the Parliament shall have power to make laws for carrying on the industry or business by or under the control of the Commonwealth, and acquiring for that purpose any property used in connexion with the industry or business." 5534 009MD Ballaarat 0 0 DEAKIN, Alfred Mr DEAKIN .- We have devoted ourselves to a consideration of this clause chiefly in respect to the principles which underlie the proposal, to which, on grounds fully set forth, we have taken the strongest possible exception. As I have endeavoured to show, this additional amendment is entirely uncalled for, all that 13 sought to be attained being attainable under the amendments provided for by the Legislative Powers Bill ; in this form it is a dangerous weapon to introduce into the Constitution.I shall not repeat those arguments, nor shall I continue the detailed criticism which the clause has received, to which the reply of the Acting Prime Minister was in no degree sufficient, and largely irrelevant. I have indicated three amendments of the clause, but they would not cure, nor to any great extent mitigate, its mischievous operation. Two of them would define or reassert the federal principle that only those monopolies should be dealt with whose operations extended beyond the limits of any one State, or were mainly InterState, while the other provides that no authorization by Parliament of the taking over of private enterprise should have effect until the electors had had an opportunity to express their views upon it at the next general election. Attention was called to the absence of a definition of monopoly, and to the provision of a mode of action which might cover anything and everything. But. after the division which has been taken, I do not see that the public interest would be served by the moving of amendments which would leave the mischievous effect of the clause almost unabated, and, as the Government is obviously unmoved by argument and illustration, nothing can be gained by our further protest against its proposals. 5534 KYJ Bendigo 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK .- I wish to draw attention to the form of the amendment, and to submit that it is hardly a legitimate manner of exercising the amending power contemplated by section 128 of the Constitution. At any rate, if it be constitutional, it is certainly a very dangerous and illegitimate method of carrying out an amendment. It seems to me quite inconsistent with ; the method adopted in the instrument as it stands for conferring on the Federal Parliament certain powers by generalization or by specific enumeration. There is no section in the whole Constitution where there is a power conferred in the manner proposed. The general principle of the structure of the Constitution is that, where a power is proposed to be vested, it is defined as accurately as language can do so. If, in the course of legislation and interpretation, there be any excess of power or misapplication or misunderstanding of power, it is left to the High Court to interpret and give a final determination. It seems to me that this method of conferring a power to deal with monopolies, and leaving the two Houses to define the meaning of " monopoly " is not a proper one; it is too vague, and leaves practically the interpretation of the Constitution to the two Houses combined instead of to the High Court. Apparently the intention of the framers of the amendment is to deprive the High Court of the power vested in ir by the Constitution; but it is open to doubt whether they will be successful. Section 71 remains unrepealed, and it is not proposed to repeal it ; and by that section the judicial power of the Commonwealth is vested in the High Court. It may be within the bounds of possibility or probability that a misinterpretation of this proposed power by either of the two Houses might still be open to review by that Court. At any rate, if this be a valid grant of power as it stands, and it is afterwards adopted by the people, it certainly amounts to a general, unlimited, and unfettered power to deal with every business and enterprise of whatever character, without any limitation, and irrespective of the words proposed to be inserted. If the two Houses have uncontrolled power to define " monopoly," the power is unlimited; and what is the use of inserting words of limitation if the meaning be to grant to Parliament the power to nationalize every form of business or industry? Why not say straight out what is meant, without any qualification whatever? If the power be legitimate, the limitation, or what appears to be a limitation, is a mere sham. 5535 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - How is that? 5535 KYJ 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK - Because there is no control whatever over the authority or discretion of the two Houses to declare any business whatever in the Commonwealth to be a monopoly; that is, of course, supposing we are successful in withdrawing this legislation from the review of the High Court. I am not sure that the Government will be successful in that as the clause stands; but, if that be the meaning, why not say what we mean? 5535 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - We do say what we mean. 5535 KYJ 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK - Why put in these words of limitation ? 5535 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - Will the honorable member define " monopoly " ? If he can do so satisfactorily, I shall be very glad. 5535 KYJ 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK - It is not my business to define "monopoly"; but, if a general power without limitation be desired, why not say so straight out? 5535 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - It is said absolutely straight out 5535 KYJ 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK - Why is it said that this power is intended only to deal with monopolies, while there is reserved to Parliament the power to define " monopoly "? 5535 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - Hear, hear ! 5535 KYJ 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK - That is not a legitimate and honest way of dealing with the power. 5535 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - It is honest ! 5535 KYJ 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK - It is not fair. 5535 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - It is both honest and fair. 5535 KYJ 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK - If the Government mean to nationalize the whole business of the Commonwealth, why not say so? 5535 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - I make the offer again - let the honorable member define " monopoly," and we will put the definition in the Bill. 5535 KYJ 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK - It is not my function to define "monopoly." If the Attorney-General has any idea himself as to the meaning of " monopoly " or " combine in restraint of trade," why not express that meaning in the Constitution? 5535 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - Because no words can adequately define " monopoly." 5535 KYJ 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK - In another amending clause, it is provided that the Parliament shall have power over certain monopolies and combinations. Does the Attorney-General mean to say that the words there used are ineffective? . Why not put the same words in this clause? The honorable gentleman does not admit the inability of Parliament to convey its meaning in the other amendment ; and why is it said to be impossible in this clause? The alleged reservation to the two Houses to interpret the meaning is a sham - it is not honest or straight. 5535 KNH 0 0 MATHEWS, James Mr Mathews - It is effective ! 5535 KYJ 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK - I am not sure that it is ; because the judicial power is still reserved to the High Court ; and, unless it is intended to take away that power, it may be still open to contention that the Court will have a right to review the decision in any case where there is a flagrant violation of the meaning of "monopoly." 5535 KNH 0 0 MATHEWS, James Mr Mathews - We will chance it I 5535 KYJ 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK - Of course, there are honorable members who are quite prepared to " chance it." It is said that the intention is to confine the exercise of this power to certain monopolies ; but, with the reservation of the power of definition, there is removed any authority in the whole of the Commonwealth to check, revise, or review the definition. Suppose an occasion arose when, in the pretended exercise of the power, the Federal Parliament declared, say, a nail factory in Victoria to be a monopoly, and such a definition was a transparent falsehood on the face of it - is there to be no review? If power is desired to nationalize a nail factory, or any other factory, why not ask the people to give their sanction ? 5536 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - So we are asking them. 5536 KYJ 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK - As a matter of fact, this clause claims unlimited and unmitigated power; and I say that this form of limitation is a sham, and shows an intention to wilfully mislead the people of the country. 5536 10000 0 0 CHAIRMAN, The The CHAIRMAN - The honorable member must withdraw that remark. 5536 KYJ 0 0 QUICK, John Sir JOHN QUICK - I withdraw the word " wilfully " - perhaps that is excessive - but I say that the clause is calculated to mislead the people. 5536 JMG Wilmot 0 0 ATKINSON, Llewelyn Mr ATKINSON .- I recognise that long speeches would be out of place at this stage. The time for speaking, I take it, is when the referenda are before the people; because, until we know their derision, we shall not know whether this proposal is going to be part and parcel of the Constitution. However, this is such a serious question that we must make some slight protest before the measure passes. In the first place, it seems to me that we are about to enact legislation that is quite unnecessary. The conditions in Australia to-day, I take it, do not warrant our assuming that there are any trusts and combines engaged in any serious ravages or to any extent battening on the people. At any rate, there is machinery already devised to cope with all. the monopolies that Australia is threatened with. If the Australian Industries Preservation Act does not meet the case, I am sure it can be made to do so, and that honorable members on this side will be as anxious as honorable members opposite to perfect the measure. Honorable members on neither side of the House are willing to see trusts and combines flourish at the expense of the people. 5536 KNH 0 0 MATHEWS, James Mr Mathews - Honorable members talk like that, and do nothing to prevent combines ! 5536 JMG 0 0 ATKINSON, Llewelyn Mr ATKINSON - We have done a great deal already in giving effect to an anti-trust policy, and Parliament is quite ready to take any further steps that may be necessary. Because our anti-trust legislation may not have accomplished all that was anticipated, we are asked to rush into extremes, and start on a policy of nationalization. Some honorable members opposite say that they desire this legislation to be placed on the statute-book, in order to prevent injurious combines arising in Australia. Will those honorable members give any guarantee that the powers under this Bill will be used with discretion ? Will they show us, in any way, that it will be used only to repress injurious combines and trusts? They cannot give any such guarantee. 5536 KNH 0 0 MATHEWS, James Mr Mathews - Our word is our bond ! 5536 JMG 0 0 ATKINSON, Llewelyn Mr ATKINSON - I quite admit that the word of each honorable member opposite is his bond; but, unfortunately, it only binds the individual member. There are a great many honorable members opposite who belong to the order Socialist; and it is not their desire merely to nationalize one or two monopolies which everybody might be prepared to nationalize; with Socialists nationalization is a creed, and this Bill is regarded only as a stepping-stone to the passing, as quickly as possible, to a complete system of nationalization or Socialism. If the people are prepared to travel along the road of Socialism, they will say so next April ; but if they do, it will Le against the advice that will be tendered from this side of the House. We should not have seen these proposals if the present Government had not been pressed by some of their followers in caucus. There are one or two members of the caucus who intend 5536 10000 0 0 CHAIRMAN, The The CHAIRMAN - The honorable member must not discuss the caucus. 5536 JMG 0 0 ATKINSON, Llewelyn Mr ATKINSON - The nationalization of monopolies is part of the Labour platform, and there are certain honorable members sitting opposite who are anxious to have nationalization as soon as possible, because they believe in the principle. Those honorable members, of course, are at perfect liberty to hold that view ; it represents their honest conviction, and it is only right that they should try to introduce the policy as soon as possible. Why has the question of nationalization been taken so soon in hand by this Government ? They are bringing it forward prematurely. There is no occasion for such a step in the present state of affairs. If we give this Parliament power to nationalize industries, we shall play into the hands of the extremists. As soon as one thing is nationalized it will become easy for them to clamour for the nationalization of something else. Honorable members opposite who are anxious to nationalize only one or two things to-day and to drive the coach steadily will find their hands forced, and be unable to stop their more extreme friends from pushing the matter right on to the goal of Socialism. Because it may be better in the interests of all that some central authority should, in the present state of society, take over one particular matter, it does not follow that we should proceed to nationalize every form of business and all the means of production, distribution, and exchange. If we do, we shall simply turn our present economic system topsy-turvy, and I do not think anybody but a few extremists is anxious to go to that extent. How do the Government propose to carry out this system of nationalization ? If they want to nationalize the shipping industry, are they going to buy out the present shipping lines in Australia? If so, where will they get the money ? 5537 KNH 0 0 MATHEWS, James Mr Mathews - No; we shall start lines of our own. 5537 JMG 0 0 ATKINSON, Llewelyn Mr ATKINSON - If they are going to borrow money to buy up the existing shipping interests so as to have the whole industry in their own hands, well and good. If they could finance it, I suppose the people might submit to it, but it is a most serious step for them to take. If they intend to start in competition against the present owners, as the honorable member for Melbourne Ports suggests, it will be a case of the Commonwealth entering into the shipping trade, and taking on the contingent risks and losses. If they run a line of steamships in competition with the present owners the people will have a big loss on their working account at the end of the year, and will have to make it up by taxation. That must be the result, to judge by some of the services that have already been nationalized. Australia is at the present time not in a condition to warrant such a step. The shipping people can be controlled by the Anti-Trust Act. If they cannot, the Act can be made stronger. It has not yet been given a fair trial. .ft has not been proved a failure, and even ;if it is a failure in its present form steps can be taken to perfect it. Because the Anti-Trust Act does not suit one or two people, surely we are not going to swing round to the other extreme and take so drastic a step as is now proposed. If we do, we shall run a very serious risk, which will strike eventually at the root of the [resent economic system. The word " monopoly " is very difficult to define, but the framers of this Bill are not troubled in any way on that account. According to its operative clause, all this Parliament has to do is to declare that some particular form of business is a monopoly, and proceed to nationalize it. I see no benefit to the community in that. I do not see why this Parliament should be specially given such powers. Even assuming that we can do so constitutionally, 1 do not know that the people would be wise to intrust this Parliament with the power to say for them what industry shall be declared a monopoly. Because a certain man or firm has built up a successful business, are we to declare it a monopoly and take it over ? That would be destroying private enterprise with a vengeance. If we destroy private enterprise we crush cut individuality. Who has brought about the present stage of the world's progress, if it has not been the individual ? Did honorable members ever hear of any Committee devising a scheme that to any extent advanced civilization ? The elements of progress have always come from the abnormal brains of highly gifted individuals. If we crush out the incentive to individual effort, we shall produce a very drab condition of affairs. I hope that the people, when they get a chance in April next, will have sense enough to deter the party opposite from action in that direction. 5537 KJE Flinders ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE . - I do not pretend at this stage to attempt to add anything to the arguments of my honorable friends on this side against the main provisions of the clause. I think it serves to mark practically the whole policy of those who sit on the Government bench, and those supporting them, more effectually than anything we could say would do, but it may not be amiss to analyze at this stage some of its extraordinary provisions. I was not present during the whole of the second-reading debate, but there are one or two things which may have escaped the attention of Ministers themselves in connexion with this provision. First of all, the sting of the clause, as often happens, is in its tail. The last two lines are really the only part of it which effect anything, and they effect a very great deal. It is the acquisition of private persons' property in connexion with what may be said to be a monopoly that is the important matter. I do not know that all the rest of the clause comes to very much, because I know of nothing that prevents this Parliament from carrying on any business or undertaking it chooses to carry on, provided that it will find the money for it. Parliament can apply or appropriate its moneys to any purpose it likes, but what is proposed to be done by this clause, to put it in bald language, is to say that, in addition to the general power which Parliament has of expending or appropriating its own moneys for any purpose, it may, by passing a resolution that a business or industry carried on by any person or persons is what it calls ;i monopoly, at once proceed to take away the property of that person or these persons, with or without compensation. That is the real gist and sting of the clause. The Attorney-General himself admits that he cannot give any definition of what a monopoly is, and he defies anybody else to do so. By introducing into the Constitution a word which is admittedly incapable of constitutional definition, we are really saying that the two Houses of Parliament may, by resolution, declare certain businesses or industries to be monopolies, or you may use any other word equally incapable of definition. It all comes to this, that the two Houses of Parliament may declare that some business or industry is one which the Parliament ought to authorize the Commonwealth to carry on. Whether it is a monopoly or not in the ordinary sense does not matter. It may or may not come under the strict or legal meaning of the word " monopoly," which is primarily something granted by the State. We have, of course, the original monopolies in the form of patent monopolies, with which we are all familiar. They are the strict legal monopolies, but, in addition to them, we have a large class of industries and businesses that are monopolies. I refer to monopolies created by the State granting concessions to certain people to carry on certain businesses. I might instance the case of the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company, or the Gas Company. These are monopolies which exist all through the Slates and in almost every country, of a certain kind, because their whole basis is the concession of some right which alone the State can give. In these cases it is the concession of a right to use the streets or to supply gas through pipes laid along the streets. That is a monopoly because the State law makes it a monopoly. The carrying business of the railways is a monopoly.' If it were practically possible for companies to spring up and create railways wherever they liked, without the power of taking other people's land Mr. W. H. Irvine. granted by the State, railway carriage would not be a monopoly. But that is a case where the authority and assistance of the State is required to enable you to get something. A whole number of things are monopolies of that kind, and these, of course, would, strictly, come under this Bill. They are the only things which do come under the Bill in the ordinary sense. 5538 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - Does the Gas Company possess the sole right to lay mains along the streets ? 5538 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - Whether there is an absolute prohibition or not, I am not prepared to say, but there is a practical monopoly, because the concession has been given to that company, and not to anybody else, to take gas mains through the public streets. For that reason there is a practical monopoly. We have, first of all, the practical monopolies which are usually created and regulated by State authority. The principle adopted in the case of the Gas Company, and in relation to a good many other concerns of a similar kind, is to create a practical monopoly by a parliamentary' concession, and to attach to that monopoly certain conditions. In the case of the Metropolitan Gas Company, the conditions are that if the profits are capable of paying a certain dividend the price of gas to the consumer shall be lowered on a certain graduated scale. 5538 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - -They have evaded that by watering their stock. 5538 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - The honorable member often makes some of the loosest statements that are uttered in this House. It would be wiser for him not to make such assertions unless he is prepared to produce some proof in support of them. I am referring to the Metropolitan Gas Company merely by way of illustration. When we go beyond patent monopolies and those practical monopolies which are created by concessions from the States under State authority, we enter an arena which is as wide, so to speak, as the earth. There is no limit to the word " monopoly." There is more or less of a monopoly in connexion with all businesses. 5538 JYR 0 0 FAIRBAIRN, George Mr Fairbairn - As in the liquor trade, for instance. 5538 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - Of course that is a monopoly. A goodwill acquired by a man in business is occasionally the essence of a monopoly when we go beyond Statecreated monopolies. The reputation that a business man has obtained is also a monopoly. We see illustrations of that fact in business every day. What honor- able members opposite are aiming at is not so much anything that we might call a monopoly as it is the particular modes by which individuals with large aggregations of capital use their capital and power to prevent fair and free competition. 5539 JM8 0 0 ARCHIBALD, William Mr Archibald - We cannot define it in law, but we understand it in common - sense. 5539 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - I would remind the honorable member who is constantly airing his antipathy to laws and lawyers 5539 KHE 0 0 HIGGS, William Mr Higgs - His antipathy for lawyers is withdrawn when they go on the Bench. 5539 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - Yes, to the honorable member and a great many more, a lawyer is anathema maranatha until he goes on the Bench, and he then becomes a saint, although he is composed of the same material as before. I would remind the honorable member that a thing which is incapable of being defined in legal terms, and only capable of being defined in what he describes as common-sense terms, is absolutely incapable of definition. 5539 JM8 0 0 ARCHIBALD, William Mr Archibald - That is only the legal view. 5539 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - Ultimately it is the legal view that we must take of all laws. A common-sense definition, when one analyzes it, is always an inaccurate, loose definition. What he describes as a common-sense definition is one that appeals to the honorable member, who gives it as satisfying all his requirements, but which probably presents a somewhat different view to every honorable member who listens to it. The only object of a legal definition is to obtain an accurate statement that will convey the same idea to every one. 5539 JM8 0 0 ARCHIBALD, William Mr Archibald - That cannot be done. 5539 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - Not in the case of the word " monopoly," and that is why this very extraordinary provision has been introduced. It simply comes to this and nothing more : that when a majority in the two Houses of Parliament arrives at the conclusion that any man is carrying on a business which in their opinion could be carried on more advantageously by the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth may take away his property. 5539 JYR 0 0 FAIRBAIRN, George Mr Fairbairn - By paying for it. 5539 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - That interjection brings me to an amendment that I intend to propose. I do not know that I have much hope in suggesting the amendment that I have in mind ; but I appeal to the common-sense and fair play of honor able members supporting the Government to say that they do not intend to take away a man's property without compensation. If this clause be passed as it stands, then, having regard to a provision already existing in paragraph xxxi. of section 51 of the Constitution, its meaning will be that the Commonwealth shall have power to acquire a property without necessarily paying compensation for it. 5539 KDD LP 0 0 EDWARDS, George Mr G B EDWARDS - All similar powers in the Constitution are accompanied by the words "on just terms." 5539 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - The only analogous provision is contained in paragraph xxxi. of section 51 of the Constitution, where power is given to acquire property for public purposes "on just terms." 5539 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - I have a prior amendment to move. 5539 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - Very well. I wish merely to point out that if in a paragraph immediately following that provision we give power to acquire property in connexion with any industry or business, expressly omitting the words "on. just terms," that paragraph will be read as indicating a power on the part of the Commonwealth to take over such property without paying anything for it. I hope that the Attorney-General will see the desirableness of accepting an amendment to bring this provision into line with the general power to acquire property for which the Constitution already provides. At all events, the issue will very clearly determine whether the party supporting the Government are prepared, in giving effect to their Socialistic desires, to pay compensation for the interest which they have destroyed, or are prepared to acquire a business without paying compensation. After the Attorney-General has disposed of the amendment which he desires to move, I shall move to insert the words " on just terms " after the word " purpose." 5539 DQC West Sydney ALP Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General 1 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES . - I move - That after the word " producing " the word "manufacturing" be inserted. I propose this amendment because, as the honorable member for Angas has pointed out, in the Bill that was before us last week to provide for an amendment of the Constitution, the word " production " was differentiated from the word " manufacture," although it is a generic term which ought to, and does, economically include " manufacture." As to the amendment suggested by the honorable member for Flinders, providing for the insertion of the words "on just terms," I do not think that it will make any difference- 5540 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - Then let us have it. 5540 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES - I shall not object to it, although I do not think it will make the slightest difference, for I should be very sorry to think that the people of this country, through their representatives in Parliament, would try to acquire property on anything save just terms. I wish to reply to the statement made by the honorable member with regard to our failure to define the word " monopoly " in this Bill. I should say that it is not easy to define. I have asked the honorable member for Bendigo, and I would ask the honorable member for Flinders, to define it. 5540 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - It is incapable of definition. 5540 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES - I do not know that it is incapable of definition, but, if it is, it is not because people have not tried to define it. I propose to explain to the Committee and the country why we have not attempted to do so. In 1895, the State of Texas, attempted to define "monopoly" in an Act, in which it declared illegal any attempt - To create or carry out restrictions in trade or commerce or aids to commerce, or to create or carry out restrictions in the full and free pursuit of any business authorized or permitted by the laws of this State. To increase or reduce the price of merchandise, produce or commodities. To prevent competition in manufacture, making, transportation, sale, or purchase of merchandise, produce or commodities, or to prevent competition in aids to commerce. To fix at any standard or figure whereby its price to the public shall be in any manner controlled or established, any article or commodity of merchandise, produce or commerce intended for sale, use, or consumption in this State. To make or enter into or execute or carry out any contract, obligation or agreement of any kind or description by which they shall bind or have bound themselves not to sell, dispose of, or transport any article or commodity, or article of trade, use, merchandise, commerce or consumption, below a common standard figure. and so forth. It proceeded to define " monopoly " in the following terms, which will be found at page 11 31 of volume II. of Eddy on Combinations - A " monopoly " is any union or combination or consolidation or affiliation of capital, credit, property, assets, trade, custom, skill or acts, or of any other valuable thing or possession, by or between persons, firms, or corporations, or associations of persons, firms, or corporations, whereby any one of the purposes or objects mentioned in this Act is accomplished, or sought to be accomplished, or whereby any one or more of said purposes are promoted or attempted to be executed or carried out, or whereby the several results described herein are reasonably calculated to be produced; and a " monopoly," as thus defined and contemplated, includes not merely such combinations by and between two or more persons, firms, or corporations acting for themselves, but is especially defined and intended to include all aggregations, amalgamations, affiliations, consolidations, or incorporations of capital, skill, credit, assets, property, custom, trade, or other valuable thing or possession, whether effected by the ordinary methods of partnership or by actual union under the legal form of a corporation or an incorporated body resulting from the union of one or more distinct firms or corporations, or by the purchase, acquisition, or control of shares or certificates of stock or bonds, or other corporate property or franchises; and all corporations or partnerships that have been or may be created by the consolidation or amalgamation of the separate capital, stock, bonds, assets, credit, properties, custom, trade, or corporate, or firm belongings of two or more firms or corporations or companies are especially declared to constitute monopolies within the meaning of this Act, if so created or entered into for any one or more of the purposes named in this Act ; and a " monopoly " as defined in this section, is hereby declared to be unlawful and against public policy, and any and all persons, firms, corporations, or association of persons engaged therein shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of a conspiracy to defraud, and shall be subject to the penalties prescribed in this Act. That definition seems not to leave out anything that could be included, but I understand that, notwithstanding, several monstrous economic growths continue to exist. But what would the people of this country say if we put such a definition before them, and asked them to accept it? The Government which proposed such a course, and those who supported it, would rightly meet their political end. A monopoly has no form; it is the essence which is independent of form at which we wish to get. This essence may inhere in an individual, and be absent from a combination ; it may be present in one form of combination, and not in another; it is not peculiar to any form of trust or combination whatever. To attempt to define it would be like attempting to define the shape of clouds, which ever varies, though all clouds contain moisture. The representatives of the people form the best and most reliable authority for deciding what is a monopoly, and we have wisely avoided the definition of what, if not indefinable, it is useless to try to define. 5540 JMG 0 0 ATKINSON, Llewelyn Mr Atkinson - What has happened under the definition which the honorable member has just read? 5540 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES - Nothing, so far as I can ascertain. It was the result of a wholehearted and deliberate attempt to deal with trusts, whether good or bad. In Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. The State of Texas, the constitutionality of the Statute was upheld ; and in the Texas Brewing case it was declared that motive was immaterial, but, so far as I know, the trusts are still in existence, and carrying on business as successfully as ever. 5541 F4S Parramatta 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK . - We have all been much interested in the definition of " monopoly " read by the Attorney-General, and, of course, all understood every word of it. It is ludicrous that the honorable member should sweep aside the attempts of the most learned men of the day, declaring that since Blackstone wrote, lawyers have only been wasting their time in providing definitions of our legal duties and obligations. He says that it is impossible to define a monopoly. Had he not better, then, think of some other method to deal with institutions which are so subtle as to baffle the ingenuity of men to describe them. Instead of tinkering with the laws of the country, and trying to make ignorance take the place of erudition, he had better approach the matter from another stand-point. He announces that the learned men having all failed to supply a definition of "monopoly," he will rut the Gordian knot by declaring that " I, W. M. Hughes, say that this is a monopoly." If asked what a monopoly means, he must reply, "I do not know, but I say that this is a monopoly, and there is. an end to it." 5541 KHE 0 0 HIGGS, William Mr Higgs - Will the honorable member give us a definition? 5541 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - I cannot now, and do not intend to try, and am not so much concerned with that matter as with the substance of the Government's proposals. In the previous speech of the Attorney-General, I fail to find a scintilla of justification for them. In most airy fashion, he asks, " What State rights are we taking away?" 5541 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - None. 5541 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - What State rights will be left in respect to these matters when we have got the power we ask for? Is the power to be obtained, and not used ? If it is to be used, does not the Government know that the States will have no power except such as we may, by our grace, permit them to exercise ? All that we have had from the Attorney-General is vulgar abuse. He calls us reactionaries, because we cannot point to a simple way of controlling the complex operations of modern industry. He says, " You are all troglodytes belonging to the post-pliocene period." I venture to say that he cannot define that epithet, and tell us what it means. I wish to add to the testimony which I furnished this afternoon, from the mouths of the Labour Socialists, as to the harmlessness of the so-called monopolies that exist in Australia. I have shown that the Attorney-General has declared the Shipping Combine and the Coal Vend to be beneficial j let me now quote an utterance by a life-long colleague of the honorable gentleman. Years ago they set out together to enlighten the world in regard to political economy and Socialism, and after running in double harness for a long time have achieved the proud distinction of becoming Attorney-General for the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales respectively. All honour to them for the way in which they have worked, and the ability they possess. Mr. Holman, the New South Wales Attorney-General, speaking in Sydney the other day at a banquet given by the Lord Mayor, said - Neither in Canada nor anywhere else can a man struggling for a livelihood enjoy the same free open life, the same easy access to all classes of society, the same educational and intellectual advantages, the same consideration from the law, that he enjoys in this democratic country. 5541 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - Still there is room for improvement. 5541 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr JOSEPH COOK - The sentence which I have read shows the improvements which have been made in past years under the Liberal Governments which have been denounced from the house-tops by Labour members as reactionary. It is an appreciation of their labours by the Socialistic Attorney-General of the State. He says that there is no country in the world where the privileges and advantages of the ordinary citizen are so great as they are in Australia. To continue my quotation - We had our millionaires, but they were inoffensive ; we had monopolies, but they disturbed not appreciably the even tenor of our way. This, and the statements made by the Attorney-General, show the utter absurdity of the proposals before us. We are asked to take a power which is not needed, and which we are told is to be held in reserve. This afternoon, the statement that the power would be used was spoken of as a monstrous aspersion. No case has been, nor can be, shown for the deprivation of the States of their power to control the industrial operations of the community. The honorable member for Flinders has referred to the fact that the last two lines ot the clause are most far-reaching in their effects, by reason of their implication. They empower the Commonwealth to acquire, for the purpose of carrying on such industries as may be taken over, any property connected with them. I take that to mean that for the purpose of carrying on the shipping industry we should have power to take all the wharfs in Australia, or so much as we in this Parliament declared to be necessary for carrying on the shipping operations of the country. If we decided to nationalize the mines - and we have been told by honorable members opposite that we ought to have some mines of our own, though for what earthly purpose was not stated - we should have the right to take every foot of mineral country. And so with the sugar industry; if we decided to nationalize it, we could take all the sugar land, amounting to about 150,000 acres, and, indeed, all the lands that could possibly be put under cultivation, so as to prevent any one interfering with our monopoly. Those are the very powers which the Attorney-General declared on all the platforms in the country that we could not take. Nobody was more emphatic than the honorable gentleman that we could not nationalize a foot of land, but that we could only tax. Now, however, he proposes by this indirect method of implication to nationalize the lands of Australia. That is not a very straightforward proceeding, to say nothing about its essence and the tremendous consequences involved in this clause. I suppose, however, that the die is cast so far as this Chamber is concerned, and that we must now endeavour to convince the people that honorable members opposite, when they say certain things on the platform, talk with their tongues in their cheeks - that when they take power for one object they immediately begin to use it for a totally different one, which on the platform they declared themselves incapable of realizing. There never was such slender reason offered to induce this Chamber to vote for a measure pf such tremendous and far-reaching importance. 5542 JM8 Hindmarsh 0 0 ARCHIBALD, William Mr ARCHIBALD . - I do not know that I ever listened to such feeble reasons for objecting to a clause as those presented by the honorable member for Parramatta. What is the position ? We have been told that it is pretty well impossible to define " monopoly " ; and the honorable member for Flinders seems to think that there is no such thing as what I venture to describe as a common-sense definition. lt is apparently the axiom of lawyers that there is no such thing as a common-sense interpretation - that unless everything can be clearly defined in legal language there is no hope of definition. I am one of those stupid people who believe that a legislative chamber of this character should be guided by common sense, and that there is such a thing as the logic of facts. What has experience taught us, even as disclosed during the course of this debate? The Sherman Act was passed in the United States about twenty years ago, containing a definition of " monopoly," and that Act has proved a folly and failure. Every sensible man in Australia would unhesitatingly say that those combines at work in America are monopolies; and yet the lawyers tell us that "monopoly" cannot be defined. In spite of all the text-books and authorities quoted to-day, we have had no light thrown on the definition. What are we to do? This Parliament, representing the Australian people, is faced with a difficulty; but are we to sit still and do nothing until monopoly gets a hold here as it has in America, simply because we cannot define the meaning of the word? Are we not men endowed with common sense? There was a number of questions and conundrums which used to amuse us as young men, such as, " Where does justice leave off and mercy begin ? " Can any honorable member tell me that? Can any honorable member tell me the meaning of the "infinitude of extension"? Can any honorable member define the meaning of " nothing " - a common word in our language ? There are many such difficulties of definition, but the meaning of these words and phrases is perfectly plain to a person of common sense. In view of the fact that the legal gentlemen have been unable to define " monopoly," the solution of the problem should be left to the intelligence of this Chamber. That means that we leave the duty to the representatives of the Australian people, not the representatives of a State. I am casting no reflection on the Parliaments of the States ; but when there is a body of this kind, consisting of representatives of every part of the Commonwealth, we are in a better position to interpret the feeling and desires of the Australian people than is any other legislative body in the country. If we fail to interpret their desires properly, and clearly show what " monopoly " means, we shall pay the penalty. I have been charged o« more than one occasion with not falling down and worshipping the great text-book writers and other learned men. I must say that I do not value those authorities so much as I did twenty years ago. I do not value so much the professors of economy, the great constitutional lawyers, or the great State-Rights men, who built up the Australian Constitution on paper, and are determined to fit the people into that Constitution whether they like it or not. But the people will not be fitted into the Constitution, and the sooner the fact is known the better. In my opinion, there is more value in the practical experience of the average man over a number of years than in all the text-books. The environment of the various walks of life does not make a great deal of difference when we really come to think matters out. There is, I admit, a" possibility of hasty legislation ; but in a country like Australia there is more solid sense and wisdom in the opinions of the people, taken, not over two or three months, but over two or three years, than in all the opinions of the text-book writers and authorities on constitutional law. 5543 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - How does the honorable member propose to place a concrete proposition before us? 5543 JM8 0 0 ARCHIBALD, William Mr ARCHIBALD -By the Bill, power is given to Parliament to affirm what is a " monopoly " ; and it is of that honorable members opposite are afraid. 5543 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - Parliament is to be given power to do what the honorable member has declared to be impossible ! 5543 JM8 0 0 ARCHIBALD, William Mr ARCHIBALD - It is impossible just as it is impossible to define exactly, as I said, where justice leaves off and mercy begins. Can the honorable member answer that question? 5543 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - Ask me something easy ! 5543 JM8 0 0 ARCHIBALD, William Mr ARCHIBALD - Honorable members opposite are asking the Attorney-General and others on this side to give a definition that is most difficult, if not impossible, and they are proposing, because of that difficulty, to permit this country to lie at the mercy of monopolists. The Australian men and women will understand the question quite well when it is put to them, although they are not acquainted with the text-books or the opinions of the great writers on these subjects. What is the value of the opinion of a Cambridge man, who never leaves the University except, perhaps, to go into society in London? What does he know of the practical life under a Parliament like this, or practical life in the world generally, such as that made familiar to the honorable member for Flinders in his long experience as a pleader in the Law Courts ? What have those men, dreaming their lives away, to do with the practical principles of government? We place too high an opinion on such men j and the less we are influenced by quotations from their writings, the better for us and the better for our legislation. The Attorney-General may be able to amend the clause, but we may depend upon it that, if the Commonwealth takes over any of these interests, justice will be done. I have such faith in the spirit of justice of the Australian people that I can see no necessity to provide in the Bill that justice shall be done. 5543 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - What is " justice " ? 5543 JM8 0 0 ARCHIBALD, William Mr ARCHIBALD - I can give a case in point, where I think a difficulty might occur. We might provide in this clause that just compensation shall be paid; but would that mean a fair price for any industry taken over, or would it mean the gambling price of the shares in the market, or of the watered stock? Such a clause would give work to the lawyers for ten years ; and then the learned Judges on the Bench would not be able to tell us what was just compensation. 5543 JMG 0 0 ATKINSON, Llewelyn Mr Atkinson - How would the honorable member settle it? 5543 JM8 0 0 ARCHIBALD, William Mr ARCHIBALD - I should insert no definition in the Bill, because I believe that neither this, nor any subsequent Parliament, representing the manhood and womanhood of Australia, would do injustice to any section of the community. I give honorable members opposite credit for honesty of purpose, but the only result of their efforts to deal with questions of this kind has been failure. The High Court tore up the case which was taken before it in relation to monopolies. If it had been sent to them again they would have torn it up again. Do honorable members opposite think that the representatives of the Australian people have nothing else to do but to fool their time away here, going over the same road again and again, only to have their work torn up by the High Court? Are we continually to waste our time and fool the Australian people? It is a good deal better to leave the decision of the matter in the hands of this and the succeeding Parliaments. I do not believe, nor do I think that honorable members opposite believe honestly in their own hearts, that any act of injustice will be done to Australian interests by this Parliament or those that follow us. 5544 KJE Flinders ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE . -I am sorry that the honorable member should, at the conclusion of his very vigorous speech, have used phrases which he must understand are distinctly offensive to those who are endeavouring to labour in their vocation as I presume he does in his. He referred, on a previous occasion, to lawyers " with their heads in the nosebag." Personally, I have no feeling about such an expression, but I believe it to be my duty, as a member of an honorable profession, to take exception to it. 5544 JM8 0 0 ARCHIBALD, William Mr Archibald - If the honorable member takes exception to the term, I withdraw it. 5544 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - I am glad the honorable member has done so, because lawyers have their uses in society. I do not take any offence personally, but the repetition of that kind of phrase is not calculated to lead to friendly debates. The honorable member has with very great vigour demolished an argument which I do not think has been really used on this side. We on this side did not express a desire that the Attorney-General should attempt in this amendment of the Constitution to define " monopoly." We say that you cannot define monopolies. Our argument is really this : In the amendment of the Constitution already passed by this House a general power has been taken to make laws with regard to commerce, without any restriction. Under it, if it becomes law, the Parliament will have power to legislate with regard to all matters that come under the head of monopolies. Parliament may then by legislation attempt to define monopolies, or enumerate the particular classes of things which constitute what are ordinarily called monopolies, or otherwise deal with the subject. But it will do so by making laws. In this Bill the Government are introducing a totally new and unprecedented element into the Constitution. It has always been one of the strong safeguards, not only of this, but of the British Constitution, which with all its faults has some great merits, that the judicial function has always been kept separate from the wrangles of Parliament. That is the function which determines whether a particular man or company or individuals or corporations are doing right or wrong. By this amendment the Government are expressly making it a duty of Parliament to perform what is a highly difficult judicial function in the heated discussions which necessarily take place in the course of its deliberations. They invite Parliament, as against a particular man or company, or combination of companies carrying on their business, to deal with what is practically a presentment or information charging them with doing in their business something contrary to law or justice. It is proposed that Parliament should, without hearing evidence, but simply on the kind of debate that we have, exercise the judicial function, and say, " Those individuals are carrying on an injurious monopoly, and therefore we are going to make what we call a law to prevent them." But it is not so much a law as the execution of judgment against them. 5544 JOC 0 0 BATCHELOR, Egerton Mr Batchelor - The British Parliament has that power now. 5544 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - It has every power and can do everything it chooses; but one of the glories of the British Constitution, and one of the wise traditions of the British people, is that the British Parliament does not exercise that kind of power. Our State Parliaments have always had a similar power, but they have always refrained from exercising it. That common sense which is inherent in the people of our race, and which was praised so much by the honorable member for Hindmarsh, is the salt of the Constitution. The common sense of the people has always recognised that it is dangerous to intrust judicial functions to a public assembly of any kind. The functions of Parliament are the making of general laws. When it comes to the application of those laws to particular individuals, or to accusing a company of carrying on an injurious monopoly, it has always been the practice to leave that function to some tribunal, whether an ordinary law Court, or a Commission appointed for the purpose or invested with particular powers. 5544 JM8 0 0 ARCHIBALD, William Mr Archibald - There is nothing to prevent us from passing an Act to appoint a Commission. 5544 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - No; but before Parliament can act at all, it must decide the question against the individuals concerned. Before Parliament can take the power to deal with a monopoly it must, without hearing evidence, determine against those people that they are carrying on a monopoly. That is where the Government are going right away from the legislative power which characterizes the remainder of our Constitution. I do not say that we ought never to depart from old traditions ; far from it. But where we find a tradition and usage so universally accepted in all British communities, and such good reason for it, it is wise to keep the determination of matters of private right and wrong away from the legislative body altogether. Let them be determined by special tribunals appointed for the purpose, after hearing evidence. Instead of that, the Government are going to invest 1 he Federal Parliament with the right, first lo condemn, and then to make a law which will not be a general law, but one applicable to the particular business which it has already decided to call a monopoly. 5545 JWC 0 0 CARR, Ernest Mr Carr - Why not advocate a referendum ? 5545 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - The honorable member has himself supplied the reductio ad absurdum of the Government proposals. He might just as well say that, instead of Parliament deciding it, it should be left for the people to decide, by means of a referendum, whether anything is a monopoly. T do not think even the most extreme advocate of Democracy will say that everything should be left to the people to decide by referendum, although, no doubt, the theory is that wisdom ultimately finds its place in the decision of the people. It would be at once said that the people had no means of judging whether a thing was a monopoly or not. What the Government are asking this House to determine is that Parliament shall, in order to get power to deal with what is alleged to be a monopoly, condemn particular people carrying on their business under the laws of the country, without hearing them, or evidence of any kind. In short, Parliament must first declare that a thing is a monopoly before they have power to deal with it. 5545 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - Does not the honorable member think that some investigation would le made on behalf of the Government before any proposition was placed before Parliament? 5545 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - What I have advocated for the purpose is this : In taking an unrestricted power over commerce, this Parliament takes power to make laws as to all the conditions under which commercial businesses can be carried on, and every business, manufacturing or otherwise, merges into commerce. Under that authority, therefore, this Parliament will have complete power to make general laws on the subject. It is only general laws that it ought to make, leaving their application to a judicial tribunal, which can hear people on both sides. 5545 JZF Illawarra 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER .- I would like to ask the honorable member for Maribyrnong what authority or commission he would constitute to put the proper position before Parliament, as he suggested by interjection while the honorable member for Flinders was speaking. Can he name any means by which the Government could so act as to place before Parliament the true position of any industry which may be thought, under this clause, to be a monopoly ? 5545 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - How do the Government proceed if they want to find out whether a. man is evading the Customs Act? 5545 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - I have had some experience of the way matters of this kind are put before Parliament. I was a member of the Tariff Commission, perhaps the most important appointed by this Parliament. Although we made the fullest investigation, when the report was made the findings of one side of the Commission, four in number, were absolutely ignored and the findings of the other four, were, purely from a party point of view, put before Parliament. It would be the same in the case of every Commission, including the one suggested by the honorable member for Maribyrnong. 5545 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - Then the honorable member argues that it is of no use to investigate? 5545 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - No; but in a case of that kind, the side is taken which suits the views of the majority in Parliament. 5545 JWC 0 0 CARR, Ernest Mr Carr - Parliament had both reports before it, and the majority pleased themselves. 5545 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - And the majority will please themselves in this matter. The honorable member for Hindmarsh spoke about the feebleness of the attempt of the honorable member for Parramatta to define monopolies; but I think there has been a good deal of feebleness displayed over the question by "honorable members opposite. The honorable member for Hindmarsh has appealed to the common sense of Australia, and thinks that it is largely represented in this Chamber; but he did not attempt to describe what a monopoly is. When electioneering, and faced by a Labour candidate, I heard some definitions of monopolies. There is a Fresh Food and Ice Company, which has done a great deal for the farmers, especially under the management of the late Mr. T. S. Mort, and which lost tens of thousands of pounds in its early operations. The Labour representative, in order to get the votes of the discontented farmers in Illawarra, told them that, if returned to support a Labour Administration, he would take great care that the Fresh Food and Ice Company was nationalized, because it was a monopoly. That is their idea. It is of no use for honorable members opposite to say that they are willing to deal only with what this House declares to be monopolies. What they are out for is to nationalize the whole of the industries of Australia. 5546 KXO 0 0 PAGE, James Mr Page - That is good " flapdoodle " for the platform, but it is of no use here. 5546 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - I am indulging in what the honorable member for Hindmarsh characterizes as "common sense." I am not in the habit of talking "flapdoodle," but I am in the habit of calling a spade a spade. Those who can read the English language, and who can construe this proposed amendment of the Constitution, will agree with my statement that the real object of the Labour party is, if they secure this power, to nationalize every industry throughout Australia. Parliament is to determine what is a monopoly ; although neither the Attorney-General nor any other honorable member is capable of giving us a definition of the word. The question ought to be left to the decision of a competent tribunal, and not to such a tribunal as this Parliament must be in the circumstances of its constitution. We have very high authority as to the objects of the Labour party in regard to the nationalization of monopolies. Members of that party travelled all over the constituencies of New South Wales, during the recent election, telling the people what were their ideas in respect to the nationalization of monopolies ; and I propose to quote a well-known member of the party, who made himself very prominent during the campaign. Speaking on 1 2th October last, he said - Therefore, when the Government could not regulate monopolies, the only other thing to do was to take over control, and surely if they can run their railways and tramways so satisfactorily, they can industries of lesser importance. And say that were done with all the necessaries of life, there would be a saving of from 30 to 50 per cent., which would mean that every man's wages were increased to that extent. According to this honorable member, the object of the Labour party is to nationalize all industries, and it is said that, when that is done, it will mean a saving of from 30 to 50 per cent. to the workers of Australia. 5546 F4S 0 0 COOK, Joseph Mr Joseph Cook - They do not say that that is " flapdoodle." 5546 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - Of course, such a statement was made not to catch votes, but as a declaration of the object of the Socialistic Labour party of Australia. This honorable member was asked what it would cost to nationalize several of the industries to which he had referred ; and he said that it would cost , £7,000,000 to acquire the sugar industry. As to the cost of taking over the shipping industry, he could not speak, for he said that the figures relating to it had not yet been ascertained. I presume that the members of the Socialistic party opposite are not going to rob the owners of the industries which they take over on behalf of the Commonwealth. The honorable member to whom I have referred was then asked, " Where will the money come from?" His reply was - We expect to get a little from the Federal land tax, but there are other ways, an income tax, for instance. His questioner put the further query, " Then you intend to get the money by taxing the people?" And now for the name of this high authority - Mr. Catts said he was not there to say how they'd get it; that was a matter that would be decided in caucus. I presume that the ways and means of finding the money necessary to nationalize so-called monopolies have been considered by the caucus ; and I hope we shall have some information on the subject. In my opinion, not only justice, but mercy, must be dealt out. Many of the businesses of so-called monopolies have been built up by the owners at great expense, as the result of much toil and trouble, and of the exercise of considerable ingenuity. 5546 KXO 0 0 PAGE, James Mr Page - At whose expense? 5546 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - At the expense of the owners. 5546 K5D 0 0 O'MALLEY, King Mr King O'Malley - At the expense of the working men. 5546 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - Here we have once more the statement, " At the expense of the working men." Unlike some honorable members opposite, I am not always posing as the working man's friend ; but, throughout my career, I have endeavoured to do, and I believe that I have done, just as much for the working men of Australia as honorable members opposite. I ask the Attorney-General, the Postmaster-General - who represents Broken Hill and other honorable members who supported the imposition of high duties on the necessaries of life, which the working people have to pay to-day, whether they helped the workers in that way? 5547 10000 0 0 CHAIRMAN, The The CHAIRMAN - I must ask the honorable gentleman not to discuss the question of high duties. 5547 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - I was led to refer to it by the interjection of the honorable member for Maranoa. I urge that the object of this proposed amendment of the Constitution is to enable all the industries of Australia to be nationalized. The question of what is a monopoly should be determined, not by Parliament, but by the High Court, the Inter-State Commission, or some such tribunal. It should not be left to the Parliament to determine, amidst a display of party passion such as we have witnessed in connexion with the decision of other matters. When we hear honorable members opposite talking so loudly about this Parliament dealing out justice, I feel disposed to ask them whether, in a certain measure with which we dealt recently, and which is now before another place, they have dealt out justice to a large number of our best citizens ? 5547 10000 0 0 CHAIRMAN, The The CHAIRMAN - Order ! 5547 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - I am only referring incidentally to the Land Tax Assessment Bill. Neither the Attorney-General nor any one else has been able to submit to the Committee a definition of the word " monopoly." 5547 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - I have done so. 5547 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - The honorable member has quoted from a text-book a long definition, but he does not attempt to define the word in this Bill. 5547 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - Will the honorable member have the definition I have quoted? 5547 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - No ; I desire a definition by the Attorney-General. 5547 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - I could not better that which I have read. 5547 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - Then it will be left to this Parliament to determine, in the absence of any evidence, whether any particular business in Australia is or is not a monopoly. Some honorable members will know no more about such matters than they did of many decisions in regard to the Tariff. In all probability such questions will be decided not in Parliament, but in secret caucus, and the reasons for the decisions arrived at will not be given to the country. 5547 KNI 0 0 HARPER, Robert Mr Harper - Tammany. 5547 KJE ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 0 0 IRVINE, William Mr W H IRVINE - It will be the introduction of Tammany. 5547 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - It will mean Tammany carried to its extremes, and must be inimical to the interests of Australia. I hope that this proposed amendment of the Constitution will not be carried. I object as strongly as does any honorable member to such trusts and combines as have, in America more particularly, been detrimental to the best interests of the people. I see no evidence, however, of the existence of such combines in Australia. The honorable member for Hume referred this afternoon to the iron industry. He was a prominent member of a Government which proposed the payment of a bounty to encourage that industry, and we now learn that he endeavoured first of all to induce a State to take it over. He is now in favour of the Commonwealth taking full control of the iron industry of Australia. 5547 KZA 0 0 WEST, John Edward Mr West - He did not say that. 5547 JZF 0 0 FULLER, George Mr FULLER - I know what he said, and do not need any reminder from the honorable member. The honorable member for Indi made an interjection this afternoon in regard to the Coal Vend in New South Wales, which was promptly taken up by the honorable member for Hunter. Representatives of New South Wales know perfectly well that the establishment of that Vend was of great advantage to the coal-miners and employers of labour in the Newcastle district, and I could not help noticing the promptness with which the honorable member for Hunter replied to the honorable member for Indi's interjection. I know that he thinks that the establishment of the Vend was a distinct advantage to the miners of Newcastle, and that opinion has been indorsed by the honorable member for that constituency. If this proposed alteration of the Constitution is accepted by the people, that Vend will have to be dealt with under it. People in all parts of Australia are forming co-operative companies for the benefit of themselves and the country generally, and I hope that this measure will never be ratified by the people. If the question of what is a monopoly is to be left to the decision of this or any other Parliament, the result must be disadvantageous to the best interests of the Federation. 5548 DQC West Sydney ALP Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General 1 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES . - The honorable member who has just resumed his seat has contrived, in the course of his speech, to traverse the whole political arena, and to refer to matters that have arisen, not only during this session and last session, but in prehistoric times. Generally speaking, his speech no doubt will read very well, and will convey to his constituents the idea that he is wide awake, right on the spot, and missing nothing. I do not think that there is anything that has been or is likely to be done this session upon which the honorable member has not touched. My only objection is that he has not touched on the question under discussion. Wild denunciation of the methods of the Labour party, and allusions to what may happen in caucus, are not a relevant contribution to the debate. My honorable friend says that he does believe in trusts and combines, and ventures the pious hope that they will never become very bad. He sees no reason for perturbation, and goes on his way rejoicing having done a great deal for the working man, who, judging by the results of the last election, does not greatly appreciate his efforts. The honorable member for Parramatta quoted to-night a speech delivered by the Attorney-General for New South Wales, and, earlier in the day, one delivered by me. My reply is that my attitude towards combines has always been what it is now, and I think a fair reflex of the general views of the members of my party. In 1906, it was proposed that Parliament should deal only with destructive monopolies, but I wished that it should have power to deal with all monopolies, because one which may be beneficent to-day may be destructive to-morrow, just as the man whom you have known all your life as a friend may, without provocation, strike you violently. Speaking on the subject in this Chamber, I said - The mere fact of a monopoly being nondestructive or beneficent should not place it beyond the scope of the powers of repression given by the Bill. ' It might be said that despotism should only be repressed when it was destructive. But it is a cardinal principle of Democracy that despotism is wrong anyhow. 5548 KEA 0 0 KELLY, William Mr Kelly - That a monopoly is. 5548 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES - No; that a despotism is. As for monopolies, we should repress them the more when they are destructive, but we want the power to repress them anyhow. I am very much astounded to learn - because I presume that the honorable member for Wentworth has spoken with the full authority of the party to which he belongs - that he proposes to destroy a monopoly only when it is destructive. Why, it is a cardinal principle of his creed that a monopoly is a very bad thing. It is competition that he wishes to insure. 5548 KEA 0 0 KELLY, William Mr Kelly - What about the honorable and learned member's Socialism ? 5548 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES - The honorable member forgets that when he is speaking, he does not hold the opinions that he entertains when he is interjecting. 5548 KEA 0 0 KELLY, William Mr Kelly - The honorable and learned member should welcome me as a convert on this occasion, and should vote with me. 5548 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES - It appears to me that we require the power - not necessarily to exercise it - to repress all monopolies. Let me give an instance of a monopoly which is certainly not a destructive one, but which, nevertheless, it might be very desirable to repress. I refer to the Shipping Combine upon the Australian coast. The evidence tendered to the Royal Commission, of which I had the honour to be Chairman, was to the effect that in many instances that combine produced beneficent results. It regulated rates. I contended that we should have power to deal with all monopolies, whether beneficent or not. On page 44 of the majority report of the Royal Commission on Navigation, the Commissioners say - According to Mr. Grayson, whose defence of the practice and the methods of the combine generally is fully set forth in reply to question 15,221 et seq. of the evidence, it was stated that some such system was absolutely necessary in order to - Check ruinous competition amongst the local companies. Prevent the carrying trade of Australia drifting into the hands of foreign-owned shipping. Mr. Grayson stated that the competition between members of the federation had at various times reduced their rates to a point far below a remunerative one, and gave instances in support of this statement. He denied that the system was unfair; on the contrary, he considered reasonable rates of a permanent character of great advantage to shippers..... As your Commissioners consider that the rebate system is open to grave abuses, and calculated to seriously prejudice the commercial and industrial interests of the Commonwealth, they recommend the introduction of legislation at an early date, making it illegal for the owners, master or agent of any vessel to give rebates or other advantages to any shipper or consignee of goods, if the condition of such rebates or advantages is that there shall be exclusive shipment by a certain vessel or vessels. That was printed on 4th November, 1907. Writing in the Daily Telegraph on 2nd November, 1907, under the heading " The Case for Labour," and referring to antitrust legislation, I said - Legislation that will do this (curb industrial combines) is not easy to draft. For, unlike the pre-historic behemoths of the forest, the plain, and the ocean, these industrial giants are surprisingly agile. They slip, intangible, through the closest meshes of the law; while their shadows darken the industrial earth, proof of their existence is most difficult, and of their operations generally impossible. But, in spite of the unequal and useless struggle, the cry for anti-trust legislation gains each day in volume and intensity. That is a clear declaration of views which are consistent with those expressed now, namely, that the only effective way to deal with monopolies is to nationalize them. On 9th November, 1907, 1 wrote - It is not anti-trust legislation, but legislation to restrain all capitalists from sweating their employes and robbing the people, that is wanted. I say now that a trust, as a trust, is no more to be denounced or feared than a single individual. The question is, " What is it doing?" " By their deeds ye shall know them." It is immaterial whether a monopoly is controlled by one man or by a combine, and whether its operations are good or bad is not to be determined by a definition of monopoly, but by the actual facts of each particular case. On 3rd April, 1909, I wrote again - Usually the elimination of foolish and wasteful competition enables a combine to do three things : To sell an article at a reasonable price, to pay good wages to its employes, and to make large profits. Sometimes it does all these; rarely, if ever, does it omit to do the last, and, of course, these combinations of all capitalists in an industry have enabled the public to more clearly understand the relations between the consumer and the producer. ,When production is in the hands of a large number of unrelated individuals, each producing without reference to his competitors, or without any clear understanding as to the total product available or required for the market, the true nature of the process is concealed. . . It is only a question of time when the people will ask themselves why the business of production and distribution should be in the hands of private individuals, when obviously the people generally are not only the consumers, but also the producers. Of the combine it will be asked, "What the devil are you doing in that galley?" and to this pertinent question no sufficient answer is possible. The next step, the nationalization of these trusts, will follow as naturally and as painlessly as the formation of the trusts by the merger of the individual firms connected with these industries previously did. There will be, of course, some few objections and some little squealing on the part of the trusts, but as these paid not the slightest heed to the protests of the unfortunate individuals who were eliminated in that process, their own absorption, which will be carried out with much greater regard to justice, will not be retarded thereby. Those passages express my mature opinions on this question, and, I venture to say, justify my attitude in asking for this legislation. It does not necessarily follow that the power asked for will be exercised directly. We say that we should have this power. How it will be exercised is another matter. No Parliament arrives at a determination regarding facts without first appointing a Select Committee or Royal Commission to make inquiries regarding the matter at issue. This Parliament has caused the appointment of the Tariff Commission, the Navigation Commission, the Harvester Commission, and other Commissions, with the object of ascertaining facts to assist it in coming to conclusions, and will the vesting of increased powers in us rob us of a discretion which we have hitherto possessed, and of that wisdom which we have not lacked as members of this National or of the various State Parliaments? To determine the facts regarding an alleged monopoly a Select Committee or a Commission will, no doubt, be appointed. The people know that we shall go on our way as we have in the past. The honorable member for Flinders, in his carping criticism as to the probable use of these powers, is unfair to this National Parliament. The powers for which we ask are not nearly as great as those possessed by the State Legislatures, nor comparable with those of the British Parliament. Yet this body alone is not to be trusted ! The other Parliaments will not do anything wrong ! Why are honorable members so ready to trust them? Because they contain the last citadels of Conservatism in this country where neither State nor individual rights are safe, but vested interests hope to be so. Therefore, the State Parliaments are spoken of as the depositories of all that is wise and discreet, and this as the mere scrapings of a continent. A little while ago the boot was on the other foot. When the State Parliaments were first invaded by Labour members, the cry was, " Let us erect a Parliament where the hob-nailed feet of Labour will never intrude." The honorable member for Parkes had in his mind's eye a vision beautiful and seductive - the erection of a citadel in which the hoof of Labour would never echo. 5549 10000 0 0 CHAIRMAN, The The CHAIRMAN - What has this to do with the Bill ? 5549 DQC 0 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr HUGHES - Now, honorable members speak of the invasion of State rights. But as they made a mistake before they are making a mistake now, and for the same reason. They sought to discredit the State Legislatures because they feared them, and they seek now to discredit us because they fear us. Soon there will not be one inch of vantage ground on which these unfortunates can rest, either State or Federal. Happily for us, there will be no longer room for any difference of opinion, but one power only to deal with these matters. There will be no clashing of jurisdiction, but, rather, a cordial and amiable determination to have one common joint policy to deal with these combinations when they are evil, and when they are not evil to leave them alone. 5550 KCO Angas 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN . - I quite see the force of the Attorney-General's remarks in regard to his previous references in 1906 on the question of monopolies; and I do not think honorable members thought there was any inconsistency in the view he then held . as compared with the view he has expressed this evening. But if he did hold in 1906 that it was necessary to nationalize monopolies, it renders the impolicy of his now asking for this power greater than it would be if he had only conceded the necessity now. It is evident that in 1906, when we were making our first effort to control monopolies, his policy was to assume them before even an effort was made to control them. In speaking on this measure before, I mentioned that we had never yet had a case in which our power of control under the Act of 1906, and the later Act of 1908, had been tested. This is an attempt to declare those Acts futile before they are tested ; and that shows the inexpediency of assuming the proposed power now. In America they have tested the Anti-Trust Act since 1890, and, in the majority of cases, have succeeded. We considered in 1906 that our Act was efficacious, but we amended it without trial in 1908, in order to give us power of inquiry, for the reason that it had been found in America, in connexion with the Beef Trust, that the cattle-owners were afraid to give evidence. In 1908 we passed an amending Act enabling inquiries to be made by questions to the offending parties, and that Act has never broken down - the effort to control monopolies has not failed. The HuddartParker case simply shows that the questions, when put under the corporation power, were ultra vires, because they assumed that we could control combines within the domestic power of the States. It was held that the questions were too wide as including operations within a State as well as Inter-State operations. Immediately that was found out, questions were issued within the limit of our powers, and these questions are part of the evidence to be gone into in the only test case that has been brought before the Court. We are not justified in asking for this power to assume monopolies before the power to control, which has also to be amended, has been declared to be futile. That really is the gist of the objections to this particular measure. I am glad the Attorney-General has, to some extent, justified the remarks I made to-day as to the looseness in the drafting of the clause ; and I was inclined to bet, in this week of sport, that there would be two amendments, one of which has already been foreshadowed. In respect to other parts of the drafting, I believe the power will be found to be futile in operation ; and this shows the easy-going way in which we are fundamentally amending our Constitution. Under the circumstances, I think it would be better if we had waited until the test case now before the Court had shown our incapacity to deal with trusts under our ordinary powers. I said before that I believed we had power to deal with monopolies in relation to trade and commerce, and, therefore, in relation to domestic trade and commerce, for which we are taking jurisdiction under another amendment. But we have not, probably, the power to define monopolies in relation to production, manufacture, and exchange, which are the subject of another specific amendment. The limitation of that power may have to be interpreted by the High Court. We have not the power to define monopolies for that purpose, and we may be met at the inception by the fact that there is this indefiniteness as to what " monopoly " means in the. American and English decisions. I acknowledge the difficulty of the Attorney-General, unless he takes some power of definition. In the shipping case of 1892, the Privy Council decided that the rebates, which we declared bad under the Act of 1909, were not rebates or monopolies detrimental to trade. We have declared them to be monopolies ; and that indicates the difficulty of controlling monopolies without some power of definition. We have that power in relation to trade and commerce; and I believe it would give us all the effective control we require; but when we ask for an express power to control monopolies with no definition, we may find we are rather limiting than extending our powers. 5550 KEV 0 0 FENTON, James Mr Fenton - Is it not a second string tj our bow ? 5550 KCO 0 0 GLYNN, Patrick Mr GLYNN - I do not think so. I also point out that it may be held that ' monopoly " even has a limitation from the fact that it is a term running right through these amendments. In one clause we ask for power to control in exactly the same terms as we seek power to assume ; so it will depend on what " monopoly " was at the time the amendment was passed. In this clause there is, apparently, power given to define; but it may be that the High Court will have to tell us what " monopoly " is, and the decision on the facts will be within the definition of the Court. A Judge may give a definition of a libel which is not the definition given by law, the jury deciding on the facts whether there is a libel within that definition; and if the Judge's definition is wrong the foundation of the facts goes to the wall. Possibly the fact that this is legislation on a similar, contemporaneous matter may limit our power of definition in this clause. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (by Mr. W. H. Irvine) agreed to - That after the word " purpose " the words " an just terms " be inserted. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Preamble and title agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report, by leave, adopted.. 5551 22:18:00 House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.