1936-05-20 14 1 4 REPS 1927 0 House of Representatives. Wednesday20, May Mr.Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took the chair at 3.0 p.m., and read prayers. HOUR OF MEETING. Motion (by Mr. Lyons) agreed to - That the House,at its rising, adjourn until 1 1 a.m. to-morrow. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS. Mr. JENNINGS.- I desire to make a personal explanation. Last Tuesday, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) stated that I had refused to take action upon a petition which I had received from returned soldiers who are inmates of Rand wink Military Hospital. I have received an unsolicited letter from the Coogee-Randwick sub-branch of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia, which I read only because of its request that I should do so. It reads as follows: - Mr. JohnJennings, M.P., Kensington-road, Kensington. Dear Sir, We are writing this letter on account of various statements made regarding yon and the returned soldiers of this district. We want to take this opportunity of thanking you for the manyservices you have rendered the returned soldiers and for the great interest you have always displayed in their well-being. I, as secretary of this sub-branch and club, representing, in theRandwick municipality, over 700 diggers and ex-service men, definitely state that you have at all times given every attention and inquired thoroughly into every request made to you by any returned soldier, and many returned soldiers who have not been members of either the club or the sub-branch have appealed to you and interviewed youat your home andatyour business address. I can,withwany thanks, recall the numerous occasions when you have helped our returned men in the matter of warservice homes, pensions, tram passes, funerals, and everything appertaining to returned soldiers. There is no man in public life that I know who has at all times done so much good and has spent 60 much time and money on the returned soldiers' movement. My committee has expressly asked that this letter be written and be read in Parliament 60 as to definitely repudiate and contradict the most untrue and unfair statements made regarding your good self by some gentlemen who have been misinformed as to the true facts. Thanking you and with kindest regards, Yours faithfully, Cougee-Randwick R.S. & S. Sub-Branch R.S. & S.I.L.A. G. A.RUSSELL, Secretary. I have received a further unsolicited letter, couched in similar terms, from the Marouhra-Kensington district sub-branch of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia, which comprises over 300 members. Inquiries at the Randwick Hospital disclose that no petition was sent to me, and that I was not requested to take any action in regard to one. Honorable members will thus see that a misrepresentation has occurred, and that there is no foundation for the statement of the honorable member for East Sydney. I lay on the table the letters to which I have referred. Mr.Curtin. - Does the honorable member propose to move " That the papers be printed"? Mr. JENNINGS.-No. Mr.Curtin. - Is the honorable member in order in laying the paper on the table. Mr. SPEAKER.- The honorable member is not in order in doing so. Mr. JOHNLAWSON.- I desire to make a personal explanation following upon statements made in this House last Tuesday, by the honorable members for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) and Lang (Mr. Mulcahy), alleging that a petition signed by certain tubercular soldiers had been forwarded to me and that I had failed to give it proper attention. I have received an unsolicited letter bearing the signature of the representative of past and present tubercular soldiers at Wentworth Palls Sanatorium. It reads: - It was with regret I read Mr. Ward's allegations in reference to the petition. 1 understand that there was a petition signed at Randwick and other hospitals, but from what I could learn it apparently went astray. Of course, there was only one man, Dwyer, that complained, and had he paid attention to what was being done by attending the meetings, the unfortunate incident would not have taken place. I have taken the necessary steps to acquaint Mr. Ward of his error, and trust the matter will be put in order insofar as you are concerned . . ' . Once again, we deeply regret the incident and trust you will do what you can for us notwithstanding. I may say that I have now received a petition from this man- Mr. SPEAKER.- Order ! The honorable member is entitled to explain only wherein he has been misrepresented. PAPERS. The following papers were presented : - Postmaster-General's Department - Twentyfifth Annual Report, 1934-35. Victorian Taxpayers' Association - Correspondence with the Treasurer of the Commonwealth. Contract Immigrants Act - Return foryear 1935. Nationality Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 48. Public Service Act - Appointment ofF. C Avdall, Department of Commerce. MIGRATION. Mr. CURTIN.-I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that the Attorney-General (Mr. Menziea) and the Minister for Commerce (Dr. Earle Page) have had conversations with British Ministers in respect of the subject of migration generally, and in particular whether there is any foundation for the statement that, as the result of the discussions, communications have passed between London and Canberra? Can the right honorable gentleman make a statement concerning the nature of any discussions which may have taken place? Mr. LYONS.- I know of no such conversations. There may have been some discussion, of which I have no knowledge; but, if so, no communications have passed between the two Ministers mentioned and the Government in regard to the matter. FARMERS' DEBT ADJUSTMENT. Mr. FRANCIS.-Under the Loan (Farmers' Debt Adjustment) Act 1935, the sum of £12,000,000 was made available to the States for the relief of necessitous farmers. Will the Acting Minister for Commerce give the amounts that have been paid in each State? Mr. THORBY.-The amounts areNew South Wales, £25,000; Victoria, £50,000; Queensland, nil; South Australia, £10,000; Western Australia, £50,000; and Tasmania, £12,000, making a total of £147,000. ALLEGED EVASION OF TAX. Mr. WARD.- I ask the Treasurer whether he is aware that Mr. L. O.Martin, Minister of J ustice in New South Wales, mentioned in the Legislative Assembly of that State, in reply to a question, on the 13th May last, that, the State Crown Solicitor had been instructed by the Commissioner of Taxation to recover from a judge of one of the State courts, amounts aggregating £1,180 14s. 7d., made up of £550 17s. Federal tax, £561 5s. 8d. State tax, and £6911s. 8d. wages tax? Will the honorable gentleman inform the House as to whether or not it is true that a judge of the State of New South Wales owes an amount of £550 17s. on account of federal income tax, and will he mention the name of the defaulting judge? Mr. CASEY.- I have no information on the matter referred to, and, by reason of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act, have no authority to disclose information concerning any taxpayer unless empowered by him to do so. Mr.WARD. - Is Mr. Justice Brown, a judge in the Industrial Court of New South "Wales, who recently reduced women's wages by1s. 6d. a week, the judge against whom it is proposed to take action to recover federal taxes? Mr. CASEY.- I have no information on the subject. FEDERAL TAXATION. Mr. E.J. HARRISON. - Will the Treasurer inform the House as to whether there is any truth in the press statement that the Premiers of the States made urgent representations to him, as chairman of the Loan Council, regarding the reduction of federal taxation? Mr. CASEY.- No reference whatever was made to that subject by the State Premiers at the meeting of the Loan Council. NEW LOAN ISSUE. Mr. CURTIN.- I ask the Treasurer whether it is a fact that the Loan Council has agreed to raise a loan of £9,000,000, at an effective interest rate to the investor which is higher than has ruled over the last four years? Mr. CASEY.-The Loan Council has agreed, with the Commonwealth Bank as underwriters, to the issue of a loan of £9,000,000, at an interest rate of 3¾ per cent., the price of issue to be £98 10s., and the term of the loan fifteen years. The effective yield of about £3 17s. 6d. is very close to the present-day yield of comparable Commonwealth bonds. I am sure that the honorable member has knowledge of the movement which has taken place in the yield from Government bonds over the last four years. Mr. BAKER.- In view of the fact that members of the Loan Council, when raising loan money for the purpose of benefiting their particular instrumentalities, are forced to accept the financial dictatorship of the Commonwealth Bank Board- Mr. SPEAKER.-Order ! Mr. BAKER.- Would it be possible in future, instead of putting the country to the cumbersome, expensive and futile procedure- Mr. SPEAKER.- Order ! The honorable member must ask his question without so definitely conveying his own opinion. Mr. BAKER.- Of holding a meeting of the Loan Council, for the instructions of the Commonwealth Bank Board to be obtained by telegraph? Mr. CASEY.-The honorable member's question is based on false premises, and, in any event, does not warrant a serious reply. Mr.FISKEN. - Will the Treasurer state whether it is true, as the press reports, that the Loan Council asked the Commonwealth Bank to underwrite a loan of £12,000,000, and that this request was refused? Mr. CASEY.- No request from the Loan Council to the Commonwealth Bank Board to underwrite a loan of £12,000,000 was ever made. Mr. McEWEN.- Is the Treasurer able to inform the House whether it is the intention of the Commonwealth Bank to sub-let portion of the underwriting of the forthcoming Commonwealth loan to financial institutions? If so, is it the opinion of the Loan Council that such action is necessary or advisable? Mr. CASEY.- As far as I am aware, the Commonwealth Bank will sub-let portion of the underwriting of the loan to trading banks and insurance companies, as it did in the case of the last loan. The matter was not discussed specifically by the Loan Council on this occasion. It merely adopted the same practice as was adopted for the last loan. Mr. BAKER.-In view of the fact that the effective rate on Government bonds has increased from £3 8s. 5d. per cent. in June last, to £3 17s. 2d. on the loan authorized this week - an increase of 23 per cent. in less than twelve months - and as it is suggested that an increase of the present loan by £1,000,000 to £10,000,000, would mean an increase of the interest rate to 4 per cent., will the Government consider using the wide powers it possesses to prevent any further vise of interest, and the consequent re-institution of a policy of deflation? Mr. CASEY.-No. BROADCASTING. Licence Fee - Artists. Mr. LANE.- In view of the large surplus derived from wireless broadcasting licence fees, and the slight encouragement given to Australian artists who are engaged by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General consider the advisability of lowering the licence fee to 15s. per annum or, alternatively, ask the commission to give greater encouragement to Australian artists in the provision of original programmes? Mr. ARCHDALEPARKHILL- I shall have very much pleasure in bringing both matters to the notice of the Postmaster-General, for whatever recommendation he may think fit to make. OVERSEAS AIR MAIL. Mr. CLARK.-Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General state when the contract for the delivery of air mails from Cootamundra will expire, and whether it is possible to make arrangements for the delivery from Narromine? Mr. ARCHDALEPARKHILL.- The contract of the Butler Air Transport Company for the CootamundraCharleville air service will expire on the 9th December, 1939, a period of five years from the date of the inauguration 'of the service, the 10th December, 1934. BRISBANE SUBURBAN POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS. Sir DONALDCAMERON. - C an the Minister representing the Postmaster-General indicate when the postal arrangements in rotation to the suburbs of Brisbane are likely to be improved by providing, for instance, a second delivery each day? Mr. ARCHDALEPARKHILL.- The repeated representations of the honorable member on this matter have led to inquiries being made into it. I am hopeful that a decision satisfactory to him will shortly be made and announced. ITALO- ABYSSINIAN DISPUTE. Sanctions - Treatment of Natives. Mr. FORDE.- Has any communication been received from the British Government in relation to the continuance or otherwise of sanctions against Italy? If so, what is the nature of these communications ? Mr. CASEY.- No information on this subject has been received either from the British Government or from, as would be more proper, the Australian representative on the Council of the League of Nations. Mr. ROSEVEAR.-Has the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs noticed in the press a statement that since the Italian troops have entered Addis Ababa, thousands of natives have been butchered? Has the Minister any authentic information as to the correctness or otherwise of that statement? Mr. CASEY.-The Government has no information either supporting or denying it. PARLIAMENTARY SESSION. Mr. HAWKER-Is it still the intention of the Government to advise His Excellency the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament at the end of the current sittings? If so, has the Government yet decided the date on which the advice will be tendered to His Excellency? Mr. LYONS.-No. We are unable to terminate the session definitely at the time we, perhaps, hoped we might, when I replied to a question asked on this subject by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory). The reasons will be apparent to honorable members, I think, before this week's sitting is out. RACE HORSES. Importation from India. Mr. JENNINGS.- Has any decision been reached by the Minister for Trade and Customs, following representations I made to him last week on behalf of Mr. J. Higgins, of India, and gentlemen associated with the Australian Jockey Club, Randwick, regarding permission being granted for horses from India to be brought into this country to compete at race meetings? Mr. WHITE.- I sent a letter on this subject to the honorable member this morning. It is a matter not for the Customs Department, but for the Health Department, as it concerns quarantine. Accordingly, the request has been passed on to the Minister for Health. TASMANIAN SHIPPING SERVICE. Replacement of SS. " Taroona ". Mr. BARNARD.-Can the Prime Minister indicate whether a steamer is yet available to replace the SS. Taroona, which has been removed from the Bass Strait service as the result of damages sustained by it? What amount of weekly subsidy is being paid to the company whilst the service is being maintained by one vessel? Mr. LYONS.- I have been in touch with the shipping company in Melbourne in connexion with this matter, and I have pressed it to obtain another boat to replace the SS. Taroona while she is laid aside. The company is considering the matter at the present time, but it has indicated that very great difficulties present themselves in the replacement of the vessel. I was informed to-day that the company is still considering the matter, but hopes to make an early statement in regard to it. In the meantime, the SS. Nairma is carrying on the service that was formerly carried out by both vessels. As to the amount of subsidy that is being paid, I shall obtain the information required. COUNTRY TELEPHONE SERVICES. Mr. GREGORY.- Have the small unit automatic telephones, which have been installed in certain country districts, been successful, and is it the intention to introduce the same system in other country centres ? Mr. ARCHDALEPARKHILL. - I shall obtain a statement supplying all the information sought by the honorable member. CITRUS FRUITS. Trade with New Zealand. Mr. JOHNLAWSON.- Has the Commonwealth Government made any further representations to the Government of New Zealand in respect of the embargo upon the importation of Australian citrus fruits into New Zealand? If so, is the Acting Minister for Commerce able to inform the House as to the result of such representations ? Mr. THORBY.-I have already informed the House that the invitation extended to the Minister for Agriculture for New Zealand to attend the meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council in Canberra at the end of this month could not be accepted, as it was impossible for the Minister concerned to leave New Zealand. Immediately that information was received, a complete statement of the facts in connexion with each fruit concerned in the embargo was prepared, and it has been forwarded by the Prime Minister of Australia to the Prime Minister of New Zealand. CRIPPLED CHILDREN. Sister Kenny's Methods of Treatment. Mr.FORDE. - Is the Minister for Health in a position to make available to honorable members the promised report of the Health Department on the methods employed by Sister Kenny in the treatment of infantile paralysis? Mr. HUGHES.- The report mentioned by the honorable member is the report of the medical committee which has been observing cases in Sister Kenny's clinic at North Sydney. The report is to hand, and I have read it very carefully. This morning I went through it with the Commonwealth Director-General of Health, Dr. Cumpston, and I hope to make a statement to the House with regard to it to-morrow. JAPAN AND AUSTRALIAN WOOL. Mr. STREET.-Has the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties any information as to whether the recommendation which it was reported would be made by the Japanese tariff committee for a 12½ per cent. duty on wool has yet been made? SIR HENRY GULLETT.- We have had no intimation to that effect from the Japanese Government. COLOURED BOXERS. Mr. LANE.- Having regard to the serious injuries sustained by Australian boxers as the result of the butting methods employed by coloured boxers visiting Australia, will the Government consider the advisability of excluding these coloured men from Australia? Mr. PATERSON.-Coloured boxers are only permitted to come into Australia for short periods under exemption certificates, and, to my mind, there is no reason to' depart from the existing practice. AVIATION. Airport at .Fishermen's Bend. Mr. HOLT.- In view of the importance of aviation development to Australia, will the Minister for Defence state whether any progress has been made by the Commonwealth Government with the Victorian Government towards acquiring the Fishermen's Bend site for an airport? Mr. ARCHDALEPARKHILL. - The importance of acquiring a site of this nature, in view of the importance of Melbourne, has long been before the Commonwealth Government. I took the opportunity to-day to impress on the Premier of Victoria that this Parliament and this Government are definitely in favour of an airport at Fishermen's Bend. I have arranged to submit the whole of the facts to the Premier of Victoria, who has. promised to give further consideration to the matter. Mr. HAWKER.- Will the Minister for Defence not only consider the question of obtaining a more central site for an airport in Melbourne, but also make the matter a general one and approach the various Governments of States where the airports of the capital cities are not centrally situated, in an endeavour to obtain their co-operation in finding sites more convenient and more favorable from a commercial point of view? I refer more particularly to Adelaide, but if the same disabilities are felt in the other States, the Minister should lose no time in having sites selected before they are applied to other purposes. Mr. ARCHDALEPARKHILL.- I shall have very much pleasure in giving attention to the matter at once. SERVICE PENSIONS. Mr. JENNINGS.- Will the Minister for Repatriation ascertain whether a deduction of 5s. weekly is made from the pensions of ex-service men in military hospitals? If this is so, will he make investigations with a view to adjusting the position? Mr. HUGHES.- The point raised by the honorable member comes to me as a surprise. I. can only say that I shall get in touch with the Commissioner at once to ascertain the facts, 'and shall let the honorable member and the House have the necessary information to-morrow. Mr. BEASLEY.-Will -the Minister for Repatriation take steps to adjust immediately an anomaly arising out of the fact that service pensions are being refused to applicants already in receipt of invalid pensions, but who, the department claims, are not unemployable? Is the department taking any steps to remedy this position, which seems to be due to misinterpretation of either the act or the regulations? Mr. HUGHES.- The point raised by the honorable member for West Sydney is one of great importance, and the Government has been giving it serious consideration. Experts representing- the Department of Repatriation and the Pensions Department have been in collaboration, and the honorable member will be glad to know that, as the result, arrangements have been made whereby a pension already being received by an applicant will not be taken into consideration when assessing his income in order to determine the amount of another pension. Thus, if a man or his wife is in receipt of an invalid pension, and the man applies for a service pension, the invalid pension will not now be taken into consideration when determining the amount of service pension he shall receive. Thus, the anomaly to which the honorable member has directed, the attention of the House, exists no longer. CUSTOMS TARIFF 1936. Bill returned from the Senate with requests. EXCISE TARIFF 1936. Bill returned from the Senate without requests. CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) 1936. Bill returned from the Senate without requests. DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1936. Motion (by Mr. Thorby) agreed to - That he have leave to tiring in a bill for an act to amend sections eight, fourteen and fifteen of the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924-1035. Bill brought up, and read a first time. WOOL PUBLICITY AND RESEARCH BILL 1936. Motion (by Mr. Thorby) agreed to - That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to make provision for improving the quality and increasing the production and use of wool. Bill brought up, and read a first time. WOOL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1936. Motion (by Mr. Thorby) agreed to - That lie have leave to bring in a bill for an act relating to the imposition, assessment and collection of a tax upon wool grown in Australia and shorn on or after the first day of June, One thousand nine hundred and thirtysix. Bill brought up, and read a first time. ARBITRATION (PUBLIC SERVICE) BILL 1936. Second Reading. Mr. HUGHES(North SydneyMinister representing the Acting Attorney-General) [3.38]. - I move - That the bill be now read a second time. Seeing that this bill, and the Commonwealth Railways Bill 1936, relate to cognate matters, have I permission to include in my speech references to that measure ? It is desired that the two bills may be debated together. Mr. SPEAKER.- The Minister and members who follow him may discuss the two bills. Mr. HUGHES.-These bills propose to effect an alteration of the law relating to the tribunal which is to decide rates of wages and conditions of employment of employees in the 'Commonwealth Department, of Railways, other than per sons employed in a clerical capacity. The history of the struggle for a determination by an industrial tribunal of rates of wages and conditions of employment of railway employees in Australia is a long and interesting one, and, as it bears directly upon the measures before the House, I may be permitted briefly to review it. In 1904, when the first Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act was before Parliament, Mr. Andrew Fisher moved to include railway employees. The Government of the day strongly opposed the amendment. It was carried, and the Government was. defeated ; the provision was embodied in. the statute, and became law. In 1906, however, the constitutionality of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth court to deal with employees of State, railways came before the High Court in the case of the Federated Amalgamated Government Railways and Tramways Service Association v. The New South "Wales Railways Traffic Employees Association; and the court held that the inclusion of railway employees was invalid. In 1911, the first Constitution alteration proposals were submitted to the people by the Labour Government of that day, and these included provisions giving Parliament power te legislate in respect of industrial disputes extending beyond a State, including disputes on State railways. Those proposals were rejected, by the people by a large majority. In 1913, second proposals for the alteration of the Constitution were submitted by the same Government, and on this occasion six bills were placed before the people, one of which provided for a jurisdiction for the settlement of disputes on State railways. Again the proposals were rejected, but by smaller majorities; the proposal relating to employees on State railways was- rejected by a majority of only 54,000, which represented about 1.74 per cent. The matter was not again referred to the people by way of referendum. The High Court, in the Engineers case, in 1920, rejected the principle upon which the High Court, then constituted of Chief Justice Griffith, Mr. Justice Barton and Mr. Justice O'Connor, had decided in 1906 against Mie validity of the inclusion of railway employees, and held that the Parliament had jurisdiction, and that the Arbitration Court could deal with disputes arising in connexion with 'State railways. It will be noted that the High Court thus decided that the power which the people had been asked to give was already possessed by the Parliament, and the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration proceeded to exercise that power. In 1930, the question of the validity of the court's jurisdiction in this matter was brought specifically before the High Court, in the case of Australian Railways Union v. Victorian . Railways Commissioners, and it was held that this was a valid exercise of its power. I have been dealing with the principle of the fixation of wages and working conditions on "railways, the property of a State. I have reminded honorable members that the movement for the establishment of an independent tribunal for the purpose of fixing rates of wages and determining conditions of employment on State railways had continued over a number of years, and that when, at last, the right had been established, it was eagerly availed of. I now come to the fixation of wages and conditions of employment of Commonwealth railway workers. In 1911 the first Public .Service (Arbitration) Act was passed : this act established a tribunal for the settlement of disputes and the fixation of wages and conditions of employment of all Commonwealth public servants. The tribunal selected under that act was the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and it was given power to deal with intra-state, as well as interstate, disputes. All Commonwealth public servants, whether temporary or permanent employees, were eligible, and whether covered by the Commonwealth Public Service Act or not, were included in the act. The only exceptions were members of the naval and military forces. In 1920, a second Public- Service (Arbitration) Act was passed, which set up an entirely new tribunal, constituted of a Public Service Arbitrator. It transferred all pending cases, except part-heard cases, from the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to the Public Service Arbitrator's court, and provided that its jurisdiction should apply to Commonwealth railway employees In 1917, when the Commonwealth railways were established, the rates of wages and the conditions of employment were determined by the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. At that time there was no other court to which the employees could apply. The Public Service (Arbitration) Act 1911 enabled them, as - I have explained, to invoke the special jurisdiction of that court. But upon the passage of the Public Service (Arbitration) Act 1920, the special jurisdiction of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, which enabled it to deal with intrastate, as' well as interstate, disputes, was swept away, and Commonwealth railways employees could not, under the 1911 act, get to the Arbitration Court a"t all, although they still enjoyed the same rights as other citizens, and could go to the Arbitration Court in its ordinary jurisdiction. I now come to the point round which this debate must* turn. In 1911, as I have said, a tribunal had been set up which enabled the public servants of the Commonwealth to appeal for' the settlement of disputes, and for the determination of rates of wages and conditions of employment, to the Arbitration Court, which had a special jurisdiction for this purpose. In 1920, a new tribunal entirely was set up, consisting of the Public Service Arbitrator, whose jurisdiction was confined to disputes among Commonwealth public servants. From 1917, when the Commonwealth railways were opened, to 1935 - a period of eighteen years - the employees had the option of going either to the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, or to the Public Service Arbitrator. For eighteen years, these employees, with the exception of the clerical staff, elected to submit their disputes to, and obtain redress of their grievances from the Arbitration Court, and completely ignored the Public Service Arbitrator. The one section of the railway service which did not do this was that engaged in a clerical capacity. They, from the beginning, appealed to the Public Service Arbitrator, and not to the Arbitration 'Court. We must assume that the organizations of Commonwealth public servants employed on. the railways of Australia knew their own business, and held the view that their interests were best served by the submission of their claims to the court to which the great majority of railway men looked for redress. In any case, for eighteen years they went to the Arbitration Court; but, on the 19th December, 1935, three weeks prior to the expiration of the period for which an award made by Judge Drake-Brockman was expressed to apply, the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen lodged a memorial with the Public Service Arbitrator. On the 8th January, 1936, the Commonwealth Railway Commissioner filed a claim in the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration relating to the conditions of employment of members of not only the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen, but also the Australian Workers Union, the Metal Trades Employees Union, the Wood Workers Union, and other organizations, ten in all. The compulsory conference arising out of this claim was held at Adelaide on the 17th January, Judge Drake-Brockman presiding. The Judge referred the dispute into court, but, at he request of some of the unions, a conference was held at Port Augusta, from the 25th to the 27th February, when an agreement; on the matters in dispute was arrived at with four of the organizations, the dispute as effecting the remaining organizations, including the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen, being referred into court. The hearing of this case commenced at Port Augusta on the 22nd April last, and the proceedings were adjourned, pending the result of the proposed legislation. This brings us to the present position. The whole of the facts have been stated, excepting the effect of the Statute Law Revision Act. The purpose of that measure, as honorable members may recall, was to deal with various obsolete acts, and to make drafting amendments in certain statutes. It was not intended to make any substantive amendments of the law, nor did the department, or the Minister in charge of the measure, understand that any such amendments had, in fact, been made. As far as T know, this happy ignorance of the effect of such an ill-regulated gesture was unknown even to the unions themselves, although about that the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) will be able to speak with greater assurance than I. What the Statute Law Revision Act did was very simple; it struck out the three words " under that Act " which had appeared in the 1920 act limiting the right of public servants to appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration under that act, and by doing so completely barred the public servants1 approach to the Arbitration Court. That was not intended, and the object of this amending bill is to restore to that extent the position as it was prior to the passing of the Statute Law Revision Act 1934. To summarize the position as it now exists: For eighteen years the employees of the Commonwealth Railways have had th« option to go either to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration or to the Public Service Arbitrator. They have gone continuously and regularly to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration and never to the Public Service Arbitrator. In 1935, within three weeks of the termination of the current award, they submitted a memorial to the Public Service Arbitrator, and the Commissioner, as he was entitled to do, filed a plaint in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court called a conference, and, in the case of four unions, brought the parties into' agreement. No agreement was reached in the case of other unions, and the judge referred the matter to the Arbitration Court. It is to be noted that, at the time when the Locomotive Engine-men filed » plaint before the Public Service Arbitrator, they were approaching the only tribunal to which they had access as the result, of the unfortunate operation of the Statute Law Revision Act. Theirs was the only union prevented from approaching the Arbitration Court. Al] the other unions could have approached, and con now approach, the Arbitration Court. When the conference took place in February it was open to every union, except the Locomotive Engine-men, to go to the Arbitration Court. Only one union was stopped from doing so. The object of this legislation is to secure uniformity by restoring the conditions that have existed for the last eighteen years; conditions which have always had the full support of the railway men themselves. At any rate we are justified in assuming that the railway men, during those long years, were satisfied that they were receiving substantial justice at the hands of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Mr. Makin.- That is very doubtful. Mr. HUGHES.-I do not suggest for a moment that they had. all their desires granted to them - it is the lot of man not to get all that he desires - but they had the right to go before a court which determines the conditions, rates of wages and conditions of employment of 65 per cent, of the railway men of Australia, and because they elected to go to that court we must assume that they thought that it was a court which would give them a fair deal. What is the object of arbitration? As I conceive it, the principle underlying it, certainly the principle that moved the late Andrew Fisher to bring forward his amendment, and the principle which moved this Government to bring in the present legislation, and past governments, to introduce the amending arbitration acts of 1911 and 1920, and the modifications made from time to time, was an effort to find some better way for the settlement of disputes between employer and employee than resort to force. In order that that might be done, two things were necessary, the first of which was that the men should receive such reasonable wages and be employed under such reasonable conditions as would permit them to enjoy a fair share of the amenities of the state of civilization in which they found themselves, and the second that although a government-controlled railway service is entirely divorced from the capitalistic system inside which it operates, it is an integral part of the industrial system of Australia, and its efficient, economic and harmonious operation depends upon the rates and conditions fixed by the court or tribunal. The railways of Australia are run for the benefit and convenience of the public; .rates and conditions must therefore not only be such as to be fair and reasonable to the employees but also permit of the economic and efficient operation of the service. And it must not be forgotten that the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner has to compete with sea-borne traffic. Further, since the Commonwealth Railways are part of the railway system of Australia, rates and conditions should be, as far as possible, uniform. The employees on our railways must have reasonable rates and conditions, but every one who has had dealings with unions knows that the most potent cause of unrest is differential treatment. While, therefore, the workers must get a fair return for their labour, it is essential that the conditions, as far as possible, should be uniform. How can that uniformity be best assured? By the Arbitration Court, which the party opposite ever since this Parliament was established, believed to be the most effective means for the settlement of disputes and the most efficiently equipped to bring about harmonious and smooth-working in industry, or by the Public Service Arbitrator who has had no experience of railway working and who is not familiar with the conditions obtaining on State railways. Mr. Beasley.- The right honorable gentleman will not say that industry has not been working smoothly for many years. Mr. HUGHES.- What I am trying to ascertain is whether the better tribunal before which these men can go is the Commonwealth Arbitration Court or the Public .Service Arbitrator. It is perfectly true that the railway men of Western Australia and Queensland do not go before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court; they prefer their State industrial tribunals; but the point I emphasize is that all workers in those two States can go to the State industrial tribunals, whereas only Commonwealth public servants can go before the Public Service Arbitrator. His jurisdiction is specialized ; access to him is denied to the ordinary worker. I contend that what is good enough for the railway worker employed by the South Australian Government should be good enough for the worker in the Commonwealth railwaysservice. Mr. Makin.- It is a different situation altogether. Mr. HUGHES.- The point I am making is that a jurisdiction, which is good enough for the railway worker in a State should be good enough for the worker in the Commonwealth railways; a jurisdiction which has been good enough for Commonwealth railway employees for eighteen years, and which they themselves selected, ought to be good enough for them now. Since the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) has seen fit to interject, I propose now to quote what the honorable member said in a former incarnation. Dealing with the Arbitration (Public Service) Bill, on the 7th September, 1920, the honorable member is reported in Hansard, volume XCIII., page 4238, to have said - I have never been able to understand, or see any justification for, governments making laws in respect of private employers and employees, and being unwilling at the same time to include themselves and their employees within the scope of the same set of laws, lt is an inconsistency. It is an inconsistency ! There arc laws made for compulsory observance by private individuals, but the Government which has made those laws is unprepared to apply them to itself and to those whom it employs. Concerning the question whether any proof is forthcoming that the main body of our public servants do not desire to be withdrawn from the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, I hold in my hand a document which represents the endorsement of that view by 30,000 public servants. A Daniel come to judgment ! Not only has the subject matter of this document come before the executives of the various associations concerned, but it has been considered and approved also by the branches themselves. This memorandum was drawn up after due consideration, and as I have said has received branch as well as executive endorsement. It will be well for the Government, and honorable members generally, to heed the requests of this considerable body of public officials who desire to secure and retain no more than their just dues. That was a strong body of opinion, because there were 30,000 public servants, and they demanded access, not to the Public Service Arbitrator, but to the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Mr. Makin.- Sixteen years of experience have changed that view. Mr. HUGHES.- I am reminding the honorable member of what he himself said, because, after all, it bears on this matter. 1 must be permitted to quote from another authority who has been strangely silent so far, but who, no doubt, will be moved to retort. I refer to the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan), who is reported in Hansard, of the 7th September, 1920, volume XCIII., page 425S, to have said - "... My view is that the existing machinery of the Arbitration Act, giving equal justice - 'Which is ail we ask - to members of the Public Service exactly as to others outside the service, has been an automatic correction of the autocracy of the Public Service Coinmissioner on the one hand, while at the same time preventing undue influence upon the working of the Public Service. That was as nearly an ideal set of conditions as one could hope for : and those conditions were in existence when the repeal of the Arbitration Act, in its relation to the Public Service, was proposed, and the enactment of thu new measure was proceeded with .... . . . I sum up my objections to it in these words: - That this bill represents an attempt to segregate public servants unfairly; that it will put them under the jurisdiction of an arbitrator, who will be little more than an officer of the Public Service, who by reason of his tenure and position, will practically be a political representative, and who cannot be expected, in the circumstances to administer broad, even handed justice to all members of the service in that spirit in which the High Court Judges are prepared to administer justice, both to the members of the Public Service and to ordinary members of the community. And, in saying that of the members of the High Court Bench, I am not unmindful that these judges cannot be accused of undue Labour sympathies.". I do not know that the argument could have been put more effectively than in those two citations. Mr. Brennan.- I am amazed at my own conclusiveness. Mr. HUGHES.- We have to consider whether any substantial injustice is likely to be done to the Commonwealth railway employees by the passage of these cognate measures. In my opinion, such a contention is absurd, for the railway employees are only being put where they have chosen to be for the last eighteen years, and where the employees of all the .State railway systems, excepting those of Queensland' and Western Australia, are to-day. I come now to a consideration in respect of which I have a good deal in common with honorable gentlemen of the Opposition. Ever since I have been a member of this Parliament, I have struggled to secure uniform industrial conditions and uniform industrial control. I was under the impression that honorable gentlemen opposite believed strongly that the basic wage and standard hours of work should be fixed by one court for the whole of Australia. We shall turn our backs on that policy if we close the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to the railway workers of the Common wealth. Admittedly, the court is not perfect. Being composed of judges with human limitations, it is not likely to satisfy everybody, but by reason of its long experience and familiarity with the details of our railway services it is likely to do more to effect, uniformity than any other authority. Mr. Holloway.- Uniformity has not yet been achieved. Mr. HUGHES.-That may be so, but this is the first time I have heard the honorable gentleman raise his voice in favour of a tribunal which would prevent the achievement of uniformity. To-day 65 per cent. of the railway employees of Australia are under the authority of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Mr. Barnard.- But a 40-hour week has not yet been achieved. Mr. HUGHES.- The Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator has jurisdiction over only 1,500 railway men, and he will not be able to do anything effective to securea uniform 40-hour week. Mr. Holloway.-The fact remains that after eighteen years of effort uniformity has not been achieved in our railway services. Mr. HUGHES.- But we are moving towards it all the time, and the passage of these bills would be a step further in that direction. We are not likely to do anything useful to that end by removing the Commonwealth railway employees from the jurisdiction of the court. I remind honorable gentlemen that the Public Service Arbitrator has jurisdiction over only Commonwealth public servants. The honorable member for Hindmarsh and the honorable member for Batman referred in the extracts which I cited a few moments ago to what they described in general terms as an invidious and undesirable distinction between Commonwealth public servants and other workers in the community. Commonwealth public servants are entitled to justice, but not to special privileges denied other workers. All should be on the same footing. What substantial injustice, if any, was done under the terms of Judge Drake-Brockman's award? I decline to entertain the suggestion that honorable gentlemen opposite are influenced by a spiritual urge and considerations of abstract justice to place the railway employees under another court. The organization with . which the honorable member for Maribyrnong is connected consists of about 120 or 130 members. Probably they consider that they could get better terms from the Public Service Arbitrator than from the Commonwealth Arbitration Court - and it is human nature to struggle for the best possible terms. But, if that is the situation, let us not talk about abstract justice. Mr. Drakeford.-The union with which I am connected is not the only one which supports our view. Mr. HUGHES.- But the honorable gentleman's union is the ringleader in this case. The Australian Workers Union and the other industrial organizations involved would not have thought of taking this course had not the honorable member's union suggested it. The other unions have said, in effect. "We will not let you stand alone; we will give you a hand." I am told that one objection to Judge Drake-Brockman's award' is that it does not embody provision for a district allowance. The judge, so I am informed, declined to include such a provision in the award, on the ground that it was the responsibility of the Railways Commissioner to deal with such a matter. I do not propose either to justify or attack the award in that regard; but it is a fact that the Commissioner has used his discretion in a way not detrimental to the men. He has adopted the existing allowances. Mr. Drakeford.-But he did so only after the men threatened to cease work. Mr. HUGHES.-The fact is that the district allowances have been adopted. We need not concern ourselves at the moment how that result was achieved. There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with butter. It has been argued that the adoption of the district allowance provisions by the Commissioner is unsatisfactory, because no sense of continuity is thereby secured. I therefore have pleasure in advising' honorable members that these provisions have now been embodied in a by-law, which having received Executive approval, is, therefore, part of the fabric of our legislation, and so beyond the Commissioner's power to alter. One other point must be considered, although we cannot deal in detail with all the issues involved. It has been suggested to me that the Public Service Arbitrator is more likely to grant long-service leave to railway employees than is the Arbitration Court. I do not know what ground there is for that contention. I have never been brought into direct personal touch with the railway employees of the Commonwealth, although I was a member of a government which had a good deal to do with them years ago; but, so far as I know, long-service leave has never been asked for by the Commonwealth railway employees. Mr. Drakeford.- It has been asked for on many occasions, and has always been refused. Mr. HUGHES.-The Commonwealth Government realizes the desirability of giving general recognition to what it believes to be the view of this Parliament, that the Commonwealth railways are the people's property, and should be run in accordance with the conditions of, and complementary to, the railway systems of the various States. It also feels that wage rates and hours of labour should, as far as possible, be on a uniform scale and compatible with the standards which should apply in a highlycivilized community. The rates of wages and the conditions of work are for the Arbitration Court to determine; but I have ascertained that long service leave is generally granted, not by courts, but by Parliament. The Government has considered this subject, and I am authorized to say that steps will be taken to extend to Commonwealth railway employees the long-service leave conditions applicable to the railway service of Western Australia, which, I understand, are the most liberal in the Commonwealth, and provide for three months' long-service leave after ten years' service, an additional three months' leave after the next ten years' service, and an additional three months' leave after the next seven years' service. To meet the two points that have been raised, steps will be taken, first, to embody the district allowance conditions in the award, and, secondly, to provide for long-service leave by other appropriate action. It would be difficult for honorable gentlemen opposite to obtain such satisfactory concessions by any other means. If a choice has to be made between the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and the Public Service Arbitrator's tribunal, the weight of argument is in favour of the court, which is the supreme industrial tribunal of the Commonwealth, and is, in effect, an industrial legislature. The awards of the court cannot be overridden in any State. In fact, no power in the Commonwealth can override them. Mr. Blackburn.- Except the power of the Public Service Arbitrator. Mr. HUGHES.- The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration has power to make industrial laws of more far-reaching effect than any laws made by this Parliament, for anything that touches the wages or affects the conditions of the workers goes right home to the workers. The judges of the court are appointed for life, are independent of political censure, and are indifferent to political praise. The Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator occupies a very different position. He is appointed for a term; his is in fact a political appointment. His decision may be challenged and vetoed by one branch of this legislature, and, as honorable members know, it has been vetoed on several occasions. There is no factor which would induce any reasonable body of men to entrust their fortunes to a tribunal of that character, when there is available to them the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The Arbitrator has had no experience of railway conditions : his determination, instead of allaying discontent, will provoke it. After much labour, we are approaching Port Pirie. Shortly - I speak prayerfully and earnestly - an engine will enter that station on the 4 ft. 8½ in. gauge. On the one side will be the triumphant engine-driver of the Commonwealth train, and on the other side the arrogant, contemptuous driver of the South Australian train. As they are doing the same kind of work, should they not receive the same pay? If they do not, trouble is bound to occur. Should not the same tribunal fix their rates of pay and the conditions of their employment? A sober survey of the situation will convince anybody of the desirability of what I am maintaining. Mr.Drakeford. - Conditions enjoyed by other public servants should not be denied to them. Mr. HUGHES.- I am a Commonwealth public servant, and so is the honorable member.' Should they be given what we receive? If not, why not? Mr.Drakeford. - They should receive what all other Commonwealth public servants are given. I instance post office employees, and the clerical section of the railways service. Mr. HUGHES.-The clerical section of the railways service found that it had most in common with the Public Service Arbitrator, whom it has approached for eighteen years. His jurisdiction extends over the whole of the Public Service, and embraces about 35,000 officers, at least 33,000 of whom are engaged in clerical and professional work. His functions are confined within limits which are fixed by statute and by regulation. The circumstances of the Public Service generally differ entirely from those of the railways service. The railways earn revenue, but the Public Service has only to spend it. I shall not detain the House longer. I commend the measure to honorable members, not only by reason of what it is in itself, but also because of the garlands with which I have decked it. I hope that it will be approved of without unduly long discussion. Mr. DRAKEFORD(Maribyrnong) [4.35]. - I appreciate the remarks of the right honorable gentleman in regard to the offer to apply long-service leave on the Western Australian basis. I have no wish to depreciate the value of that concession. I point out, however, that if the men had had their, rights, it would have been granted to them long ago. The right honorable gentleman has suggested that they should have asked for it. They have not only sought it from the Commissioner, who had the power to grant it, but have also asked the courts to make an award' in relation to it. Mr. Justice Powers stated clearly and definitely that the matter was one for either the Parliament or the employer to decide. The employer in this case, notwithstanding the fact that he is a large employer within Commonwealth Government's jurisdiction, denied the men this right which is granted to practically all other employees of the Government, and to the salaried section of the Commonwealth railways. The right honorable gentleman suggested that the men had gone to the court willingly for a period of eighteen years. On the last occasion the Commonwealth Commissioner of Railways took them there ; they did not go of their own volition. As I proceed I shall endeavour to correct the particulars of some of the incidents which the Minister has incorrectly related, without, I am sure, any desire to mislead. The bill will be opposed by the Opposition, for the reason that it makes no contribution to the advancement of the principles of conciliation and arbitration in industrial matters, and no improvement of the machinery already in existence. We suggest that it represents an interference with that machinery and, instead of advancing, puts back the clock. It does not improve or widen the scope of the scheme which Parliament, after much expenditure of time and detailed consideration, set up, but seeks to narrow it and exclude from its benefits one particular section of Public Service employees who, instead of asking to be excluded, desire to make use of its provisions. If its objective were the setting up of industrial committees representing both the employer and the employees, by virtue of which those who actually operate the service and those who are charged with its management, could be brought around a table to confer and, if possible, arrive at agreement without the assistance of any outside authority; if it provided less complicated, and less costly machinery which might work more smoothly and rapidly, one could understand its introduction and the Government's desire to have it passed. But it does nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it takes away from railway employees the very provision which this Parliament said it was essential to make for the settlement of disputes between the instrumentalities of the Commonwealth on the one hand, and the employees of those instrumentalities on the other hand. The railway employees, as distinct from railway officers, who embrace more than ten-twelfths of the whole of the railway service, have no desire to be separated from the Commonwealth Public Service. Yet this bill proposes to make that separation in opposition to their wishes ! Any desirable or necessary improvement is in the direction of better facilities for the application of the round-table method, which does away with legal formula and procedure. The view of the Government as to the advisability of conciliatory methods being followed, was expressed in this Parlia- ment in 1920 and is recorded in the pages of Hansard. That publication contains some interesting passages. The Minister has already quoted some, and I shall recall to his memory others that he has overlooked. The Minister in charge of the original measure which this bill proposes to amend, explained that it was the hope of the Government that disputes would be settled by means of conciliation. At pages 4303 to 4358 of Hansard of the; 8th and 9th September, 1920, will bo found the report of the debate. The Minister is reported as having said - Under this measure, where issues have been arrived at, the first step taken is the calling <if a conference . . . The desire is to suttie disputes so far as possible by these conferences ... If members of any organization are labouring under a grievance in respect to the conditions under which they are working they may bring the case before the arbitrator. But the entire scheme of the bill is the exercise of conciliation. Every endeavour should lie made to arrive at a settlement of any dispute by conciliatory methods before enlistina the tribunal which is to bo created under the bill. We are in entire agreement with that. We desire to proceed by conciliatory methods. We should much prefer to settle our differences around a table to having them settled by either the Public Service arbitrator or the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. But the Railways Commissioner, under pressure from go vernments like the present one, is compelled to make the attempt to run the Commonwealth railways according to business principles which cannot reasonably be applied to railways that are mainly of developmental or strategic value. In this same Hansard will be found the report of the debate on the Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie Railway Bill. It discloses the fact that honorable members on both sides of the chamber agreed that it was impossible to expect that railway to pay, and that it was always to be regarded as a strategic railway rather than one having any pecuniary value. Yet the Minister has just stated that the Railway Commissioner is expected to make the service earn revenue ! The amount of revenue it can earn is very small, compared with the interest bill he has to meet and the expenditure he has to incur, and lack of revenue should not prevent the employees getting a fair deal. Mr. Hughes.- All that I said was that he was expected to earn it. Mr. DRAKEFORD.- I think the Minister will agree that it is practically impossible for the East-West, or the North-South railway to earn as much revenue as will enable it to show a profit. Yet, when the employees approach the Arbitration Court - I speak from practical experience, because I have been their advocate for nearly twenty years - they are always confronted with the argument, not that a particular railway does not pay, but that the railway systems generally throughout Australia are non-paying concerns, and are the main factors in bringing about deficits. Consequently the court should not order higher rates of remuneration or an improvement of working conditions. In many respects the conditions of the railway men to-day are inferior to those which prevail outside the service. The difficulty is to find similar work with which proper comparisons may be made. When legislation was passed in 1.920, it provided a channel through which public servants and railway employees could obtain rectification of injustices or grievances. The point most frequently stressed in that debate was, that there should be a separate jurisdiction for the Public Service generally. The honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) figured very largely in that debate, because it was his duty to pilot the measure through this House. He quoted legal opinion which went to show definitely and clearly that it was intended to cover all Commonwealth railway employees, and that they should have whatever privileges were enjoyed by other public servants in relation to arbitrational jurisdiction. The present bill proposes to alter the law to the disadvantage of a particular section. The effect of it will be to place the railway men in a separate category compared with -the rest of the Public Service; and not all of those employed in the railway services, because it will leave the 'clerical and professional officers, the higher paid and more favoured salaried section, untouched, applying the embargo only to the lower daily paid section. The Minister has gone to considerable trouble in an endeavour to show that such a course of action is justified. I realize that if the bill is made a purely party measure, and members are not free to exercise their own judgment, it will be passed whether it inflicts injustice or not. We hope that the Government will not make it a party matter, and that it will be prepared to permit its supporters to listen to the arguments advanced, and then come to a decision. We cannot accept the dictum that draws these men out of the Public Service and places them in a watertight compartment. I feel sure that the House will vote for a continuance of the existing state of affairs. The only justification which appears to be offered in support of the alteration to the law is the fact that the men would have the choice of either the Arbitration Court or the Public Service Arbitrator, and that the worker has two choices, while the employer has only one. That is not the case. Mr. Hughes.- It was the case for twenty years. Mr. DRAKEFORD.- If that aspect is examined it will be found to be anything but substantial. The Commissioner is clothed with power to fix rates and conditions of service, which, at the outset, he, in fact, does. He determines the reward which shall be offered for the labour he requires. The worker, if he is not satisfied with the rates and conditions fixed, can, by drawing up a log of claims and lodging it in the form of a memorial to the Arbitrator, have the rates and conditions fixed reviewed. It is practically a form of appeal to an independent authority from the employer's decision, but when the Arbitrator has made his determination the employer has the first right of interpretation. He applies the award, or what he thinks the award means, and if he is not satisfied with the way in which it works out, then he can apply to the Arbitrator for it to be varied. The worker has exactly the same right as to variation, and the employer is at no disadvantage whatever. He is exactly in the position of any other head of a department of the Public Service. Mr. Hughes..- He cannot file a memorial. Mr. DRAKEFORD.- No ; but he fixes the wages and conditions of the worker in the first place, and when an award is given, he can apply for its variation from end to end. Any contention that may be advanced that it was never intended that the employee should be able to use both jurisdictions, that of the Arbitration Court, and that of the Public Service Arbitrator, is disposed of, I think honorable members will agree, by the following extract from Hansard- of the 22nd July, 1920, covering the debates when the Arbitration (Public Service) Bill was under discussion in the Senate. Sir George Pearce, who was then Minister for Defence, was in charge of the bill. Senator Drake-Brockman.- Under this bill they must go to the court provided by this measure ? Senator Sir GEORGEPEARCE.- Not necessarily. Some went to the General Court of Arbitration, and others to the court established under the Arbitration (Public Service) Act, but the Commonwealth Government laid it down as a principle, that, in the Public Service, they would obey Arbitration Court awards. If an organization obtained an award affecting the employees in one of our Government factories in the General Court of Arbitration, the Government would obey that award. So far no practical difficulty has been experienced. It may be thought a coincidence that that question was asked by the senator who, as a judge of the Arbitration Court, has been, and is now, dealing with their cases. No practical difficulty has been experienced since that time. Yet this Government wants to change the whole procedure. It is only now when the railway men have placed a memorial before the Public Service Arbitrator that, any attempt is made to make a change. This Government is trying to take away from the railway men rights which a Government of a similar calibre gave to them many years ago. When the bill was under discussion iri this House, that aspect of the matter was again debated, and the Minister in charge of the bill, the honorable member for Darling Downs, did not attempt, to suggest that the employees did not have the right to go to either tribunal. The essence of the legislation, which was passed in 1920, was to separate all the public servants of the Commonwealth from workers outside the Public Service, and to place them in a position in which they could have their claims against the rates of pay and conditions of service in operation, if they were dissatisfied with them, heard, considered and decided by an independent authority. The following is another extract from the Hansard report of the debate which took place in the Senate on the 22nd July, 1920, on the Arbitration (Public Service) Bill. Senator Sir George Pearce said - lt may he asked: What are the reasons for the i, ill ? In the first place the Government thinks that as the conditions and nature of employment in the Public Service are different from private employment, it is essential n> provide an industrial tribunal for all mutters in dispute. That extract emphasizes the differences between public servants and private employees. The railway men are still in public employment, and that was the essence of the bill when it was introduced. The present bill puts the men on a totally different basis.- The point as to whether the legislation covered the railway employees of the Commonwealth was raised by Senator Thomas when the bill was brought down for consideration in the Senate, as is shown by the following extract from page 305S of Hansard of the 22nd July, 1920 :- SenatorThomas. - T understand, from reading clause 3 of the bill, that all public ser vants, temporary as well as permanent, will come under the operation of this measure. Senator PEARCE-That is so. SenatorThomas. - Does that include employees of the Public Service in departmentsnow under the Public Service Commissioner and also those employed in the Naval and Military Department and under the Commonwealth Commissioner for Railways? Senator PEARCE.- No. It will not include those employees under the Commissioner for Railways or in the Naval and Military Departments. Apparently some doubt existed in. the mind of the Minister, however, for progress was reported and the debate was adjourned until he had obtained an opinion on the matter from the Crown Law authorities, which set all doubts at rest. I quote further from the report of the parliamentary debates with respect to that opinion. Senator Sir George Pearce said - When a previous clause was under discussion, Senator Drake-Brockman raised a question which is affected by this clause also, and 1 am afraid, in replying, I was under a misapprehension. The honorable senator asked whether it was clear what organizations could have access to the Arbitrator, and I drew attention to the definition clause. As thai: matter affects this clause also, I asked leave, to report progress, so that I might be fully informed on the point. The Crown Law officers advise as follows:- The point has been raised as to whether the bill covers persons employed on the Commonwealth railways, in the harness factory and persons employed in shipbuilding operations carried on by the Commonwealth. '"'The Public Service" is defined as including "' the Public Service of the. Northern Territory and the Territory for the Seat of Government, and the service of any public institution or authority of the Common wealth ", and " all persons employed in any such .service . . whether under the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1!)02-1!)1S or not . ." This definition is exactly the same, as that appearing in the present Arbitration (Public Service) Act 19i1 In my opinion, the words ' Public institution or authority of the Commonwealth " would include the Commonwealth railway service, the Government Harness Factory, and shipyards carried on by the Commonwealth. If this interpretation is correct, there is no doubt that the bill covers the persons referred to. In regard to persons employed on Commonwealth railways, there is another ground for holding that they are covered by the bil!. ThiCom'monwealth Railways Act 1917, section 47. enacts that the Arbitration (Public Service) Act shall apply to the railway servants. Clause 2 (5) of the bill provides that any reference in any net to the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1011 shall be read as a reference to the bill. It is quite clear, therefore, that the bil. applies to the railway service. Although the employees on the Commonwealth railways and in the harness factory are entitled to form associations and to become registered under the Arbitration (Public Service) Act, I understand that they have not largely availed themselves of this right. Apparently most of them prefer to belong to large associations such as the Australian Workers Union, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemens Union and the Saddlers Union which are registered under the ordinary provisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Senator Sir GeorgePearce went on to say- I u-m sorry that, the question being sprung upon mc in committee, I was not fully informed upon the point, and, to some extent, misled the committee. However, it is within the competence of the committee to deal with this matter, which affects the whole of the bill. It is only right that the committee should know that the bill also covers these industries carried on by the Commonwealth as part of the Commonwealth service. No attempt was made at that time to exclude the railway men, because it was thought right and proper that they should go to the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator. Now, when the railway men make some attempt to go there, this Government seeks to prevent them. There seem to be powerful influences behind the Government in seeking to prevent these men from getting what they believed they probably would get from the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator; that is, a shorter working week. I am not suggesting that the gentleman has made up his mind on the point - he has not had the opportunity so far - but all other Commonwealth workers comparable to the railway workers enjoy a 44-hour week. That is the basis on which this claim is being made. But when they move to get it, the whole machinery of the nation i» thrown into operation against them. Mr. Brennan.- It seems like interference with the course of justice. Mr. DRAKEFORD.- The railway employees desire to be put on the same basis as postal employees. There are only three Arbitration Court judges, and it requires a full court of three to alter hours. In 1927 those three judges said that they were not prepared to alter these hours for railway men, and there is no indication that their minds have since been changed. It also looks as if this Government is prepared to move heaven and earth to prevent us from achieving a shorter working week in the railway service. If the public knew that it was using its legislative powers as it is doing to-day, they would realize that it does not believe in anything less than a 48-hour week, although, at Geneva, its delegate was instructed to support the 40-hour week convention. It is clear that the Arbitration (Public Service) Bill was intended to cover railway employees, and no attempt was made to amend the original legislation to exempt them or to prevent them from obtaining any benefit which the bill conferred. If it was good for public servants it was good for all of them. No one argued that the railway men should be left out. There are honorable members opposite who were members of this chamber in 1920, who took part in the debate, and none of them then sought to do what the bill now proposes to do. No one thought of suggesting, or of urging, that the Commonwealth railway employees should be excluded from any benefits conferred by the act. The Minister said that since we have not exercised our right for eighteen years, we do not need that right. Mr. Justice Powers, in 1919, made an award under the Public Service Arbitration Act for the very men I have the honour to represent in the courts. He said - The matter comes before me under a plaint filed by the claimant organization and one authorized by section 47 of the Commonwealth Railways Act 1917. The history is clear. In 1920, when the High Court decision alluded to by the Minister gave the railway men the right to go to the Arbitration Court, we set about organizing the men in a body which would represent the whole of the locomotive men's organizations throughout Australia. By 1924, we had done that, as the Minister in charge of the bill knows. In 1917, a railway strike disorganized the whole of the railways organizations, and loyalist organizations were set up in New South "Wales by the then Government. I was given the honour of attempting to re-organize the shattered forces of the union, and when I went to New South Wales in 1923, only about 550 were members of the organization. By 1924 the members totalled 2,670, and to-day more than 3,500, or 97 per cent, of the men eligible to join the ranks are members. Following upon this successful reorganization a plaint was filed with the court, and it included the whole of the locomotive men in Australia, except those in Western Australia and South Australia. Mr. Justice Powers refused to include Queensland in the award, destroying the chance of obtaining the uniformity which the Minister has mentioned so much. Later on, New South Wales was released from the federal award. The locomotive men approached the court twice, and in 1930 the Arbitration Court set aside the awards and left the men at the mercy of the employers. There is no doubt about that. It took away the protection which had previously operated in regard to the treatment of employees, and made conditions much worse in many respects. The men were forced by the logic of experience to realize that if awards were to be set aside when they were most needed, because the employers wanted it, then they were relying upon something which did not afford any substantial protection. The only one to whom that did not apply was the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, but the railway men, like other public servants, came under the provisions of the Financial Emergency Act. They did not want to go back to the court ; the Commonwealth {Railways Commissioner took them to the court, and it was tie who got the award. That award, to the extent that it affected the Commonwealth division, imposed serious reductions in regard to the margin for cleaners and firemen, and also made worse the previously existing condition in regard to such matters as overtime, where the penalty was reduced from time and a half after ten hours to time and a quarter from ten to eleven hours The conditions in regard to relay working, which had existed right from the inception of this method of working on the North-South lines, were also seriously curtailed; and whereas previously Jull pay was given for all time travelling on relay, Judge Drake-Brockman reduced this to half time. In regard to the. guaranteed fortnight, it was the previous practice to pay a guarantee of 96 hours, exclusive of any Sunday time, or Sunday time penalty that was worked, whereas the award included both the Sunday time and the Sunday time penalty as part of the guaranteed 96 hours fortnight. The mixed functions clause was altered from two hours, and extended to four hours. Tie clause dealing with seniority and promotion was so framed as to limit the credit of higher grade work to 96 hours a fortnight. The district allowances were ordered to be paid until the 30th June, 1933, and no longer, and thereafter the payment of such allowances was to be at the discretion of the employer. I know that the long-service leave is usually dealt with by regulation, or by. act of Parliament. The mostimportant thing was that when Mr. Justice Powers made the award in 1923, he gave the men working on the Commonwealth railways some consideration because they were working under special conditions. The Minister knows something of those conditions. The men working on the line from Alice Springs, to Kalgoorlie cannot be transferred to any such places as Sydney, Adelaide, Perth or Brisbane, as can the men working on inland sections of State railways. The court, in recognition of this fact and other disadvantages, prescribed a rate which gave the men ls. 3d. above cost of living figures, and, in addition, a district allowance was fixed according to the area in which they lived. Mr. Justice Starke also had previously laid it down that the men should get 6d. above cost of living figures, and Deputy President Sir John Quick let those provisions stand as he had found them in the Powers award of 1927; but Judge Drake-Brockman swept all that aside, and there was an uproar from one end of the line to the other. This was particularly evident at Port Augusta, where many of the employees are located. The Minister in charge of the bill says that we should resort to conciliation and arbitration, but when the award came out the men were indignant, and threatened to stop work, saying that they would risk the consequences. The union officials, including myself, pleaded with them to remain at work, pointing out that in the end they would probably injure themselves, and drive traffic to the coastal shipping services. We explained that there were channels through which they could have their grievances rectified, and we asked them to keep on working in the hope that matters would be adjusted later on. We had in mind the fact that they still had access to the Public Service Arbitrator, but now the Government has brought clown this bill to prevent them from having access to that official, and the men feel that they have been " sold a pup ". What faith can they have in the advice or the judgment of their officials after that, if this bill, which deliberately takes away the right on which they relied for peaceful settlement of their claims, is allowed to pass? Having been over both the transcontinental and central Australian lines by means other than those followed by the ordinary traveller, who gets nothing more than a flying glimpse of conditions as he passes through, and having come into touch with the families in their homes, and with the men in their camps, both along the track from Alice Springs to Kalgoorlie, and in the trains where some of them 'live while the trains are being worked, T could, I think, paint a picture which would interest honorable members, and perhaps enlist their practical sympathy for the Commonwealth railway employees and those dependent on them. I do not, however, desire to take advantage of my position here to go into those matters in detail, but I desire that the Government shall not withhold justice by the passing of this bill, and the other one which is complementary to it. There is no doubt that it was intended to include railway men within the number of those who enjoy right of access to the Public Service Arbitrator, but when they sought to exercise their right, and not till then was the machinery of the legislature of the nation put into operation to take away l'ights which the same machinery was used to provide. If this bill is passed, the railway men will feel that, because of their observance of awards which they did not, and still do not, believe to be fair, their unswerving recognition of the prin- ciple of arbitration is being unreasonably imposed upon. Before the men became members of my organization, there were frequent strikes. The honorable member for Grey (Mr. McBride) and the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) will remember that. I was a member of a deputation which waited upon the honorable member for Darling Downs when he was Minister for Works and Railways to discuss matters relating to a strike which occurred in 1917 or 1918. That was long before the men became members of the locomotive men's union, but. after that they gave up the right to strike, because they believed that there existed channels through which they might have their grievances redressed. The Government has not attempted to show that there has been any abuse of the right to approach the Arbitrator. No attempt has been made to prove to the House that the railway men have, since that right was given to them, attempted to flout or evade the law which provided it. The most that the Government can put forward is that they have not availed themselves of the jurisdiction. Mr. Hughes.- There have been thirteen awards connected with the East- West line, and the Commissioner has initiated only one. Mr. DRAKEFORD.-That may be so, but probably a dozen different unions went to the court at different times. On the last occasion, however, it was the Commissioner who approached the court, and obtained ' an industry award covering all the employees. The employees did not want to go there; it was the Commissioner who took them. The locomotive men did not want to come in, but the judge refused to exclude them. Thus, it will be seen that it was not the Commonwealth railway men who went to the Arbitration Court in 1932, after the awards had been set aside. It was the Railways Commissioner who served a log on the union, in which he sought reduced wages and worse conditions. He asked the court to reduce the basic wage fixed by Mr. Justice Powers, which had been in operation' for nine years, and he asked that other things, which had been provided for in the award of the court, should b*>- left to him to decide. In self-protection the unions lodged counter claims, but at the conclusion of the case the men found that, in many instances, 'they had suffered reductions. Every adult on the job working on a daily-paid basis lost the ls. 3d. a day which the award of the court had previously provided, and for some grades for which margins higher than the basic wage were previously fixed, the margins were either reduced or wiped out. The special recognition which prevailed in the Commonwealth Railways, operating on a route where there was no seaport town other than Port Augusta, and where the climate was severe, was wiped out. This recognition, which afforded some compensation to the men and their families, was withdrawn by the award of the court, and even the district allowances originally granted by the department, and afterwards incorporated in the awards, were, at the request of the Commissioner, left to his discretion. I recollect the Commissioner's advocate saying, during the hearing of the case, that the allowances were too high. I do not suggest that every alteration of the award was to the disadvantage of the men, but the benefits they derived from it were for comparatively few. The award, as a whole, was received by the great majority of the men with tremendous disappointment, and was regarded as a severe set-back from which they would seek the earliest means of escape. Some of the more active spirits desired to resort to direct action, and threatened to do so, arguing that adherence to arbitration had created a false impression in the minds of those in authority; but the officials of the various organizations counselled them to stay their hands. I am not speaking now of the locomotive men only, though I was more closely associated with them than with the others. I know that, had we said the word, a strike would have occurred, resulting in great loss to the department, and great inconvenience to the public. This bill is the reward which the men have received for the patience they displayed. The Minister in charge of the bill, in his book The Case for Labour, published in 1910, states on page 138 - The wage-earners have fought bitterly and long for better conditions; without unions they could Iia vo done nothing. Unions have done much. But they will not do everything. As the cause of bad industrial conditions is to be found in bad laws, it is by legislative reform that permanent and effective improvement of the wage-earner's condition is to be found. Unfortunately, the right honorable gentleman who wrote those lines is now the agency through which those rights are to be taken away. I venture to suggest that, if that section of the employees which it is now proposed should be deprived of their rights was large in numbers, and was spread throughout Australia instead of being confined to only two of the States, both the Government and the Minister would have paused before proceeding with this measure, if, indeed, in those circumstances, such a measure would ever have been drafted. The .political steam-hammer is being used to crack a nut of small size, but of great significance. This is being done as a matter of expediency in the interests, not of the Government itself, but of some influential authority, which sees in the present system a prospect of the railway employees being placed on a similar footing to their fellow employees in other branches of the Public Service. The principle of separating the public servants of the Commonwealth from the rest of the workers, insofar as the regulation of their wages and working conditions are concerned, was fought for by this Government. That principle was evolved by the same kind of political thought as that which now controls this Parliament, yet now, for reasons ot expediency only, the Government asks the House to abrogate that principle. What justification can be offered for the separation of 1,000 men in one particular branch from the rest of the Commonwealth Public Service? The Minister in charge of the bill put forward the argument that, as railway men generally go to the federal court, Commonwealth railway employees also should go there. It will be found, on inquiry, that the railway men in Queensland and Western Australia, who number approximately 21,000, do not apply to that court for redress of their grievances. The New South Wales locomotive men, numbering, at the minimum, 3,500, are working under a State award, and there is a considerable disparity between the margins fixed by the State court and the Federal court for two important sections of the men, the electric train drivers and the cleaners. The margin fixed for the electric train drivers was increased from 7s. to Ss. a day by the State court, while almost at the same time the federal court reduced the margin from 7s. to 6s. The State court increased the margin for engine cleaners, but the federal court wiped it out. The federal court, itself, has referred the railway men, who are members of the Australian Railwaymen's Union, to a State tribunal, the Victorian Railways Classification Board. It is claimed by the Australian Railways Union that its membership is approximately 17,000, but, as some of the members may be covered by awards given for artisans, it may be reasonably stated that the Victorian Railways Classification Board will deal with the conditions of approximately 15,000 railway employees. The action of referring the. claims of the Railway Commissioners and the railway employees to the Victorian Railways Classification Board was taken by His Honour Judge Drake-Brockman, under section 36 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. He will have the final voice, but the work of investigation will be done by the State tribunal. When the railway employees desire the Public Service Arbitrator, instead of the court, to investigate and decide their case, they are confronted by this bill, which proposes to prevent it. The Public Service (Arbitration) Act 1920 was designed to provide the advantage of preventing varying decisions leading to trouble and difficulty in administration within the Public Service. How can it reasonably be expected that some of the Commonwealth Government's employees will be satisfied with conditions of employment which are greatly inferior to those applying to the great majority of the employees? Can they be expected to view without resentment the fact that the Commonwealth Railways officers are provided for -by the awards of the Public Service Arbitrator, whilst they are to be prohibited from having their case dealt with by that authority? As far back as 1920 the Public Service Arbitrator, then a different person from the gentleman now occupying the position, ordered 44 hours a week in his awards for daily-paid workers. A 44- hour week did not become general until a somewhat later stage, but it is practically the standard for daily-paid workers covered by awards of the Arbitrator, and it has been so for a decade. The awards provide shorter hours for men who are on night duty, and .who work broken shifts, and they allow for overtime rates after a standard day has been worked. The Federal Court allows the employer to work men up to ten hours in any day without any overtime payments, and then a rate of only time and a quarter prevails up to eleven hours. It is quite possible for men to work ten hours and travel for work purposes up to twelve, fourteen or more hours, during which period they can be called upon for work at any minute, without receiving any overtime payment, because the travelling is at a passive rate which does not carry penalties. For men operating trains, the federal court, at the request of the employer, decreased the overtime rates, after ten hours work, from time and a half to time and a quarter, and the same court has indicated thai, if the desire to have a weekly day of rest, asked for by the men, is granted, it might "have to consider a further extension to the employers' claim for consideration. Whilst, in most parts of the world, efforts are being made to prevent overtime, and thus .spread employment over as wide a field as possible, the liberty of the employer to work men overtime has been extended. A factor that is always stressed in the court is the economic position of the railways throughout Australia. The deficits, wilfully created in most cases by inadequate freight charges and by the building of lines for developmental purposes to places which it was known beforehand would not provide .an adequate revenue, are trotted out by the skilful advocates of the departments as showing that no improvement should be given to the employees, if the economic conditions of the railways are to be given due consideration. Enhanced land values created by the building of the lines do not pass to the credit of the Governments representing the people of the States on whose behalf the lines have been constructed. A rake-off is provided for the land-holder or speculator when the land is sold at enhanced values, but if the land becomes unprofitable to work, it leads to a demand for a reduction of transportation rates and for subsidies to the men on the land. Revenue derived from the opening up of land for exploitation, such as timber royalties, and land tax, where it operates, goes not to the Railways Department, but to other departments. If the land served by the railways, including that, in city areas, were subject to reasonable taxation, and the proceeds were applied as a set-off to reductions of freight and fares, the railways as a transport agency would continue to have pride of place, and would be held up to the public as a substantial benefit, instead of the hopeless burden they are depicted as being to-day. The farmers would benefit, and so would the public and the railway workers. We should not have the spectacle of railway managements being forced to plead financial losses to prevent the employees from getting fair treatment. The Commonwealth railways, above all others, were never expected to pay. The Transcontinental line was built to provide a service between the western and eastern half of the continent as an obligation to the people of Western Australia on their entering the federation, and as a provision for defence purposes. The Alice Springs railway is an extension of a line which was known to be a hopeless burden when it ran only to Oodnadatta, but it was completed in fulfilment of a promise made to South Australia. Only by the development of large gold or oil-bearing territory could it prove commercially profitable. Yet those working on this North-south line, which over almost every mile of it traverses desert country, are confronted with its failure to produce a profit when their wages and working conditions are being considered, and its deficits are added to the others to make up a weight of evidence against them getting shorter hours or improved conditions. This line is as much a national service as that rendered by the Meteorological Department, the Defence Department and others which spend much but produce little direct revenue. Yet the railway men are to be put into an inferior class to their colleagues in those departments, and are to become Commonwealth Service pariahs or outcasts! No one claims that the majority of Commonwealth employees .are too well treated through being given a 44-hour week, but this Government is denying the railway men their chance of obtaining it. District allowances are fixed for all branches of the Public Service, except Commonwealth daily-paid railway men. on a common basis, in accordance with climatic disadvantages, geographical location, distance from centres of population, and concomitant lack of social amenities. No distinction is made between post office officials and officers of the Department of the Interior, yet there is a definite and wide distinction between the district allowance for postal workers and that of railway workers at, say, Alice Springs. In that town we have two sets of employees, both working for Commonwealth instrumentalities, the railway employee receiving an allowance of ls. a day, or £18 5s. per annum, and the postal employee receiving £50 a year, if married, and £30 a year, if single. I accept the Minister's assurance as to the willingness of the Government to see that railway employees do not suffer in regard to the district allowance; but I point out the disparity in the payments made to workers in the Postal Department, as compared with other departments. In addition to that, the district allowances for other than railway men are fixed, and cannot be withdrawn at the will of the employer, as is the case of the railway men under the award of His Honour Judge Drake-Brockman. The employees, other than railway men,- are provided for under a common rule of the Public Service arbitration tribunal with respect to pay while on sick leave. They have long service leave or furlough. Even temporary employees are so provided for by the Public Service Arbitrator, whilst permanent employees of the railways are not so covered. All railway employees in the State services throughout Australia are provided for in respect of long-service leave, with the exception of Victoria. In Western Australia and South Australia, where almost the whole of the Commonwealth railway employees live, the State railway employees get long-service leave. It will be found, on reference to Hansard of the 3rd September, 1920, page 43S5, that the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom), when Minister for Works and Railways, said- - It will bo found in operation to be a very beneficial piece of legislation. It takes away no rights from anybody. It gives the public servants rights, and a means of having their rights determined and benefits conferred upon them. It simply appoints an Arbitrator, with all the powers and jurisdiction that the judge had under the act of 1911. SirJoseph Cook. - And it will give the public servant's more and better facilities to have their cases heard. Sir LITTLETONGROOM.- Yes, and it offers the advantage that, instead of having a number of varying decisions leading to trouble and difficulty in administration, the. Service will have one tribunal where the whole of their rights and privileges will be promptly worked out as a consistent whole. Instead of creating friction, I believe that the bill will create a greater amount of confidence in the administration of the Public Service, through the officers having a just tribunal to deal with their rights. Mr. Hughes.- The railway employees did not go to the Public Service Arbitrator for sixteen years. Mr. DRAKEFORD.-The locomotivemen went twice -to the court, and were taken back to it by the Commissioner, after awards which they had previously obtained had been set aside by that court. Then they, went to the Public Service Arbitrator. Surely the Government still wants to avoid the disadvantage of " varying decisions leading to trouble and difficulty in administration ". Surely the Ministry, and those honorable members who support it, desire to bring about conditions which, instead of creating friction, will cause " a greater amount of confidence in the administration of the Public Service, through the officers having a just tribunal to deal with their rights ". If they do, they must vote against the second reading of this bill, which takes away the right of access to a tribunal set up by a government of the same type as that which they support. If honorable members opposite can but put themselves for a little while in the place of the men * affected, they will have no difficulty in arriving at the view that the bill is unwarranted, and that much more substantial reasons will have to be given, if indeed, any sound reason can be found, for the carrying of a measure which w restrictive in its action, repudiates the principles contained in the bill sought to be amended, is harsh, and is manifestly unjust to a law-abiding section of the Public Service whose interests it affects. The railway men are aware that the Public Service Arbitrator awards a 44-hour week, and they know now, since the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has had the opportunity to deal with the matter, that it does not do so. In such circumstances, how can it be expected that they will be other than dissatisfied ? Where is the " consistent whole which the Minister in 1920 said would be one of the advantages arising from the appointment of a Public Service Arbitrator ? It will be seen that the inference that railway men, as a rule, seek the aid of the Arbitration Court, rather than that of other tribunals, is not correct. The Commonwealth railway men knew that there was another channel open to them, and they made themselves familiar in a general way with what results had followed, from the use of that channel. They saw that their fellow public servants in practically all other branches of the Commonwealth, activities - daily-paid workers like themselves - obtained a 44-hour week without reduction of pay, and payment when off on sick leave; that the provision of district allowances was not left to the discretion of the employer; and that they were provided for in the matter of long-service leave or furlough. The employees did not always get what they claimed, but they accepted what they did not like as cheerfully a 3 they could, and looked with some hope, down an avenue provided by the law, upon a distant and more alluring future. This year the Government has brought forward a proposal to prevent " the rights and privileges of the Public Service "' being " worked out as a consistent whole ". .Surely those honorable members who supported that principle in 1920 will not stand for its abrogation now. According to Hansard of the 3rd September, 1920, page 4200, the right honorable member who has introduced the present bill stated in this House - 1 repeat that all the bill proposes to do is to create a Public Service Arbitration Court. . . Honorable members must admit that this will be a far better method of dealing with Public Service affairs than that which exists to-day, where a judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration is required to give so much of his attention to a Public Service matter arising as he may be able to spare in the course of dealing with industrial problems emanating from any and every industry throughout the land. . . . This is a bill which violates no precedent and introduces no innovation. It rests upon abundant precedent. And yet this same gentleman, representing the Acting Attorney-General in a similar kind of government is now introducing legislation which is taking away the advantages derived from the bill which he introduced in 1920. When one reads the debates relating to the creation and development of the system of Public Service arbitration, in which the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) has played so important and so great a part in the past, and when one goes back into the records and realizes how stern a fight he made for the principle that all public servants should have access to the tribunal, one cannot help but marvel at the extraordinary changes which time and political circumstances have brought about. I feel sure that the right honorable gentleman cannot be happy in the task which is placed in his hands to-day. I feel certain that his heart cannot be in li is job, and that he does not willingly sacrifice all the things for which he stood throughout the years, in an endeavour, as a mere matter of political expediency, to wreck the principles on which the system of conciliation and arbitration in the Public Service was founded. I ask that consideration be given to the question of deferring this bill until the Government has given further thought to its effect on a comparatively small number of worthy citizens rendering faithful and efficient service under unfavorable and unusual conditions, whose claims to be treated in the same manner as their fellow workers in the Public Service, living mostly under more favorable conditions, are unanswerable, and should not be denied by any deliberative body which contends that its legislative enactments are based upon a reasonable conception of right, truth and justice. I conclude by saying that there are many other reasons which could be advanced against the introduction of this bill, the object of which must be clear to everybody. I think that honorable members will agree that the Minister in charge of the bill has not put up a convincing case in its favour. As I have said, this bill has been introduced as a matter of political expediency, and has resulted from the efforts of influential persons to take away the right of certain persons to approach a particular tribunal for the settlement of disputes. I remind honorable members that, if this bill is passed, and it is subsequently found that it inflicts an injustice on a section, of the workers, it will be very difficult to have it repealed. The Minister has stated that the bill and its complementary measure are not to be regarded as party proposals. I appeal to him, and to honorable members generally, that, in fairness to the railway men concerned, they should both be withdrawn, and that the railway men should be extended the measure of justice for which they have been struggling for many years. Sir LITTLETONGROOM (Darling Downs) ['5.35]. - I ask honorable members to cast their minds back to earlier years, in order to see the. position in which we wore placed when this principle was first introduced. In 1911, an Arbitration (Public Service) Act was passed, and later there was enacted the Arbitration (Public .Service) Act 1920. In 1917, the Commonwealth Railways Act was passed, which provided that the Arbitration (Public Service) Act of -1911 was to apply to the railway service in like manner as it applied to the public servants of the 'Commonwealth. The matter was raised . by the Arbitration (Public Service) Act of 1920, and the question which honorable members were then called upon to decide was whether the definition clause in that act was sufficiently wide to include, and if, in fact, it did include, Commonwealth railway servants. During the progress of the debate on the bill the opinion of the legal advisers of the Government was expressed that railway servants were included in the definition, and that it was intended to include them. At that time, railway employees in the service of the States throughout Australia were excluded from the Commonwealth Arbitration Act, because of an interpretation placed upon the meaning of the Constitution by the High Court. There was, therefore, no power in the Arbitration Act to deal with Federal and State railway employees over the whole of the Commonwealth. A bill was introduced to deal with the Public Service of the Commonwealth, and the remarks which I then made, and which have been quoted by the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford), were directed towards securing what was then really aimed at, the provision of uniform legislation to cover the whole of the Commonwealth public servants throughout the Commonwealth. That principle still applies to-day. In 1911 the definition of " industrial dispute " in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act included Commonwealth public authorities, and Commonwealth Public servants engaged in an interstate dispute. State railway employees could not be covered, because at that time it was' held that the Commonwealth was not empowered to legislate with respect to them. But it was felt in the absence of uniform industrial legislation that the Commonwealth should have uniform industrial conditions for its own servants. Accordingly an act was passed providing for the appointment of a Public Service Arbitrator. After the introduction of the bill, however, the High Court, in the Engineers' case, decided that State railway employees could come under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and 3ince 1920, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court has been dealing effectively with matters affecting State railway workers. It is desirable to have uniformity applied throughout the whole of the railway services, Federal and State, in Australia. These services should be tinder one industrial authority. The Commonwealth by its own legislation has made that pos- sible in regard to its own public servants, and the object of the present bill is to secure uniformity throughout Australia in respect of railway workers. There is nothing which differentiates the Commonwealth railways from the railways of New South Wales, Queensland or Victoria. The western Queensland line, which runs right into the interior, is operated under the same conditions as are the Commonwealth railways. Conditions operating in Western Australia and New South Wales are approximately the same. The trouble at the present time is that in respect of Commonwealth railway employees, two industrial jurisdictions deal with them. When I was Minister for Works and Railways I had trouble in that regard. I found that at one time certain unions would desire to come under a federal award, and at others to be brought under a State tribunal or a wages board, according to the possibility of securing better conditions from either source. Several of the leaders of the unions felt the necessity and the desirability of the adoption of uniform conditions throughout Australia. I am sure the Minister in charge of the bill (Mr. Hughes) knows the inconvenience of having alternative jurisdictions. These bills are merely an expression of the need for much-desired uniformity. In its attempt to achieve uniformity, the Commonwealth legislation covers Federal and State employees, although, in some of the States, for reasons of their own, some of the unions do not desire to participate in this attempt at uniformity. Probably when they find that they, are getting less under the State award than under a Commonwealth award, they may change their attitude. Unless it can be shown that there is gross injustice in Commonwealth awards, we should not endeavour to preserve a tribunal having jurisdiction over Commonwealth railway servants only. Mr. Beasley.- If the honorable member were a railway worker, would he not try to secure a 44Lhour week under the Public Service Arbitrator instead of the 48-hour week agreed upon by the Arbitration Court? Sir LITTLETONGROOM.- Naturally, I would approach the tribunal which offered the best conditions. But should not the honorable member seek to establish uniform conditions to operate throughout Australian generally? I am advocating fair and equitable conditions, which, subject to geographical conditions, will have uniform application. Unless we are able to preserve uniformity, conditions operating in respect of railway workers throughout Australia will not be satisfactory. If the railway workers approached the Public Service Arbitrator, and he, after hearing the plaint said, " I will not give you as good conditions as you now get from the other tribunal ", would the honorable member suggest that the railway workers should withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator, and approach the Arbitration Court? Mr. Rosevear.- Surely they should be allowed to sell their labour in the best market. Sir LITTLETONGROOM.- Such a condition should not be allowed to arise. There should be uniformity in the conditions of railway employees throughout the whole of Australia. If that is not done, rights are given to Commonwealth railway servants that are denied to persons outside the Commonwealth service. To my mind, the Minister has put up a good case, and has been perfectly consistent, because when the original amendment was made in earlier years, different conditions prevailed. This is not in any sense a party question. I am discussing it from the point of view of the desirability of securing uniform conditions in industrial affairs throughout Australia. Mr. Drakeford.- Would the honorable member favour an amendment to place the railway clerical officers in the same position ? Sir LITTLETONGROOM.- I shall leave that point until it arises. Mr. BEASLEY- Then the honorable gentleman does not desire uniformity! Sir LITTLETONGROOM.- I do so far as it can be achieved. For the reasons I have given, I shall support the bill. Mr.BARNARD (Bass) [5.45].- I have listened with interest to the introductory speech of the Minister, and the speeches of the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) and the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Little ton Groom). From the history of this legislation, which he traced back as far as 1920, the honorable member for Darling Downs made the deduction that the proposal . which the Government is now putting before .us should be supported in the interests of uniformity. To my mind, that is a deplorably weak argument. Uniformity of hours of work and wages is never likely to be achieved through the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The workers, having realized this unfortunate fact, are drifting away from the court. This is due largely to the outlook of the judges of the court, whose talk from the Bench about such matters as promotion by senility has undermined the confidence of the workers in the court itself. The gentlemen who have been appointed to the Bench of the Arbitration Court of late years have held views which give the workers little reason for confidence. That they adhere after their elevation to the Bench to the views they previously held has been indicated very clearly in recent awards, and notably in that made to cover Commonwealth railway employees. The whole procedure of the court is causing dissatisfaction, delay and irritation, and is not making for industrial peace. The railway workers have on several occasions obtained awards from the court, but they have only been waiting for the expiry of the award thai has been in operation for the last two or three years so that they could approach the Public Service Arbitrator. They hoped that their claims would be more justly considered by him than they have been by the court. The recent award of the court was so unsatisfactory to the men that they threatened to. cease work unless certain of their grievances were rectified. Unhappily, the judges of the Arbitration Court often declare that they will will not deal with certain claims submitted to them on the ground that their jurisdiction is limited, and advise the men to approach some other authority or make an appeal to the legislature. Can it be expected that such a procedure will satisfy men suffering under a sense of injustice? The Minister in charge of this bill must be aware of these facts. If he is ignorant of them, he is amazingly indifferent to current events. The Arbitration Court has caused intense dissatisfaction among the workers generally for its failure to deal with the applications made to it for a shorter working week. This dissatisfaction has become acute in the Commonwealth railway service. The excuse advanced on behalf of the court is that such a matter must be dealt with by three judges, and it is asserted that, while so many matters are awaiting the attention of judges who can sit in single jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate for the three judges to withdraw their attention from other matters to deal with the applications for a shorter working week. But surely matters of major importance should have priority of attention from the judges. If necessary, the hearing of a claim affecting, say, a few hundred men should be postponed to deal with claims affecting thousands of men. The declaration of the Minister that the Government intended to take action to apply to the Commonwealth railway service the long-service leave conditions applicable to the railway workers of Western Australia will be entirely satisfactory to the Commonwealth railway employees. Long-service leave is at present granted in the railway services of Queenslaud, New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, and it is only proper that it should be granted to Commonwealth railway employees. I also submit that Commonwealth railway employees should be entitled to the same district allowances as are granted to Commonwealth public servants generally. Why should the Commonwealth railway employees be expected to accept conditions inferior to those enjoyed by employees in other branches of the Commonwealth Service ? Equity demands that "quai consideration shall be given to all. The honorable member for Maribyruong (Mr. Drakeford) dealt briefly with the important subject of working hours. I desire to deal with the subject at greater length. The Commonwealth railway employees are unfavorably situated in regard to their working hours as compared with the employees of the State railways. According to the Commonwealth Year-Booh. No. 28, which is the latest available, in 1934, there were 93,917 railway employees in Australia, of whom 14,772 were on salary, and 79,145 on wages. The hours worked by the salaried staff may be said to be less than 44 a week ; probably the average would be even less than 40 a week, so that approximately 15,000 of the employees are working less than 40 hours a week. This leaves approximately 79,000 daily-paid workers who work for 44 hours a week or more. Of these, 55,000 are employed on the railway systems of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, the respective figures being 33,968, 13,854 and 7,154. The remainder are employed on the railway systems of Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, the respective figures being 17,450, 5,563, and 1,156. Approximately, 24,000 workers appear, at first sight, to be employed on a 48-hour basis. But from these must be eliminated the artisans and those associated with them. This would probably reduce the number by at least 4,000, leaving not more than 20,000 of the number employed on the State railway services who are on a 44-hour week. That is a very conservative estimate. At page 168 of the Year-Booh, from which I have already quoted, figures will be found showing that at the time the statistics were prepared, about 1,300 persons were employed on Commonwealth railways, of whom 171 were salaried officers working for 44 hours a week or less. At least another 200 of the employees would be artisans or their assistants who would be working 44 hours a week. This leaves about 900 employees on a 48-hour week basis. As business has improved somewhat, these numbers would now be somewhat greater, but the proportion would not be altered. From this it will be seen that a considerable number - in fact, the great majority - of the railway employees in Australia work not more than 44 hours a week. In the Commonwealth railway service, however, the great majority of the daily-paid employees work 48 hours a week. I am pleased that the Government of Tasmania has decided to apply a 44- hour working week to its employees. The hours of work in the railway services of the various States vary somewhat. Locomotive engine-drivers in the New South Wales service work 88 hours a fortnight. Queensland railway workers enjoy a 44-hour week, and so do those of Western Australia.. When the Tasmanian railway workers are placed on a 44-hour week, as from the 1st July, a considerable measure of uniformity will be achieved, but I cannot see how anything effective to that end is likely to be done by our acceptance of the proposal which the Commonwealth Government is now submitting to us. The recent awards of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court have shown clearly that its judges are decades behind the times in their outlook, and seem to have no regard for modern developments. The result is that the only employees who approach the court are those who are forced to do so. The railway commissioners are almost compelling employees to approach the court, doubtless because they hold the opinion that it will grant conditions less attractive to the employees, and more attractive to themselves. The judges of the Arbitration Court take into consideration the capacity of an industry to pay. The honorable member for Maribyrnong has pointed out that the Transcontinental railway was built, not with the idea that it would be a payable proposition, but for quite a different reason. In the Arbitration Court the representatives of the commissioners never fail to produce balance-sheets of the year's operations and to stress the losses that have been made. The presiding judge uses those losses as a reason for refusing to reduce the number of hours or to improve the working conditions. This principle has been applied in the Commonwealth court against not only Commonwealth railway employees, but abo the employees of other instrumentalities, with the result that in New South Wales the men are working under a State award which raised their wages and improved their working conditions after the Commonwealth court had refused to concede what they claimed. The Queensland railway men approached the federal court on one occasion and were glad to keep, away from it thereafter. Working under an award of the State Arbitration Court they now enjoy higher wages and better working conditions. The men in Western Australia occupy a similar position. Yet the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) says that this bill makes for uniformity ! It does nothing of the kind. Although some of the railway systems are allegedly working under an award of the federal court, the governments of those States have determined that a working week shall not exceed 44 hours. The last to come into line is the Government of Tasmania. In that State the men enjoy long service leave, and are now to have a shorter working week. These are concessions of the government, not of the Arbitration Court, which says that it can exercise no control over such privileges as long service leave, district allowances, and other privileges which Commonwealth employees are seeking to obtain. If the Commonwealth Government desires to achieve greater uniformity and to have the matter of wages and working conditions determined by the federal court, it must first bring its employees into line with the majority of railway men throughout Australia, by administratively granting those privileges. I am opposed to the bill in the absence of a declaration by the Government as to its intentions in regard to hours and working conditions. Mr. MAKIN(Hindmarsh) [6.5].- The Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Hughes) left unsaid a lot that he might have said which would have ' enlightened this House as to the reason which actuated the Government in the introduction of this legislation. I invite the Assistant Minister (Mr. Hunter), who, I understand, is to participate actively in this debate, to make good the deficiency. We have been invited by the Minister to display candour, to disregard the finer technique of this legislation, and to get down to the basic reason for the dissatisfaction of railway men with their present position. I suggest that the right honorable gentleman should explain why this legislation was brought down after the men had submitted memorials to the Public Service Arbitrator for his consideration. If there is any merit in the Government's attitude, why was this action not taken earlier, particularly as the Statute Law Revision Act was passed in 1934? When the railway men seek to exercise a statutory right the Government attempts to defeat their purpose, and to destroy whatever prospect there might be for the rectification of many of the existing anomalies. Mr. Hughes.- That is wrong. Mr. MAKIN.- That is clearly what the Government has in mind. It desires to destroy the prospects of these men securing a 44-hour week, and the improvement of their conditions in other respects, which they are confident would be made through the Arbitrator, and which would make a practical contribution toward uniformity in the different services. Following so closely upon the Government's repudiation of its agreement at Geneva by its refusal to consider a proposal for the ratification of the 40-hour working week Convention, the introduction of this legislation, which seeks to prevent the adoption of a 44-hour week is significant. I deliberately repeat the assertion that the purpose of this legislation is to. deprive the Commonwealth railway employees of a. shorter working week, which other sections of the same service enjoy. Mr. SPEAKER.-Order ! The honorable member is discussing the motives of the Government rather than the bill. Mr. MAKIN.- Am I not entitled to make such observations as will show to this House the motive which lies behind the introduction of this legislation? Mr. SPEAKER.-To impute motive, which is unacknowledged, is not in order. Mr. MAKIN.- I was merely availing myself of the invitation so generously extended by the Minister, to exhibit complete frankness and candour. The Government cannot evade the severe indictment which its action entails. In an attempt to justify what has been done, the Minister said that the Commonwealth railway employees had not taken advantage of the existence of this provision for a period of eighteen years ; he should have said sixteen years. Surely the failure to avail oneself of a right does not deprive one of the claim to that right? The right honorable gentleman's argument is based upon a very weak premise, and is decidedly unconvincing. He has seen fit to make quotations from past records, to indicate my attitude towards earlier legislation. He might well have explained his own attitude. He now finds himself in the position of one who seeks to destroy an instrument of one's own creation. At the least, he might show some regard for consistency, and furnish convincing evidence of the reason for his now adopting an opposite view from that which he held in 1920. I shall await with interest whatever explanation he may think fit to make. In seeking to separate one section of the Commonwealth railway employees from the great body of the Public Service, he will precipitate the condition which he says he desires to avoid. He claims that it is his wish that uniformity of conditions shall prevail. How can he possibly expect that if one section of the railway employees is to be permitted to approach the Public Service Arbitrator, and another section is to be debarred from that right. The right honorable gentleman has advanced no substantial argument which would justify the exercise of such differentiation. If it is right that the professional and clerical divisions should, be able to approach the Public Service Arbitrator, the other branches of the service who wish to avail themselves of the same medium for the redress of their grievances should surely be placed in a similar position. This has been the law, and it should remain so. Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8p.m. Mr. MAKIN.- The Minister claims that the failure of the union to exercise a right is justification for depriving it of that right. If that were the general rule many injustices would result. People do not always exercise their rights, but it could never be said that their failure to exercise those rights cancelled them. That being so, I feel that the argument advanced by the right honorable gentleman is weak in construction and certainly illogical in its premises. The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) this afternoon in an excellent speech in answer to the Minister outlined the vexatious delays that occur in adjustment of grievances of the men in the railway service of the Commonwealth through the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court. In one instance a case was cited in 1926 and the award was made in 1934. It is rather interesting to note that during that interval the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) took action in the High Court of Australia for the setting aside of the award that was then prevailing, a variation of which was being sought by the Commonwealth railway employees. Unfortunately in recent years workers have been discouraged in seeking redress through the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The railway employees have not felt happy at the way in which their cases have been dealt with. In fact, the determinations of the court has been responsible for serious resentment and unrest among those affected. Is it surprising then that the organizations representing these men should now seek to take advantage of the statutes by approaching the Public Service Arbitrator, which is their definite right under the law? An unfortunate construction is being placed on the Government's action in bringing down this bill which prevents the employees from pursuing the course proposed. The Government is actually interfering with the process of a judicial tribunal. This bill indicates that it is not prepared to permit its employees to exercise a right that has existed for a considerable period, and which if it had suited the Government would have been taken advantage of by it to the fullest extent. The Minister desires to secure uniformity of wage conditions and other conditions of employment in the railway services; but while he is seeking to correct what he regards as a lack of uniformity, he will create an anomalous position by causing disparity between public servants. Those associated with the Postal Department as mechanics lend themselves for comparison in this matter. Their wages and conditions of employment are determined by the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator, but the railway men who are qualified in exactly the same way and who are performing the same class of work, because they happen to be employed in the railway service, are to be brought under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. In that respect the Minister will actually bring about a condition which, he says, he desires to correct. The right honorable gentleman, to justify his attitude, said, " Oh, well the railway service is a revenue-producing concern". So is the post office a revenue-producer, and if it is fair to exclude one from the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator, it should be equally fair to exclude the other. No proposal, however, has been made to exclude those in the Postal Department from the Public Service Arbitrator. The Minister must answer to this House for that differentiation, and until such time as he is able to produce a logical and convincing case, proving consistency in the actions of the Government. Furthermore, is it to be laid down as a principle that employees in a revenue-producing department are to be placed in a less favorable .position to that of employees in a non-revenue-earning department? I feel that this House is not warranted in being asked to pass this legislation. The Minister was good enough to advise this House of the principles that I stated in 1920 on legislation on this very question. My principles to-day are absolutely in agreement with those which I espoused in 1920. The right honorable gentleman at that time introduced legislation extending arbitration to the whole of the Commonwealth Public Service, and, if he were seeking now to bring all of the Public Service under the same conditions as those obtaining in outside employment, I could recognize the logic of his case, and so could all of those who speak in the same way as myself. However, he only seeks to employ this measure against one portion of the Public Service, and does not intend it to be of general application. The Government should not seek to 'segregate men in the Public Service. The conditions laid down should be uniformly consistent with those in private employment under a remodelled and uniform arbitration system. If the honorable gentleman presented legislation to this House to embrace the whole of the Public Service, I should be prepared to support it in accordance with my earlier declarations. . The present attitude of the Minister is in striking contrast to his attitude in 1920. He is not justified in pursuing a course which is nothing less than class distinction. He is to give to the professional class the advantage of securing an award of the Public Service Arbitrator, but in the case of the ordinary daily or weekly-paid workers he insists that their claims be dealt with by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The Minister is seeking to make a distinction between the professional class of officer and railway men. Mr. Hughes.- That is not so. Mr. MAKIN.- It is so. Mr. Hughes.- It is a different class of work. Mr. MAKIN.- I am expressing a fact which the denials of the Minister cannot disturb. Those engaged as daily-paid men engaged in the railway workshops and in . the running of the railways, and those who are labourers and all other daily-paid workers within the railway service are to be excluded from the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator. Mr. Hughes.- They excluded themselves. Mr. MAKIN.- How did they exclude themselves ? Mr. Hughes.- They would not approach the Arbitrator. Mr. MAKIN.-The men have five memorials before the Arbitrator now. The right honorable gentleman cannot get away with that. He knows that memorials have been presented to the Arbitrator, and that this bill is an effort by the Government to prevent the men engaged in the railway service from obtaining uniformity. For the right honorable gentleman to try to persuade this House to believe that the railway men have not the right to approach the. Arbitrator is wrong. They have exercised their right, and the Government is now trying to deprive them of it. The Government is taking a very serious step in interfering with the process of the law and in imposing retrospective conditions in the statute - a practice which is unjust and inequitable. The daily-paid workers employed by the Commonwealth Railways Department have every reason to complain bitterly of the action of the Government. I agree with the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford)., who so ably led the debate from this side of the House, that the mon should be conceded the right to approach the Public Service Arbitrator, when they have by ballot expressed their wish to do so, and have already taken steps to that end. If this bill is. passed, much discontent will be occasioned throughout the service, and the way will be opened for the creation of many anomalies. For instance, Commonwealth railway workers employed on the Darwin section of the North-South line will be working 44 hours a week, while those employed on the East-West line will be working 48 hours a week. Surely the Minister does not fully appreciate the difficulties which will be created by the passing of this legislation ! I have heard the Minister say that he would do nothing to prevent the workers from securing redress of their grievances through properly-appointed tribunals ; yet now he is sponsoring a measure designed to prevent the employees of the Commonwealth itself from gaining access to a tribunal especially created for Commonwealth, employees. That tribunal it is considered can ensure uniform conditions throughout the Public Service. Even if the men are forced to go before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, it will be impossible to secure, through that tribunal, uniform working conditions on all the railways throughout the Commonwealth, because Queensland and Western Australia do not come under the jurisdiction of that court. The Minister has not presented one sound reason why we should accept his invitation to abandon, the legislation for which he himself wasresponsible in 1920. I hope that the Government will reconsider its decision, and withdraw this bill, which possesses no merit, and is not even a step in thedirection of uniformity. On the contrary,, it will create fresh anomalies, and will work injury to those concerned. On behalf of all the organizations involved,, particularly the Australian Workers. Union, and the engineering organizations, to which most of those affected belong,. 1 protest with all the vehemence at my disposal against this measure. Mr. MCBRIDE(Grey) [8.20].- I have a particular interest in the bill now before the House, not only because of the principle involved, but also because many of the men who will be affected by thismeasure are resident in the electoratewhich I represent. It is, therefore, my duty, when considering this proposed legislation, to assess, as well as I can,. its probable effect upon the men concerned. It must be rather disturbing to many of us, who have for' years supported the principle of arbitration, to hear the astounding accusations that have been made against the Federal Arbitration Court in its dealings with Commonwealth railway workers. In the past, while I have always been a staunch supporter of arbitration, I confess that I entertained doubts as to how the workers would react when the economic tide turned, and conditions became such that the arbitration courts, Federal and State, would be compelled to stop granting further concessions, and to begin reducing wages and varying conditions to the detriment of employees. I desire now to say how much I appreciate the action of the workers throughout Australia in accept ing so loyally the reductions made from time to time by various arbitration tribunals during the time of the depression through which Australia has passed. It seems to me that, as the workers accepted those sacrifices in so fine a spirit, they have now a right, when times have improved, to expect a restoration of the benefits that were taken from them. It is with that idea in mind that I propose to discuss this measure. It is admitted that, until the award of 1932, the men, while perhaps not always satisfied, were at least prepared to accept the decisions of the court. It has been stated that they did not, on all occasions, approach the court, but in 1.927 they did so, and accepted the decision of the judge. In 1932, of course, it was the Railways Commissioner who applied to the court, and it is against the award issued in response to that application that the men are now taking such strong exception. As honorable members will recall, when that award flame out there was a suggestion by some of the men that they should refuse to accept it. As a matter of fact, there was a probability of a strike on the Commonwealth railways. As the representative of the men in this Parliament, I was asked by their officials, while I was in Port Augusta, to discuss the position with them. I agreed to do so, and told them that, as a supporter of arbitration, I could not countenance direct action ; that, as they had appealed to the court on other occasions and accepted its awards, so they must accept the award of the court on this occasion.. I said then, however, as I say now, that while there was an obligation upon the men to observe the award, there was also an obligation upon the Commissioner to make conditions of employment as satisfactory as possible. I pointed out that, although the Government could not countenance any attempt to flout the award of the court, there still remained matters within the control of the Commissioner in regard to which representations might be made to him. I suggested that the men should approach the Commissioner in regard to rent3 for the cottages they occupied. The rents were probably assessed on the cost of construction, the cottages having been built with money borrowed at 5 per cent, or 6 per cent. As the result of conversion operations, the rate of interest had in the meantime been reduced, and it was only reasonable that the benefit of that reduction should be passed on to the men. I do not suggest that anything I had to say to the men on that occasion very greatly influenced them, or that the representations which I made subsequently to the Commissioner swayed him to any great extent. I merely point out that, when. the men applied to the Commissioner, he did make some very definite concessions. He reduced rents by 10 per cent., and gave a discount of 5 per cent, on all goods purchased from Government stores, thus contributing considerably to the amelioration of the hardships imposed by the award of the court. I recognize that the Arbitration Court, when considering applications made to it, does, in fact, take into account the economic position of the industry concerned, or, in the case of the Public Service, the economic position of the country. That, I know, has been denied, but the action of the Arbitration Court during the period of the depression fully proves that such is the case. I realize that the position of the men employed on the Commonwealth railways is different from that of those employed by private enterprise. As was stated by the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford), it was never hoped, when the Commonwealth railways were constructed, that they would be a paying proposition. It was constructed mainly to give means of communication to Western Australia, when it joined the federation, and it was also regarded as valuable for defence purposes. Therefore, the court could not base its award on the earnings or losses on that line. I was surprised to hear the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) say that the losses on the various railway systems in Australia are due to low freight charges. It would be interesting to compare the rates in Australia with those in other countries. I point out that the freight rates on Australian railways are from two to three times as high as those in Canada and the United States of America. The Arbitration Court has taken the economic conditions of the country into consideration, and from time to time has restored benefits taken away in times of stress. The Full Court altered the basis of assessing the basic wage in April, 1934, and restored the amount by which the wage was reduced under the financial emergency legislation. Automatic increases of wages have taken place on account of increases of the cost of living. In Kalgoorlie, prior to the award made by His Honour Judge Drake-Brockman, the men were receiving l2s. 6d. a day less 10 per cent., which made the actual wage11s. 3d. a day, but now the rateis 13s. 8d. a day. Mr. Drakeford.-Almost entirely due to the excessive cost of house rent. Mr. McBRIDE.- I said that it was due to the increase of the cost of living, of which house rent is an important part. This shows that the court takes cognizance of economic conditions. Mr. SPEAKER.-The merits or otherwise of judgments of the court may not be discussed. Mr. McBRIDE.- I merely desire to show that, in good times, the court grants increased rates of pay to the employees. The district allowance, which has been agreed to by the Government, will be secured to the employees in the future. Long service leave has been granted to the men by the present Government. This is not a matter for determination by the Arbitration Court or the Public Service Arbitrator. It is provided for under the Public Service Act, and the Government is consistent in agreeing to allow the employees to retain this concession. It seems to me that the employees wish to appeal to the Public Service Arbitrator only on the matter of the 44hour week. The question of the hours of work has always been one for determination by the tribunals, and the Government, on this occasion refuses to depart from the usual practice, and suggests that the men should make application to the Arbitration Court. The representatives of the employees claim that the court has already refused an application for a 44-hour week. I point out that many applications made from time to time on behalf of the employees' in various industries have been unsuccessful, but the court has eventually acceded to this request when it has found that an industry can afford to grant it. As recently as June last, the court awarded a 44-hour week to the coachbuilders, carpenters, joiners, plumbers and gas-fitters employed on the Commonwealth railways. Prior to that, the metal trade workers on those railways had enjoyed a 44-hour week for some time. I think it may be said that, when the court deems it advisable to do so, and when the general body of workers in Australia have been granted a 44-hour week, it will give this boon to all sections of employees of the Commonwealth railways. I believe that that is the objective of all governments. The demands of civilisation require the granting of improved conditions, more leisure, and greater comforts for the workers generally, and I have always said that, as soon as it is possible to grant it, all sections in Australia should be awarded a 44-hour week. Whilst I believe that governments should be ideal employers, they would not be justified in giving their employees conditions out of all relation to those applying to the general body of the workers throughout Australia. The Government and the Commissioner of Railways have shown that, apart from wages and hours of employment, they are prepared to grant concessions to railway employees. The district allowance is not enjoyed by workers in private employment, but I regard it as a reasonable concession. The conditions under which Commonwealth railway employees live could be materially improved. In some instances, they occupy hovels; I use the word advisedly. It would be disgraceful for any private employer to ask his men to live in such dwellings, and it is all the more discreditable to a government whose employees are associated with a permanent undertaking such as a railway system. The housing conditions should be improved. I entirely agree with the statement that Commonwealth railway employees are peculiarly situated. State railway employees are moved from time to time to districts which give them variety in regard to climate, working and living conditions, but Commonwealth railway employees are confined to semi-arid districts. Apart from the trying climatic conditions under which they live, their children suffer lack of opportunities. On the South Australian railways, somewhat similar climatic conditions obtain on the Peterborough-Cockburn line, but the employees in that locality can be transferred to Adelaide or Mount Gambier, where the living conditions are more pleasant, and their children have greater opportunities. We have every right to expect the Government to exercise leniency in the conditions and privileges granted to these men. I hope the question of housing in particular will be considered very seriously, because I believe that the conditions under which the men live in some instances are an absolute disgrace. I think that the Government has gone a long way to. assure the men that it is not definitely out to harm them, but, on the contrary, 13 out to look after their welfare. The very fact that this bill has been introduced by the right honorable member for North Sydney, who has spent a lifetime in advocating the adoption of the system of arbitration in Australia, is at least some assurance that nothing will be done to jeopardize their interests. Mr.BLACKBURN (Bourke) [8.46].- I desire to deal with two points as briefly as possible. The Minister (Mr. Hughes) accused the Locomotive Engine-men's Union of inconsistency in that, having first desired to go to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, it now desires to go to the Public Service Arbitrator. Assuming that the right honorable member's contention is correct, the Government itself has been guilty of inconsistency, because it ha3 passed a measure intended to confine government employees to the Public Service Arbitrator only. I know that the Minister says that that was done accidentally and unintentionally; the fact is that it has been done, and I cannot believe that it was done accidentally or inadvertently. The position was that the High Court in 1933 decided that the Locomotive Enginemen's Union, being a union registered in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, could approach that court. The Commonwealth Railways Commissioner's answer to that, which was that section 11 of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act prevented such a course being adopted, was overruled. Mr. Justice Starke, among other judges, examined that section, and pointed out that it did not prevent the Locomotive Engine-men's Union from going to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court with a two-State dispute, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act: that before the amendment of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act it could go to the Arbitration Court in either of two ways - it could create a two-State dispute and go to it by right of the federal power to deal with interstate disputes, or it could exercise its special privilege to do so under the Arbitration (Public Service) Act as a union of government employees. Section 11 sub-section 1 of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1920 reads- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1911, an organization of employees in the Public Service shall not 'be entitled to submit to the Court under that act any claim relating to the salaries, wages, rates of pay, or terms or conditions of service or employment of members of the organization. Mr. JusticeStarke said in his judgment that only took away the unions' right to approach the court without a twoState dispute. The words "under thaiact", had that effect. What did the Commonwealth Government do? It did what the Minister now says was done inadvertently; it introduced during the following year a Statute Law Revision Bill, to which nobody's attention was drawn, the fourth schedule of which amended section 11 of the Arbitration Public Service Act by deleting the words " under that act which Mr. Justice Starke had regarded as vitally important aud as securing to the union the right m a two-State dispute to approach the court. Thus, before the bill now under consideration was introduced, it was the desire of the Commonwealth Government to compel its railway employees to go to the Public Service Arbitrator only. It therefore cannot complain of the union's inconsistency. It has showed inconsistency itself by passing an act to compel persons to go to the Public Service Arbitrator, and now by trying to compel them to go to the Arbitration Court. It is always considered that legislation ought not be passed which takes away from persons a right which has already accrued to them. In this case, the union is actually before the Public Service Arbitrator. It is not merely contemplating going before him ; the Arbitrator is at present hearing the case, and this bill will have the effect of preventing the Arbitrator from proceeding any further with the hearing of the case. Mr.Beasley. - That makes the bill seem very suspicious. Mr. BLACKBURN.-It does not preserve existing rights and provide that no further proceeding shall be commenced before the Public Service. Arbitrator ; it takes away the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator now. The Minister will remember that on a previous occasion when he was very anxious to prevent a single judge of the Arbitration Court from dealing with the question of standard hours, he introduced an amendment of the Arbitration Act providing that standard hours could not be altered except by a court consisting of three judges; but he also inserted a clause which provided that the proposed amendment should not affect any proceedings already commenced. That was done in accordance with a well-recognized principle. But the bill now under consideration proposes to take away from the Locomotive Enginemen's Union and its members a right which has already accrued to them. They have commenced proceedings before the Public Service Arbitrator, and the right to continue them should be preserved. Mr.HOLLOWAY (Melbourne Ports) [8.52]. - I join with the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) in protesting against the introduction of this bill. 1 remind the Minister (Mr. Hughes) that he is not the only one who stands for uniformity of industrial laws and conditions. I differ from the right honorable gentleman, however, in his interpretation of uniformity. The real thing that matters to the men engaged in industry is uniformity in working conditions, rates of pay and hours of labour. It is not a question of uniformity on paper or uniformity of the law, but rather one of having uniform working conditions, which the right honorable member and other in the early days of arbitration in Australia set out to achieve. ' They said, " If you have not uniform conditions all over the country in similar industries, there must be discontent among the employees, and you cannot have fair competition between employers." They did not mean uniformity on paper alone. Mr.Hughes. - We tried to get uniformity on paper too. Mr. HOLLOWAY,-It is of no use to have uniformity on paper only; the real thing is to achieve uniformity in conditions of work, pay and hours of labour. When we examine this matter from that point of view, we find that the brief which the right honorable gentleman holds now on behalf of the Government is a very poor one. In its treatment of Commonwealth railway servants, the Commonwealth Government has shown itself to be the worst employer in this country. Despite what, the Minister in his advocacy of uniformity has said, it is a strange fact that there is a great lack of uniformity throughout the Commonwealth railway service. No uniformity of conditions exists in this service as the result of the working of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. In 1927. Judge Beeby inquired into the working of the northern end of the North-South railway, and awarded the men certain wages and conditions and a working week of 44 hours. Within a few months, Judge Drake-Brockman inquired into the working of the men engaged on, the southern end of the line, from Alice Springs to Quorn, and refused to award them conditions similar to those enjoyed by those engaged on the northern end of the line. This lack of uniformity must obviously be responsible for the internal discontent among the men which it is desired to eliminate. The more we examine the attitude of this Government towards its railway servants, whether it be the Commissioner or his staff, the more we are convinced of the justification for the protest which railway men make to-day. Railway men proceeding on long service leave from Tasmania. Queensland, or Western Australia, for instance, can travel all over Australia on a free pass. No State raises objection to that procedure ; but Commonwealth employees are not granted a free pass on the same basis because they are not entitled to long-service leave, and the Commonwealth will not allow State employees to travel over its lines on a free pass. Mr. Hughes.- The Commonwealth railway employees get a free pass. Mr. HOLLOWAY.- But they do not get long-service leave. Compared with the servants of the State railways, Commonwealth railway employees are treated very shabbily. There is no getting away from that, and I can assure honorable members that I derive no pleasure in having to make such an admission. I have travelled over all of the railways in Australia, and have observed the conditions under which the men are employed. I have studied the conditions which operate on the northern' and southern end of the North-South line and the Transcontinental line, and I have said here and in other places that the conditions under which the men _ are engaged on those lines are much worsethan those operating in any of the States of Australia. The right honorable member for North Sydney knows that the men engaged on the Commonwealth railway system are isolated from the more populous centres of Australia, and are frequently located in places where the climatic conditions leave much to be desired. Because of the loss of social amenities, they should be given improved conditions. Some of the things which I witnessed on the North-South line made me ashamed of being a member of this Parliament. I have seen most of the working agreements that exist in other countries of the world, with regard to not only railway services, but also other services, and I have never come across such bad conditions as operate on the northern end of the North-South line. I was informed that the men engaged there, who are unfortunate enough to suffer injury during working hours, have to pay their own travelling expenses to a doctor, or to a place where they can obtain first-aid treatment. I asked one of the men whether that was true, and I was informed that in such cases a man had to pay 50 per cent, of the usual fare. I have never come across similar conditions in any part of the world. The poorest private employer would take an injured employee to hospital, and would not expect him to bear the cost of conveyance. I derive no pleasure in exposing things of this kind. All over Australia we should have similar minimum conditions for railway employees whether they operate under a State or Federal award, and special consideration is given when the conditions are unusual. At the present time, four States in the Commonwealth are employing railway men on a 44-hour week. The men employed on the Adelaide to Port Augusta railway and the Commonwealth railway employees on the Transcontinental line and also the line from Quorn to Alice Springs work 48 hours a week. It is hardly likely that contentment will rule in a service where men have to work four hours a week longer for one employer than men doing the 3ame kind of job have to work for another employer. The introduction of the Commonwealth industrial arbitration system was justified years ago partly on the ground that it would enable uniform conditions to be applied to similar industries throughout the country. Unfortunately that hope has not been realized. The effort to apply a common rule has failed. In the circumstances it is not surprising that men become tired of using orthodox means to rectify their grievances. It is highly regrettable, also, that a Government which professes to favour the adoption of constitutional methods for the settlement of industrial disputes, should reward its own employees who adopt that procedure by withdrawing from them a right which they have possessed for sixteen years. About half the men engaged in our railway works are technicians or artisans who are able to obtain awards irrespective of the views of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner. I refer, of course, to the blacksmiths, boiler-makers, carpenters, fitters, turners, upholsterers and other artisans who work on our railways. If States such as Western Australia, Tasmania and Queensland can afford to give their railway employees a 44-hour week, the Commonwealth should concede similar working hours to its railway employees. I can see no reason whatever for withdrawing from the Commonwealth railway employees the right to approach the Public Service Arbitrator. The mere fact that they have not done so during the last sixteen years is no justification for withdrawing from them the right to do so now. It is strange that on their first endeavour to obtain an award from the Public . Service Arbitrator, the Government should have introduced, a.measure of this description. Probably if the railway employees had taken similar action ten years ago they may have found themselves in the same position. The railway employees have approached the Public Service Arbitrator, not simply because they consider his tribunal better than the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, but mainly because of the thoroughly unsatisfactory experience they have had in the court in the last eight or nine years. Three years ago the Australian Workers Union and the Commonwealth railway employees submitted a claim to Judge Drake-Brockman which was resisted by the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner. The Judge at that time made an award which obviously was ultra vires the Arbitration Act, but when this was pointed out to him he intimated that he did not intend to be bound by the views of other people. It was well known to everybody at that time that the right of a single Judge to reduce the basic wage or either increase or decrease working hours, had been withdrawn; but Judge Drake-Brockman was not worried by a consideration of that kind. When the subject was discussed subsequently in this House the then Attorney-General, now Sir John Latham, had to admit that he had a bad case. He moved the High Court, however,, to inquire into the whole position with the result that our discussion of the subject was stifled on the ground that the matter was sub judice. During the whole time that the court was considering the subject the railway employees had withheld from them a certain proportion of their wages. It is true that, eventually, this money was paid to them, but why should they have been denied the use of it for so long? Undoubtedly it is the experience which the railway men have had with Judge Drake-Brockman in the Arbitration Court that has caused them to seek the redress of their grievances by another tribunal. The Government cannot expect us to accept the argument that this proposal is being submitted to Parliament in the interests of uniformity, for uniformity has not been achieved during the long years that the workers have been looking to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to redress their wrongs. I am not concerned about the argument that a similar tribunal should be provided for all Commonwealth employees, clerical and otherwise. It is far more important that similar classes of work should be under the jurisdiction of particular tribunals. The Minister has signally failed to justify our acceptance of these cognate bills in the interests of uniformity. As the railway workers have been denied justice in the Arbitration Court, they are fully entitled to seek it from the Public Service Arbitrator. Mr. BLAIN(Northern .Territory, [9.9]. - I rise to protest against the monotonous use of the catch cry "uniformity, uniformity, uniformity ", and I am amazed that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) should have joined in the chorus. He could not of course be aware of the real conditions that obtain on the roof of Australia, at Darwin, and also in Central Australia, because he, like most other people, including Judge Drake-Brockman himself, visited the Northern Territory in the winter time. Those who desire to obtain a real understanding of the humidity, general discomfort and diversity of climate in the Northern Territory, and particularly at Darwin, should do their touring there in the summer time. I am not au fait with the conditions of all the railway workers throughout Australia, and so am at a disadvantage in discussing this subject, compared with the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) ; but I propose to draw on my own personal experience to show how illogical it would be to apply uniform conditions throughout Australia. I listened with interest and appreciation to the logical speech which the honorable member for Maribyrnong delivered; but 1 am not so much concerned, at the moment, whether the railway workers approach the Public Service Arbitrator or the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, as with the injustice of the suggestion that uniform working conditions should be applied even to all railway workers. I assume that the Commonwealth railway employees have good reason for departing from their practice of the last eighteen years by approaching the Public Service Arbitrator in preference to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. My main purpose in speaking to the bill is to indicate clearly to honorable members that the much more strenuous working conditions in the Northern Territory entitle the workers there to shorter working hours than those enjoyed by workers in the southern parts of Australia. I speak now with an advantage over many honorable members on both sides of the House, because I have myself worked in railway cuttings, and with these hands have used, not a pen as a clerical worker, but a No. 5 shovel, as a navvy on the Narrogin railway in Western Australia. J. well remember old Paddy Donovan saying to me: " Now laddie, get down to it. There's muck waiting for you and a good No. 5 shovel ; see that you bury it to the maker's name." If some honorable gentlemen of this House had been with me then in the hottest days of the summer, they would not now be speaking so glibly about the desirability of uniform working conditions. The humid climate of the far north is very severe and entitles the workers there to special consideration. To illustrate the effect of these conditions, I shall refer to another personal experience. On one occasion I sent to Rockhampton for an axeman with whom I had worked at Bowen years before. I wanted him to come to the Katherine in the Northern Territory. He agreed to come, and I met him at Camooweal. When I knew this man first he was able to bury a 4^-lb. Kelly axe right up to the eye in green timber. But in the Northern Territory he could not do so, and he was very distressed. He said to me, after he had been working with me for awhile : " I am not going to take £6 10s. a week for the work I am doing here. I cannot do the work here that I did even in Bowen ". I said to time: "Do not be. foolish. Men cannot be expected to work here on hard physical toil like they do in other less severe climates ". I tried to get him to realize that conditions in the Northern Territory were very different from those of Bowen and-- southern Queensland, but he would not listen to me. He threw lip his job, and went away into Western Australia kangaroo shooting. He was too sensitive to work with me, because he could not do the same amount of work in the same time as he was accustomed to do when I first knew him and worked with him. Honorable members must delete the word "uniformity " from their vocabulary when they talk about industrial operations on the roof of Australia at Darwin, and even in Central Australia. Mr. Drakeford.- Should a man at Alice Springs work longer hours than a man at Darwin? Mr. BLAIN.-Obviously. The further north one goes, the less capable is one of doing the work. If the honorable member has done any manual labour he has no need to ask me that question. Mr. Drakeford.- The nearer one is to the equator, the less one should work? Mr. BLAIN.-Obviously. Mr. Drakeford.- Then the men at Alice Springs should work less than those at Quorn? Mr. BLAIN.- Of course they should. Mr. Drakeford.- But they do not. Mr. BLAIN.- That is the point up to which I am working. It furnishes n reason for my objection to uniformity, which is not fair to the men who have to work under grim conditions. The further north one goes, the greater is the grimness. Judge Drake-Brockman visited Darwin in the winter, not in the summer, and, therefore, could not form a correct opinion, any more than could the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. I agree with the remarks of the honorable member for Grey (Mr. McBride), in regard to the housing conditions of the men who are employed from Charlotte Waters northward. But although he stressed the point, he did not say sufficient to indicate adequately how little is done, not only from Quorn northward, but also from Birdum to Darwin, a distance of 320 miles. Ever since I became a member of this House I have argued that where a government officer is stationed in a small community, the housing conditions should be such that he can have his womenfolk with him from the "fall of the flag". On many of the cattle stations run by private enterprise in the Northern Territory, little or no effort is made to provide accommodation for womenfolk. A young man who went to Darwin on the last boat asked me if I could find him a job. I said, " Why go there ?" and he replied, "I am just in from Wave Hill. I am engaged tq be married, and cannot take a wife out there ". The reason was that private enterprise had made little or no provision for the housing of womenfolk. I admit that it is a problem, but it is the duty, of this , Parliament to lead the way in making the housing and other conditions . suitable for womenfolk, so that the issue, may . be forced with private enterprise; . < , The carpenters employed by the Railways Department at Darwin receive £6 5s. 7d. a week, whereas those who are employed by the Works Department are paid £6 0s. 2d. Yet the two departments often work in conjunction. As a matter of fact, when the carpenters employed by the Railways Department have work to do for which they have not the necessary tools - saws, benches, &c. - they- make use of the facilities provided by the Works Department. Thus, there is the spectacle of carpenters working side by side at the same bench, in the same climate, but at different rates of wages. I ask the Minister to remove this anomaly for this is where uniformity should be applied. In all other respects it should find no place in our industrial awards. Mr. CURTIN(Fremantle) [9.20].- This Parliament, sixteen years ago, passed an amending act which, in effect, gave to the employees of the Commonwealth Railways the right to approach by memorial the Public Service Arbitrator. The bills submitted to us. to-day ^ have for their purpose the cancellation in substance of the act then, passed. That is to say, this Parliament is asked to reverse a procedure which has operated for more than a decade and a half. But that is not the worst feature. It is asked to do this in such a way that the operation will have retrospective effect, in that those unions which felt that they should exercise a right given to them by the law had already taken very much more than the initial steps to bring their representations before the lawfully appointed tribunal. As the law stood at the end of last year, the Public Service Arbitrator was perfectly competent to hear the memorial that had been submitted to -him by the unions, which felt that they ought to take that course, and, under the statutes of this Parliament, had every right to approach him. They felt that they ought to approach him because they assumed that they were members of the Commonwealth Public Service. Mr. Hughes.- To whom does the honorable member refer when he uses the expression " they " ? Mr. CURTIN.- The Australian Workers Union, the locomotive enginemen, and the boilermakers. I cite those as representative bodies. Mr. Hughes.- They did not file a memorial at that time. Mr. Drakeford.- It was filed before this legislation was introduced. Mr. CURTIN.-The right honorable gentleman must know that the proceedings in respect of the memorial had proceeded so far that a compulsory conference was held on the 31st January of this year. Such a conference could not have been summoned until the memorial had been submitted in proper form, and rejoinders had been made to it. It is apparent, therefore, that the memorial must have been presented approximately at the end of last year to permit of a compulsory conference being summoned as early as the 31st January of this year. At that date, when the initial proceedings for this adjudication were in judicial process, there was no suggestion that this Parliament should be asked to annul a law which wa3 then in function. 1 submit that, by the bill which we are now considering, this Government is interfering with the lawful functioning of the arbitrational procedure which, having been set in motion, the unions believed ought not to be interfered with as the result of political action or political pressure. It would be disastrous if, during' the proceedings incidental to any claim for an award, there should be action by this Parliament depriving either party of the rights which the law gave to it at the time when the proceedings were initiated. That seems to me the outstanding fault of the legislation which the right honorable gentleman has brought down to-day. It must be obvious to the Parliament that this action is being taken for reasons which he has not stated. He said, in effect, this afternoon : What substantial injustice will be done to the men if they are permitted to go to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration? With that interrogation, he disposed of the whole matter. I put to him this question: What substantial injustice will be done to the Government if the men are permitted to continue the proceedings they have initiated before the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator? Does the Government say that the Public Service Arbitrator will not impartially adjudicate upon the issues that have been submitted to him? Does it ask us to believe that it can entrust postal servants, but not railway employees, to his care? Does the right honorable gentleman contend that it is perfectly proper for the stationmaster at Cook to approach the Arbitrator, but not for the locomotive engine-driver who takes the train from Port Augusta to Cook, to do so? Upon what reasonable premises does he justify the discrimination which this legislation undoubtedly establishes between two employees of the same employer? He asks for simplicity, for definiteness, and for uniformity - if I may use a word about which the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) has discoursed so illuminatingly I say to him that there never has been uniformity in respect of arbitrational awards, and that, at this stage, any approximation to uniformity in a service so diverse as that of the railway systems of Australia, is inconceivable.' As a matter of fact the States of Queensland and Western Australia have not, within recent years, appeared before the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. For the most part, that court has dealt only with the railwayemployees of the States of Victoria,. South Australia, and Tasmania. From his vast experience, .the right honorable gentleman will, I think, agree that the general conditions under which the railway men of Victoria now work, and will continue to work for a decade, are not at all reconcilable with those under which the railway men in the employ of the Commonwealth will work. The railway from Quorn to Alice Springs, and that from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie, pass through practically empty country. The conditions are anything but genial, and there is no variation of the climate. The honorable gentleman says, " I have taken cognizance of that." If I say to him that his Government has taken cognizance of it belatedly, I am not implying that any censure rests upon him. This is the. first opportunity which he has had to act in this matter. I believe that the men will thank him for the fact that long-service leave, which has hitherto been denied to them, is about to be granted .to them.-. But I put it to him that that does npt. make the conditions even approximate to the general conditions under which the railway men of Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania work, they being the men who customarily appear before the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, for the reason that long-service leave is already enjoyed by the great majority of the railway employees of Australia. That is introduced because it is regarded as a reasonable surcease from the monotony of employment, and, in the case of locomotive enginemen, from employment which, in its very nature, imposes a considerable strain. In granting long-service leave, the right honorable gentleman does not give to the Commonwealth railway employees anything which will compensate them for the conditions under which they have to work. He knows that, in Victoria and Western Australia, it is customary to transfer men from semiarid regions to a more congenial station, after they have been stationed in them for some period of years. That certainly is the case in Western Australia, the State of which I have the greatest' knowledge. Railway employees who have been stationed at Mullewa or Meekathara may be transferred to Bunbury, Fremantle, Albany, or Geraldton. In Victoria, those who have been stationed for some time in the Mallee may be transferred to the south-western district, or to some other more salubrious and congenial district, where their wives and families may enjoy some of the compensating virtues which nature itself furnishes. But for the employees on the North-South line ' and -the Transcontinental line, the Commonwealth Government has no such resources. ' It can transfer a man from Zanthus; but where to? To a region precisely identical to Zanthus where the north winds still blow and the dust penetrates and where all the adverse conditions that can be .imagined exist, such as loneliness for' themselves, their wives and their families, and absolute lack of recreational' facilities or entertainment for their leisure hours. They are isolated from the general social life of this Commonwealth. No compensation can be given to them in respect of that deprivation except by the fact that they can earn more money in a less period of time than would be the case anywhere else. I suggest to the right honorable gentleman that their hours could be reduced. The Government has agreed to allow long service leave, which we welcome, and to allow the tribunal whichever it be for the time being to decide the question of district allowances. Having yielded those two points which were adamantly opposed by the Commissioner in previous proceedings, a considerable step forward has been made. I now put it to the Minister that 44 hours- should be the maximum working week, having regard to the inhospitable conditions under which the men have to work and the other conditions which. I will not weary the House by repeating, but all of which make reductions of the hours of labour reasonable. Without some advantage of hours of labour and rates of pay, but for the existence of unemployment it would be extremely difficult to get labour to man these railways which form one of the essential services of the Australian people. In substance the question the Minister put to us to reply to was, " What substantial injustice would be done to the men to deprive them of the right to go to the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator ? " This I answer by stating that the right honorable gentleman has to satisfy, this House that some injustice will be done to the Government in the efficiency of the service by permitting the men to have the option which the law has hitherto given to them. On the question of uniformity I have set out to establish that there is no general approximation between the conditions of the railway men in the Commonwealth service and the men in the State services. I have travelled the Transcontinental line more often than for reasons of comfort I would have wished. To be a passenger is itself unpleasant, but to have to work on the service is worse. That is one aspect of the case, but an even more important aspect is that the great bulk of the Commonwealth servants who are engaged in industrial work, that is to say, men who are artisans, mechanics and labourers engaged in the telephone, telegraph, and postal services are to be allowed to remain under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator. A postman who is engaged in the service of this Commonwealth at a place like Cook or Alice Springs has more in common with the railway employee at Cook or Alice Springs than he has with a man of his own occupation 1,000 miles away. Fo'r the purpose of this legislation railway men who have to live at Cook are like the postal officials who have to live there, and it is far safer, on the basis of uniformity, to give them one arbitrator than it is to put the whole of the postal services of Australia under the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator and to attempt to put the whole of the Commonwealth railway employees under the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. I am not seeking to determine which of these tribunals they should have access to, but his ] Parliament has permitted the railway men to hare a choice as to where they will go. In the past they have been allowed access to the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator, or to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. I ask Parliament to look back on the history of this matter. Is it not true that invariably awards which have been made for these employees have been respected and honoured? Have we any reason to fear that because the men engaged in the railway service now desire, like men engaged in the postal service, to apply to the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator they will be less loyal to the provisions of such award as may be made than they have been in the past? What danger is there if the Arbitrator makes an award as between the Commissioner for Railways for the Commonwealth and the employees engaged on the two Commonwealth railways? I ask honorable gentlemen opposite to give to me some substantial reasons for any apprehensions they may entertain that it would be detrimental either to efficiency or to equity and good conscience to give these men the rights that they seek. I reasonably surmise that these bills have been brought down because customarily the employees of the Commonwealth who go to the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator believe that they have a reasonable expectation of getting a 44-hour week,_ and because the railway employees of the Commonwealth services probably entertain the same hope. The Arbitration Court which does not deal with railway employees in these special regions, but with employees in the more settled cities of Australia, and which probably has no knowledge of the great diversity of conditions and relative severity of hardship of employees in the Commonwealth railway service against those engaged in the State railway services, probably feels that it would be unwise for it to deal with the standard hours other than in the way that has generally been the case. I remind the Minister that it takes three judges of the Arbitration Court to deal with any question of hours. I further put it to him that when a court is dealing with all classes of employees - employees of pri vate enterprise as well as those engaged in public instrumentalities - that come before it, at least the motives and reasons that animate it in dealing with hours can be understood when it is loth to make changes even with public instrumentalities. When the employees of private enterprise come before it, it may be in an anomalous position if it has granted 44 hours to public instrumentalities and for economic reasons decided to award 48 hours for private employees. Therein lies a ease for treatment of those employees in the Public Service by the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator, who is engaged exclusively in relationships between the public servants and the Crown. There is a great deal of contention that one cannot impose on private enterprise a shorter working week by any drastic decree of Parliament or by a declaration of the Commonwealth court that would have universal application; but I think I state the facts of the situation when I say that public policy should be primarily responsible for initiating a movement for the reduction of the working week, and that it would not be unreasonable for the Government, which a year ago proclaimed its adherence to a 40-hour week at an international conference, and even went so far as to ask its delegate to vote for a draft convention, the application of which would mean a 40- hour week, not to be fearful that the Arbitrator would do a ruinous thing by granting 44 hours on the transcontinental railway and the Central Australian railway. No other thing would warrant the Government interfering with the law than the fear that it has that a 44-hour week may be introduced. If that is not the truth of the matter then the Minister should tell us actually what reasons actuated the Government in bringing down this legislation. Mr.LANE (Barton) [9.40].- It seems to me that the question this House is called upon to decide is whether the Government is doing right in transferring the Commonwealth railway employees from one industrial tribunal to another. If in the view of the Government, the Public Service Arbitrator's court is not the jurisdiction to which the employees of the Commonwealth railway service should apply for altered conditions, then I think that they are entitled to be brought under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration court. I do not agree with honorable gentlemen who tell me that the Arbitration Court is not the proper place for this matter to be dealt with. When all other railways are dealt with under the arbitration laws it is wise and well to leave the Commonwealth railways under the same jurisdiction. I have always been a supporter of the arbitration movement. I believe it is the best method by which industrial disputes can be settled, despite the fact that experience has been that when an Arbitration Court award is brought into operation and it does not suit either side, very often either one of them will have recourse to lockouts or strikes. I still believe, however, that arbitration is the only method by which industry can proceed on safe lines. Nevertheless it does appear that an obligation has been placed on the Government to see that restoration of conditions is made in the railway service through the medium of the court. First of all, the Government has agreed to district allowances and long-service leave. I have been asking myself why the Commissioner was ever instructed to oppose these conditions during the last few years. The Government readily said to-day that it would grant these concessions, and after all, if application is made to r,he Arbitration Court for conditions the employee makes his claim and the employer sets out the case in answer to it. The Government to-day is under an obligation to introduce a 44-hour week in this industry. We are talking about a 40-hour week for all industries throughout Australia and, in fact, there has been talk about an international scheme to bring this about. Just about 30 years ago we first heard about a 48- hour week and for many years that has had universal application to industry. For the last ten years, the agitation for a 44-hour working week has been persisted in with such success that, throughout a large field of industry, the 44-hour week now prevails. There ought (o bp. no activity under the control of the Commonwealth Government in which the working week is longer than 44 hours. I. do not know whether this necessary reform can be instituted by this Parliament, but there should be no furtherdelay in taking what steps are necessary to have it brought about through the proper channels. For my part, I cannot see why the railway employees should not be able to have their grievances redressed by the Commonwealth Arbition Court in place of the Public Service Arbitrator. In the final analysis, it depends largely upon the attitude of the Government. No doubt, the Government will say that it does not use its influence in these matters, but we know that, in fact, the Railways Commissioner consults with the Minister, and an understanding is reached between them as to what the Commissioner will accept, and what he will decline. The finances of the country have been so buoyant lately that the Government should experience no difficulty in granting this concession. T was appalled to learn of the conditions under which Commonwealth railway employees are living and working, and I cannot understand what successive Ministers for Railways have been doing to permit such conditions to continue. The great disadvantage under which public departments of this kind labour is the lack of business capacity in the men who control them, many of whom are, in effect, square pegs in round holes. It should not be necessary to appeal to the Arbitration Court for these conditions. The best possible conditions should be granted by the Government itself. I have always believed that the system of wages boards introduced by Charles Gregory Wade was much better for all parties concerned than the arbitration system. On the wages boards the representatives of the employers sat at the table side by side with the' representatives of the employees, and between them they reached an agreement concerning wages and conditions. There were no lawyers and no judges to make a fat living out of industrial litigation. The Government should, without delay, intimate its readiness to agree to a 44-hour week for railway employees. Mr. Rosevear.- Will the honorable member vote for that? Mr. LANE.- The honorable member knows that we shall have no opportunity to vote on that issue, but if, by my own act, it were possible to establish a 44-hour working week to-morrow, I should do so. I was distressed to heaT the honorable member for Grey (Mr. McBride) state that many of the employees on the Commonwealth railways were living in hovels. That state of affairs does not reflect much credit on the Government, or on the Ministers who have been in charge of the department. The men working on this long stretch of line under the most severe conditions lack even satisfactory education facilities for their children, and they cannot send their families away for rest or change. At the very least, then, they should be provided with decent homes to live in. If this charge had been made by honorable members of the party opposite, we might have thought it was exaggerated; but when the honorable member for Grey declares from his place in tha House that the conditions under which the railway men are working and living are a disgrace to the Government, it behoves the Government to see that something is done without delay. I hope that the Commissioner will not oppose the just claims of the employees. Mr. BEASLEY*(West Sydney) [9.55] . - I have listened carefully to this discussion in an attempt to ascertain just what reason prompted the Government to introduce this legislation, the purpose of which is to deprive a section of Commonwealth railway employees of access to the Public Service Arbitrator. The Minister who introduced the bill (Mr. Hughes) said that the Government was actuated by a desire to bring about uniform conditions in the railway services throughout the Commonwealth, but the. speeches of the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford), who has been so closely associated with this case, and of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), throw an entirely new light on the matter. I find that the locomotive men's union presented a memorial to the Public Service Arbitrator on the 19th December, 1935, and that answers the interjection of the Minister, who asked the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) when the claim was actually lodged. The other unions followed the locomotive men's union, but there is no doubt that the initial step was taken on the 19th December last by this organization. Other unions concerned followed in due course. However, when the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner learned that one of the main points of the claim was the reduction of the number of hours, he took steps to have the application heard before another tribunal. It is clear now that the Commissioner realised that he did not have a sufficiently strong case successfully to oppose the application of the locomotive men before the Public Service Arbitrator on the hours question. Like the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart), I have never been able to understand why there should be such a difference between the hours and conditions of work enjoyed by the inside, or collarandtie workers, and those of the men who work in overalls. The strain on the manual workers, especially locomotive men, is far more severe than on those who work in the central office or at railway stations. This differentiation still persists, however, and the Commissioner is determined to prevent the locomotive men from gaining a 44-hour working week. Apparently the Public Service Arbitrator knows too much about the internal conditions of the railway service to suit the Commissioner, who is anxious to take the case before the judges of the Arbitration Court, with whose opinions and prejudices he is familiar. He has, apparently, in the past, received favorable treatment from them, and he hopes to be treated as well again. It is quite clear to most of us that the Commissioner is the driving force behind the decision of the Government to introduce this legislation. Mr. Drakeford.- Why should the Government take its stand against the claim of the employees? Mr. BEASLEY.- That is a question which the Minister must answer. Why should the Government back up the Commissioner in his opposition to the introduction of a 44-hour week, when it' claims to have expressed itself in favour of the general introduction of a 40-hour week? It would appear that a majority of the members of the Government are in favour of removing this case to the Arbitration Court, because they know that the court is opposed to the principle of a reduction of the number of working hours. When the union lodged its claim on the 19th December last, it raised the question of the legal right of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner to force the employees into the Arbitration Court. I understand that the locomotive enginemen produced a legal opinion to the effect that the Railways Commissioner had no right to prevent them from having access to the Public Service Arbitrator, since their claims had already been lodged with that tribunal. Mr Drakeford.- The opinion they obtained was that they could not be kept away from the Arbitrator because of the objection of the Railways Commissioner to their claims being heard by that tribunal. Mr. BEASLEY.- That may be the strictly correct version, but I think I have conveyed a similar impression. According to my information, the Railways Commissioner also sought legal advice on this matter. I believe that further consultation on the legal position was to have taken place, but the representatives of the employees have not yet been advised regarding it, nor has the Railways Commissioner honoured his undertaking to inform them as to the legal opinion he had received. The only answer which the men have had from the Commissioner as to the legal position is the measure which has now been submitted to this House. This action by the Government calls for condemnation by those who ask for clean and straight dealing in matters affecting employees in the Commonwealth service. All the remarks by the Minister in charge of the bill as to the desirability of uniform conditions go by the board, because, even in the Commonwealth Railways Service, the conditions are not at all uniform. It seems that steps have been taken to prevent the locomotive men from having access to a tribunal which is available to other sections of the Public Service. Despite the doubt expressed as to the legal right of the Railways Commissioner to force the railway men into the Arbitration Court, the Government is seeking special legislation, at the very end of the session, for the purpose of giving the Commissioner a right which he did not possess when the employees' application was made on the 19th December last. This is an action of the worst kind. I cannot say one word in favour of the Railways Commissioner, because, when a question was recently asked in this chamber as to why an air-conditioning plant for the Commonwealth Railways had been installed by an overseas firm, and when it was explained that a local manufacturer could have supplied the equipment at a price 25 per cent, lower than that of the overseas firm, the answer given was that the Railways Commissioner was unaware that such a plant could be manufactured in Australia. Mr. Paterson.- He was unintentionally misled by the Railways Commissioners of another State. Mr. BEASLEY.-This is not an indictment of the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson), but the action of. the Railways Commissioner shows a degree of incompetence that is remarkable. If an ordinary railway employee had been responsible for such a wasteful expenditure, he would, have been dismissed within 24 hours, but a highsalaried officer seems to be able to do such a thing with impunity. The fact that the Railways Commissioner took steps to force these . men into the Arbitration Court before he knew whether he had authority to do so affords another indication of incompetence on his part. He proceeded on lines which he had no legal right to follow, and now the Government seeks to legalize the action taken. Honorable members should not support a measure of this kind. Discredit is reflected upon the Government for attempting to justify the Commissioner's action by eleventh-hour legislation. Mr. PATERSON(Gippsland- Minister for the Interior) [10.8]. - The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) has charged the Railways Commissioner with having obtained an imported air-conditioning plant for the transcontinental railway service when such a plant could have been purchased in Australia. I can assure the House that, at the time when the order was given, the Commissioner was honestly of the opinion that the local firm bad had no experience whatever in the instalment of air-conditioning plants on trains. He considered that its experience was confined to offices, whilst the British firm, to whom the order was given for a trial plant, had had experience of railway installations. The Commissioner merely took advantage of the visit of a representative of a British firm, at the invitation of the Railways Commissioners of Victoria, to have a trial plant installed on the Transcontinental line. If further installations of air-conditioning plants are to be made on Commonwealth railways, the Australian firm will he given every opportunity to tender for them. A good deal has been said about the Arbitration Court and' the Public Service Arbitrator. Everybody who has given thought to this matter must agree that the choice should be between one or the other, and that both should not remain in the field. All the weight of argument is undoubtedly in favour of the court, to which two-thirds of the railway workers of Australia take their claims. The Public: Service Arbitrator is accustomed to dealing with clerical workers, but the Arbitration Court has had a long experience of conditions on the various railways of Australia. I rose, particularly, to reply to statements made regarding the conditions under which employees on the Transcontinental railway and other Commonwealth lines work. It has been said that these conditions compare unfavorably with those obtaining in other railway services in this country. Admittedly, the climatic conditions experienced on the Commonwealth railways are not so agreeable as those in other railway services, but even the honorable member for West Sydney would not blame the Railways Commissioner for the Australian climate. In addition to these natural drawbacks, one has to consider some of the special advantages enjoyed by Commonwealth railway employees, although little has been said about them. It was pointed out bv the honorable member for Grey (Mr. MoBride) that some compensation in the shape of pay should be made to men who work under the trying climatic conditions experienced on the Commonwealth railways. The district allowance runs up to as much as 12s. 3d. a week, increasing as the place of employment becomes further from Kalgoorlie, at the one end, or Port Augusta, at the other end. The allowance amounts to a fairly high figure on the Central Australian railway, and on the Northern Territory railway. Apart from long leave, which the Government has decided to grant to its railway employees, the ordinary annual leave is somewhat more generous than in other parts of Australia. There are now ten public holidays for which pay is received, a further nine days' recreation leave, and from one to five days which are allowed for travelling time, making a ,total of from 20 to 24 days per annum, including travelling time. Men employed on the Transcontinental line, at any considerable distance from either terminus, receive from one to five days' travelling time. That allowance was made when the line was being constructed, and when a considerable period was occupied in travelling on slow trains, or on goods trains between the place of employment and the nearest terminus. That travelling time has never been reduced, although it might have been fairly curtailed, in view of the fact that to-day we have relatively fast trains, and at least part of the time allowed is saved by the employees, because it is not actually taken up in travelling. Therefore, the allowance of from 20 to 24 days' annual leave compares more than favorably with that made to employees on other railway systems in Australia. Reference has been made by the honorable member for Grey and others to the housing conditions on the Transcontinental railway. It is true that, in some instances, the accommodation is not all that could be desired. Even in this capital city of Canberra, we find houses of which we are not proud, and which we hope to have replaced as soon as possible by something a good deal better. On the Transcontinental railway a substantial improvement has been made in regard to the housing conditions of the employees. At Rawlinna, Cook and Tarcoola are to Iv seen some excellent cottages, but, even at other places, where the accommodation is not so good, it is not so bad as it seems to be. The worst feature is the outside appearance. Take for instance, what is called the double tent house, which is not a tent, but a weatherboard house with a double iron roof. This dwelling is Tshaped. It has a porch in the centre, with a room on either side. There is another large porch at the rear, which can be used for a room; and beyond that is a kitchen. These double tent houses, which are very simple in construction, cost the department about £280. Mr. Gander.- What rent is charged for them? Mr. PATERSON. - The rent is 2s. a week or £5 4s. per annum. If the honorable gentleman cares to compute what interest that represents on a capital cost of £280, he will find that it is only If per cent., which I do not think he would regard unduly high. The rent of the single tent houses is ls. a week. It must therefore be admitted that accommodation is provided for the workers at a very cheap rate. In addition to that, workers engaged in districts where firewood is not readily obtainable are provided with free firewood, and in waterless districts, where it costs a great deal to provide water, they are also provided free with that necessary commodity. Prices of groceries, due to the excellent organization of the Commonwealth Railway Department, compare favorably with those charged in Adelaide and suburbs. The price charged for meat in remote localities is not greater than that charged at Kalgoorlie, Port Augusta or Quorn. Fruit and vegetables are carried freight free to employees on the Transcontinental line. Honorable members will, therefore, realize that something is being done to make life as tolerable as possible for these people. Mention was made by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) of the lack of provision for the sick. As a matter of fact, in cases of sickness, not only the employees, but also 'their wives and dependants are transported free, on trains running either to Port Augusta at one end of the line, or Kalgoorlie at the other, depending on which hospital happens to be the nearer. Mr. Holloway.- I was referring to the northern section of the North-South line. Mr. PATERSON.-I think the same conditions apply over the whole Commonwealth system. When a special section car has to be used part of the cost has to be borne by the employee, but that does not apply when a train is available. Mr. Holloway.- The conditions must have been altered quite recently. Mr. PATERSON.-That is the present position. A good deal has been said about the hardship inflicted on railway employees by reason of climatic conditions and the prevalence of flies. We all admit that those are real drawbacks, yet the fact remains that the people concerned are not nearly so sorry for themselves as we are for them. Most of them do not leave the climate to which they have been accustomed. When they get their annual leave, many of these men go only perhaps two stations further along the line and spend their holidays with railway friends living in the same climate in which they have been working for many years. Mr. Drakeford.- They have not enough money to go further. Mr. PATERSON.-They do not need it; they are provided with a free pass over the Commonwealth system and when they desire to travel on the State systems, they are charged one quarter of the ordinary passenger rate. It must be admitted that every facility is afforded these men to travel as cheaply as possible. The honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) referred to what lie said was a fact - it is not a fact - that the Commonwealth Railways' Commissioner had been instructed by the Government to oppose the granting of long service leave. The Government has never given the Commissioner any such instruction. On the contrary, as the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) has already indicated, the Government proposes to take steps to grant the men long-service leave. In considering what long-service leave should be granted, the Government had before it the practice adopted by the various States, and in arriving at a decision, did not. strike a mean between the most generous and the least generous treatment accorded by the different States; it did not even adopt the average, but decided to give to its own employees the long-service leave conditions enjoyed by the Western Australian railway servants, the most generous obtaining in any of the States. The Government is treating Commonwealth Railways servants fairly, and it intends to continue to do so. It regards these men as employees whom it is its duty to treat fairly. Nothing in the bill now before the House can be regarded as other than giving these men a fair deal. Sir FrederickStewart. - Will thu Government instruct the Railways Commissioner not to oppose the claim of the men for a 44-hour week? Mr. ROSEVEAR(Dalley) [10.24].- When the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) was speaking, I expected at least that we should hear something of the bill which so vitally affects Government servants under his control ; instead of dealing with the merits or the demerits of the bill before the House, the honorable member merely compared the conditions prevailing in the State railway services with those applying in the Commonwealth service, a matter quite beside the point at issue. The only question we have to deal with is whether the right of the Commonwealth Railways employees to appear before the Public Service Arbitrator, which they have enjoyed for sixteen years, should be taken away from them. That was a subject, however, upon which the Minister had least to say. His only observation was that the men should have the right to appear either before one tribunal or the other, which, in effect, means that their choice should be limited to the right to appear either before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, or the Public Service Arbitrator. I am one of those who believe that when a man enjoys a right given to him by the Government, his liberty to exercise that right should not be questioned. In this case, the men had a perfect right to make a choice as to which tribunal they should approach, but that right is to be taken away from them in the bill now before the House. In view of the fact that all the men have to sell is their labour power, if they have the choice of approaching one tribunal or the other, to have the price of their labour fixed, why should they not enjoy that' privilege to the fullest extent? Assume that these men, instead of being engaged in running them, were actually engaged in the building of engines and carriages for sale; would the Minister say that the right of the Government should be limited to selling the products of their labour in one particular Stateor country; or if the Government controlling these works had the right to sell trains, would the Minister say that itsright should be restricted to sales in oneState or another ? Of course not ! These men did not seek the privilege of being able to make a choice; it was given to them by the Government. They had the alternative of approaching either the Commonwealth Arbitration Court or the Public Service Arbitrator, and it is the duty of both of those tribunals to fix conditions under which men will sell their labour power. If these men were working for a private employer, would the Minister restrict the right of the private employer to sell the goods which they produced in any particular market, or in any State or country? On the contrary, he would say that the employer had a perfect right to sell his goods in any market, or to retain them. The Commonwealth railway employees have never sought to go to both tribunals at the one time. The fact is they could not. Their agreement under an award of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has expired, and they have filed a claim with the alternative tribunal, the Public Service Arbitrator. I could understand it if this bill had been brought in last year, when the Minister must have known that, sooner or later, these men would have to approach one of the two tribunals. But that was not done. The Commonwealth railway employees filed a claim last December, and I understand the proceedings reached a stage at which a compulsory conference has been held. The intervention of the Government at this stage of the hearing is most suspicious. The railway employees are not exercising a double choice for they have actually, and for good reasons, spurned the Commonwealth Arbitration. Court. Personally, I commend them for doing so, because of the experience they had three years ago when the judge who made an award for them disregarded the clear provision of the law with the result that his award was subsequently declared ultra vires the act by the High Court. In such circumstances, I would not care whether these men had for sixteen years or 60 years submitted their claims to the Arbitration Court. When actual experience shows a man the futility of doing a certain thing he is surely at liberty to change his mind and' adopt an alternative. The Commonwealth railway employees have changed their minds as they were thoroughly entitled to do. It has been suggested that the men have gone to the Public Service Arbitrator because they know they will get a more favorable award from him, but there is no ground for such an assumption. We do not know' how the Arbitrator will regard the claim submitted to him. The true reason why the Public Service Arbitrator has been approached is that the men have lost all confidence in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. We have been assured that these cognate bills have been introduced solely in the interests of industrial uniformity, but that argument cannot be substantiated. If the Government desires to achieve a substantial degree of uniformity it can do so very easily in regard to its railway employees. In any case, complete uniformity is never likely to be realized, because wage rates in the various States vary according to prevailing price levels in the capital cities. Moreover, climatic conditions and certain other considerations affect wage rates. When we speak of uniformity we have in mind a uniform basic wage and working week. The honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) pointed out early in this debate that the vast majority of the_ railway workers of Australia are enjoying a 44-hour working week. As the only parties that will be affected by the passage of this bill are the Government and its railway employees, I suggest that a provision be inserted in the 'bill to the effect that a 44-hour week shall be uniformly adopted throughout the Commonwealth railway system. Mr.Archie Cameron. - I understood that the policy of the honorable member's party was a 40-hour working week. Mr. ROSEVEAR.-If we had- the numbers in this Parliament, the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) would very soon realize that that is our policy, but as we are not in that fortunate position, we are suggesting a 44-hour week for the Commonwealth railway employees as an advance on the 48 hours worked at present, so that at least that measure of uniformity can be achieved. If the Government feels that for any reason it cannot agree to the insertion of such a provision in this bill, I suggest that it direct the Railways Commissioner not to oppose the application of its railways employees for a 44-hour week. I do not desire to discuss in detail the points raised by the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) in regard to working conditions on the East-West railway. I am prepared to accept the honorable gentleman's assurance that probably not half of the workers on that line travel more than a couple of stations from their home when they take their annual leave, but that is probably due to lack of cash. Probably 75 per cent, of the railway and tramway employees of New South Wales who also are entitled' to a free pass on the railways when on annual leave, are unable to take advantage of it : they cannot go far from their homes because they have not the money to take a holiday. However, all this is beside the issue that is before us. The Government has not indicated clearly why it wishes to deprive its railway employees of the right, which they have enjoyed for the last sixteen years, of submitting their claims to the Public Service Arbitrator. If its intention is simply to limit the railway employees to one tribunal, it should, in the circumstances which face us, have taken steps to deprive them of the right to approach the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Its action in intruding in a claim that is part heard is most reprehensible. The Commonwealth railway employees, having had such an unsatisfactory experience with the Commonwealth Arbitration Court in recent years, have approached the Public Service Arbitrator in the hope that substantial justice will be done them, and their action should not have been rudely assailed in this way. Mr. MARTENS(Herbert) [10.44].- T consider that the Government has introduced these cognate measures because it fears that the Public Service Arbitrator may make an award favorable to the Commonwealth railway employees. Three years ago, when an award favorable to its employees was made, steps were taken to have it disallowed, and I suppose the Government does not wish to be forced to do such an unpopular thing again. The ridicule which the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) poured on the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) because he advocated industrial uniformity showed a complete misunderstanding of the situation. When we say that we desire uniformity in wages and working hours, we have in mind the basic wage and the standard working week. We do not suggest that variations in both wages and working hours should not be made to meet the peculiar circumstances of particular districts. In the awards of every arbitration court, as well as of the Public Service Arbitrator, special provision is made to meet the case of those who are stationed in far-away places, and are working under adverse climatic and other conditions. In Queensland, a very substantial concession is granted by the Railways Commissioner in regard to the fares charged for the transport of the womenfolk of employees who are stationed in the outlying portions of that great State. Where the distance is over 200 miles, one-quarter fare is charged for the transport of wives and children to the places to which they wish to travel. Does the honorable member for the Northern Territory object to locomotive-drivers, firemen and guards working the same number of hours as are worked by the tradesmen who are responsible for the coachbuilding and the engineering and fitting work? I do not think that he would favour differentiation. He has related some of his experiences. I, too, have had a certain degree of experience, which enables me to say that, if there is one man more than another in the traffic department of any State railway service who should have a shorter working week, it is the engine-driver or the fireman. His work imposes a greater strain on the nervous system than is imposed by any other occupation of which I have knowledge. The honorable member for Parramatta {Sir Frederick Stewart) asked the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) whether he would promise that the Government would instruct the Commissioner not to oppose the granting of a 44-hour week. I suggest that, if that were done, no judge of an arbitration court, whether federal or other, would fail to realize that the Government was satisfied thai: that should be the standard number of hours in the railway services of Australia. That is all that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) meant when he spoke of uniform conditions. Other conditions must be regulated by the tribunal which has the determination of the matter. This case having been submitted to the Public Service Arbitrator, the Government had not the right to interfere with it.. Claiming as it does that it has no wish to use political influence either with the Arbitration Court or with the Public ServiCe Arbitrator, it should be the last to interfere. It does not speak truthfully when it says that it does not wish to do so. The right honorable gentleman who is in charge of the measure (Mr. Hughes) has on more than one occasion, but on one in particular, interfered very definitely, in the past, with the functions of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports knows a good deal more industrially than the honorable member for the Northern Territory is ever likely to learn, because, in connexion with his activities in Australia and other countries on behalf of organized labour, he has had opportunities such as are presented to few men to study and report upon matters which affect the welfare of the workers. The Government would be on sound ground, and would act within its rights, were it to say to the Commissioner, " We shall not oppose the granting of a 44-hour week. Leave the matter to the arbitration tribunal." A good case cannot be presented in favour of separate arbitration for the Public Service. I have said in this Parliament, and at many other places is. the Commonwealth, that there should nc be a separate tribunal to deal with the hours of labour and the other conditions of the Public Service. I do not consider that these matters are more intricate in the Public Service than. in other callings. The tribunal which is competent to determine the conditions of the mass of the workers is quite capable of adjudicating upon the conditions of every employee in Australia. In Queensland, there is not a special arbitrator for the Public Service; the wages and conditions of the large number of persons who are employed in the different public departments are determined by the Board of Trade and Arbitration. The conditions in regard to the minimum rates of pay and the maximum number of hours should be uniform in the case of every man employed in the railway service of the Commonwealth. The circumstances in regard to housing related by the honorable members for Grey (Mr. McBride) and the Northern Territory are not peculiar to the Commonwealth Railways Department. It is a crying shame that they should be allowed to continue. Mr. HUGHES(North SydneyMinister for Repatriation) [10.52 j. - in reply - This debate has proceeded along lines that appeal to me. There has been, a very earnest desire on the part of honorable members generally to discuss the matter on a plane free from all personali[les. Even though we have had some special privately-screened pictures of the past, and have been reminded of former utterances, that is all to .the good. One can learn something even from oneself, if one looks back at oneself in Drover nerspective This legislation, which is part of a series introduced into this Parliament, has for its object the settlement of industrial disputes. It has evoked characteristic comment. Since the first of such measures was introduced in 1904, the people have been assured that dire consequences must inevitably result. I have just been refreshing my memory in regard to what was said in 1904, when the first Commonwealth Arbitration Bill was before this Parliament. Then, as now, the measure was bitterly assaulted. Then, and on every subsequent occasion,, a most remarkable ebullition of feeling has been displayed by gentlemen on the other side of the chamber. T am not suggesting that in every case they have been the gentlemen who now occupy those benches. But upon every occasion when 1 have stood here as the protagonist of a measure to amend, to amp! if y, to improve the arbitration system of this country, I have been assailed by vehement denunciations and suggestions of a fell and sinister purpose, intended to destroy the principles of justice and to impair those fair and alluring opportunities which, but for me or for people like me, would spread themselves before the workers of this country. All that has been said to-night was said when the first Commonwealth Arbitration Bill was before this Parliament in 1904 - from a different aspect, of course, but nevertheless, the same thing in substance. Then, too, when the 1911 measure, which I introduced, was before the chamber, we were assured that at best it should be viewed with profound, suspicion, that evidently there was behind, it a purpose which had not been revealed ;. just as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.. Curtin) has said that the real purpose of this measure is to be found in the Machiavellian tactics of the Commissioner forRailways, who has seized upon this as a. convenient means for knifing the fairprospects of a 44-hour week. All that I. have to say is that the' real purpose- behind this bill is that set out in my speech. I can only deal with the bill itself, and with the facts asthey have been presented to me.. I repeat : .Show me where any substantial., injustice is to be done by this measure toany man. The Leader of the Opposition could not answer this question, but. countered it by asking me another. " Show me ", said he, " what injustice will be - done to the Commonwealth Railway Commissioner by the appearance of Common- - wealth railway employees before the Public Service Arbitrator." My reply is that no substantial injustice will be done to him, but that he is entitled to have the conditions under which the service - is to operate fixed by a competent tribunal. No tribunal can be- competent .. which has not statutory powers; which is* not able to make an award that cannot be overridden; and which is not well informed, experienced, and familiar with the complex conditions of modern railways. If we are to choose between these two tribunals, we are irresistibly driven to the conclusion that there is only one upon which the choice should fall. On the one hand there is a tribunal which for years has been dealing with railway conditions, and on the other hand there is the Public Service Arbitrator, who has a wide and an intimate knowledge of the affairs of the Public Service of the Commonwealth, but knows nothing whatever of the working conditions of the railway services throughout Australia. So I agree entirely with the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner in his demand that the circumstances under which he shall conduct his undertaking shall be fixed by the same court that fixes the conditions of four of the railway services of Australia, and in effect fixes the conditions of all the State railway systems of Australia; for, although it is true that the services of the States of Queensland and Western Australia are working under State industrial tribunals -not Public Service tribunals, mark you, but tribunals which are competent to deal with all disputes that arise within the territorial boundaries of those States - those tribunals make their determinations upon the basis established by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The proof of that is to be found in a statement which is available to honorable members if they choose to read it. Therefore, the conditions fixed by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration are, in effect, the conditions which obtain in all he railway services of Australia. Mr. Holloway.- Why, then, was it necessary to adopt some of the conditions that have been prescribed in Western Australia? Mr. HUGHES.- We are merely asking that the same tribunal shall fix rates and conditions for the Commonwealth railways as fixes the rates and conditions of the railway systems of South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland or STew South Wales. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) dealt at some "length with my long-expressed desire to have uniformity. The only way in which we can expect to achieve uniformity is by having conditions fixed by one court, not by ten courts. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government's proposals would not mean perfection, but I would impress on him that we are always endeavouring to achieve perfection. We have not done so yet, but are endeavouring to Teach that happy goal. Mankind is always striving and there is more joy in striving than in attainment. The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) made a contribution to the debate which, because of his standing, reputation and familiarity with railway union cases, no doubt carried much weight. He said two things to which I must refer. One of them was that he did not accept the assurance that the amendment made by the Statute Law Revision Act by which the words "in that act " were struck out was inadvertent. Mr. Blackburn.- If the right honorable gentleman says himself that it was inadvertent, I shall accept it. Otherwise I shall not. Mr. HUGHES.-The honorable member knows perfectly well, because he knows the way the Crown Law Department works, that I would have no personal cognizance of the drafting of the Statute Law Revision Bill. I have to speak as I am advised, but I have confirmed my previous statement that neither did the department, when making that alteration, have any idea of its effects, nor did it when that act was passed realize what had been done. Mr. Blackburn.- In almost twenty years of political experience, I have never encountered such an explanation as that before. Mr. HUGHES.-The honorable member also said that in taking away the right of the railway men to go to the Public Service Arbitrator, this Government, as it were, had violated a cardinal principle of justice. I do not think that the honorable member in a careful review of what his statement implies will maintain that. I ask him : What does Parliament do? How is reform effected? Is it some kid glove affair in which one carefully refrains from interfering with the rights of everybody? The honorable member's party rests upon such interference with existing rights as to put the fear of God into the rest of the community. Mr. Blackburn.- I wanted this House to know that this legislation, deprives people of a right which this Parliament has approved. Mr. HUGHES.- How could it deprive people of a right unless that right did exist? Let us see what the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1920 which set up the Public Service Arbitrator said under section 11. It said - ( 1 ) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1911, an organization of employees in the Public Service shall not be entitled to submit to the court under that act any claim relating to the salaries, wages, rates of pay, or terms or conditions of service, or employment of members of the organization. (2) All claims relating to the salaries, wages, rates of pay. or terms or conditions of service or employment of members of any organization which are pending in the court at the commencement of this act, other than claims the hearing of which has been commenced by the court, shall be byforce; of act transferred to the Arbitrator, and shall be deemed to have been submitted to the Arbitrator in pursuance of this act. In the present instance a memorial was filed, but the case had not been started. Consequently nothing has. been done. Mr. Drakeford.- The Minister has been misinformed. A conference with the Arbitrator had taken place. Mr. HUGHES.- That was only a preliminary proceeding. It was not the commencement of the hearing of the case. However, I do not intend to delay the House. "Whatever wind blows in this direction, I am satisfied the Commonwealth railway workers will consider that on the whole it will turn out to be a better wind than has blown their way for many years, for it gives to them long-service leave, which they would not get in any other way. It has been suggested that we should not " spoil the ship for a ha'porth o' tar " and that we should go from strength to strength, and grant a 44-hour week. About that I say nothing, except to express mild astonishment that the Opposition would now be satisfied with 44 hours when the other day, it was demanding 40 hours. I suggest that it be content with what it has, and pray for better things. Question - That the bill be now read a second time - put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. j. Bell.) Ayes......32 Noes...... 20 Majority...... 12 Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Mr.BLACKBURN (Bourke) [11.12]. - I move - That the following new clause be inserted: - " (3) This act shall nut affect the power of the Public Service Arbitrator to determine any claim which has been submitted to him pursuant to the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1920-1934 before the passing of this act". The object of this new clause is to preserve the right of the unions to proceed with the claims which they have already lodged. In accordance with sub-section 2 of section 12 of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act, the unions lodged a claim by memorial, and the Public Service Arbitrator is obliged, in the terms of the act, to determine the matter submitted to him. The position is the same as if a plaintiff had begun an action in a court. It i3 not a question of altering the law so that a right of action does not exist in future; it is a question of altering the law to take away a right of action which has already been begun. Of course, the law can do that, but it does not as a rule do it. Such action is considered to be unjust, and on a plane with taking away a man's property without compensation. During my speech on the second-reading stage of the bill, I mentioned the action taken by the Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes) in connexion with the Arbitration Act, when it was proposed to prevent a single judge from altering standard hours. The amending section contained a provision that the alteration would not affect proceedings which were then being heard. The principle is well recognized by the English courts. Parliament is not presumed to intend to take away rights to proceed with actions which have been already commenced. It can do so, but the act must clearly show that such is the intention of Parliament. "Without the amendment which I have moved, this measure would clearly indicate that intention. I think that it is only right that these proceedings which have already commenced should be allowed to continue. T refer the committee to a point which illustrates this matter very well. At the beginning of this century, an action was decided by the Supreme Court of Queensland, and the unsuccessful party had a right of appeal to the Privy Council. Then the Commonwealth Judiciary Act was passed, taking away the right of appeal to the Privy Council, and substituting for it a right of appeal to the High Court. Nevertheless, the appellant went before the Privy Council, and the Council held that he had the right so to appeal to it. The Council admitted that the legislature had the power to take away that right, but pointed out that it was a principle of English law that the legislature must be presumed not to have intended to take the right away unless that intention was clearly stated in the act. In one case, a very distinguished English judge, Mr. Baron Pollock, said - It certainly was considered in many cases that where a person had commenced an action he had a vested right, and that any subsequent statute ought not to be construed as retro-active so as to alter that right. That is not an invariable rule, and it will not apply whore the language of the statute is clearly expressed. If my amendment is agreed to, the Public Service Arbitrator will be obliged to hear those claims that have been already lodged, but all future claims will go before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Another case was decided by a distinguished authority, Mr. Baron Channell, who said that, in dealing with acts of Parliament which have the effect of taking away rights of action, we ought not to construe them as having a retrospective operation,, unless it appears clearly that such was the intention of the legislature. The cases which I have cited effectively support my view that the Government should not, as a matter of policy, so alter the law as to destroy the right of persons to proceed with actions already commenced. Mr.MARTENS (Herbert) [11.20].- I support the amendment. Notwithstanding what the right honorable member in charge of the bill (Mr. Hughes) has said, it has been clearly established that action had been commenced before this legislation was introduced. The Arbitrator had ordered the parties into conference, and action had been commenced. With all due deference to the right honorable Minister, I say that arguments which were adduced in 1904 do not now apply, because arbitration was then in its infancy. In this case the parties had taken the necessary steps for the purpose of having an award framed governing the conditions under which they were working, and it illbecomes this Government to intervene with legislation which denies the right of action to these men. If we had attempted to discuss a case which was before the courts, the right honorable member would at once have reminded us that the matter was sub judice. Nevertheless, this Government is now using its power to deny the right of action to unions which have already commenced an action in a properlyconstituted court of this country. Mr. HUGHES(North Sydney- Minister for Repatriation) [11.24]. - I am unable to accept the amendment. The point which the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) has been making is based upon a rule of construction where the intention of the legislature is not clear, but here the intention of the legislation is clear. No new ground has been broken. Section 11 of the 1920 act created exactly the same position. Under that act all the cases listed were dismissed and passed over to the newly-constituted court, and parties who had filed actions were denied access to the court. Only those cases which were part heard were carried forward. Mr. DRAKEFORD(Maribyrnong) [11.25]. - I was hoping that the right honorable Minister in charge of the bill (Mr. Hughes) would accept the amendment, because, as the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) has shown, the railway employees had established their right. Action had been commenced. Section 12 of the act provides - 12. - (1.) The Arbitrator shall, subject to the provisions of this section, determine all matters submitted to him relating to salaries, wages, rates of pay, or terms or conditions of service or employment of officers and employees of the Public Service. (2.) Any organization shall be entitled to submit to the Arbitrator by memorial any claim relating to the salaries, wages, rates of pay, or terms or conditions of service or employment of members of the organization. (3.) The Arbitrator shall forward a copy of the claim to the Commissioner, and to the Minister of any Department of State affected by the claim. (4.) The Commissioner and the Minister of any Department of State affected by the claim may within the prescribed time lodge, either jointly or separately, any objections they see fit to make to the granting of the claim. The Commissioner did that. By lodging his objection to the claim he helped , the locomotive enginemen to initiate their proceedings. (5.) If any objection is lodged, the Arbitrator shall call a conference, to be presided over by himself, of representatives of the organization and of the Commissioner and of any Minister who has lodged objections to the granting of the claim, and following upon such conference shall, after hearing such evidence (if any) in respect of such matters as have .not been agreed to at the conference ae the Arbitrator thinks necessary, determine the claim. The preliminary steps having been taken, the Arbitrator ordered the parties into conference, and the proceedings were actually commenced. The Minister has been misled if he says that the proceedings had not been commenced. We had established the right to be heard, and that right should be respected. This legislation should not have retrospective application. I am surprised at the Government's attitude. The men desire to have their claim decided by ' peaceful means. No body of employees could do more to hold up the transport services, if they were willing to take risks, than these men. They approve the policy of conciliation and arbitration, and expect to get at least justice; but this Government introduces legislation, the purpose of which is to interfere with their statutory rights. It is evident that some powerful and influential body moved this Government to introduce this legislation. This action is most unfair, and the greater the publicity given to it, the more clearly it will be seen that this Government stands for the employer as against 'the employee on every occasion. The right honorable gentleman who has introduced this bill has fought for the trade unions in the past; but, despite his splendid early record, he is now fighting for theemployer, and against the interests of unions which are seeking toadopt the peaceful methods of arbitration for which, he stood. The Public Service Arbitrator stated at the conference that a claim had been submitted to him by the union which covered the full range of the wages and conditions, of its members. He said that a copy of the claim was served on the respondent Commissioner, who had lodged a formal objection to the claim on the ground that an award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration already existed. That was award 109 of 1932. He further remarked that the Commissioner's objection had been stated in the briefest terms, and at that stage he invited the Commissioner to supplement his objections.' When the union submitted a legal opinion to justify its attitude, the Commissioner said that he had a legal opinion too. We submitted our legal opinion, and, as requested, gave a copy of it to the Commissioner. After discussion, he undertook to supply us with the opinion on which he founded his belief that we had no right to go before the Public Service Arbitrator. We have never received the Commissioner's legal opinion. All we have had is this bill. The Minister is being used in order to help the employer in his efforts to circumvent the employees. I was one of those who advised the members of the union that, if they waited for the opportunity, they could approach the Public Service Arbitrator in order to get justice. Do not honorable members opposite consider that that was a proper attitude for the union officials to adopt? If the Minister were free to express his own. opinion on the matter, he would admit the validity of the argument adduced by the honorable member for Bourke, and say that what the union had done was the only right thing to do. If honorable members do what is proper, they will vote in favour of the amendment and insist on the union not being deprived of its rights. Mr. MCBRIDE(Grey) [11.35].- Although I am in accord with the general provisions of this bill, as the Government has inadvertently prevented the union from taking any course other than that followed by it, I am prepared to support the amendment. I oppose retrospective legislation in principle, and, since the union has availed itself of the legal facilities open to it, the Government would be unwise in excluding it from the tribunal to which it has appealed. Mr. CURTIN(Fremantle) [11.36].- The refusal of the Government to accept this reasonable amendment exposes the purpose of the bill. It is designed to prevent the Public Service Arbitrator from adjudicating on the submission now before him. This is an unprecedented action in connexion with arbitration proceedings in Australia. The determination of the Government to alter the law in respect of all future proceedings should be decided on its merits, and, although I should object to such a measure as this on . principle, I should consider it understandable to propose that, from now on, any union of railway employees which desired to submit a claim to arbitration should have to go to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. That is what this bill provides, but, up to this hour, the unions have had the legal right to go to the Public Service Arbitrator, and they have availed themselves of the option which the law gives. In a perfectly lawful way, and observing the awards hitherto made, they have said to themselves, " We may now go to the Public Service Arbitrator ". They have studied the act and have presented their memorial. Objections to it have been entered by the Railways Commissioner, presumably on behalf of the Government, the Arbitrator has dealt with the objections, and a compulsory conference has been called and held. It is idle to say that proceedings are not taking place, because the tribunal is now engaged in adjudicating on the merits of the submission. Recognizing that this measure provides that, for the future, the employees shall be restricted to the Arbitration Court, and shall no longer have the option hitherto enjoyed of going to the Public Service Arbitrator, the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) claims that it is unfair to apply that principle during the hearing of a case now before the Arbitrator. The -Minister, in refusing to accept the amendment, compels me to make the reflection that this bill would not now be before us except for the desire of the Government to prevent the Arbitrator from dealing with the case submitted to him. The Government desires to deny to the Arbitrator the authority which the present law gives to him, and to deny to the unions a right which the law confers upon them, and which they are exercising. By that decision the right honorable gentleman, acting on behalf of the Government, is retrospectively destroying the vested interests of the trade union. What other vested interests would this Parliament so readily retrospectively destroy? It is not willing to give taxation legislation retrospective application. Honorable members occupying the corner bench would rise in their wrath if the Government introduced a measure imposing taxation retrospectively, and it is therefore unjust to deprive the trade unionists of the rights they should be able to exercise under the law as it stands today. The Government with its majority can prevent this union from putting its case before the Public Service Arbitrator. It is showing a preference for an award, which it believes the Commonwealth CoUrt of Conciliation and Arbitration will make, and its fear of an award which might be made by the pub.lic Service. Arbitrator. I remind the right honorable gentleman that the court for which it is expressing a preference includes a judge who was once the president of the Employers Federation. I feel that this legislation- is not only drastic in character, but also designed deliberately to prevent the workers in this instrumentality from getting that measure of justice, which they feel that they can expect from the Public Service Arbitrator. Mr. HUGHES(North Sydney- Minister for Repatriation) [11.42]. - I must confess that I am surprised at the versatility of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), who ha3 infused into the discussion a vitality which is simply staggering. If one had wandered into this chamber when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking a few minutes ago, one would have imagined that we were faced with this problem for the first time, that we had been engaged for many hours this afternoon and evening upon some unimportant matter of detail, and that we had not got down to the great fundamental principles upon which he has now placed his finger. One would have imagined that earlier in the day we were not engaged on what he suggests is the foul business of stabbing trade unionists in the back. Honorable members opposite who have spoken have directed their remarks, not to something that we were to do in the future, but to something which we propose to do now. The Leader of the Opposition, in his second-reading speech on this measure, said, " What is the purpose behind the bill? The Minister has not told us, but it really is to prevent the Public Service Arbitrator from granting the railway men a 44-hour week ". Yet he now suggests that earlier in the debate we were dealing with abstract questions, and now for the first time were considering a concrete proposal, one whose purpose is to prevent the railway men from having their case heard by the Public Service Arbitrator, and that if that were clearly stated, his objection would not be so pronounced. Mr. Curtin.- The right honorable gentleman knows perfectly well that the purpose of this measure is to prevent the railway men from going before the Public Service Arbitrator. Mr. HUGHES.-The honorable gentleman made that point in his second-reading speech, and the amendment of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) raises no new point. The Leader of the Opposition knows what section 11 of the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1920 provides. What was said when that measure was before the Parliament is being repeated now. Mr. Curtin.- The right honorable gentleman is misrepresenting the position, as section 11, sub-section 2, of the principal act referred to claims which were pending other than claims the hearing of which had been commenced by the court. Mr. HUGHES-The rights which the men had were taken away from them. Mr. Curtin.- Not in the cases that, were commenced. Mr. HUGHES.-Does the Leader of the Opposition say that this case has commenced ? Mr. Curtin.- Yes. Mr. HUGHES.-The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford), in supporting the amendment moved by the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), said that this case had commenced, and that I had been misinformed. It is the honorable member who has been misinformed. This is a question of fact and not of opinion. Is it a fact that this case has in law commenced ? Mr. Beasley.- Yes, on the 19th of September. Mr. HUGHES.- My information is that the case has not commenced. Mr. Beasley.- The information of the right honorable gentleman is wrong. Mr. HUGHES.-My information is very definite on that point. Mr. Curtin.- Was a compulsory conference held on the 31st January ? Mr. HUGHES.- I cannot say. Mr. Drakeford.- I can, because I attended that conference as the representative of the union. Mr. HUGHES.-That does not prove that the case was commenced. Mr. Drakeford.- It does. Mr. HUGHES.- It does not. My point is that the hearing of the merits of the case had not been commenced and therefore no injustice is done and none can be done by transferring to another tribunal. On that the Government stands. If the honorable member for Bourke is able to dispute that position let him do so. It is a question of fact and I am perfectly prepared to wait for further information. The whole argument of the honorable member for Bourke breaks down if the case, on its merits, has not been commenced. Mr.BLACKBURN' (Bourke) [11.52]. - -Section 12 of the Public Service (Arbitration) Act provides that the Arbitrator is to determine claims submitted to him under the act. The next sub-section provides that claims are to be submitted by a union by a memorial. If no objection is made the Arbitrator decides in favour of the union, but if the Railway Commissioner makes an objection the Arbitrator calls a conference at which the parties discuss matters with the object of arriving at an agreement. If no agreement is arrived at and if the matters are not completed he then proceeds to hear evidence. In this instance the proceedings have been commenced by the serving of the claim which has resulted in the calling of a conference. The stage at which evidence is to be heard has not yet been reached. Nevertheless this matter has been commenced. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, in 1920 cases pending before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, which was then the only possible tribunal open to Commonwealth employees before the public servants were transferred to the Arbitrator, the Commonwealth Arbitration Court was permitted to continue the hearing of the cases which it had begun. The act expressly preserved the existing right of the unions to continue their cases in the Arbitration Court. The right honorable gentleman now concedes the principle for which I have been contending. He says that it only applies to the actual hearing on the merits. In Irving's case, the Queensland case, to which I referred earlier, there was only notice of appeal given to the Privy Council. Legislation had been passed by this Parliament purporting to remove the right to appeal to the Privy Council generally, and giving the right of appeal to the High Court. This case came before the Privy Council, and the respondents answering the appeal said, " This matter is barred by the legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament. The Commonwealth Parliament has passed a law taking away the right of appeal to the Council, and substituted in its place the right of appeal to the High Court." The Privy Council said, " The right of appeal is a man's right, which Parliament does not take away without expressing its intention in clear language. There is no clear language here. Therefore the right of appeal to the Privy Council remains. It cannot be said that right of appeal to the High Court was intended to be a substitute for an existing right of appeal to the Privy Council." If Parliament likes to act retrospectively, and take away a man's right, it has the power to do so; but to take away a man's rights is similar to taking away his liberty. The Minister suggests to us that the Commonwealth Commissioner for Railways is faced with immense difficulties in trying to get this matter dealt with by the Arbitration Court. The Commissioner in 1933 tried to stop the unions going to the Arbitration Court and legislation was brought down in an attempt to block them. The present attitude on the part of the. Commissioner is a change from that formerly adopted. Each side has changed its attitude, and there are no merits involved except the question as to whether this Parliament should interfere with rights that have already accrued. . Mr.HUGHES (North Sydney- Minister for Repatriation) [11.56]. - It is very difficult to distinguish the objections which are now taken from those which were urged during the second reading debate. The point I make is that nothing has been done by this measure which was not done by the Arbitration (Public Service) Act of 1920. The question is whether proceedings had been begun on their merits is ascertainable and I am perfectly willing to ascertain that information. I suggest that the best person "from whom, we can get it is the Arbitrator himself. Mr. Blackburn.- There should be no objection to the Arbitrator being asked to say what he has done. Mr. HUGHES.--We should ascertain whether as a fact, the Arbitrator had actually begun proceedings on the merits. We want the facts. Mr. Blackburn.- I am afraid that the right honorable gentleman wants to trick us. Mr. HUGHES.- With all respect we should not forget that the honorable member for Bourke appeared for these men in the court. Mr. Blackburn.- That is not correct. Mr. HUGHES.-It is true. All we desire to do is to get at the facts. The point is whether proceedings were actually commenced on their merits and I suggest that that information could be obtained from the Public Service Arbitrator. To enable that to be done, I am agreeable to report progress. Mr. Blackburn.- Before doing so, 1 suggest that it is fair that the Public Service Arbitrator should be asked to say what he has done in the case; then the committee can decide for itself. Progress reported. 1936-05-20 1986 adjournment Boulia-Winton Telephone Lini! - Employment of Girls by Postal Department. Motion (by Mr. Archdale Parkhill) proposed - That the House do now adjourn. 1986 KYZ Kennedy ALP; FLP from 1931 0 0 RIORDAN, David Mr RIORDAN . - I desire to raise a matter which affects a large number of farmers and settlers in my electorate. Because these people are prepared to go on the land, the Postal Department, apparently, regards them as a " mob of suckers ", and not in their real light as producers. Representations have been made to the department by the Boulia and Winton Shire Councils for the erection of a proper telephone line between Boulia and Winton, a distance of about 200 miles, and these have been supported' by Senator Cooper and myself on various occasions during the last seven months. The Deputy Director of Posts and Telegraphs in Queensland wrote to the residents of this district asking what they estimated' the erection of this line would cost. They are workers and wool-growers, and not telephonic experts. During the last flood in this district a couple of persons died because weeks elapsed before medical aid could be summoned to attend to these cases. Both senator Cooper and I have tried every method to have the matter properly inquired into by the department, so as to obviate raising it in Parliament, but have failed. Without an inspection, the department has rejected the request. 1986 K0D 0 0 COLLINS, Thomas Mr Collins - What telephone facilities now exist in the area? 1986 KYZ ALP; FLP from 1931 0 0 RIORDAN, David Mr RIORDAN - There is a treetotree line from Winton to Middleton, but from Middleton to Boulia, there is no line of any value. In the wet season, the people in the latter area have no means of communication, and one can imagine the feelings of the womenfolk out there when storm-clouds begin to gather. Much of the money granted by this Government to different States for the purpose of relieving unemployment has been paid for chipping grass off footpaths in and around metropolitan areas, this work being done at a time when people in many country districts have not even decent telephonic or mail facilities. If this matter is not attended to, I shall take every opportunity throughout the remainder of this session to ventilate it. Surely these people are entitled to an investigation into their request before it is turned down by dictators in the Public Service. As Boulia happens to be in an area, however, where officers would have to travel by buggy and pair, no inspection is made. While I am a member of this Parliament, I shall not be a party to allowing officialdom to adopt such methods. The department has stated that this proposition would not be a. payable one, as it would cost £28,000 and the revenue therefrom would not justify such an outlay. If this line were made available, 200 subscribers would take advantage of it. Surely it is not intended that our outback country must be devoloped on a £1 for £1 subsidy basis. The Government desires people to go into remote areas to develop the country, and when they do so rewards them with isolation instead of departmental telephonic facilities. Reconsideration should also be given to the conditions under which certain young people are appointed to positions in the Postal Department. Some time ago a girl was employed by the department at Mareeba on the condition that her services would be continued until she reached the age of 21 years unless an examination were held in the meantime. No examination was held until the girl bad been in the service for two years. She then offered herself as a candidate for appointment, but as she was obliged to work right up to the time of the examination, she was at a disadvantage compared with other girls who sat for the examination, and did not obtain one of the best passes. When temporary employment was made available to successful candidates she was overlooked, even though she had passed the examination. Evidently the policy of the department is to employ young people when they reach the age of sixteen or eighteen years and then dismiss them when they reach the age of 21 years. That is entirely unfair. Examinations should be held for appointment at sixteen years, and eighteen years, and candidates should be allowed to sit in all country towns. Those who succeed should have priority of appointment in their own towns. As things are, country children are at a considerable disadvantage compared with those who live in the metropolitan areas. I ask that the policy of the department in connexion with the employment of these young people be reviewed. I have been informed that during the coming Parliamentary recess, the POStmasterGeneral intends to visit Townsville to participate in the ceremony oil the occasion of the official opening of the broadcasting station there. I ask that hetake the opportunity at that time to travel along the western railway line of Queensland as far as Winton, to ascertain for himself the conditions to which I have referred to-night, under which the settlers live in that area. If he does so I feel sure that he will be convinced that the telephone line for which I have asked should be provided without delay to encourage these scattered settlers who are doing their best to increase the wealth of the nation. 1987 12:13:00 KXQ Warringah UAP Minister for Defence 1 0 PARKHILL, Robert Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL . - I promise the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) that I shall place before the Postmaster-General his request for a telephone line between Winton and Boulia. I shall also bringthe Hansard report of the honorable gentleman's speech under my colleague's notice, and ask that the fullest inquiry be made into the subject. Obviously some inquiry has already been made, for the honorable member referred to an estimate that had been prepared. 1987 KYZ ALP; FLP from 1931 0 0 RIORDAN, David Mr RIORDAN - No proper investigation, of the route has been made by an official of the department. 1987 KXQ 0 0 PARKHILL, Robert Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL - I shall direct the Postmaster-General's attention to that observation. If action cannot be taken to provide this facility T shall ask that the reason why be communicated to the honorable member. 1987 KYZ ALP; FLP from 1931 0 0 RIORDAN, David Mr RIORDAN - The figures prepared by local people were made available toSenator Cooper by the Winton Chamberof Commerce. 1987 KXQ 0 0 PARKHILL, Robert Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL - 1 shall also bring under the notice of the Postmaster-General the honorable member's suggestion that he should visit Winton. The remarks of the honorable member regarding the employment of youths and girls by the postal department will also be investigated. I assume that the honorable member is aware that certain regulations of the department provide that temporary employment of that character shall be only for specified periods. Good reasons can be advanced for that practice. The circumstances of the employment at Mareeba of the girl mentioned by the honorable member will be reviewed. I am sure that a reasonable explanation of the whole case will be forthcoming. I assure the honorable gentleman that it is not the policy of the Postal Department to discard inconsiderately the young people whom it employs in a temporary capacity. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. (Thursday). 1988 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - 1988 1988 KXB FLP; ALP from 1936 0 0 WATKINS, David Oliver Mr WATKINS s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - What were the names of the whole of the party, including departmental officers, who accompanied the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties during his recent visit abroad? How long was the Minister absent from Australia? What countries did he visit? What trade treaties did he arrange? What were the total expenses to the Commonwealth incurred by the whole of the delegation and those who accompanied the delegation? 1988 F4O UAP 1 0 LYONS, Joseph Aloysius Mr Lyons - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - Messrs. A. C. Moore, E. McCarthy, A. E. Hopkins and Miss M. O'Brien. The primary purpose of the Minister's visit overseas was to negotiate with the Government of the United Kingdom in respect to the meat quota. As a result of these negotiations an allocation most advantageous to Australia generally, and the meat industry in particular, was arranged. Nine and a half months. During his absence from Australia, the Minister carried on the negotiations which had been initiated previously in Australia with Belgium, France. Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and also with Switzerland, for the conclusion of trade agreements with those countries, and which the Minister had been obliged to postpone. Each country was visited for the purpose. No trade agreements have yet been brought to finality. The Minister's personal expenses charged against Government votes amounted to £900. I would refer the honorable member to the reply furnished to himon the 13th March, 1936 (Hansard No. 2, page 163), in regard to the total cost of the Ministerial Delegation to London, 1935. The officers named in question 1 above worked for the delegation as a whole, and it is impossible to arrive at an accurate figure as to what proportion of the total expenditure could be ascribed to their work in connexion with trade agreement negotiations. 1988 1988 KYH 0 0 PRICE, John Mr Price e asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice - Is it a fact that a disparity exists in connexion with the rates charged for radio messages from ships at sea to Australia, and those to the United Kingdom? If so, will the Government give consideration to the advisability of bringing about uniformity in the charges? 1988 KXQ UAP 1 0 PARKHILL, Robert Mr Archdale Parkhill - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - Yes. Uniformity in charges is favoured, but the matter is one largely for determination by the authorities controlling ships on the British register, and also the connecting companies. Negotiations have been proceeding for some time, but it is not yet possible to introduce any modification. Exchange on Government Interest Payments. 1988 009FQ 0 0 CURTIN, John Mr Curtin n asked the Treasurer, upon notice - What has been the cost to Australia for exchange on Government interest payments overseas for the years 1930-31 to 1934-35? 1988 JWE UAP 1 0 CASEY, Richard Mr Casey - The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows : - 1988 1988 KJQ 0 0 JAMES, Rowland Mr James s asked the Treasurer, upon notice - Is it a fact that many invalid and old age pensioners throughout Australia are buried as paupers, owing to the fact that, out of their meagre pension allowance, they are unable to maintain themselves in reasonable comfort, and at the same time provide for burial expenses? Is it a fact that, in order to avoid pauper burials, the Australian Invalid and Old-age Pensioners' Association hae inaugurated a funeral fund, the contribution per member being (id. per fortnight, and the amount payable at death being £10? In view of the fact that the average life of pensioners is only seven years, which makes it extremely difficult for the fund to' be financed, will the Government give favorable consideration to a small annual subsidy towards it? 1989 JWE UAP 1 0 CASEY, Richard Mr Casey - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - The department has no knowledge of any cases of this nature. It is understood that some pensioners' organizations have established funeral' funds, but the details of these funds are not known to the department. In view of the large and annually increasing pensions expenditure, the Government regrets that it cannot see its way to extend the range of benefits already provided by the law. 1989 1989 JPN 0 0 BLACKBURN, Maurice Mr Blackburn n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - What proportion of the employees (not being clerical or professional employees) in the Public Service as defined in the Arbitration (Public Service) Act enjoys a 40-hour week ? What constitutional difficulty impedes the extension to such employees of the benefit of the 40-hour week? Will the Government (a) apply the 40- hour week to such employees, or (6) consent to its being so applied by the Public Service Arbitrator or by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration? 1989 F4O UAP 1 0 LYONS, Joseph Aloysius Mr Lyons - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - Approximately 22 per cent. This includes a number of officers and employees under the Public Service Act whose hours for day duty are over 40 a week, but who regularly perform night duties when the hours are reduced to 40 or less. There is no constitutional difficulty involved. A statement in regard to the general question of a 40-hour week will be made at an early date. 1989 JPN 0 0 BLACKBURN, Maurice Mr Blackburn n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - Will he favorably consider extending the principle of the 40-hour week to private employees in the Federal Capital Territory and other Commonwealth territory? 1989 F4O UAP 1 0 LYONS, Joseph Aloysius Mr Lyons - A statement in regard to the general question of a 40-hour week will be made at an early date. I«81 1989 1989 KFE 0 0 GREGORY, Henry Mr Gregory y asked the Treasurer, upon notice - Will he state the varying rates of exchange between Australia and Great Britain from July, 1029, up to the present, and the approximate date of each alteration? 1989 JWE UAP 1 0 CASEY, Richard Mr Casey - The exchange rate between Australia and Great Britain since July, 1929, has varied as follows : - 1989 1989 KOQ 0 0 MCCALL, William Mr MCCALL L asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice - Is it a fact that adjacent to cottages roofed with terra-cotta tiles at Ainslie, a number of new houses now being erected are being roofed with galvanized iron? As the iron is to be painted, has it any advantage over tiles in the matter of costs? In the interests of this well-planned and beautiful national city, will he make inquiries into the matter ? 1989 KXT CP 0 0 PATERSON, Thomas Mr Paterson - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - A number of small cottages which are being erected in groups at North Ainslie are being roofed with galvanized iron, but all new cottages which are being erected on block? between existing cottages with tiled roofs are being similarly roofed. In this area a number of wooden cottages roofed with galvanized iron were erected some years ago. Yes. The cottages referred to will be occupied by workmen who can pay only a low rental. It was therefore necessary to reduce the cost of construction in every possible way. It is not proposed to utilize galvanized iron for roofing purposes in other sections of the city. 1989 1989 KCM 0 0 DRAKEFORD, Arthur Mr Drakeford d asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice - Have any concessions in freight rates been granted by the Commonwealth Railways to its customers since the 1st July, 1930, at the instigation of (a) the Government, or (6) the Railways Department? If so, what are the names of the firms or individuals to whom concessions have been granted, and what is (o) the amount involved in each case, 'and (6) the total amount? What proportion of the loss in revenue arising from the concessions granted is being borne 'by (o) the Government, and (6) the Railways Department? Have any refunds of losses incurred from concessions granted been made to the Railways Department by the Government; if so, what percentage and amount has been refunded? 1990 KXT CP 0 0 PATERSON, Thomas Mr Paterson - 'The information is being obtained, and will be conveyed to the honorable member as soon as possible. 1990 1990 JOM 0 0 BEASLEY, John Mr Beasley y asked the Minister for Health, upon notice - If Mr. C. J. Barnes, of Rozelle, New South Wales, can produce documentary evidence that his claim to have a cure for tuberculosis was not investigated by the State authorities, will the Minister arrange for an investigation by the Federal Health Council, as recommended by that body in cases of this kind? 1990 DQC UAP 1 0 HUGHES, William Morris Mr Hughes - The honorable member will appreciate that such a course could not be taken without the concurrence of the State Minister for Health, who now has the matter in hand. Moreover, the Federal Health Council recommended reference to that council only if any alleged cure could not for any reason be satisfactorily dealt with by any State. 1990 1990 009FQ 0 0 CURTIN, John Mr Curtin n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - Did he state in January last that Cabinet was favorably considering some form of recognition of the late Sir Charles Kingsford Smith ? Has any decision yet been arrived at? 1990 F4O UAP 1 0 LYONS, Joseph Aloysius Mr Lyons - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - Representations in this matter were made to the Attorney-General and myself by the late Sir Charles Kingsford Smith's business manager, Mr. J. Stannage, and Mr. B. Shiel, of Sydney, and I indicated that it would receive consideration by, Cabinet. No decision has yet been arrived at. Postal Mechanics' Welfare Canteen. 1990 KXQ UAP 1 0 PARKHILL, Robert Mr Archdale Parkhill l. - On the 13th May, reference was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) to a proposal to discontinue the Postal Mechanics' Welfare Canteen at the Melbourne Telephone Exchange. I am now advised that this matter is being investigated, and information will be furnished to the honorable member as soon as possible. Defence System. 1990 KXQ UAP 1 0 PARKHILL, Robert Mr Archdale Parkhill l. - On the 12th May, the honorable member for Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) asked to be informed of the type of the latest planes on order for the Royal Australian Air Force, their approximate speed, and the engines with which they will be fitted. I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that the particulars asked for are as follows : - Type - Twin-engined monoplanes. Speed - 190 miles an hour. Engines- Siddeley "Cheetah" IX. Empire Broadcasts. 1990 F4O UAP 1 0 LYONS, Joseph Aloysius Mr Lyons s. - On the 17th March, the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) asked me a question, without notice, regarding the desirability of instituting regular Empire broadcasts by leading Imperial statesmen. I now desire to inform the honorable member that his suggestion was brought to the notice of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which has indicated that it is its policy to arrange such broadcasts whenever possible. Power Alcohol: Report by Mr. Rogers. 1990 F4O UAP 1 0 LYONS, Joseph Aloysius Mr Lyons - On the 14th May, the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) asked whether a copy of Mr. Rogers's report on power alcohol could be made available. I am now in a position to inform the honorable .member that Mr. Rogers's report on the grain alcohol industry in Australia was placed on the table of the Library on the 11th October, 1935.