1919-10-09 7 2 0 SENATE 13113 0 Senate. 1919-10-09 The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. 13113 Questions 13113 13113 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I ask the Acting Minister for Defence if he will take the. Senate into his confidence, and make a public statement as to whether there is to be a general election in the near future. Can he go so far as to tell us, if such is the case, upon what date the general election will take place ? . If I am in order in putting this further question, and I do so in order to save time, can he also inform the Senate what measures he will endeavour to put through between now and the close of the session, and in what time he expects to put them through ? 13113 K3E NAT 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - In answer to the first part of the honorable senator's question, I shall take the Senate into my confidence at the earliest possible moment, when I have myself received the information, which he seeks. I am trying to get it now. Spnator Gardiner. - Is there going to be. a general election? 13113 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - In reply to the honorable senator, I have to say that, unfortunately, that is inevitable. 13113 13113 JYR 0 0 FAIRBAIRN, George Senator FAIRBAIRN - I do not care to seem pertinacious, but I again ask the Acting Minister for Defence when it is likely that the report of the Economies Commission will be made available to honorable senators? 13113 K3E NAT 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - I was not aware that Senator Fairbairn had asked this question previously, because I was not handling the matter at the time. I shall have inquiries made, and furnish a reply to him later. 13113 13113 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I ask the Acting Minister for Defence if he has a statement to make to the Senate about the disturbance on the Bahia Castillo. Will there be a public inquiry when the vessel arrives in Melbourne, and will evidence at that inquiry be taken on..oath? 13114 K3E NAT 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - The latest information I have was received this morning by wire from Western Australia, to the effect that everything was going along satisfactorily. I think that, temporarily, the difficulty has been settled. I am now in negotiation with the Minister for the Navy to see whether we cannot hold a joint inquiry into the whole matter. SenatorNeedham. - A public inquiry? 13114 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - I am not. prepared to say at this stage. Personally, I should prefer a public inquiry. 13114 papers The following papers were presented : - Customs Act 1901-1916. - Proclamations - Dated 17th September, 1919, prohibiting exportation of Preventives of Conception, &c, and revoking Proclamation issued on 16th July, 1919. Dated 24th September, 1919, prohibiting exportation (except under certain conditions) of Rabbit Skins. Dated 24th September, 1919, revoking so much of Proclamation issued on 29th November, 1916, as relates to the exportation of Wire Ropes. Defence Act 1903-1918. - Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1919, Nos. 231 and235. Public Service Act. 1902,-1918. - Promotion of D. B. Wheeler, Prime Minister's Department. War Precautions Act 1914-1918. - Regulations amended.- Statutory Rules 1919, Nos. 140, 172, 175, 195, 202, 232. 13114 Questions 13114 Position of Officers who Enlisted Payment of award Rates. 13114 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice - Where members of the Public Service resigned their positions to enable them to take part in the war, will the Government restore these men to positions of equal value to those from which they resigned? 13114 K3E NAT 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - The reply is as follows : - Officers of the Public Service who took part in the war were not required to resign their positions. Any such officers who did resign did so voluntarily. They are, however, eligible for re-appointment, and any who apply will, of course, receive the benefit of the Government's policy of preference to returned soldiers. 13114 KTD 0 0 MCDOUGALL, Allan Senator McDOUGALL asked, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice - Has the attention of the Government been drawn to the award of the Board of Trade, New South Wales, that £3 17s. 6d. is a living, wage for a married man with a family of two? If so, will the Government conform to that decision with respect to their employees in that State? 13114 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - The answer is the Government has no official knowledge of the matter referred to, and press reports indicate that no finality has yet been reached in regard thereto. 13114 13114 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH asked the Acting Minister for Defence, upon notice - Whether, in view of the alleged unsatisfactory position of returned munition workers in Western Australia, the Government will cause an inquiry, official or otherwise, to be made into their grievances? 13114 K3E NAT 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - Yes. 13114 13114 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator DE LARGIE asked the Acting Minister for Defence, upon notice - In view of the treatment accorded to Imperial reservists and dependants who were in Australia at the outbreak of war, what action does the Government propose to take towards those Australians who were in England when war was declared, and who enlisted in the Imperial Army? 13114 K3E NAT 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - This matter is at present under consideration. 13114 Cost of cruisers. 13114 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice - What was the respective cost, including everything required to make those ships seaworthy and fit for active service, of - H.M.A.S. Sydney. H.M.A.S.Melbourne. H.M.A.S.Brisbane? What is the respective difference in tonnage, armament, and ratings of those warships? 13114 K3E NAT 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - The answers are - 1. (a) £385,000; (b) £405,000; (c) £776,000. These vessels are sister ships, and there is practically no difference in tonnage, armament, or ratings. 13115 bill 13115 Debate resumed from 3rd October (vide page 12998), on motion by Senator Russell - That this Bill be now read a second time. 13115 KKZ New South Wales 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER . - I rise to address the Senate upon this proposal for the amendment of the Constitution under the shadow of a great sorrow which must rest upon every honorable senator at the present time owing to the function we participated in this morning. One can scarcely approach the consideration of a Bill providing for the amendment of our Constitution without thought of the brilliant part performed in the framing of that Constitution by the late Alfred Deakin. The Government are hurrying towards the end of the session, but that does not warrant honorable senators in dealing hastily with business as important as that which the Minister has now put before us. I noted, as did honorable senators generally, the care, the skill, the ability, and the learning that was brought to bear by its framers upon the drafting of our Constitution. 13115 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Hear, hear! That cannot be too greatly emphasized. 13115 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Before the Constitution was adopted most of us had the opportunity to give our assent to it through the ballot-box. We remember the different views that various members held upon the matter. Some of us were afraid that it was a fixed and arbitrary Constitution that could not be amended, and to that objection our opponents said that it was not a fixed or cast-iron Constitution, but an elastic one, and one that could respond at all times to the will of the people of Australia. I do not think the greatest radical in his wildest dreams of imagination ever thought that the Constitution would be made a plaything for party political purposes, to enable a party to secure a longer lease of office. That aspect of the present proposal is well worth the consideration of the Senate. Let us endeavour to go back to the atmosphere of 1897, when the men who were drafting the Constitution were struggling and grappling with the difficulties that confronted them. When the Convention was struggling with the question as to what form the Constitution should take - whether the Parliament that would be brought into existence should be conducted under the American system or under the system of constitutional government, as we understand it in Great Britain and in Australia - Mr. Hackett, a Western Australian representative, said, "Responsible government will destroy Federation, or Federation will destroy responsible government." The statement of Mr. Hackett was that responsible government would kill Federation or Federation would kill responsible government, or words to that effect. I am following along that line of thought. As one who has been a member of the Senate for ten years, it is only natural that I should be conversant with what is happening around us. We are all forced to be students of that. Federation to-day resembles a tree planted eighteen years ago, that is gradually withering, as we now see the prospect of Federation as a Federation gradually dying. Honorable senators who have assisted in conducting the business here must be aware that, almost from the very inception of our Commonwealth Parliament, this Senate has not taken the place under the Constitution that its framers intended. 13115 JYF 0 0 EARLE, John Senator Earle - Whose fault is that? 13115 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Nobody's fault; it is no use trying to blame anybody. But we must admit the fact that the framers of the Constitution believed that in creating a Senate they were creating a House in which the States would be represented and State interests watched and guarded. 13115 K1L 0 0 BARNES, John Senator Barnes - That was the idea. 13115 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - What has been the result? So far from watching State interests and being the representatives of States, senators have become the members of a second Chamber, watching the interests of the whole of Australia. Senator Thomas is a. representative of New South Wales, and Senator Needham is a representative of Western Australia, yet it will be realized that I, another representative of New South Wales, am drawn nearer, in the conduct of the business of the Senate, to Senator Needham than to Senator Thomas. The idea in the minds of the framers of the Constitution was to call into existence a second Chamber that would absolutely watch the interests of the individual States. Constitutional government has done. what Mr. Hackett anticipated. The roots of the Federal tree are exposed, and it is withering. In this Parliament it is felt day by day, month by month, and. year by year that Federation must soon cease to exist. I think that is generally accepted by honorable senators and by the members of the community. 13116 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - Do you think the public accept that view? 13116 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I think it does. Distinct State representation has never been a factor in the working of this Parliament. What is Federation ? 13116 JYF 0 0 EARLE, John Senator Earle - A unity of States. 13116 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - No; it is only half way to unity. 13116 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Federation is a union of States whose interests' remain separate and not interfered with, a Parliamentary Chamber being provided to take care of those interests. That is a Federation as distinct from Unification. As a Federation we have ceased to exist. 13116 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - No! 13116 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I do not care whether honorable senators admit it or not. A second Chamber in which the Federated States retain their identity is something from which we, year after year, get further away. The framers of the Constitution found themselves hampered, particularly at the 1897 Conference, by the fact that the Enabling Bill that called the Convention together had summoned its members to draft a Federal Constitution, and not a Constitution for a united Australia. We can recall the discussions and the strong feeling that existed, particularly when the acceptance of the Constitution was submitted to the people. We must admit that the fears of some who opposed the acceptance of the Constitution have not been realized. I objected to a Constitution which gave to States so small, from a numerical stand-point, as Tasmania, South Australia, or Western Australia, equal representation with a great State like New South Wales. 13116 K8L NAT 0 0 THOMAS, Josiah Senator THOMAS - We agreed with you upon that issue. 13116 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Yes ; we fought that issue for a considerable time together. But what has been our experience for the last ten years? There never has been an occasion when the large States have been in opposition to the smaller States, and never an occasion when the smaller States have been interfered with and hampered . by the larger States. It is worth noting that during the eighteen years' existence of the Federal Parliament, none of the fears of either the large or the small States have been justified by the facts. 13116 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - None of the fears, if hopes. Bear that in mind. 13116 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Well, I will say that neither the fears nor the hopes - thus indorsing Senator Senior's sentiment - have been borne out by our experience. The representatives of the larger States have not been in conflict with the representatives of the smaller States, but, as Britishers accustomed to responsible government, we have adapted ourselves to the conditions under which we have grown up, and which we have understood. We have adapted ourselves to the system of parliamentary government in which we have been educated. We did not change to that system of government to which the American people, for instance, have become accustomed. And I say that our system has struck at the principle of Federation, and from the first day of meeting up to the present moment, there has been a strong tendency towards Unification. We are more the representatives of Australia to-day, and less the representatives of the States, than we were twenty years ago. I am clearing the way. With the experience of the last few years - an experience which I hope will mot be repeated - I think it is much to be regretted that the Government introduced amendments to the Constitution in another place, and before the ink had time to dry on them carried a resolution treating them as urgent, thus preventing that ample consideration which measures of this kind warrant. This Bill was hurriedly rushed through another place, and has been brought to the Senate, where, no doubt, the Minister in charge expects it to pass with equal rapidity, even though the Government may not have to adopt the same means to achieve that end. With the history of the war behind us, I say that this was an opportunity for statesmen to frame for the people of Australia a Constitution, not based upon the surmises of State representatives at a Convention, but upon the experience of the men who have helped to work the Federation during the years that it has been in existence. Here is a thought that comes to my mind, and so far as I know, it has not yet been voiced in debate in another place. When we - and when I use the term, I mean the representatives of Australia - first attempted to bring the Federation into existence, we invited the people of New Zealand to participate in that great undertaking, and I think that, with the experience of the war fresh in our memories, we might again seek to extend the sphere of our parliamentary authority by inviting the great Dominion of New Zealand to send their representatives to a, Convention for the purpose of framing a Constitution for Australasia. We may thus enlarge our self-governing powers, and perhaps bring about a union of all the British people in the Pacific. 13117 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - Sir George Grey tried that, and failed. 13117 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Exactly ; and I venture to say that, after twenty years, Australian statesmen might well follow in Sir George Grey's footsteps, and again attempt to bring about a union of the British people in the Pacific. The idea should commend itself to those who are satisfied, so far, with the success of the Federation of Australia. 13117 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - There is not another Sir George Grey yet. 13117 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I quite realize, of course, the great position in which Sir George Grey found himself as the leader of Democracy in Australasia. The present is an opportune time for a Convention with a view to completing the union of the British people in the Pacific Ocean. The Federation of Australia enabled this country to play its part effectively in the recent war. The New Zealand Government have thanked the Commonwealth for the fact that Australian vessels saved the Dominion cities from bombardment. They know what the presence of those vessels in Australian waters meant to that part of the British Dominions, for1 our vessels conveyed New Zealand troops to Samoa. And so I say that, in the light of recent experience, it would have been better if the Government had endeavoured to frame a Constitution to embrace the whole of the British people in the Pacific Islands. I am endeavouring to point out what should have been done on an occasion like this. I come now to what has been done. I venture to say that it is not only undignified, but almost indecent, to use the Australian Constitution in this manner. The Government have gone quite far enough upon these lines. I should like to know from the Minister the reason for urgency in regard to the Bill. 13117 JYR 0 0 FAIRBAIRN, George Senator Fairbairn - We want to stop profiteering. 13117 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - A general election is pending. 13117 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - That is what you fear. 13117 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Quite a number of reasons may be given. One honorable senator says that there is a general election pending. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to get that official information on the subject, to which, as a representative of the people, I am entitled. Another honorable senator states that the Bill is introduced to deal with profiteering. Have the Government introduced these Constitution Bills because they desire to deal with profiteering ? 13117 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Yes. 13117 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I thank the Minister for that definite statement. 13117 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - Is this the first occasion on which you have heard that? 13117 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Yes. There has been a lot of press comment and loose talk generally, but this is the first direct official statement. I am to understand that the reason for haste in pushing these measures through the Legislature is that the Government desire to deal with profiteering. 13117 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - That is one reason. 13117 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Is there another? I do not sit - thank God - in the Caucus of the National party, and, thus, I am at a disadvantage in making statements upon questions concerning which I can have no inside knowledge, while honorable senators opposite are free to interject for the reason that they are fully informed. Up to this moment I had heard no reason advanced on behalf of the Government concerning why there should be such haste in dealing with the Constitution Bills. And I have heard no other reason, so far, than that the Government desire to handle the profiteer. Yet there is not one word in this Bill regarding profiteering. I have watched the growth of the Commonwealth Constitution and Parliament. The spirit of our Constitution is indicated by the name which its framers gave to Federated Australia; that is, the Commonwealth. It might have been called a Dominion, as are Canada and New Zealand. But those ardent Australians, and those seasoned Radicals of Great Britain, who were initially concerned with the Federal Constitution, had but one thought; that was, that Australia should become a Commonwealth. They had in mind but the common wealth of the community. They had not forgotten that brilliant period in the history of England when a Commonwealth Government ruled the land and laid the foundation of Britain's laws and liberties. In the word " Commonwealth " one may find the souls of those men who drafted our Constitution. But they did not give us what I could have wished. For that I am not condemning them. Nor am I desirous of underestimating their great abilities. To have drafted, in 1897, a Constitution which would still be acceptable to the people in 1920 could scarcely have been possible. There was jealousy between States; there was the fear of the small States being overpowered by the large States. Eighteen years of Federation have shown, however, that the jealousies were unfounded, and that the fears were groundless. We have now reached the stage where a united Australian people ask that they may have full control over Australian affairs. The best that I could wish for Australia's Parliament is that it should approximate as closely as possible to the House of Commons. 13118 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - With a nominee Senate ? 13118 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I care not whether there be a Senate or otherwise. The Constitution of Great Britain is said to be partly a matter of writing and largely a matter of the growth of customs and usages through the centuries. But the British Parliament is an institution wherein the final power rests with the House of Commons. Whenever the will of the Commons has become the reflex of the will of the people, neither lords nor monarchy have dared to gainsay the people's will. The strength of the 'House of Commons lies in that it reflects the will of the people, and that whatever laws are passed by the House of Commons are accepted as the laws of the people. 13118 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'loghlin - A - All very nice in theory ! 13118 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - That is the theory, and that is the practice. What could an Australian more ardently wish than to establish the Constitution of the Commonwealth on the theory that the Parliament, representing the will of the people, should be the sovereign power; and that, when the will of the people had been revealed, the laws passed by the Parliament should indisputably become the laws of Australia ? 13118 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'loghlin - H - Hear, hear ! Now you are on sound ground. Senator GARDINER. Standing, as I do, for parliamentary government, and believing that the future of our Democracy is bound up in the ideals of responsible government, I can only reiterate my view that in that direction alone lies safety. My ambition is to see a truly Australian Parliament established in this country, not a Parliament possessing any new-fangled powers, or based upon any fancy franchise, not a Parliament erected upon any system which has been manufactured in Germany or Switzerland, nor one founded upon proposals which have reached perfection in America, but an Australian Parliament, possessing powers no greater than those possessed by each of our State Parliaments prior to Federation. 13118 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin - P - Powers similar to those which are already possessed by every self-governing Dominion ? 13118 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Yes. I desire to see in existence a truly Australian Parliament, so that, when it has enacted the legislation which it has been called together by the' various States to enact, we may be absolutely certain that that legislation will remain the law of the land until it is amended by the same legislative body. In other words, I aim. at a sovereign Parliament - one Parliament with supreme authority throughout Australia. What have we at the present time? We have a Parliament consisting of two Houses, in one of which there are seventy-five members, and in the other thirty-six members. This Parliament to-day may pass legislation which it deems necessary for the good government of Australia, and in a week or two it may happen that by three Justices to two - which means that one man really decides the issue - the High Court may determine that the powers which more than a hundred legislators claim they possess in reality they do not possess. Moreover, the decision of that one Justice is final. 13119 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - I quite agree with the honorable senator. 13119 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - How does the honorable senator reconcile his desire for a sovereign Parliament with the statement of his new campaign director that we must have a still more extensive process of decentralization? Seuator GARDINER. - I am rather glad that Senator Bakhap has made that interjection. I recognise that local matters should be considered and administered by local bodies. Just as our State Parliaments delegate their powers to municipal councils, so would I have a Federal Parliament which would divide Australia into provinces, the boundaries of which would not, perhaps, conform with the existing State boundaries. States like Queensland, New South Wales, and South Australia, for example, are so large that they could with advantage be divided into provinces for the purpose of self-government. 13119 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - All right; give us Broken Hill. 13119 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Exactly. It might be that in a division such . as I have suggested a portion of South Australia would receive the rich territory of Broken Hill, which South Australians have coveted for so many years. 13119 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie -We have it. 13119 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - All I can say in reply to Senator Guthrie is that the longer I listen to his interjections the less I am capable of understanding them. First he interjects, " Give us Broken Hill." When I reply that under the system I have suggested South Australia might obtain the rich territory of Broken Hill, which South Australians have coveted for so many years, he assures me that they already have it. Why does he ask for what he already has? 13119 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Will the honorable senator tell us whether he is going to vote for these Bills? 13119 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I quite appreciate the interjection of the honorable senator, who, as the vigorous opponent of direct action, boasts of his capacity for putting a direct question, and yet exhibits so much impatience regarding the way in which I am going to vote. I may tell him that, so far as these Bills are concerned, it is quite a difficult question for me to say how I am going to vote upon them. Had they been introduced in a manner which would have conferred credit upon the Government, one might almost say, as the Vice-President of the Executive Council has said, that he recognised some old friends in them. I recognise that portions of one of the two Constitutional Bills which are now before us are word for word identical with clauses in a measure which I had the honour to submit to this Senate. But although the wording of particular clauses is identical, the conditions under which I am asked to vote for the Bill are the very opposite of what they then were. When I submitted that measure to this Chamber, I said, in effect, " Here is a Bill under which it is proposed to amend the Constitution - a Bill which is to be submitted to the electors for their acceptance or rejection. If it be accepted, it will become the law of the land permanently." But the Government have not done that in this measure. Instead, they have tied a string to it. They say to the electors, " If you approve of the Bill, and we do not wish to work under it, we shall do what boys do when they are playing with kites - we shall wind it back again, so that it will cease to be part of our Constitution." That difference alone is sufficient to justify me in opposing both of these measures. 13119 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin - I - It is the cat-and-mouse clause to which the honorable senator refers. 13119 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Senator O'Loghlin has well described it. Rather; like a cat, Australia is to be induced to play with a bit of wool that is made to look like a mouse. Upon this occasion the mouse is the profiteer. If the Government are returned to office after a general election, they have merely to fold their arms until a popular convention has been called together - and there is no power to compel them to call it together - to make all the trouble which will be involved in taking this referendum go by the board. Under such conditions, can it be urged that this is the same Bill which I submitted to the Senate? 13120 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - The honorable senator has himself admitted that portions of it are word for word with that measure. 13120 L1T 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER, y - I admitted that there are certain provisions in these Bills which are identical with provisions in the measures which I introduced into this Chamber. But cannot the honorable senator see that if these Bills are not intended to secure permanent amendments in our Constitution they differ fundamentally from the measures which I submitted to the Senate? I asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council a question bearing on this phase of the matter, during the course of his second-reading speech upon the Bill. He stated that the framers of our Constitution had imposed a time-limit upon some of its sections. I asked him whether the Government intended to place a time-limit upon the amendments to the Constitution which they propose to submit to the electors. His reply was that the original framers of our Constitution had done the same thing. 13120 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I did not affirm that principle, I am sure. 13120 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - The honorable gentleman, in reply to my interjection, stated point-blank that the framers of our Constitution had imposed a time-limit upon some of its provisions. . 13120 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - In a hundred places in the Constitution it is provided that certain provisions shall remain in force "until Parliament otherwise' provides." 13120 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I admit that I- said what the honorable senator has attributed to me, but I think he is misapplying what I said. 13120 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - The Minister, in introducing the Bill, seemed to think that because it is proposed that amendments of the Constitution provided for here shall remain parts of the Constitution until certain things are done, and shall cease to be part of the Constitution if they are not done, there is some analogy between that and such stipulations in the Constitution as that dealing with the per capita return of moneys to" the States for ten years. 13120 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - That is entirely foreign to my view. There must be some misunderstanding. 13120 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - In justice to the Minister, I will take the opportunity to look up what he said. The last thing I desire to do is to misquote any one. I can easily misunderstand the honorable senator, and it is my fault if I do. If I deliberately try to misquote him, that will be my fault also, but I have never so far, I think, been guilty of doing that. What I have in mind is that the original framers of the Constitution never put any provision into it that died of itself, and never made any temporary provision in the Constitution which was not qualified by the phrase to which Senator Guthrie has referred, that it should be the law of the land and lay down the procedure to be followed until Parliament otherwise provided. I should like to be quite accurate, and I find that I made the following interjection while Senator Russell was moving the second reading of the Bill : - Have we any constitutional power to pass amendments of the Constitution limiting the period of their operation? The honorable senator, in reply to that interjection, said - I do not think there is any doubt on that point. The proposed amendment will be of a temporary nature, because it is desired that a democratic Convention shall be summoned at an early date to review the Commonwealth and States Constitution, but we are unable to wait until the Convention gets to work, as it is necessary to deal at once with certain urgent problems with which Australia is faced. After the experience we have gained in recent years, I feel confident that an improved Constitution will emerge from the proposed National Convention. Concerning the point raised by Senator Gardiner, I remind him that in relation to certain matters, limits were fixed in the Constitution when it was adopted, and as we are assured of the co-operation of the States in endeavouring to secure the amendments now proposed, I do not think the question of constitutionality is likely to be raised. I am not trying to convict the honorable senator, but I believe that he had in mind that the constitutional limits included in the Constitution by its framers were similar to the limitations sought to be fixed upon the constitutional amendments proposed in this Bill. 13120 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I assure the honorable senator that I had no intention to convey any such meaning. The honorable senator will let me make myself clear. I understood him to say that we had. not the power to put any limitation upon the operation of a provision in the Constitution, and I said that we had that power, because we had done it before. 13120 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I accept the Minister's statement, and it brings me to the point that the framers of the Constitution never placed any power in it that died in the event of something happening, or of something not happening. The Constitution, as originally framed, went to the people. It received its life and being from the people. The point I wish to make is that it is unconstitutional to attempt to limit the time during which an amendment proposed in the Constitution shall remain in operation in the way proposed in this Bill. 13121 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - There is at least a reasonable possibility that the High Court will hold it to be unconstitutional. 13121 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I am making the bold assertion that it is unconstitutional. 13121 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - That is what I was trying to answer. 13121 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I contend that it is unconstitutional, on the simple ground that when I go to the Constitution itself to discover what our. powers of amendment are, I find no provision by which an amendment can be made which will be part of the Constitution to-day and will not be a part of the Constitution a month or a year hence. In all the provisions for the amendment of the Constitution, there is none of that nature. Senator Bakhap has interjected that the High Court may rule this proposal to be unconstitutional, and I venture to say that the High Court will decide in that way. I am not a lawyer; but one cannot even play at law-making for a number of years without being able to pass an opinion upon such a matter. 13121 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - What about the per capita payment to the States? Was that not limited to ten years? 13121 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - The arrangement was altered by an Act of this Parliament. 13121 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - By a constitutional amendment. 13121 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - No; the per capita grant is now the subject of an ordinary legislative enactment. 13121 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - If Senator Bakhap is right, the Minister has been unfortunate in his reference; but I confess that, at the moment, I am unable to say whether that matter has been dealt with by a constitutional amendment or not. However, there can be no doubt that the per capita payment was provided for in a certain manner for ten years under the Constitution; and it was also provided that, thereafter, it should be dealt with as this Parliament might decide. There is no such provision proposed with regard to the amendments of the Constitution which we are asked to agree to now. If it were proposed that these constitutional amendments should operate for a certain number of years, or until Parliament otherwise provided,I think that would be correct and constitutional. But we are asked to say that an amendment of the Constitution' shall continue, not until this Parliament or the people decide otherwise, but until certain things are done ; and that if they are not done, this constitutional amendment will die. 13121 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I think that the Braddon section was to remain in operation until Parliament otherwise provided. 13121 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER -That is so, and if this Bill contained a provision that the amendments proposed should remain part of the Constitution until Parliament otherwise provided, it would be quite competent for this Parliament to pass it, and for the community to indorse it, and it would become part of the Constitution. But 1 see no provision in our Constitution for passing an amendment which will be part of the Constitution to-day, and will die, not because of a certain definite Act of Parliament, but because in certain circumstances nothing at all is done. It is altogether contrary to my desire to introduce opposition to the Government into the discussion of a question of such magnitude as an amendment of the Constitution, but I would like to point out that since the Government introduced this Bill and passed it in another place, they have recognised how doubtful is the Bill which they introduced. 13121 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin - T - They started before they were ready. 13121 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Yes, and they are asking us to start before we are ready. I have to thank the Acting Minister for Defence (Senator Russell) for giving me a copy of the amendments which I understand he intends to move in the Bill. One of these proposed amendments reads in this way - Constitution Alteration (Legislative Powers) Bill, page 1, clause 3, lines 20 and 21, to leave out paragraph (a). Now, how does paragraph a read? It would give the Commonwealth powers to deal with corporations. It reads - The creation, dissolution, regulation, and control of corporations. The Government proposes now to introduce an amendment to prevent this Parliament from securing powers for the control of corporations. 13122 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - It will destroy the power of creation as proposed in the Bill. 13122 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - It will destroy the power of creation, dissolution, regulation, and control of corporations. 13122 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - As we cannot create a Commonwealth corporation, we shall not be able to control or destroy it, but we will have full control of all State corporations under this proposal. 13122 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - What we will have under this Bill will remain one of the mysteries mixed up with what the Government wish to give us under the Bill. Although the Bill was introduced only a few days ago, and it is not a week since it was passed in another place, the Government have already discovered that this is not the Bill they wanted, but some other Bill. This is not the measure they intended to introduce, but another measure, and I appeal to honorable senators to say whether a proposal of this kind can be dealt with by the Senate under these conditions. Are honorable senators who sit behind the Government really satisfied ?- 13122 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - Absolutely. 13122 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I know I should not ask in vain if I were to ask Senator Senior to proclaim to the world that he is satisfied with the present Government. 13122 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - On this question I am. 13122 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I can appeal to other honorable senators; to such an old-fashioned Conservative as Senator Bakhap, who came into the Senate to keep alive the Federal idea of the Constitution. 13122 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Precisely. That is why I was sent here. 13122 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - The honorable senator was sent here to represent Tasmania, and I can appeal to him and others who think as he does to say whether this is a fair method of asking us to deal with a great constitutional question. I claim that it is not. 13122 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - The honorable senator was willing enough to use it when it suited him. I have always said that those proposals were wrong. Let Senator Gardiner say that now. 13122 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - That is what I have been trying to say for the last half hour. I have been doing my best to say that this new-fangled and fancy method of dealing with constitutional amendments is wrong, and I challenge Senator Bakhap to say that I ever tried to do anything of this kind. 13122 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - If the honorable senator will read section 94 of the Constitution he will find that it answers him directly. 13122 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER -I like to look up anything which I am recommended to read by Senator Senior. The honorable senator follows a speaker so slowly that he gets far behind, and forgets what one is talking about. Then he tries to put an obstacle in the speaker's way in order that, while the speaker is trying to surmount it, he may be able to catch up with him. I find that section 94 of the Constitution reads - After five years from the imposition of uniform duties of Customs the Parliament may provide, on such basis as it deems fair, for the monthly payment to the several States of all surplus revenue of the Commonwealth. I have read that section because I knew what it contained. If the Minister will include in this Bill a provision leaving it to Parliament to decide whether the proposed amendments of the Constitution shall continue in operation or go out of existence, I shall be quite prepared to accept such a provision. But will the Government do that? If they will move in a constitutional way in dealing with' constitutional questions I shall be prepared to go with them. But I will not permit them to believe that they can fool me and the rest of the community. So far as my voice will reach the people this pretence will be made public, and this jugglery will be exposed. Should the Government and their followers support it, they can no longer stand as strong supporters of constitutional government. In my early political struggles the. Constitution was held to be something almost sacred - something that we should get down on our knees and worship. But it has now become the plaything of party intrigue, something with which the Government may mislead their own party, and, incidentally, the rest of the community. 13122 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - That is the honorable senator's opinion. 13123 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - It is. I am here to give my opinion. I know Senator Senior's position. He has perfect confidence in the Government. Were I on the Government bench I could not ask for a more loyal follower. He is a man who will follow the Government although his intellect tells him that they are on the wrong track. I say, with regard to this method of amending the Constitution, that the Government are taking an absolutely false step. I have never regarded the Constitution as sacred, but it is too serious a matter to be played with. There is another amendment proposed - and I discuss these amendments now in order that 1 may discuss them less . in Committee. It shows that the Government, since my interjection to Senator Russell last week, evidently think as I do, because they have now framed the following amendment : - No law passed by the Parliament by virtue of the powers conferred by this Act shall continue to have any force or effect, by virtue of this Act, after the alterations made by this Act have ceased to have effect. The magnificent and lucid draftsmanship of the present day has made the position as clear as mud. The Government are pretending that they are attempting to deal with the profiteer, but there is a law at present in force under which they could do that which they are now seeking power to do. They are absolutely fooling with the whole situation, and that is why I am raising my voice in strong opposition to their action. I am endeavouring to let honorable senators see that the proposed amendment of the Constitution is not what it pretends to be. Believing that I am fairly putting the views of honorable senators on this side of the Chamber, I now propose to move an amendment to the motion of the Minister that the Bill be now read a. second time. I propose striking out all the words after " now " with a view to insert some additional words. I am moving this amendment now in one motion instead of in sections on the different clauses, to enable the Bill to be dealt with more expeditiously. 13123 JYR 0 0 FAIRBAIRN, George Senator Fairbairn - Where does your amendment come in? 13123 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - The. Minister's motion is, " That this Bill be now read a second time," and I propose to amend the motion by moving - That all the words after the word "now" be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - " withdrawn for the purpose of recasting so as to provide for an amendment of the Commonwealth Constitution on the lines following, viz.: - Provision for the Initiative-Referendum whereby the electors may initiate or recall legislation. No referendum to the people within six months (before or after) of a general election. The High Court to be the final Court of Appeal in any Australian cause. The Senate to be abolished, and the House of Representatives to consist of 100 members - each electorate to have as nearly as possible an equal number of electors. Adult suffrage to be made part of the Constitution. The Commonwealth Parliament to be vested with authority to create any number of provinces as maybe necessary for the good local government of the people. Provincial Legislatures, Etc. The Commonwealth shall grant to each pro vince a uniform written Constitution, setting out the powers and duties of the Legislatures thereof. Such Constitution may be amended from time to time as may be required. Each province shall be governed by a Legislature to be composed of a reasonable number of members. The term of office of members to be three years. Members to be paid such uniform salary as shall be determined. Commonwealth electoral rolls to be used at all elections. The Provincial Legislature shall have power under its Constitution to make laws for the government of the people with in the province. Finance. The Commonwealth shall take over all present State debts. The Commonwealth Government to as far as possible collect all revenue, thus obviating the expense of duplication in collecting taxes, &c. Municipalities . Commonwealth Parliament shall grant a uniform Constitution to provide for municipal government, the supervision of administration to be the duty of the provinces." Extension of time granted, on motion by Senator Needham. The amendment embodies resolutions carried at the Labour Conference which dealt with the proposed amendment of the Constitution. It has an advantage over the Government proposal, because it has the support of a very large number of electors, who have endeavoured to crystallize it into suitable form. The Government have submitted something that they consider necessary for a period of six months, twelve months, or three years. The Government, through their -Minister in this Chamber, have said that their proposals are intended to give them power to deal with the profiteer, but this amendment will be so far-reaching and so complete that it will give the Commonwealth the powers I referred to in my opening remarks. The proposed amendment is in the form accepted by the Labour Conference, and it would amend the Constitution in the form we think proper. I do not think honorable senators supporting the Government are likely to rush our proposals, but I recommend them to their earnest and serious consideration. I ask honorable senators to judge for themselves whether the Government have introduced these constitutional proposals in a way that is acceptable to a majority of this Senate. I venture to say that even the most loyal supporter of the Government must feel that an indignity has been placed upon him by the manner in which he is asked to support these proposals on the eve of a general election. The Government say they wish to deal with profiteers. What are profiteers? A profiteer is a man who is making an undue profit. 13124 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - What is an undue profit? We need a definition very badly. 13124 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Making an exorbitant profit. 13124 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Define exorbitant ? 13124 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - A profiteer is a man who is making undue or exorbitant profit. Whether I used the term "undue " or " exorbitant," I am questioned. Perhaps I will be sufficiently explicit if I say that a profiteer is one who is making more out of his business than the capital invested or the labour employed justifies. If the terms I have used fairly define the profiteer, the Constitution in its present form gives the Government power to deal with him if they wish to do so. I admit there are powers that can be used for other purposes; but paragraph ii of section 51 of the Constitution gives the Government power to deal with the profiteer. That paragraph empowers the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws in respect of taxation, but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of a State. If a profiteer is making an unfair profit, can not the Government introduce a Bill to enforce him to pay a tax of £2 for every £1 profit over and above a certain limitation? Suppose we limit the profit to 5 per cent., 6 per cent., or7½ per cent. on the capital invested. A taxation Bill could be introduced in another place, and passed through both Houses in twenty-four hours, providing that a man who received a certain profit, after making allowance for the capital invested and the labour employed, should have to contribute taxation in the manner I have suggested. The proposal of the Government is a sham and a fraud. 13124 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Why limit the profit to7½ per cent.? 13124 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Personally, I would make it 5 per cent., and possibly Senator de Largie would make it 6 per cent., and Senator Mulcahy7½ per cent.; but I suppose Senator Bakhap would allow the profiteer to make as much profit as he could drag out of the people. 13124 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - I would like to see any enterprise continue as a dividend paying concern. 13124 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - The larger the dividends, the more the honorable senator would he pleased, irrespective of the manner in which the workers were sweated. Here is an example of profiteering. I shall quote from the balance-sheet of Robert Reid and Company, in order to make clear the point I have in my mind. I quote from a news cutting : - In connexion with the Inter-State Commission's report on the price of articles of wear, the following extract from the balance-sheet of Messrs. Robert Reid and Company Limited, published in the Daily Telegraph of 27th January last, will be of interest: - 13125 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator Pratten - That company is registered in London. 13125 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - It is doing business in Australia, and the case I have quoted is a glaring example of profiteering. When the war was in progress, and when men were away fighting in their country's interest, these big companies were exploiting the people. I do not mean this particular company, but all companies whose profits increased as a result of exploitation. 13125 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Did they not have to contribute to the war-time profits tax ? 13125 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - The Government have said that they have not the power to deal with the profiteer, and are introducing this Bill to amend the Constitution to give them authority. The Government have had the power since the 13th May, 1916, when the High Court gave its decision in the appeal under the War Precautions Act in the bread case. The Government knew they had the full power to control prices during the period of the war, and they failed to exercise it. The Government left the soldiei'3 and soldiers' dependants at the mercy of profiteers, and now they are introducing this proposal in the hope of obtaining a renewal of the confidence of the people to enable them to allow the profiteers to continue to exploit the. community. The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) [4.20] .-Before I put the amendment, I want to point out that one guiding principle has always governed amendments to amending Bills. Nothing but what is dealt with in any amending Bill can be dealt with by an amendment. This practice has .been laid down, and this ruling given, over and over again. In this case, the amendments are not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill before the Senate, although they might be relevant to proposals for the amendment of other portions of the Constitution! This Bill seeks to amend specific portions of the Constitution, and deals with one or two points only. Any amendment, either extending it or limiting its effect, would be strictly relevant and in order, but amendments going beyond the extent of the Bill and dealing with matters that are not touched by it are obviously not in order. 13125 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - Before you conclude, Mr. President, may I speak on a point of order! 13125 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - The honorable senator will have the right to move that my ruling be dissented from. The duty devolves upon me of determining whether an amendment is in order or otherwise, and it is my duty now to declare that the honorable senator's amendment is not in order. 13125 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin - T - The whole of the amendments? 13125 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - The series of amendments which the honorable senator has moved are obviously not in order, and not in accordance with our 'Standing Orders and practice. Standing order 193, dealing with the second-reading stages of a Bill, states - On the Order of the Day being read for the second reading of a Bill, the question shall be proposed, "That this Bill be now read a second time." And standing order 194 provides- Amendments may be moved to such question, by leaving out " now," and adding ,?this day six months," which, if carried, shall finally dispose of the Bill; or by referring the Bill to a Select Committee; or the Previous Question may be moved. These are the proper and ordinary amendments to move at the second-reading stage of a Bill. Standing order 195 states - No other amendment may be moved to such question, except in the form of a resolution strictly relevant to the Bill. The amendment moved by the honorable senator would be relevant to a Bill amending the Constitution generally, but is not relevant to a Bill which seeks to amend the Constitution in only one or two specific particulars, and is, therefore, of limited scope. For these reasons, and in accordance with well constituted practice, I rule the proposed amendment out of order. 13125 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - I accept your ruling, Mr. President, and shall not proceed further, unless you force me to move that your ruling be disagreed with. I believe I still have the right to move my amendments in Committee, but I thought the debate would be shortened if we could deal with all of the amendments together. Will you permit me now to alter my amendment to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for consideration and report? 13125 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - A Select Committee could not do what the honorable senator desires to do. 13126 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - I contend that nil the powers of Parliament are contained in section 51 of the Constitution, and that any amendment of the Constitution comes under that heading. But if you, sir, persist in your ruling, I shall move my amendments one by one in Committee, and that procedure will take much longer time. I prefer to move at this stage that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for consideration. I do not care if my amendments are defeated, because I shall have put concrete proposals before Parliament for acceptance or rejection. 13126 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - What the honorable senator proposes to do could not be done without a suspension of standing orders, which is a matter for the Senate to decide. I am bound by the procedure and the Standing Orders of the Senate. 13126 K18 Tasmania 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP . - Honorable senators will remember that during the discussion on the Supply Bill some weeks ago I anticipated that amendments to the Constitution would be hurried before the Commonwealth Parliament for consideration. It did not require a very' great amount of political prescience on my part to come to that conclusion. The* sequel has justified my anticipations, for we now have those very Bills, embodying, perhaps, a modified attempt to alter our constitutional edifice, and an attempt, moreover, on lines that have previously been rejected by the people. As a representative of the smallest State, territorially speaking, in the Commonwealth, but which is still a geographical entity, I wish to make it quite clear that any proposals for constitutional amendment will be very carefully scrutinized by me before they get my indorsement. But there is an additional reason for suspicion and jealousy on my part. The Minister, when introducing the measure now under discussion, said at the conclusion of his remarks that in constitutional matters he was an extremist. When we who are Federalists, when we who stand here as representatives of the rights of the smaller States, find that the Minister responsible in this Chamber for the introduction of a Bill to amend the Constitution, declares himself to be an extremist, it is time -to be alert and to be jealous in every particular of those constitutional privileges and self-governing rights "inherent in the .States as integral portions of the Commonwealth. I am astonished at the attitude of members of both parties in regard to this Bill. But I am here to discharge, according to my ability, the duties intrusted to me when I was elected by the people of Tasmania. I care not for party, I care not for convention, I care not for the attitude of the leaders of political organizations towards me in regard to the discharge of my duty. My consideration is for the rights of the people of Tasmania, of the people who have honored me on three successive occasions by electing me to this, the superior Chamber of the Commonwealth Parliament. This proposal is to make what is acknowledged to be the extreme medicine of legislation, our daily bread. How can honorable senators justify their attitude, and give even qualified or modified support to a constitutional amendment like this, when, a few weeks ago, they were amongst the most vociferous in imploring the Legislature not to continue the operation of the War Precautions Act, which gave to the Administration of the Commonwealth all the powers, unconditioned and absolute, which are asked for in this Bill? 13126 KMP 0 0 GRANT, John Senator Grant - And many more besides. 13126 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - And many more besides, as the honorable senator interrjects. For four years we had been within the lurid precincts of the temple of war, and we anticipated being able soon to step out into the larger freedom of the sunlit fields of peace. We were hopeful of being able to secure the benefits of peace at the earliest possible opportunity, notwithstanding that we were technically still in a state of war, and legally, perhaps, will be in a state of war until the ratifications of the Peace Treaty are completed. Honorable senators were practically unanimous in expressing the hope that at the earliest opportunity we should reach a condition of peace, and enjoy peaceful government, free from bureaucratic control. But what is now proposed ? I heard some one - I will not say who it was - say not. long ago that this Bill constituted a war measure. Do we want to prolong the state of war? Do we want to project the state of war into the time of peace by enacting war legislation which will operate. for three or four years after peace ? 13127 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Who said that? 13127 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - I know who said it, and where it was said. Let me tell the honorable the Minister, this Minister who is an extremist in constitutional matters, that it was. said very recently. These Constitution Alteration Bills, we are told, are war measures. Is war such a delightful state of affairs, and is the centralization of control so beneficial to the people of Australia that we want to continue these operations for at least four years after the signing of the armistice? Perish the thought! This attempt is going to get no assistance from me. We have been told that if we do not agree to a measure of this description the fountains of the great deep of industrial and social order will be broken up; that, in fact, these measures must be passed in order to avert some terrible social and economic catastrophe. That kind of talk may be all very well for people who are only half informed, but it must not be addressed to men like me, in the hope of having any effect upon my mental attitude. If the social and economic order of Australia is in danger, then our Parliaments are in danger. No corrective of this kind will stem the incoming tide. All this talk is mere subterfuge. If social unrest is so deep seated that unless these Constitution Alteration Bills are agreed to, the people of Australia are going to act in the future in a way contrary to all the best instincts of our race, then this Parliament is going to disappear. But I do not believe that our social order is in any danger. I am in a position to prove that the accumulations in the Savings Bank in this State alone increased during the four years of war by 75 per cent. Does that suggest that our social order is in danger ? I am also able to prove that the prices of many commodities were higher eighteen or twenty years ago than they are to-day. Honorable senators know that I am not in the habit of making loose assertions. I want to put the position fairly before the people. The other day a man with university training, who ought to know better, said to me, " There is not much in this profiteering cry, but we must pander to the people to a certain extent." Is that what a university education brings a man to do, instead of endeavouring to enlighten the people? I am going to in form the people from as many platforms as I can reach in Tasmania, that many of the things that are being told to them at the present time are fallacious in the extreme, and unworthy of consideration in any enlightened Democracy. 13127 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - You tell them that the beef which a few years ago was 5d. a lb. is now 10d., and ask them if that is not profiteering. 13127 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - At Geelong the other day bacon pigs were sold at prices which came out at 9d. or10d. per lb. What will that work out at when the pig is turned into bacon? I agree that meat was cheap in Australia at one time, but that was before we commenced to export; and I remind the honorable senator that we cannot have our cake and eat it too. 13127 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - Would you have called it profiteering if the Government had fixed the price at which fruit could be exported from Tasmania to England at 3s. 6d.. a case, and if, immediately upon the retirement from office of the Ministry responsible for that price-fixing, the shipping companies had raised the freight to 7s. 6d. ? 13127 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - I can only say that it was a good thing for the Tasmanian orchardist when price-fixing was abandoned. The honorable senator knows full well that the war dislocated freights. Because of the destruction of shipping, and for allied reasons, freights were bound to increase. A few minutes ago it occurred to me to look up the speech which I delivered in opposition to the proposed amendments to the Constitution in 1915. In that year, when the Liberal party, enfeebled and depressed by defeat at the polls, seemed to let these measures go through. Parliament by default, I undertook to deliver a speech in this Chamber, marshalling my arguments upon principles directly opposed to these pernicious measures of amendment. I have just glanced through that speech, for the reason that I do not desire to weary honorable senators by a repetition of arguments which I then advanced, and also because it is not necessary for me to rehash them, seeing that there is such a mass of argumentative munitions available. I am very disappointed in the Liberal party, as well as in the Labour party. I am disappointed with the latter, for the reason that it is impliedly seeking to bring about the very condition of things against which it protested in connexion with the projection into a time of peace of the War Precautions Act and Regulations. I am disappointed with the Liberal party . The " Hughesite " Labour members in the National party may hold up their heads; they have always favoured these proposals for the amendment of the Constitution. It is not the smallest part of the price which the Liberals have had to pay for sheltering the ' ' Hughesite Labourites ' ' from political extinction, or, at any rate, from destructive attack, that the false economics of the latter have been permitted to substantially modify what we Liberals have always believed in and stood for. Where are those Liberals who protested with me, and fought so strenuously on two separate occasions against the alteration of the Constitution ? I have had the pleasantest personal associations with Labour members forming part of the National party - which associations I hope to continue; and I believe that the association of those Labour men with the Liberals has been fraught with the greatest benefit to the Empire and to Australia during the period of war strain. Yet I must say that that association has, in a way which the " Hughesite " Labour members. may think creditable, but which I do not believe to be so creditable to the Liberal party, substantially modified the economic views of the latter section. It is not creditable' to a man of light and leading that he should sink his principles to pander to a popular cry. It is not creditable to members of the Liberal party, who in the recent past have fought these proposed alterations to the Constitution, that they should now acquiesce in the projection into a period of peace of conditions which were bound to exist during the years of war. We are fain to permit things to be done during warfare which are undesirable in days of peace. The knights of the middle ages, encased in armour, rejoiced when they were able to throw off their suits of mail after battle. Our modern soldiers in the trenches rejoiced to take off their gas masks and retire to rest billets. I consented reluctantly to a situation during the war which practically involved a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Do honorable senators believe that, that Act should be suspended during days of peace ? No ! and yet, although they protested' against the projection into the peace period of the War Precautions Act and regulations, they now impliedly support alterations to the Constitution which are bound to raise turmoil and bitterness in the industrial life of the Commonwealth for the next three years at least. I, with Senator Gardiner, have grave doubts whether the High Court - the interpreter of the Australian Constitution - will 'hold these proposed amendments, if unhappily adopted by the people, to be within the ambit of the Constitution. It is a matter, perhaps, on which I am not competent to speak; but I shall certainly speak upon a larger question. Let not any man charge me, in regard to my opposition to these proposals, with being a little Australian. I fought for the establishment of Federation. I' was in New South Wales when the first Commonwealth Bill was considered by the Parliament and people of that colony. I fought for the original Commonwealth Bill, and for the measure which subsequently amended it ; and I can now enjoy the inspiriting reflection that, to' the best of my humble ability, I helped to establish this Commonwealth of ours. I have steadily followed the ideal of nationality ; but I am not insensible in regard to the genius of the British race. . The political genius of the British people is not to make one out of many, but to develop many within one. We have an instinctive genius for self-government. The very building in which we are housed is an evidence of the enthusiasm with which the Victorian people recognised and signalized the right to govern themselves, when,. by a British enabling measure, they were separated from New South Wales. In my youth a holiday was annually granted to the children of Victoria in celebration of Separation Day. We people of Tasmania were for many years subject to New South Wales, but the granting of self-government eventually became necessary. I have always asserted that one can stress a principle too severely; yet I say emphatically that in the future there will be not fewer State Governments in Australia, but more of them; and properly so. In the United States of America, with a superficies not exceeding that of the Australian continent, there are dozens of States. More new States are created as the territories reach a certain stage of development. In the Northern Territory of Australia, whose people charge us with misgoverning them - and, perhaps, we do from this centre of government, thousands of miles away - if there were 10,000 white men resident within its borders we could not hope nor expect to withhold from them the right of self-government. That is an evidence, not of disintegration, but of that self-governing spirit and principle which is part of the genius of the British race. 13129 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - But you would not give the Northern Territory greater powers of self-government than the Commonwealth at present possesses? 13129 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - What is your Government doing in the Northern Territory to-day? What is it doing to put a curb upon profiteering? One could put several Germanys into Queensland alone. One could put the whole of the Republic of France, and one-half of the Kingdom of Spain, into New South Wales; and still there would be something over. Will it be seriously urged - admitting, for the sake of argument only, that profiteering exists - that a State in area as huge as the whole of France and one-half of Spain combined, could not successfully deal with the evil of profiteering; that it must refer the matter to the central legislature of the continent? It is absurd. Of course, New South Wales could deal with profiteering. How is little Holland dealing with the evil ? How will Switzerland, a republic which is not as extensive as Tasmania, deal with profiteering ? Spain, which is territorially less than most of our Australian States, will have to deal with profiteering on its own account. Would a Spanish statesman say that the people of Spain could not deal with profiteers because Spain imported so much from France, and exported so much of its products to neighbouring countries ? What would be the use of a Spanish statesman arguing that there must be some reciprocal arrangement between France and Spain before profiteering could be dealt with? The Swiss people are among the best governed in Europe. Would a Swiss statesman say that Switzerland must become a member of some German Zollverein before profiteering could be successfully handled ? I have listened to the wiles of legislative frontiersmen who are always seeking new constitutional realms to conquer. I have listened to legislators, such as Senator Russell, whom I have called an extremist, proving him to be so out of his own mouth- 13129 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - You might quote my words before making such a charge. 13129 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - I ask honorable senators to recall that during a debate concerning the price of cornsacks - initiated, I think, by Senator Ferricks - the Minister (Senator Russell) confessed that his belief in price-fixing had been very substantial modified, because he realized that there were world factors operating in time of war which were entirely beyond the powers of the Government to control. 13129 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Please do not misrepresent me. What I said was that price-fixing was merely scratching the surface, because when the prices of imported goods were put up here, they were put up in other countries.- I want to go deeper, much deeper, than price-fixing. 13129 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - The declared objectives of this Bill are the fixation of prices and the limitation of profits. I have said that my personal association with the Hughesite members of the National party has been of the pleasantest kind. I hope that we shall be coadjutors in regard to many measures for the benefit of the Commonwealth. But upon this contemplated invasion of State rights, this unnecessary enlargement of the powers of the central administration, I say, " On Soracte's ridge we part." The Hughesite members may have substantially coloured the economics of the Liberal members of the National party, but they have left mine a white page still. In this matter the territorial factor is one of the most important. Indeed, I cannot sufficiently stress this factor in order that the young people of the Commonwealth, who will, perhaps, have the right to exercise the franchise in connexion with these Bills, may know that the inhabitants of the Dominion of New Zealand, inspired by the great ideal of an Australasian Federation, sent Commissioners here to inquire into the desirableness or otherwise of joining the Australian Commonwealth. After a very, eery careful examination of the position those Commissioners returned to New Zealand and told its people that the factor of territorial distance was so considerable and important that they had to recommend them to refrain from entering the Australasian Federation. Consequently, the people of the Dominion of New Zealand have remained outside that Federation to this day, and, in my opinion, they will continue to do so, save in regard to entering into some common arrangement respecting defence. It is all very well for honorable senators to exclaim, "We are only asking the people to trust themselves." That is sheer nonsense. The psychology of the people of the various States of the Commonwealth differs most materially. In one State, for example, we get an overwhelming majority in favour of conscription, in another State we get an overwhelming majority against that principle. In one State the people subscribe their full quota to the Peace loan, in another State, superior, perhaps, in resources of every kind, they make only a limited subscription; their quota is not reached. Consequently, I say that the peoples of these States differ materially from each other, not in racial extraction, but in psychology, which is caused by environment, What has been the experience of the people of Tasmania, a small State, a geographical entity, which is separated from the mainland of Australia? So big is Australia that Ministers do not really know what are the opinions held by the people of the different States. In Tasmania the National Government triumphed at the recent State elections only because of the ineptitude of the Labour party during the war. Had that party acted up to the declaration of the Right Honorable Andrew Fisher, in all probability it would have governed Tasmania for the next ten or fifteen years. But the people of that State regard the Labour party as an unsafe party, so much so that 9,000 or 10,000 Labour electors refrained from going to the poll at the last State elections. That is the asset of the National party in Tasmania - the comparative shortsightedness of their opponents. But does anybody mean to tell me that the people of that State love the National Government - that while they resent the way in which they were treated by the Shipping Board they will accept with open arms proposals which will absolutely whittle away their State sovereignty? 13130 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I do not know anything about the Shipping Board, but I do remember taking foodstuffs to Tasmania for half freight. 13130 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - What did the representatives of Tasmania have to do here? They had to go cap-in-hand day after day to various gentlemen representing centralized control. As a matter of fact, we could not get our soldiers repatriated. It was only after Tasmanian veterans numbering a battalion, who were encamped in Melbourne, had interviewed us, as their political representatives, that we went as a body to the responsible Minister and secured the breaking of the seamen's strike. 13130 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - You had the chance to repatriate your men, but you would not let them land in Tasmania. 13130 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - By means of State quarantine regulations, we succeeded in keeping influenza out of Tasmania during the dark and dismal days of winter; so that when it finally did make its appearance there, its attacks were apparently innocuous. 13130 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - We did not keep returned soldiers out of Tasmania. The Tasmanian Government did that. 13130 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP -The weak handling by the Government of the seamen's strike, through its centralized control, constrained the Tasmanian returned soldiers to interview us, and, as a result, we went to the Minister and put the position before him. Only in that way were we able to secure the repatriation of our men to their island State. The people of Tasmania want to know why those soldiers were landed in Melbourne, when they could have been landed direct in their own State. With this sort of thing fresh in their minds, does anybody mean to tell me that the electors of Tasmania will transfer these powers to any central body, particularly when that body already has too many functions of government? Alongside my speech in Hansard there is a debate on the Insurance Bill, in regard to which the Government possess full powers. We hear a lot of talk about the need for a common company law; but where is our uniform Insurance Act? I ask members of the National party which detrimental monopoly they are seeking to indict? They talk about monopolies. Let them answer. Which monopoly are they going to bring before the High Court? Are honorable senators dumb '( We are told that prejudicial monopolies are to be dealt with. But there is nothing in this Bill about detrimental monopolies. Under its provisions the High Court may be called upon to declare whether any business h a monopoly or otherwise. Now whilst a monopoly may exist, it may be a beneficent monopoly. I have asked the Minister whether he can tell us anything about the intentions of the Government in regard to the indicting of baneful monopolies. Which one is to be presented ? Is the Metal Exchange, which wants contracts in advance for fifty years, or the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, or the coal mines of New South Wales, to be declared a detrimental monopoly? I would remind honorable senators that there is no qualification in the Bill in regard to the term " monopolies." The High Court is merely to be asked to declare any business a monopoly. But it does not follow that every monopoly is a baneful one in its incidence. 13131 10000 0 0 GIVENS, Thomas The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens - Order! The honorable senator will not be in order in discussing the two Bills for the amendment of the Constitution upon this motion. 13131 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - The Leader of the Opposition spoke of both measures, and I believe it will facilitate discussion if I am allowed to follow his example. 13131 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - The honorable senator is perfectly entitled to make a passing reference to the other Bill. 13131 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - I shall not .do more than that. It may be said that I am hide-bound, and that I regard our Constitution as sacrosanct. But I remember, as Senator Gardiner, to his credit, remembers, that we are discussing proposals to alter the Constitution just after we have paid our last tribute of respect and friendship to one of the galaxy of great men who erected this national edifice within which we are called upon to legislate for the benefit of the people of the Commonwealth. Nobody appreciated more than I did the generous, exalted, and dignified language in which the character and work of that great man were stressed by the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Russell), as the representative of the Government, by Senator Gardiner, Senator Keating, and by the Treasurer in his great oration today. I do not regard the Constitution as sacrosanct. In our Constitution the principle of regeneration has been carefully embodied by its framers. At the present moment we are setting in motion the machinery which will enable the electors of the Commonwealth to express, in strict accordance with the Federal principle, their desire to amend that Constitution or otherwise. That is a perfectly legal process. I am sorry that these measures have been introduced in connexion with the many issues which will arise at a general election. Although I have always fought against these constitutional alterations, I must confess that they were properly introduced by the Government of the day on the first occasion. They are measures which should be introduced at a time when the minds of the electors are not agitated by other political issues. I always deprecate the introduction of questions involving constitutional amendments at a general election. But there is one aspect in which I think our Constitution stands in need of amendment. We talk about monopolies. What was the greatest " monopoly in Australia during the war period ? It was the State monopoly in regard to meat in Queensland, and in regard to wheat in New South Wales. South Australia prohibited the export of wheat to Tasmania. She did so in virtue of her rights as a sovereign State. New South Wales acted similarly by asserting her rights as a sovereign State. Queensland prohibited the export of cattle to the southern States, and she, too, acted by virtue of her rights as a sovereign State. Her rights in that regard were exercised in- a way which I say, to the sorrow of Federalists, constituted a contravention of the true Federal principle of Free Trade between the States which was contemplated at the time the. Constitution was framed. What is there in these Bills to alter that condition of affairs? Is there anything in the way of constitutional amendment which will read like this - Any prohibition of export by a State Government of any commodity produced within its borders,' shall be deemed to be an infringement of the rights of the people of the Commonwealth to trade with each other? Will these Bills alter the conditions under which a State monopoly may be established? Will they affect the State right of prohibition upon exports? They will not touch it. Indeed, there is a special reservation in one Bill which reads - This section shall not apply to any industry or business conducted or carried on by the Government of a State or any public authority constituted under a State. In other words, the very worst monopoly disclosed during the war, the monopoly by a State under which it may deprive the rest of the people of the Commonwealth of commodities produced within its borders, will not be touched in any way. 13132 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator Ferricks - The honorable senator, as a State Righter, should enthuse over that. 13132 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - No. Evidently Senator Ferricks does not recognise any golden mean between Unification and complete decentralization. I do not believe in Unification, nor do I believe in Soviet government, which is the very apotheosis of decentralization. I am a Federalist, and I want all the Federal principles to be observed. I desire that the intention of the people of the Commonwealth, when they established the institution of a central Government for Australia, shall be given effect. They expected perfect Free Trade within the Commonwealth, and they were suddenly met with the fact that a State, being a sovereign power, had the right to prohibit the export of any commodity produced within its borders. That, which is the greatest evil that was disclosed during the war period, and the period immediately antecedent to it, is not dealt with in these measures. 13132 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - That implies the necessity for a Convention. 13132 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - I must inform honorable senators that I believe that the Commonwealth Constitution makes in itself such provision for its alteration and regeneration as to dispense with the necessity for the holding of any constitutional Convention. Why a Convention ? We are told here something about a Convention that is to be held ; but how is it to be constituted ? Is it to be a nominee or an elective Convention? Is it to be elected on the lines upon which each State has representation in this Chamber, a clear demonstration of the equal Federal idea ? Will Tasmania have the same number of representatives on the Convention as New South Wales will have? We are given no information in regard to these matters, and consequently I take no heed whatever when it is said that we are going to have a Convention. Will the Convention be elected by the adult suffrage of the democratic people of Australia ? This Parliament is so elected. The only reservation in regard' to the Federal principle here, with a full recognition of the sovereign rights of the States in respect to the powers they have reserved to themselves, is that the number of representatives of each sovereign State in this Chamber must be the same. 13132 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator Pratten - We should have some definite information about the Convention. 13132 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - I agree with the honorable senator. 13132 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - This is not a Bill to create a Convention. 13132 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - It mentions a Convention, and what information have we been vouchsafed about the Convention? Is there a schedule to this Bill describing how the Convention is to be elected, and the lines on which it will be formed? No, there is not. Well, I am not going to sign this blank cheque, so far as my vote in this Chamber is concerned. 13132 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator Pratten - We are entitled to have something definite about the Convention before we pass this Bill. 13132 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - We are. I wish to illustrate the unsatisfactory nature of Federal control. I believe that if the people of Tasmania were asked once more what sort of Federation they desired, they would certainly vote for a Federal Constitution providing for a national system of defence. They would probably, although not nearly so readily, agree to the transfer to the Federation of Customs and Excise; and they might possibly agree to Federal control of the post and telegraph offices. But I feel certain that if they had the opportunity, at the present moment, they would go no further in any direction. They would recognise the fact that they represent a geographical unit, and that the smallness of its superficies and its proximity to the great mainland States constitute certain disadvantages, and they would insist upon retaining almost complete powers of self-government. The Tasmanian people are not un-Federal; they are very Federal, and very Imperialistic; but I presage the defeat of these proposals in the island State. I may be wrong. The Tasmanian Government may support them, the National Federation in Tasmania may support them, but that has nothing to do with me. I am not responsible to the National Federation, to the Tasmanian State Government, or to the Nationalist party in meeting assembled. I am responsible to the people who elected and sent me here, believing that I was a true Federalist, and would maintain, in truth and in spirit, Federal principles. I have alluded to the fact that people have been somewhat disturbed by the unsettled conditions caused by the war, but which do not prevail to any great extent in Australia. Perhaps they are likely, in consequence, to be led away by demagogic declamation in regard to the necessity for the alteration of the Commonwealth Constitution. I shall very much regret it if the people of Australia, who must in future uphold the principle of decentralization, which, as I have said, is inherent in the political genius of the British race, act so foolishly as to cause, so to speak, a negation of their historic development, go back on their tracks, and practically constitute complete Federal control in regard to trade and commerce. The trade and commerce powers of the Commonwealth are as great as, if not greater than, those of the Federation of the United States of America. Has the rigid hide-bound Constitution of the United States of America prevented the development of the American people? Has Canada with a territory greater than tha.t of the United States of America excelled that country in development ? Notwithstanding the fact that Canada has the Constitution which Senator Russell impliedly applauded the other day, I say that the arbiter of the fate of nations, and of the fate of mankind, the United States of America, in her Federal authority, does not possess, although she is an independent Power, greater powers in regard to internal government than are possessed by the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia. We know that some years ago the people of Australia refused these powers to the central authority. Has Australia ceased to develop on that account? No! Australia is a rich country at the present time, and is inhabited by comparatively wealthy people, a people who have raised millions of money during the last few years, and whose productive development was consistently carried on during years of war, as shown by the fact, to which I have already referred, that the deposits in the Victorian State Savings Bank alone exceed by 70 per cent, what they were before' the war. That is a fact. I want to allude once more to the evil of centralized control. It is now nearly a year since the Armistice was signed; it will be a year next month. The state of war practically ended for Australia then. Yet honorable senators are aware that I have put' questions in the Senate which have disclosed the fact that investors, company promoters, inventors, scientists, such as university professors, interested in mechanical formulas and devices, have desired to capitalize these things, and to give full play to their initiative and enterprise, and they have had to go cap in hand to a very worthy young man representing the Treasury. I do not desire to say anything derogatory of this young man in regard to his capacity as a Commonwealth civil servant, because he is not here to speak for himself, but after eleven months of Armistice, and because a state of war technically, still exists, these people have to ask permission of this young official of the Treasury to formulate a commercial enterprise, and register it under the company law of the State of Victoria. Is that conducive to commercial development? Honorable senators should see the number of letters I have received protesting against this state of things. The granting of the powers proposed by this measure will practically perpetuate a condition of things which by most of the enterprising men of Australia is deemed so undesirable. I know that honorable senators will say, "Look at France and what France is doing in regard to profiteering and price-fixing." I have read in French publications quite recently statements in regard to the progressive increase of prices in France during the war.' I have read that coal, when it could be bought, went up to six and seven times its previous price, and the writer of an article in the Revve des Deux Mondes pointed out that the very paper on which the article was printed had. appreciated between 400 and 500 per cent, in price. But these things were natural as a result of the war, because of a lack of shipping, because the coal districts of France, were in possession of the enemy, and France had to depend for coal upon foreign countries. When honorable senators talk of France to me let me tell them - because T am not going to recapitulate by reading extracts from my old speech, containing selections from the best French writers on economics - that France very nearly ruined herself by price-fixing once before in her history, and may possibly do so again. In the Commonwealth of Australia there are so many resources to develop that all the energy and enterprise of our people should be stimulated -to the utmost. How are we to stimulate them ? By holding out to our people the prospect of big rewards, of profits and not of losses. The term "profiteer" has become synonymous with commercial brigand. You have only to misuse a phrase often enough to make some impression on the minds of impressionable people. I say that the Commonwealth exists for profit and not for loss to its citizens. 'It exists to promote Australian development. But if we are going to permit the gentleman at the head of affairs, Mr. William Morris Hughes, to get control of these powers, which in time of peace are said to be necessary for the fixation of prices, I feel sure - because he has already gone so far so to speak, as to dope the Parliament of which he is £he head - that he will use them in a manner which will be detrimental to and destructive of the energy of the people of Australia. The people need to be stimulated by prospects of success and great earnings in every channel of national life. I am going to say something in order to protect myself against being charged as a little Australian, as an anti-nationalist, as one who does not believe in the development of the Australian people, and as one who is assisting the advent of Bolshevism. We are told that any man who objects to these powers is assisting the advent of Bolshevism by adding to the industrial ferment which exists in the community. I will take my chance, and I am sure the majority of the sensible people of the nation will take theirs too. What was Mr. William Morris Hughes some years ago? I say this with all respect for his great abilities to which I still give praise? He never was a friend of the Commonwealth Constitution. I shall be called an anti- Australian, a little Australian, and will be denounced as being afraid to give the people the powers which are1 their own, and which are only being withheld from them by the constitutional provisions made and enacted, with the consent of the Australian people, led by the great men, of whom the .late Mr. Alfred Deakin was one, I shall be told that I am a little Australian, but what about this gentleman, Mr. William Morris Hughes, who, when the Commonwealth Bill was before the electors of New South Wales, urged them to reject it? He was hostile to the main principles embodied in the Constitution which these measures are introduced to destroy. When I was advocating Nationalism he was advocating the rejection of a Constitution which enabled him, aided by his own great ability and force of character, to be raised from the dust to the position he occupies to-day. Many others, too, who are supporting these proposals and who are proclaiming themselves great Australians, were hindering the advent of Nationalism by opposing the acceptance of an instrument under which the Australian people are enjoying some measure of satisfactory national development. I do not intend to delay the discussion to any degree. Of course, I shall be told that I am a Tory. .Senator Gardiner has said that I am a sort of hard-shelled Tory, and even a crusty old Conservative. There are very few men who are so democratic, enthusiastic, and progressive in regard to the ideals of Nationalism as I am. I shall be told that I believe in profits of 100 per cent, and 200 per cent., and that I do not care if the poor are without boots, or the children of widows without bread.. I reject the imputation. That is not the policy of the party to which I belong. 13134 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - Which party? 13134 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - The old Liberal party. Is not that the party that, .all through British history, has boasted that it has always heard the sobbing of the weak? I will do all I can for the weak. I am sufficiently humanitarian to believe that humanitarian principles should be embodied in our legislation; but I will not, for the sake of the weak, fetter the strong. The strong, able, successfully organized commercial men are those whom we must consider in developing Australian resources. 13134 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - And hang the weak ! 13135 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - We will provide for the weak out of the superfluity of national wealth created by the unfettered exercise of the energies of the strong. 13135 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - At the expense of the weak. 13135 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - It. is the duty of every one to tell the electors of this Democracy the truth, and to say that there are in every community individuals who - to use a colloquialism - are not worth their salt. What can we do for them? Can we give all these people motor cars? We are told th'a't some' are weak. They are weak in looking after themselves, in conserving their own rights, and in regard to thrift. 13135 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - They need bread, and not motor cars. 13135 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - We will give them bread; but not by paralyzing the energies of the strong people of the community, or by checking the flow of revenue which enables us to give' them bread. In all legislation there must be fair consideration of the rights of the weak. The weak have rights, but the strong also have their rights. A nation is always judged by its best. It is judged by its strong and by its most successful men. How are we judged? By the strength of the men who went to the war - by strong men. We were not judged by those who remained behind, but by the men who shed their blood on ' foreign fields and fought for the liberty of mankind. We are not judged by those who remained at home, and who are opposed to the ideals of Nationalism and of Empire. Extension of time granted, on motion by Senator Pratten. 13135 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - I thank honorable senators for the consideration they have again shown me in this regard. I do not suppose there will be many speeches in opposition to this proposal, as the organization of parties and Parliaments happens to be so peculiar that the passage of this measure by Parliament, and perhaps its rejection by the people, is a foregone conclusion. Very few speeches will be made in opposition to the proposed amendment of the Constitution; but, because of my conception of what is my duty to the electors of Tasmania who sent me here, I have addressed the Senate at greater length than I intended. Sufficient time has not expired for us to radically remodel our Constitution. We should be permitted to develop our national resources, so far as the central Government is concerned, in true conformity with the Federal spirit. This building in which we are deliberating was designed by a great architect; it is a thing of beauty and a mark of architectural glory in this city. To remove some of the central arches from the Queen's Hall would undoubtedly endanger the whole structure. I suppose the stresses have been so carefully calculated, and apportioned that it would require the removal of very little indeed to destroy this remarkably fine edifice. If we removed the central supports it would crumble in ruins. The Federal system of government is one that must be evenly balanced. I am sorry that centralization in regard to executive control and legislative powers is necessarily of some importance; but I believe, after several years' experience in the Federal Parliament, that there are few legislative functions which can satisfactorily be intrusted to the Legislature of an entire continent. Distances are factors. I would like to deal briefly with' the attitude of the journalistic profession right , through the Commonwealth. It frequently happens that journalists depreciate politicians. They assume that we belong to some peculiar tribe of human beings, and are a race apart, and that when once a man becomes a politician he deteriorates. There have been one or two journalists who have attained the position of Premier of an Australian State, and I do not think the most recent recruit from journalistic ranks to be vested with the honour of Premier reflects any glory on the journalistic profession . It seems an incongruity that the journalists of Australia, who certainly do not hold the Federal Parliament up to the public admiration, should to such a very large extent be in favour of conferring further powers upon the Federal Government. They look upon the Commonwealth Parliament as being inept and singularly ineffective for doing good work. In spite of this they support a movement for conferring unlimited powers on the Commonwealth. If any British community, which is always highly commercial, alienates control in regard to internal commercial powers, it abrogates its State sovereignty. If the Commonwealth Parliament has signally failed, where is the logic in conferring further powers on it, and, under the present Constitution, it has quite a number of matters with which it can deal without seeking further concessions from the States ? What is one of the most important matters to which this Parliament should address itself ? Diplomatically it can improve the Australian national relations with the United States of America, and render them more satisfactory. It can prevent the bureaucratic control of the Commonwealth Civil Service. I must confess that the Commonwealth and State Public Services are now almost out of the ambit of parliamentary control. We know very little of what is going on within those Services. We know very little about the items of expenditure, as they are brought on at the end of the session. Before we further encroach on the powers of the States we should address ourselves to the setting our own financial house in order. We should introduce a system of economy, modify the growing bureaucratic system, and bring the Service under the direct supervision of -this Parliament. That addition would make our labours almost Herculean. I deem it my duty, as a senator of the State of Tasmania, to vote against this measure, and to prevent its passage through this Chamber by every legitimate means. It is my intention, during the coming election campaign, to protest against a referendum being taken at the same time as a general election is held. I intend to use every means in my power to recommend the people of Tasmania in particular, and the people of Australia in general, to emphatically reject the proposals embodied in this Bill. 13136 JXJ Western Australia 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM . - I have listened with a great deal of interest and pleasure to the speech delivered by Senator Bakhap. If there is one part of it that appeals to me more than another," it is that wherein he referred to the undesirableness of taking a referendum at the time of a general election. 13136 K8L NAT 0 0 THOMAS, Josiah Senator THOMAS - The Labour party did it. 13136 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - Yes; but I was not altogether a keen supporter of that policy. If we made an error, there is no occasion to repeat it. When a general election is being held, the people have to decide who shall be the governing party; and that matter, and that alone, should be the subject for the electors to determine. We are to have a general election, I presume, before the end of this year, although we have not been officially so informed. The very fact that these Bills are being rushed through this Parliament is an indication that, before 1920, the people of the Commonwealth will be called upon to determine who shall be the members of this Parliament to guide the destinies of the country for another three years. On the admission of the Minister in charge of the Bill,, its aim is to put down profiteering. 13136 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I did not say it was. limited to that. 13136 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I was present when Senator Gardiner asked the Minister a direct question - Was it intended to put down .profiteering? And the Minister replied, "Yes." 13136 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - But I added, " and other things." . 13136 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - We will come to the " other things." Am I correct in assuming that the main object of the Bill is to put down profiteering ? 13136 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - The principal object, Yes. 13136 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - If I thought it would achieve that object I would take part in this discussion, with much more enthusiasm than I do now; but I fail to see how, as at present framed, the Bill is going to achieve its main object. 13136 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - The Bill itself will not achieve anything, but it will furnish the people with an opportunity to give the Government power to deal with profiteering. 13136 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - But the power proposed to be given is very limited. The Bill teems with limitations. The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Givens). - Order! From time to time during the course of the debate honorable senators have been annoyed and interrupted by conversations in the ,press gallery. I now intimate that if this continues I shall order that the press gallery be cleared altogether. 13136 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - The Bill, as I have said, teems with limitations. In the first place, according to clause 6, a Convention is to be convened, and if this is not done the operation of the measure will cease at the end of 1920. Very good. Let us imagine that the Convention will be called. Will the Minister say how it will be convened ? Therein, to my mind, lies an important factor. The Constitution that we are now called upon to amend, or rather to ask the people by referendum to amend, will, we are told, be considered by a Convention, which should not be nominated by the Government or a party, but should be elected by the people of Australia. 13137 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I am in favour of that. The present Government may not have the right to determine how this Convention shall be formed. There may be in power a Government from the honorable senator's side. 13137 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I am not concerned as to what Government may be in power after the next general election. 13137 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Would it not be presumptuous for me to say what I would do in this matter after the next election ? I may not be here then. 13137 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I am not asking the Minister to be presumptuous, but I say that the Government, in drafting this measure, should have indicated how and when the Convention was to be convened. Let us be honest with each other and with the electors. My interpretation of clause 6 is that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to convene a Convention, and that, therefore, we are being asked to grant powers that will expire at the end of 1920. Let us examine the situation a little more closely. What time will this or any other Government have to deal with the profiteer who is undoubtedly at large ? I presume the general elections will take place on the 13th December next, and that Supply will have been granted by this Parliament to carry on the Ordinary services of government until May or June next. The new Parliament will not re-assemble probably until May or June of next year, so that there will .only be about seven months within which to deal with the profiteer. Let us imagine also that the Convention is convened. It will take that body some time to determine the nature of any additional amendments necessary to deal with profiteering if the powers sought in this Bill are not sufficient. That being so, I can only describe the Bill as a political placard, designed to throw dust in the eyes of the people when this Government, which was elected in 1917 on what was known as the win-the-war cry, seeks a renewal of their confidence. 13137 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - Did we not win the war? 13137 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - You did not. The war was won by reason of the fact that the machinery and equipment which enabled our men to put up such a glorious fight was provided before the honorable senator's party came into power, and the honorable senator, in his saner days, helped in that important work. We are still, as Senator Bakhap has said, technically in a state of war. The War Precautions Act is still on our statute-book. It has been there since 1915, and many awful things have been done under its authority. It is true that I voted for it; but I repeat that never again will I vote for a measure to give power to men who may use it as the present Government have used the War Precautions Act. It was used chiefly for' the suppression of free speech and the imprisonment of men and women who ventured to express an opinion divergent from those of the gentlemen known as the Win-the-war party and the Win-the-war Government. The eleventh of next month will be the anniversary of the signing of the armistice, when the war practically came to an end. What is the first thing that this Government did after the armistice was signed? They removed the price-fixing regulations. Whatever check there had been upon the exploiters, soolers, and conscription advocates, who said to the young men of this country, " Go to the war ; if you do not go we will' send you there," and who battened on the wives and children of soldiers by raising the price of commodities, was at once removed by the repeal of the price-fixing regulations. Freedom of speech, however, was still denied the people. The powers mentioned in this Bill have been vested in the Government under the War Precautions Act for the past three years, but they have not been put into operation. But, on the. eve of a general election, and when, from one end of this continent to the other, there is a cry against the profiteer, the Government, as a sort of death-bed repentance, and because they are in articulo mortis, declare that by means of this Bill they intend to kill the profiteer! I am not prepared to admit that the 'Bill will effect this purpose. It may be said that, in 1911 or 1912, I voted for Bills to amend the Constitution on lines similar to the present proposal, and that if I cannot get the -whole loaf I should accept half a loaf of bread. This Bill is not even a crumb in comparison with the loaf offered to the people of Australia by Labour in 1911 and 1913. There is another phase of the matter which I might refer to. A similar measure, in 1912, included the railway workers of; Australia. This Bill cuts out the railway employees. Clause 2 states - Section 51 of the Constitution is altered by adding at the end of paragraph (i) the words. . . . "Provided that the alteration of this paragraph by Constitution Alteration (Legislative Power*) 1919 shall not be construed to empower the Parliament to make laws with respect to the control or management of railways the property of a State, or the rates or- fares on such railways." The individual responsible for the introduction of this measure - the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) - held entirely different opinions in 1912. I will quote a speech which he made in November of that year, when moving the second reading of the Constitution Alteration (Railway Disputes) Bill; and I could scarcely present a more striking illustration of the difference between the Attorney-General of those days and the Prime Minister of to-day - This is a Bill to amend the Constitution to enable the Parliament to make laws concerning conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes in relation to employment in the railway services of the States. It is to be noticed that this proposal differs very materially from that which was before the House in 1910. Under the proposal of 1910 it was sought to give this Parliament power to make laws in regard to labour and employment, including labour and employment and the prevention and settlement of disputes on railways the property of a State. The present proposal is limited to the creation of Courts of Conciliation and Arbitration for the prevention and settlement of disputes in the railway service of a State, and is in harmony with that provision inserted in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1904. It will be remembered that in 1904 the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Deakin), who was leading the Government, resigned office rather than agree to an amendment to include railway servants within the operation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. Mr. Deakin. That was in relation to Interstate disputes. Mr. HUGHES. Quite so. Effect, however, was given to that amendment by the honorable and learned member who then represented East Sydney (Sir George Reid). It became part and parcel of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and did very well for some time, but its subsequent career was rather chequered, and it finally was declared ultra vires by the High Court. I hope, however, that although it fared so badly, those honorable members who in its hour of travail in this House were its stalwart friends will not now desert it. Lest either they should have forgotten _ this, one of their many good deeds, or the country should lack matter to inscribe on tablets of brass to be erected in this building, when all who are here have gone, I shall read the names of these gentlemen to the House. I find that the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Cook) and the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Fowler) voted for this amendment, as well as a number of others who have ceased to be members of this Parliament. That, in itself, is a very sinister circumstance. I hope that this will not be regarded in the light of an obituary notice, but it certainly has that appearance to me. The honorable member for Illawarra (Mr. Fuller) was another who voted for the amendment. All the other honorable members - and there were many - who were colleagues and friends of those honorable gentlemen, for some reason or other, are unable to be present in the House this evening. Death is not responsible for the absence of any but one; there must be some other reason for their absence. The fact remains that the whole of that section of the party now represented in this Chamber by the honorable member for Parramatta and the honorable member for Illawarra voted with great earnestness, and even enthusiasm, for this proposal. It is said that it was then a comparatively innocuous proposition in that it extended only to InterState disputes. If I am to understand that that is the only objection to it, I think it fair to give the House an opportunity to consider the position. When we are so nearly agreed in the matter as to require the insertion of only one word to enable -vis to agree, such a little thing as that ought not to keep us apart. I suggest, therefore, with all deference to the honorable member for Parramatta, who finds himself now in the greatest possible difficulty, since he has no one save the honorable member for Illawarra to consult in regard to his past efforts, that he should agree to this proposal. The rest of his party who voted with him on the occasion "to which I have referred are gone, and those with whom he is surrounded now were, on that occasion, his opponents. I ask the House to accept this Bill for the reason that, as the honorable member for Ballarat has told us very many times, we in this Parliament are charged with the duty of endeavouring to promote in every possible way industrial peace in Australia. One of the most effective ways of doing that is to secure power to deal with disputes in the railway service of a State if unhappily there should arise on any occasion such a dispute as might involve the whole Commonwealth in its meshes. The industrial power of the Commonwealth ought to extend to all industrial disputes wherever they arise; it was the settled and deliberately expressed wish of this Parliament, in 1904-5-6, that it should be so extended. The mere fact that the High Court has decided that we had not the constitutional power to deal with the matter should surely not be a bar to our asking for that power. We put this proposal before the House, and ask honorable members to assent to it. It is a strictly limited power. It gives us no authority over State railways, but merely power to create Courts of Conciliation and Arbitration in which all great industrial disputes may be heard and settled. I shall not detain honorable members any longer in dealing with this matter. I have set forth my views on this and the measure with which I have last dealt at considerable length in connexion with the other Bills. I only trust that in my exposition of them they have not suffered. I ask the House to come to the consideration of these proposals with the assurance that it is my clear conviction that they are absolutely necessary to meet the existing situation. In no sense of the word do they impair the spirit of our Federal Constitution, nor do they violate the terms of the compact And they are imperatively necessary to enable this Parliament to do that for which it was created. Those are the words of Mr. Hughes, who6e chief colleague to-day is Sir Joseph Cook, the honorable member for Parramatta, concerning whom Mr. Hughes then had such pointed comments to offer. Those are the words of one who now purposely excludes from this Bill the railway employees of Australia. We have listened to-day to a very fine speech by Senator Bakhap, who was quite candid in his opinions. I read in yesterday evening's press, and again in the newspapers this morning another very candid expression of opinion - this time by the Minister (Senator Russell). He admitted-if he is correctly reported - that as regards the exclusion of the railway employees of Australia from the provisions of this Bill, it was not a question of principle, but a matter of expediency. He said he believed in the principle that the railway men should be included, but that it would be dangerous to include them. Senator Russell is further reported to have remarked that " they " could put up a magnificent fight with the railway men included, but that they would perhaps be defeated. He believed in the principle, but, as a matter of expediency, the railway men had been excluded. 13139 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - There were other considerations as well as those dealing with the railway men. My remarks did not apply to them specifically. 13139 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I desire to congratulate the Minister upon his candour. He has honestly expressed his opinion. 1 class this Bill as a mere expedient. Senator Mulcahy, during the course of the present debate, referred, when Senator Gardiner was speaking, to our taking orders from our masters outside. I notice that certain amendments, which are to be submitted by Senator Russell, are the outcome of instructions from the Government's masters outside. The National party, consisting of the followers of Mr. Hughes and of Sir Joseph Cook, meet in Caucus just as regularly as we do. These Bills came before the National Caucus. 13139 JYR 0 0 FAIRBAIRN, George Senator Fairbairn - We did not see them before you did. 13139 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - But the honorable senator and his associates in the National Caucus were aware of the lines on which this and a similar measure would be drafted. We are informed by the press that a legal committee consisting of three gentlemen was formed for the purpose of assisting the Government in drafting these Bills. The measure which is now before us was rushed through one branch of the Legislature with indecent haste. It was simply bludgeoned through that Chamber, and a similar attempt to rush it through will be made here. Between the time when it left the House of Representatives and its appearance in the Senate, the legal Caucus to which I have alluded has suggested the need for certain amendments being made in it. These amendments are not those of the Government or of the so-called National party. One of them is to leave out paragraph a of clause 3, which relates to corporations. We are told quite candidly and seriously by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, and by the Government of which he is a member, that this Bill is intended to deal with profiteering, although the legal Caucus has. cut out the very pith of it - the portion under which profiteers could be dealt with in an effective way. I recollect that in the big campaign of 1911, when the Fisher Government submitted to the electors proposals for the alteration of the Constitution, the regulation and control of corporations was one of the big items in their programme. We realized then, as I realize now, that corporations are at the very bottom of this profiteering business. Yet the legal masters of my honorable friends opposite now come forward and say to them that the Bill must be amended by omitting the provisions relating to corporations. 13140 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - Who are our masters ? 13140 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - The legal gentlemen to whom I have referred. The honorable senator's masters are outside this Parliament. They are the profiteers of the Commonwealth, the men who financed the Win-the-war Government at the last election, and who put up the money required by them. Is it likely that this Government, and its followers, who were sent back to power through the agency of the profiteers, are going to cut off the base of their supplies? They dare not. The profiteers . are their masters, and from them they must take their instructions. 13140 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - Nobody ever put up a penny for me. 13140 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I am speaking of the National Win-the-war party. 13140 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - Nobody ever put up a penny for me. I paid my own expenses. 13140 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator Ferricks - Who paid for all the Critchley Parker literature? 13140 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator Keating - I did not. 13140 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - I paid my own expenses, and I went into every State in Australia. The honorable senator has made a most reckless statement. 13140 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I made the statement that the profiteers financed the Win-the-war party at the 1917 elections. 13140 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - I rise to a point of order. Senator Needham has charged the National party with having been financed by profiteers during the 1917 elections. I submit that that is a most objectionable statement, and one which should be withdrawn. 13140 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - What Senator Needham has stated is a well-known fact. I understood him to say that the Win-the-war party had been financed at the 1917 elections. You, sir, cannot prevent an honorable senator from saying what is true. 13140 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens - The point which I have to decide is not whether Senator Needham's statement is true, but whether it is in order. He' is entitled to criticise people outside this Parliament. But he is not permitted to say anything which is objectionable either to the members of this Senate or to the other branch of the Legislature. I understood him to say that certain men outside this Parliament had put up funds for party purposes. Whether they did so or not has nothing to do with the case. I rule that the honorable senator is quite in order, inasmuch as his statement does not come within the scope of our Standing Orders relating to offensive remarks. 13140 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I thank you. 13140 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - Who financed the honorable senator? 13140 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - My comrades in the Labour movement, who at one time financed Senator Guthrie. 13140 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - The licensed victuallers support the honorable senator's party in Queensland. That is where it gets its money. 13140 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I do not know whether that statement is true. 13140 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - I know that it is true, and I can prove it to the hilt. 13140 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I have no- . thing further to add to my criticism of this Bill. 13140 JYT Queensland 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS . - As one who believes wholeheartedly in the need for enlarging the powers of the central Government, I regret that I cannot find even a ray of satisfaction in the Bill which is now under discussion. I am one of those who hold that the central Government should have powers conferred upon them, even far beyond those which were sought at the previous referendum. I differ from those who have expressed the opinion that a system of unification means centralization, and is the very opposite of a system of decentralization. Why, the very effect of unification and its natural corollary, decentralization, must be apparent to those who make that statement if they indulge in only a moment's reflection. The logical sequence to a unitary system is the decentralizing of powers, and the giving to the people of such provinces as the Northern Territory, to which reference has been made, government over their own domestic affairs. Holding these views, I cannot find any cause for satisfaction in the Bill which is now before us. It has been stated by the Prime Minister, through the columns of the press, and his statement has been repeated by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, to-day, that the purpose of the measure is to enable the Government to deal with profiteers. Upon the very face of things, does it not appear to the Minister, and to those who are going to pretend to be enthusiastic over the passage of this Bill, that, if it be a good thing to cope with profiteering, legislation in regard to that evil should not be limited to a period of three years? If profiteering is worth being controlled now, surely it is worth being controlled for all time. I advance this argument in rebuttal of the contention o'f my honorable friends opposite, who honestly believe that it is intended to cope with profiteering under the powers to be conferred upon this Parliament through the instrumentality of a referendum. Does it not verge on the hypocritical to say that it is necessary to deal with profiteering, and that the Government intend to deal with it, but that they are going to limit their operations to a term of three years ? 13141 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - Profiteering is merely a passing phase of industry. 13141 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - It is a recurring evil. The proposal for the limitation of the powers contained in this Bill is indefensible, assuming that there is any sincerity in the contention that profiteering is to be dealt with. But there is no sincerity in that contention, and consequently I regard the Bill and the procedure which is to be followed on this occasion with very great regret, and without a ray of satisfaction. "We must admit that it is necessary, as it has been for some considerable time, to materially enlarge the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament. Of those who talk about infringing the rights conferred by the Constitution, which was framed by the ablest intellects of the time, I ask, "Is it not reasonable to draw attention to the fact that more than twenty years have elapsed since that charter of government was drawn up?" Since then, conditions have changed, and they will continue to change. The people of twenty-three years ago could know nothing, except in a prophetic way, of the abnormal conditions which have operated during the war period, and which will continue to operate until the position is determinedly grappled with. When it is argued that it is necessary to alter our Constitution to enable the Government to effectively cope with profiteering, my reply is that, during the past four years, they have' had unlimited power to restrain the profiteer, and to nullify his depredations. 13141 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - And to abolish all race-courses. 13141 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - I would be one of the most unconcerned men in the community if all race-courses were abolished to-morrow. It is claimed by the Government that it is necessary to clothe this Parliament with larger powers to enable it to cope with the evil of profiteering. I Tepeat, and no one here can deny it, that during the last four years the Government have had unlimited power to cope with profiteering. 13141 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - And they did it. 13141 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - What did they do when they had unlimited power, especially during the past two years? I quoted here the other night a statement as to the result of a genuine attempt made by the Queensland Government to cope with profiteering. That Government succeeded, and their success continued until the 20th July, 1917, when all the power of regulation of prices by a State authority was taken out of their hands by a regulation issued under the War Precautions Act. The beneficial results which had been secured up to that time continued to operate against the profiteer until November, 1917. 13141 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - Prices did not increase in the same ratio, because supplies improved, and not because the Queensland Government prevented it by fixing prices. 13141 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - We were told the other night by one of the Ministers that when the Commonwealth Government took over the power to control price- fixing, they accepted the prices so far fixed by State authorities. So that the results of the successful policy carried out by the Queensland Government continued, even after the power to fix prices was taken out of their hands. 13141 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - Because supplies improved. " Senator FERRICKS. - When the Hughes Government, as distinguished from the Labour Government came into power ; and from that time onwards every column of Knibbs' publications will show what has been the result. 13141 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - Because supplies were then getting scarce, and the submarines had not been dealt with. 13141 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - Senator Reid admits that prices were kept down whilst the Queensland Labour Government had power to fix prices, and that is sufficient for me. 13142 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - I do not admit that. 13142 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - The honorable senator can give his own reasons why prices were kept down, so long as he admits that during the time to which I refer that was the state of affairs. 13142 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - I say that improved supplies kept prices down. 13142 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - What did the honorable senator do to keep the submarines down? 13142 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - More than Senator Guthrie did. 13142 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - The honorable senator did nothing of the sort. 13142 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens - Order! These interjections are disorderly. 13142 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - I claim that whilst a Labour Government had control of affairs before the split in the Labour party, prices were kept down. I challenge refutation by any honorable senator of the statement which I made the other night. 13142 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - It is easily refuted. 13142 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - I quoted Knibbs for my statement, and it has not been refuted. Prior to making that statement, I wrote to a member of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland, asking him to secure for me some particulars regarding price-fixing during the period in which the Labour Government of Queensland had the power to fix prices, and after that power had been taken away from them. As the reply was somewhat delayed, I went to Mr. Knibbs, of my own volition, and made out my own case without any assistance from any one else. On that, I put my statement into Hansard, where it remains unchallenged; and I was extremely gratified, a day or two after I spoke, to get from my Queensland friend figures confirming all that I had stated upon information from a very different source. 13142 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - I will not admit the correctness of the honorable senator's conclusions. 13142 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - I gave honorable senators the facts. Does Senator Senior doubt the information I supplied? 13142 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - No ; but I doubt that the facts were due to the causes you named. 13142 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - The Queensland elections took place on 22nd May, 1915, and not in March of that year, as Senators Foll and Crawford have said. 13142 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - The honorable senator is entitled to make only a passing reference to previous debates. 13142 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - The elections took place on 22nd May, 1915, and the Queensland Parliament met on 13th July of that year. I want to point out the indisputable fact that the Queensland Labour Government, on their return to power in 1915, or immediately thereafter, and before the meeting of the Queensland Parliament, set in motion the machinery necessary to control prices. It was contended that there was delay in Queensland in the fixing of prices, but the State Parliament met on 13th July, 1915, and the appointment of Mr. Somner to the Southern Division as a Board of control was made on 17th June, 1915, before the meeting of Parliament. He was appointed to the Northern Division in his exercise of supervision on 31st July, 1915.. and his supervision was extended to the Central Division of Queensland on 10th September, 1915. From these facts it will be observed that the Queensland Labour Government, as soon as they were returned to power, and before the meeting of the State Parliament, entered upon measures to prevent the exploitation of the profiteer. They were able to do so, because the State Parliament had passed legislation under which they could act. That legislation was embodied in the Control of Trade Act of 1914, which was passed by their predecessors in office, the Denham Liberal Government. The war broke out in July, 1914, and Mr. Knibbs always bases his tables of comparative prices on the rates prevailing prior to that date and during the war. Yet up to June, 1915, the Liberal Government in Queensland, although they had passed legislation upon which they might have acted, did not dare to cope with the profiteer. 13142 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - No one knew where they were for the first six or nine months. 13142 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - I challenge the honorable senator to refute my contention that during the period from July, 1914, to June, 1915, the increase in prices in Queensland was 35.2 per cent. 13142 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - There was an increase in prices all over Australia. 13143 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - But no attempt was made to cope with the evil until the Labour Government in Queensland took the matter in hand. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to8 p.m. 13143 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - In connexion with the lack of interference which the Queensland profiteers enjoyed under a Liberal Administration, from July, 1914, to. June, 1915, I have proved from Knibbs that the increase in the cost of living was 35 per cent. up to September of that year, when the Labour party commenced to cope with this menace. The Labour Government appointed a supervisor to deal with the whole of Queensland. The increase up to 15th September was 35.2. After that period, the Queensland Labour Government took action. From January to June, 1916, the Government actually decreased the cost of living by 9 per cent., when control was taken out of their hands on the 20th July. It is interesting to review the position which then existed. According to Knibbs, the cost of living in Queensland was then cheaper than in any other State in the Commonwealth- 13143 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - It is the dearest State now. 13143 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - Because the Government of which the honorable senator is a supporter has allowed the profiteer too much freedom. . When the Commonwealth Government took the control out of the hands of the Queensland Government, according to Knibbs - Bulletin 69, of September, 1917- the weighted averages were: Queensland, 1422; Victoria, 1482 ; New South Wales, 1524 ; Tasmania, 1547 : South Australia, 1593; Western Australia, 1682. Those figures were for June, 1916. The position in July, 1916, when the Commonwealth Government took control, was that Queensland enjoyed pride of place, as the following weighted averages will show: - Queensland, 1393; Victoria, 1481; Tasmania, 1535; New South Wales, 1538; South Australia, 1556 ; Western Australia, 1675. The average for the Commonwealth in June, 1916, was 1519; and Queensland, according to Knibbs, was considerably under, or 1422. In July, the average for the Commonwealth was 1516 ; and Queensland was well under the average with 1393. That was continued practically up to the time when the Federal Labour Government went out of office. The beneficial effects of price-fixing in Queensland up to November, 1916, when the Hughes Government came into power, will be apparent. It is interesting to view the position which then existed in regard to the cheapest and dearest States in the Commonwealth. In November, 1916, when the Hughes Government took office, after severing connexion with tha Labour party, the weighted averages were: Queensland, 1364 ; Victoria, 1415 : Tasmania, 1465 ; South Australia, 1498 ; New South Wales, 1504; Western Australia, 1591. The average for the Commonwealth was 1465, and that of Queensland 1364, which was well under the average. Those figures are taken from Knibbs', July-September 1916, Bulletin, page 238. 13143 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens -The honorable senator has discussed this matter at some length on previous occasions, and I must ask him to keep to the provisions of the measure now under consideration. If I allow him to be discursive, other honorable senators must be given a similar privilege. He is entitled to deal with the general prinr ciples embodied in the Bill, and to use the cost of living as an illustration; but he is not entitled to make a set speech on that subject. 13143 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - I am endeavouring to show the insincerity of the Government when they suggest that the Bill is to give them power to deal with profiteering. I am showing that the Government have failed to exercise the powers they have enjoyed during the past two years. 13143 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - The question before the Senate is that the Bill be read a second time. 13143 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - I do not think it should be read a second time, because the Government are insincere in their proposals. I am endeavouring to prove that the Government have had unlimited power during the past two years, and have not taken any steps to prevent profiteering. I have shown that during the period since the Coalition Government have been in control of price-fixing, the cost of living in Queensland has increased. Under the War Precautions Act, the Government had unlimited powers, which they did not exercise; and it is insincere to say now that they need these powers to deal with profiteering ? I am dealing with the two years from' the time the Coalition Government came into office to June, 1919, during which period there was an increase in the cost of living in Queensland of 22.4 per cent., making it nearly 60 per cent. altogether. The prices were low whilst the Labour Government was in power, but this is attributed by some honorable senators to supply and demand. Still it is a remarkable coincidence that prices were lower whilst the representatives, of Labour were in office. 13144 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - Prices are high in spite of Mr. Ryan's butchering establishments and fish depots. Queensland is still the highest of all the States. 13144 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - Fish and meat can be purchased at a lower rate in Queensland than anywhere else. 13144 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - I ask Senator Reid not to interject. I have to remind Senator Ferricks that he is not in order in . dealing extensively with the cost of living on the second reading of this Bill. 13144 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - I shall not continue, but I would like to inform Senator Reid that cleaned mullet can be purchased in Queensland at 5d. per lb. 13144 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - As a result of State interference the price of fish has been doubled. 13144 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - The Constitution provides procedure for its amendment, but the Government are going about the business in an unconstitutional manner. If it is necessary to amend the Constitution - and the Government say that it is - why do they not adopt the constitutional method ? The proper procedure is to amend the Constitution on a vote of the people, and if an amendment is favoured it should not be for a stipulated period. The fact that the Government are acting in this manner proves their insincerity. Their action will be typical of their actions in the past. 13144 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - You vote for the powers and see how it works out. 13144 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - I have no faith in the promise of the Government to do anything after having reviewed their inactivity during the past two years. According to the Bill a Convention must be appointed within one year to either enlarge or reconstruct the Constitution. Will that Convention be appointed on the vote of the people ? That phase of the question has been mentioned this afternoon during the course of the debate, but the Government have not given us any information on the matter. We want to know whether the members of the Convention are to be elected by the people or whether they are to be elected on political party lines. Will the element of party politics come into this matter ? Of course it will, just as party politics have dominated the Senate ever since the first Federal Parliament was elected. 13144 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - T - The mystery is how the Convention is to be constituted. We want to know whether the delegates are to be elected by the people or by the Government ? 13144 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - The Minister said he was not in a position to submit any details. I have no desire to traverse any ground already covered by any other honorable senators, but that important matter has not been dealt with. If the delegates are to be selected on party lines, what will be the value of the Convention? It appears to me that the politicians - professional politicians if you like - are to have a voice in this matter. There seems to be a certain amount of odium attached to the term " professional politician," but I suppose that politicians, like others, might well devote the whole of their time to their business. When I am called a professional politician, I do not take it as a reflection upon me, because I consider it the duty of a politician to devote his whole time to his work. Many of us devote the whole of our time to politics, and have to deal with constitutional and other questions, and surely we are capable of framing amendments on these very important matters. We should be as capable as men who do not devote the whole of their attention and study to constitutional questions. I cannot see why the Australian Constitution should be amended on the recommendations of outsiders. It may be claimed that a legal perception mav not be obtainable from members of Parliament, but I venture to assert that that does not apply to the Senate at any rate. The manner in which constitutional questions have been debated by the only legal gentleman we have in the Senate has certainly been sufficiently meritorious to justify comparison with gentlemen outside who may be credited with great legal knowledge. If the Government were in earnest in this matter, why have not the powers of the War Precautions Act been availed of? We have the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) that the War Precautions Act will be operative for another three months. Why not, therefore, read this Bill this night three months? In the meantime, the Government could get to work under the War Precautions Act, which they said was nece.ssary when it was introduced as a war power to regulate the cost of living, to give effect to their expressed intention. They have all the power now, and they will have it for three months after the ratification of the Peace Treaty, so there is no justification for the introduction of these Bills. They are merely a disguise to cover the political nakedness of the Government and their supporters, because they could have dealt with this matter at any time during the past two years. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that these proposals are carried on a referendum, and that the present Government are returned to power, how long will it be before they can get to work? If the elections are held in December, and we are told they have been fixed for that month, it is reasonable to assume that Parliament will not meet before March or April. That being so, there will be an interval of six months within which the profiteer may continue to run riot, as during the past two years. This " boosting " of the Government's intentions is typical of their performance in the past. They have done nothing, and I do not think they intend to do anything now. There is not an ounce of sincerity in all their protestations, and because I believe this I do not intend to support the Bill. If there is any necessity for these further powers, why is any limitation placed upon them ? In my opinion, the verdict of the people once given should stand until it is altered in a constitutional way. Realizing that the debate has yet to go further, I can only express my disbelief in the protestations of the Government and state my intention of voting against the Bill. I do not think there is any business in it. 13145 KPE Tasmania 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING . - I am not at all surprised at the attitude of honorable senators opposite in regard to this measure. When, three weeks ago, in the course of the debate upon the Supply Bill, I made reference to profiteering and the allegations that the Commonwealth Parliament had not sufficient power to deal with it, I took advantage of the opportunity to indicate a way in which possibly that power might be acquired, without necessarily resorting to hasty amendment of the Constitution. I pointed out that we might ask the State Governments to get the State Parliaments to endow the Commonwealth Parliament with the necessary power, and that while we were using these remitted powers, steps might be taken to secure an amendment of the Constitution in this regard, and in other respects also, after mature thought and careful deliberation. But when I ventured to make the suggestion, honorable senators opposite assailed me with a storm of interjections. One of the most frequent was in the form of the query, " Do you think this Government seriously contemplates dealing with profiteering?" I answered that I did, and I was then asked, "Do you think that the Government will seriously consider such a proposition as you are suggesting ?" Honorable senators opposite derided the possibility of the present Government taking such a course at all. They wished the general public to believe that the Commonwealth Government and its supporters had no intention of dealing with the profiteer and profiteering. 13145 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator Ferricks - That is because they have not done so during the past two years. 13145 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - That was the reason given; but I pointed out then that those who were now complaining of inaction on the part of the Government during the preceding two years, had only very recently, and in view of a prospective election, themselves become very active in the matter of dealing with profiteering. I ventured to say, further, that the Opposition would be very much disappointed if the Government did take action in this direction, because they would then be deprived of their strongest cry at the forthcoming election. 13145 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - W - We will have a pretty strong cry. 13145 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - But that is the strongest election cry which honorable senators opposite would have. In the interval the Prime Minister has been in conference with the Premiers of the several States, who have been asked to get their respective Parliaments to endow this Parliament with the necessary powers, in view of the possibility of the Constitution being amended. The Prime Minister indicated to them the line of movement to which I referred in my speech, namely, an amendment of the Constitution by a Convention, which would eliminate, as far as possible, the party element and party spirit. As honorable senators know, this is a course which I have long advocated. Some considerable time ago I tabled a notice of motion, and in a previous session I had an opportunity of putting the matter before the Senate. Constitutional Conventions for the purpose of revising a Constitution are not novelties at all. In several of the American States they are established institutions, sitting periodically - in some of the States at the end of every ten years - for the purpose of revising the Constitution. 13146 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Have they ever conferred on the Federal Government powers so extensive as are proposed in these amendments ? 13146 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I am not going to be taken off the track by interjections. I am simply referring to the fact that conventions for the revision of Constitutions are not novel institutions. Although the notice of motion to which I referred has been on the business-paper for a long time, it has not yet been disposed of. I am very glad to know that the tide of public opinion is influencing responsible men to turn their thoughts in this direction that I have indicated. This afternoon Senator Gardiner, Leader of the Opposition, when dealing with this measure, questioned again and again the bona fides of the Government. There was no necessity to do that, but, quite as I expected, when members of the Opposition saw a prospect of this Government and this Parliament being endowed with power to deal with profiteers, and when they visualized the present Government taking drastic action, they realized that their greatest stock-in-trade at the forthcoming election would fail them. What do we find ? On the motion for the second reading, Senator Gardiner submitted an amendment, which afterwards was ruled out of order, but which I say, unhesitatingly and unequivocally, was nothing but a dilatory amendment, and had no other object than to delay the passage of this Bill, the purpose of which is to secure for this Parliament power to deal with profiteering. 13146 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - Do you think you are justified in saying that I wished to delay this measure, when, as a matter of fact, I am doing my best to get it through before Saturday? 13146 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I am saying that that is my view of the object of the amendment. 13146 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - Then I shall try and live up to your opinion. 13146 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - If the honorable senator did not intend to delay the Bill, and if I am doing him an injustice, he should not now take a course of conduct which he says he had no intention of taking. The reason why I think it was a dilatory amendment is this : From the point of view of volume, it was a large amendment, and loaded with controversial matter, and, if it received proportionate attention to that which Senator Gardiner and other senators opposite claimed for the comparatively small alterations contained in this Bill, would occupy the time of the Senate for several weeks. SenatorO 'Keefe. - Do you not think that on an important measure for the amendment of the Constitution, we are justified in asking for more time? 13146 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I have not said whether we should or should not have more time. I am dealing with Senator Gardiner's amendment. If consideration of the measure now before the Senate would require our attention for a few weeks, then all I can say is that Senator Gardiner's amendment would require our attention for a few months. The proposed amendments now before the Senate are comparatively small, considered side by side with those amendments proposed by Senator Gardiner, and therefore I say his amendments could have no other effect than to delay indefinitely consideration of this Bill - even beyond Christmas, if we continued to sit until then. 13146 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - A - And you would like to " jamb " the amendments through the Senate at. once. 13146 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - Did ever I say I would ? Have I ever done anything to justify the honorable senator's assertion? I have sat in this chamber when my honorable friend and his party were on the Ministerial benches-, and I can remember Senator Gardiner and his Government supporters endeavouring to rush amendments of the Constitution through the Senate without saying one word in support of them. 13147 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - A - And now you want to rush these amendments through quickly, so we are equal. 13147 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I am prepared to sit here and discuss these amendments as long as any other honorable senator. 13147 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - T - Then why blame Senator Gardiner for submitting an amendment? 13147 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I am not blaming Senator Gardiner for his amendments, but I say they could have no other object - and certainly no other result - than to delay indefinitely consideration of this Bill. I am not surprised at the attitude of honorable senators opposite. They derided the possibility of the Government taking steps to deal with profiteering. They wanted the country to believe that it was all mock heroics on the part of the Government. They would be glad if the Government were to find that it could not deal with profiteers and profiteering. It is their own stock-in-trade. This cry is their great asset for the purposes of the election. I have already stated, and will repeat now, that, rightly or wrongly, justly or unjustly, there is a feeling abroad that the public is being subjected to profiteering. Senator Bakhap may say that the profiteer is mythical, but we cannot get away from the fact that honorable senators opposite with unanimity, honorable senators on this side by a large majority, and members of the Ministry unanimously allege that profiteering -is being practised and -must be dealt with. It is for that reason that I have said that, considering that all classes of political opinion believe profiteering to be rampant, and that it moist be dealt with, we should find it an easy matter to secure from the State Parliaments the necessary endowment of power with which to overcome the evil. I have never, either in the Senate or from any platform, taken up the position that the Constitution of the Commonwealth is sacrosanct. On the contrary, I have carefully noted every decision of the High Court with respect to the interpretation of the Constitution. I realize that, commanding as were the abilities of the framers of the Constitution, their work must necessarily have its imperfections. I have always realized that when the instrument of government which they framed was brought into actual exercise and applied to the problems of the day defects were bound to manifest themselves. It is for that reason that I have long since realized the desirability of reviewing the Constitution. I have not been prepared to pledge myself blindfolded to the form of any particular amendments submitted and passed through both Houses of the Federal Legislature, stoutly as I may have affirmed the principle which it was sought to express in any such amendments. I have long advocated something in the nature of a Constitutional Convention. I have held that we should have a Constitutional Convention as an institution, for the periodic revision of the operation of the Constitution, and for the recommendation - the recommendation only - of necessary amendments. I do not suggest that the Constitutional Convention should take one iota of power or responsibility" from the Federal "Parliament. My own motion upon the notice - paper has indicated that when the Convention representatives have reported to the Governor-Genera! and to the Governors .of the six States their proposed amendments should be dealt with under section 128 of the Constitution - should be discussed' and dealt with by both Houses of this Parliament, and, subsequently, by the people themselves. Parliament would be free to deal with the .amendments as they deemed fit, and so would the electors. So I am not taking up the cast-iron attitude of Senator Bakhap,, whose view may be interpreted to be, " Hands off the Constitution. " 13147 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - I am prepared to amend the Constitution in regard to one of the greatest monopolies yet disclosed, and which- these measures do not touch. 13147 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - That may be so; but I gathered from Senator Bakhap-* remarks to-day that his attitude is largely a matter of " hands off the Constitution." He castigated those of his colleagues on this side- who have expressed the opinion that there is any justification for an amendment of the Constitution. I have not changed my attitude in regard to the amendment of the Constitution. Throughout the elections of 1913 and 1914, from every platform in Tasmania I announced that if I was returned to Parliament it was my intention to propose a revision of the Constitution by a constitutional convention - a convention be popularly elected, and consisting of an equal number of representatives from each of the States, who would not be given carte blanche, but would be charged under a Federal Enabling Act with the responsibility, within a certain period of reporting their proposed amendments to the Governor-General of the Commonwealth, and the Governors of the six States. 13148 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator Ferricks - Those delegates would be elected on party lines, would they not? 13148 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - My proposal has been that they should be elected on the principle of proportional representation, so that the whole of the organized bodies of opinion of the Commonwealth shall find a proper reflection in the Convention. 13148 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator Ferricks - Even so, party feeling would be sure to come in. 13148 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - The proportional representation principle would largely secure that the composition of the Convention would be something like a true reflex of the opinions of the electors of the Commonwealth. I certainly prefer an elected Convention to a nominee Convention, because I do not know who may be the, nominators. Three weeks ago I said we were confronted with the proposition of profiteering.' From both sides of the Senate there have been expressed intentions and desires to deal with the profiteer, and there has been a recognition also of our constitutional limitations. 13148 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator Ferricks - You will admit that the Government has had full power to deal with profiteering during the past four years ? 13148 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I have admitted that, and I have said also that during those years when the powers were exercisable by the Commonwealth authorities there was no violent outcry on the part of the Opposition regarding the inaction of the Government. I have said that the outcry has only recently arisen. 13148 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - How could we embarrass the Government during the war? 13148 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - The uncomplaining attitude of the honorable senator, no doubt, was accounted for by the fact that he did not desire to embarrass the Government. We have a definite proposition before us to amend the Constitution, so that this Parliament may be endowed with legislative authority to deal with profiteers and with profiteering. ' lt may be said that the powers indicated in the amending Bill are in excess of the needs of the occasion - meaning by the occasion, the purpose of dealing with profiteering. On the other hand, it is asserted by honorable senators opposite that the proposed amendments do not go far enough; that they should embrace other matters which, in conjunction with these amendments, would bring about a radical alteration in the scope of our Constitution. The Government's proposition embraces amendments for a specific purpose; and whether the proposed amendments are in excess of that purpose or otherwise is a matter on which the Government have sought the advice of an outside body. An honorable senator opposite has described that outside body as the masters of the Government. I do not know how that can be. The three gentlemen concerned have been engaged by the Government to furnish advice, technical and professional, upon matters in regard to which those individuals are recognised as skilled experts. I do not know how they can be described as the masters of the Government and of the Government supporters, except upon the same principle as a physician might be termed a man's master after an ailing individual had consulted him, and the doctor had prescribed a certain course of treatment. During the past day or two there has been indicated some differences of opinion among those gentlemen themselves; first, regarding whether or not the proposed amendments are in excess of the purposes of the Bill ; and. secondly, as to the exact terms of the reference to them by the Government. Really, therefore, I cannot congratulate the Government on the state of the measure now before the Senate. There has been a certain amount of haste in connexion with the submission and passing of this measure through Parliament, which is altogether out of place in relation to such a far-reaching proposition. We find that doubt has been expressed, first, regarding the terms of the reference to the body of advisers, and that there is doubt among the advisers themselves regarding the extent of the effect of the proposed amendments in relation to what the Government wish to cover. Dismissing for the moment all consideration of the experts, I desire to deal with an objection raised by honorable senators opposite, and by certain honorable senators on this side also, concerning our competence to submit such a measure to the people; and, indeed, as to the competence of the people to accept or approve of its amendments of the Constitution. It has been said by Senator Gardiner, and, if not indorsed, then, to some extent supported by Senator Bakhap, that an amendment of the Constitution having but a temporary effect is likely to be ineffective and invalid. I do not know tn what reasoning that contention is based. The only reason furnished by Senator Gardiner was that section 128 of the Constitution does not expressly mention anything in the nature of an amendment to the Constitution which may have temporary operation. That may be, but there are numbers of things not expressly mentioned in section 128 which are still admissible. If it could be pointed out that the Constitution contains no provisions with a temporary operation, there might be some reasoning upon which to base the contention. But, upon hurriedly glancing through. the Constitution I have found that the following sections have, or may have, temporary operation : - Sections 7, 10, 29, 30, 31, 34, 39, 46, 47, 48, 65, 67, and 97. In every one of those sections these words occur - " Until the Parliament otherwise provides." The operative effect of those sections, therefore, may be suspended, and absolutely terminated, by a provision of this Parliament contrary to the effect of those sections. In section 49,. which relates to the powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, somewhat similar words are used. There it is provided that until " otherwise declared " the powers, privileges, and immunities of the Parliament shall be those of the House of Commons. The Senate "otherwise declared" long ago, when we passed our own Standing Orders, one of which affirms that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons shall not apply here. Again, sections 90 and 92 of our Constitution have not a permanent operation. Their operation is absolutely conditional. For example, section 90 reads - On the imposition of uniform duties of Customs, the power of the Parliament to impose duties of Customs and of Excise, and to grant bounties on the production or export of goods, shall become exclusive. Until the imposition of uniform duties each State Parliament possessed that power. But when this Parliament imposed a uniform Tariff it became vested with exclusive power in this connexion. It might not have imposed a uniform Tariff within three months, or six months, or twelve months, or even up to twenty-four months. Then section 92 of the Constitution provides - On the imposition of uniform duties of Customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be' absolutely free. The operation of that section was suspended until a certain condition had been fulfilled. Similarly, other sections of our Constitution are not of a permanent character. There is, for example, the Braddon section, which reads - During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, of the net revenue of the Commonwealth from duties of Customs and of Excise not more than one-fourth shall be applied annually by the Commonwealth towards its expenditure. That is a section which might have been operative only for ten years, but which, on the other hand, might have been operative for a longer period. 13149 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - But Parliament had first to be given that power under the Constitution. 13149 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - Exactly. That circumstance, however, in this connexion, takes us neither one step forward nor one step backward. Section 93 of our Constitution sets out that - During the first five years after the imposition of uniform duties of Customs, and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides - the duties of Customs chargeable on goods imported into a State and afterwards passing into another State for consumption, and the duties of Excise paid on goods produced or manufactured in a State and afterwards passing into another State for consumption, shall be taken to have been collected, not in the former, but in the latter State. By looking at these sections honorable senators will see that every one of them contains in some form or other, if not definite provision for their temporary operation, the possibility of their definite termination, or, indeed, of the suspension of their operation until the happening of certain contingencies or the lapse of a particular period of time. Seeing that such sections are already embodied in our Constitution, I fail to understand how it can be suggested that whenever we amend the Constitution we must insert in it a provision which shall continue to unvaryingly operate until it is expressly excised by a further amendment of the Constitution. 13150 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - May not Parliament legislate too prematurely? 13150 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I am not discussing that aspect of the matter. I said, a few moments ago, that, considering the stage we had reached in connexion with this measure, the Government are chargeable with haste, and with a certain degree of carelessness. Of course, I can speak only for myself- 13150 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Nobody has charged the honorable senator with inconsistency in his attitude. 13150 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I do not like clause 6 of the Bill at all. In the preceding clauses, certain amendments are proposed in our Constitution. Then clause 6 sets out that the alterations made shall remain in force for a prescribed period. Let me assume that the Bill is passed in its present form, and that the proposed amendments of our Constitution which are contained in it are carried by a referendum. It may be said that they will operate for a period of only three years. But the only way in which any person reading the Constitution can learn that fact will be by inserting a foot-note to read : ' ' These powers are temporary powers, which terminate on such-and-such a date. See such-and-such a Statute." That is a most inconvenient method to follow- 13150 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - It is the work of a botch. 13150 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - It is. Then the question arises: What will be the legal effect of these amendments ? I do not know the nature of the amendments to which Senator Gardiner has made reference. 13150 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - They are in circulation. The first one seeks to take away the right of the Commonwealth to legislate in regard to corporations. 13150 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - The course which the Government should have followed in submitting these amendments was to allow paragraph i of section 51 of our Constitution to stand in its present form. Then they should have inserted something to the following effect: - (ia) For a period not extending beyond the thirty-first day of December, 1922- and then the additional powers should have been specified. The amended Constitution would then have shown on its face that the powers contained in paragraph i.v were intended to operate only up to a certain date. Whatever happened in the interim in regard to the calling together of a Convention, those temporary powers would automatically fall out of the Constitution upon the prescribed date or contingency ; but the Parliament would still retain its power to legislate with respect to trade and commerce with other countries and among the States which it has to-day. But if we alter for a temporary period what was intended to be a permanent provision in our Constitution, what are we going to do when that period expires ? SenatorPratten. - Unless the course suggested by the honorable senator be taken, another referendum would be necessary. 13150 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - Exactly. We shall be taking something permanently out of our Constitution in order to temporarily put something else in its place. The position reminds me of the words of the old song - You took me out to take me in; What did you take me for? 13150 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - In other words, it is an in-and-out game. 13150 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - Yes . It is absolutely astonishing that, after all the years of experience we have had of our Constitution, we should get down to such a form of draftsmanship as is exhibited in this Bill. 13150 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - T - That is rather rough on Professor Jethro Brown, Professor Harrison Moore, and Sir Robert Garran. 13150 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - They did not draft the measure. It is outside their province to consider the form of drafting. They have merely to consider the legal effect of the amendments proposed. My point is that, in amending our Constitution, we should be careful to retain the powers that we already possess. If we wish our powers in regard to trade and commerce to be extended, let the proposed provision be stated in the form of a separate power, and let the temporary character of that power appear upon the face of the provision. If we adopt the suggestion that I have already made, the temporary nature of the amendment will be apparent, as will also the period over which it is to operate. It will not be subject to any Convention if the conditions imposed by the Bill are not fulfilled. But we should be in no worse position. In Committee I shall move to have all these proposed amendments preceded by some such words as I have indicated. 13151 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Does the honorable senator definitely affirm that the powers we already possess under our Constitution will not revert to us? 13151 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - We are asked to amend the Constitution, and, assuming that it is amended, we declare, in clause 6 of this measure, that - The alterations made by this Act shall remain in force - until the expiration of three years from the assent of the Governor- General thereto; or until a Convention constituted by the Commonwealth makes recommendations for the alteration of the Constitution, and the people indorse those recommendations, whichever first happens, and shall then cease to have effect. But we do not provide that when these alterations cease to operate, the original provisions of the Constitution shall be restored. 13151 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I understand that the legal advisers of the Government have that object clearly in view. 13151 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - The people will not be specially called upon to vote upon clause 6 of the Bill, but generally upon the amendments which are proposed in the Constitution. I submit that they should be asked to vote upon those amendments as temporary amendments, which will expire upon a prescribed date. 13151 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Does the honorable senator mean to tell me that the electors will not be invited to vote upon clause 6 of this measure, which limits the operation of those amendments to a certain period ? 13151 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - How do the Government propose to get the electors to vote upon it? 13151 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I take it that the conditions attached to these constitutional amendments will be submitted to the people on the referendum papers. 13151 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I do not know what form the referendum papers will take. It may be that they will cover a copy of the whole Bill. 13151 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I take it that if the people affirm the principle of the amendments, they will affirm the conditions applying to them. 13151 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - If they were given the whole Bill, and asked to approve of that, they might realize what they were doing; but I do not believe that the Constitution contemplates that method of submitting an amendment to the peqple. It contemplates the submission of certain definite amendments - for instance, to strike out certain words and to insert certain other words. The people should certainly vote upon these proposals in their temporary form. I shall supply the Minister with a draft of the form of words which I think should be used, and I hope that before we come to the Committee stage he will give very careful consideration to my proposal. 13151 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I do not wish to give a legal opinion, but the best opinion I can get is that the Bill, as framed, provides for all that the honorable senator is asking. 13151 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I can only say that if it does, it is in a clumsy, cumbersome, and botching way. It would be much more in keeping with the draftsmanship of the Constitution, and more in harmony with its form and method, to agree to some such provision as I have suggested - that during a period not extending beyond a certain date the new powers shall have existence. There should be some such words as those, which express the limitation of their operation in point of time governing each of these proposed amendments of the Constitution. I have not spoken as to the purpose and effect of the proposed amendments, that is to say, as to whether or not they cover all that is required to endow this Parliament with: the powers necessary to deal with profiteering, or whether they will endow it with more than the necessary power for this purpose. I have not gone into them with that minuteness of examination which would enable me to express an opinion on that point. No matter how minute our examination of them may be, I believe that no one can accurately forecast the limits of their legal effect until we are up against the concrete circumstances of daily life hereafter. 13152 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Then the honorable senator intends to do a little prospecting. 13152 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I say that these amendments will give this Parliament general powers, if they are passed, but the justification which I find for the whole procedure is that they are only temporary, and that before the period of their termination arrives, a Convention will be called. I believe in a Convention. I believe that the time has been long ripe for a Constitutional Convention. Seantor Bakhap. - What merit can the honorable senator see in these amendments if he believes' that they should be only temporary ? 13152 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - If they are meritorious they will probably be confirmed by the Convention. 13152 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Does the honorable senator concede that there is grave doubt as to their merit? 13152 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - No. I say that I have not examined them with that minuteness and care that I should like to have given them. 13152 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Why congratulate ourselves upon their merit if they are only temporary? 13152 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I have not done so. I do not know whether Senator Bakhap has been congratulating himself upon them. 13152 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - I understood the honorable senator to say that he considered is a merit that they were to be only temporary. 13152 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I say that the justification for my attitude towards these proposals is that they are temporary, and during their temporary operation a Convention must be called, and I think that the time was ripe long ago for the calling of a Convention to deal with section 51 of the Constitution. I believe that the operation of our legislation under these Bills will be of additional advantage to this Convention in discussing the respective limits of the powers of Commonwealth and States to be defined under section 51 of the Constitution. 13152 JYR 0 0 FAIRBAIRN, George Senator Fairbairn - We want to stop the duplication that is going on. 13152 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - Exactly. I think the Convention should deal with the whole question of the relations between the States and the Commonwealth. After practically twenty years of experience, we should be able to bring about a better relation and more efficient economic, and, from the point of view of the public, more advantageous distribution of our respective powers, than at present exists. 13152 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - W - Will the honorable senator indicate what form the Convention should take ? Does he not think that that should be made clear? 13152 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - My own views as to the nature of the Constitutional Convention have appeared on the business-paper in the terms of a motion I moved a few sessions ago. . I think that the Convention should be elected. What the Government propose to do, I take it, will be done through the Parliament, and the Convention will be constituted and commissioned as in the wisdom of this Parliament seems best. 13152 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - We may get it under the regulations of the War Precautions Act before we have finished. 13152 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I think that that kind of Convention would scarcely commend itself to the people. 13152 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - T - The reference to the Convention is very vague, and we should have something definite about it. 13152 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I assume that the only reason that we have not more information about it is the haste with which it has been necessary to deal with this measure. It is admitted that it is being dealt with with a considerable amount of haste. If Ministers were at this juncture to indicate the nature of the Convention, its constitution, its commission, the arrangements for its sittings, and the responsibilities imposed upon it, they might find later, on more mature consideration, that they had committed themselves to a Convention the character and procedure of which would hardly be in harmony with the proper aspirations of the people of Australia. With these qualifications, I support the Bill. I hope that the Minister in charge of the measure will be particularly careful of the form in which these amendments are to be submitted to the people, and that when the time comes, and I submit the amendments I have indicated, he will receive them without any feeling that they are offered in a hostile spirit, or for the purpose of unduly delaying the passage of the measure. Senator Lt.-Colonel O'LOGHLIN (South Australia) [9.7]. - The Bill before us, as Senator Russell has mentioned, is in some respects an old friend, but it comes in a very different guise from that in which it was submitted by a Labour Government on two previous occasions. I take, for instance, the proposal with respect to industrial powers, and I remind honorable senators that we proposed that they should include the railway servants, a most important and very numerous body of men when we consider the great Railway Departments of the six States of the Commonwealth. An attempt to settle the question of industrial unrest, which leaves out of consideration such a large body of industrial workers, is entirely farcical. The only Conservative Government we have ever had in the Commonwealth, namely, the Reid-McLean Government, which held office for a year or two, was sufficiently advanced to introduce an Arbitration Bill which included the railway servants of the States. That Bill was placed upon the statute-book, and failed of its purpose only because of a ruling of the High Court. Now we have a professedly Liberal and Labour Government to some extent, coming forward with proposals which do not go even so far as those of the Conservative Reid-McLean Government of several- years ago. I have on many platforms advocated the full proposals of the Labour Government for constitutional alterations. I had the assistance of Labour colleagues representing South Australia, in those days, in strenuously advocating those proposals. I have hope that we may be able to restore our proposals for the amendment of the Constitution to the form in which the Labour Government introduced them, and that, in doing so, we will have the support of ex-Labour members of the Senate, who supported them so strenuously on previous occasions. With regard to the trade and commerce proposals, I remind honorable senators that when the South African Union Convention was being held, and application was made to the Commonwealth Government - I think Mr. Deakin was Prime Minister at the time - for advice as to the form which the new Constitution should take, he sent them the advice that whatever else they did, they should take full powers with regard to trade and commerce. That was the most important advice he could give them. At present, in the Commonwealth, we have no power to deal with the matter of trade and commerce, except trade and commerce with outside countries, or extending beyond the boundaries of one State. These proposals, so far as they are worthy of support, are hampered and governed by the Convention proposals, just as the governor on a piece of machinery controls .the action of that machinery. When it is remembered that we have no information as to how the Convention is to be constituted, that in itself is sufficient to vitiate the whole of these proposals. Why is there so much secrecy with regard to the constitution of the Convention ? That is suspicious. It reminds me of a story of our friend, Mr. Dooley. Referring to the agitation with regard to conferring the franchise on the Uitlanders, the refusal of which led to the South African war, he said, "If I were Kruger, there would he no war. I would give every one the franchise, but I would do the counting myself." So I say with regard to the proposed Convention, that no matter what the proposals may be, if I had the calling of the Convention, I would be able to say exactly what proposals would be adopted. The Government are playing with a two-headed penny in keeping in reserve the Convention which is to govern the whole of the proposed amendments of the Constitution. Upon the constitution of the Convention will depend what the Constitution amendments will be. I have no doubt that with the majority which the Government have behind them in both Houses of this Parliament, these proposals will go through, and I shall watch with interest the honorable senators who will support them. It will be interesting to note the attitude of those who so strenuously supported much more far-reaching proposals a few years ago. These amendments are intended to enable the Government to deal with profiteers, with the shipping Tings, and commercial combinations, who have all done so well out of the war, and who have continued their depredations evm since the signing of the Treaty of Peace, if not with the concurrence, at any rate with the tacit consent of the present Government. I was disappointed to find that Senator Gardiner's amendment was ruled out of order. I thought that the amendment dealt with section 51, which controls the whole powers of the Government. I am convinced, after further consideration, and after the experience we have had during the great war, that any attempt to tinker or to patch up the Constitution will be futile. We shall have to go back to the beginning and recast it altogether. A great mistake was made by the framers of the Constitution in following the precedent of the United States of America instead of the Canadian precedent. We should define the powers of the States, and leave the whole of the other powers with the Commonwealth. 13154 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Which country is more progressive, Canada or the United States of America? 13154 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'LOGHLIN - W - We made a mistake in following the United States of America instead of Canada. , At that time the Federal spirit was weak, the State righters were in great force, and the members of the Convention followed the line of least resistence, which has been a source of serious trouble ever since. The proposal to place the administration of this Act in the hands of the Government reminds me of Daniel O'Connell's saying when a Commission of landlords was appointed to deal with the Irish question, " You might as well consult the butchers about keeping Lent." It will be futile to place these powers in the hands of the Government when they will have the profiteers behind them. If the people expect any relief from measures designed or administered by this Government they will be mistaken. I have drafted an amendment which, I think, avoids the points on which Senator Gardiner's amendment was ruled out of order. I propose submitting it to the Senate, and trust it will be carried. There may be doubt, however, on that point, in view of the majority which the Government can always command, irrespective of the unsatisfactory or absurd nature of any proposal they may submit. I move - That all the words after the word " That " be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words-" the proposed amendments of the Constitution are unsatisfactory and illusory, both in their character and duration, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of the Senate with a view to its being recast, so as to provide - " (a) for the full sovereign rights of the Commonwealth Parliament, which are possessed by every other self-governing Dominion of the British Empire, and which nineteen years' experience of the working of the Constitution has shown to be necessary, the adequate and effective distribution of powers to the subordinate Legislatures and municipalities, and for removing the inconvenience and expense arising from want of uniformity in the present methods of assessment of taxes and the duplication of tax collecting authorities." The first paragraph confers sovereign rights on the Commonwealth such as are possessed by every other self-governing Dominion in the British Empire. Why should Australia, the leading Dominion of the British Empire, not have full self-governing powers the same as other self-governing Dominions in the British Empire? Are we not as capable of exercising those rights, and dealing justly with the States, in all matters that come under our purview as any other Dominion in the Empire? If that is the position, why should we be deprived of such rights? After nineteen years' experience, it has been shown that we should possess them. Until we have full sovereign rights and adequate provision for self-government by the States, the conflict and bitterness which exists will continue. Passing on to the next paragraph of my amendment, I do not propose that we should abrogate the powers of the State Parliaments. 13154 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - What does the honorable senator mean in his amendment by " subordinate legislatures " ? 13154 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens - The honorable senator has submitted his proposed amendment for my consideration. I cannot allow him to discuss paragraphs b and c, as I intend to rule them out of order. Paragraph a appears to be in order, and, therefore, it can be discussed. 'Senator Bakhap intimated, by interjection, one of the paramount reasons for ruling portions of the amendment out of order, as there are no subordinate Legislatures. The States are sovereign, and their Legislatures are not subordinate to this Parliament. The Bill is to amend section 51 of tie Constitution, but any proposal to deal with a State Government, whether subordinate or not, would not be in-order. It would require a recasting of the Constitution to empower us to do what is proposed in paragraph b. Paragraph c would also necessitate a recasting of the Constitution, because we would have to limit the powers of the States in regard to taxation and their methods of collection. I intend to allow paragraph a of the amendment, as it will cover almost everything that can be done in an amendment of section 51. The first portion of the amendment covers all that is relevant. 13155 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'LOGHLIN - I - I understand that paragraph a of my amendment is in order. 13155 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Yes. Senator Lt.-Colonel O'LOGHLIN.Under those circumstances I shall not then further refer to paragraphs b and c ; but, as you say, sir, that the first paragraph is sufficiently wide to cover everything, I must say that it is not only wide, but wise, and therefore a fair proposition for this Parliament to support. I shall confine myself to submitting the amendment, and trust that it will be acceptable to honorable, senators. The powers proposed to be given by the amendment are enjoyed by all other self-governing Dominions of the British Empire, and we are placing the Commonwealth in an invidious and subordinate position by withholding them from it. These powers are not only possessed by all the other self-governing Dominions of .the British Empire, but have been found to work very harmoniously. Two years ago, when I was in South Africa, I took advantage of my presence in the Dominion, to consult with their public men as to the operations of the South African Union. I ascertained at that time that a report had been published by a Royal Commission that had been appointed to inquire into the operations of the Union. The report furnished - it was not a unanimous one, but was supported by a considerable majority - was to the effect that after years of Unification - which is not proposed in this amendment I have moved - they found that the trend of opinion was towards further investing the Central Parliament with powers vested in the provincial Legislatures. The tendency was in favour of further Unification rather than towards restricting the powers of the Union, rather than towards extending the powers of the provincial Legislatures. I do not propose to go into all the points raised by the various amendments proposed, as they have been fully dealt with by Senator Gardiner and other senators. I may say, however, that I feel in doubt as to the attitude I shall adopt when nutting these proposals before my constituents, as it will be my duty to do, before very long. I regard these proposals as a sham and a delusion. It may be desirable, however, to grant the Government these powers to show the people what a fraud and delusion they are, and because it cannot be demonstrated in any other way. I do not expect the people of the Commonwealth to obtain any benefit as a result, or that the actions of the profiteer will in any way be restricted by the amendments proposed if they are administered by the present Government. This Government came back in 1917 with a mandate such as no other party in the Commonwealth ever had. They had a majority of two to one in both Houses, and possessed extensive powers under the War Precautions Act to deal with the profiteer, and yet failed miserably: I have very little hope, if these amendments are carried, that they will do anything in .the direction of assisting the people. I submit my amendment for the consideration of the Senate. 13155 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens - The original motion was " That the Bill be now read a second time." The question now is that all the words after " That " be struck out, with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the following words: - The proposed amendments of the Constitution are unsatisfactory and illusory both in their character and duration, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of the Senate with a view to its being recast so as to provide for the full sovereign rights of the Commonwealth Parliament, which are possessed by every other self-governing Dominion of the British Empire, and which nineteen years' experience of the working of the Constitution has shown to be necessary. 13155 K1J New South Wales 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN . - It seems that we in Australia would very likely have undergone a constitutional evolution similar to the evolution that took place 100 years ago in connexion with the growth and development of the United States of America. In the United States of America there was the State Rights party as against the Unification party. The States of the north were jealous of the States of the south, and the controversies that occurred there for thirty or forty years were similar to those that went on in Australia up to the time of the outbreak of war. I do not think the people of Australia would have lightly jumped into any amendment of the Constitution had the war not occurred. We must admit that problems have arisen as a result of the war, and the fact that the world can never be as it was before, has added some arguments for the case that our Constitution should be amended. The Minister said, by way of interjection, if not when introducing the Bill, that one of the principal reasons for the measure is that the Government may have an opportunity of dealing with profiteering. There" is also an additional reason, which, however, has not been stressed to the extent that I think it ought to have been, and that is that the Commonwealth, as a result of the general world-wide unrest that has come our way, requires some general national power to deal with that problem, a power which we have not yet got, but which this Bill will give us. The National Government should have power to control these forces in the critical years that are ahead of us. Let me first of all deal with this parrot-cry of profiteering, an allegation that has been somewhat loosely employed, and which possibly has had some effect in stampeding Governments, both here and elsewhere, in directions that may perhaps be regretted. In connexion with these Bills, we have something like a timetable. We have been asked to pass them through in what is, perhaps, record time, and without being able to give them the close attention which important constitutional amendments should get. Although the Senate has, perhaps, to some extent been deflected from its original purpose as a house of review, we are still expected to view the problems that . come before us from the angle of State interests. Honorable senators will admit, I think, that an amendment of the Constitution, such as the one now before us, is very much more important from the standpoint of, say, a State like New South Wales, than from the stand-point of one of the smaller States. I say this with all respect to my honorable friends from those States. So far as trade and commerce are concerned, this Bill very vitally affects New . South Wales, which is responsible for 42 per cent, of the entire trade and commerce of the Commonwealth. Consequently, my duty bids me to look at this measure from the angle of a State so vitally concerned. - There has been a good deal of loose talk on the question of profiteering. I have given some reflection to this problem, and I realize frankly, as, no doubt, honorable senators do also, that it is absolutely necessary to seek for some compromise between the profiteer who is the enemy of his country, and the man who represents the other extreme in the industrial sphere, and' who likewise is an enemy to the .community. I believe that this Bill has 'been brought in by the Government in the genuine hope that some compromise will be effected. What is the real position in Australia to-day ? The people are complaining of high prices and of the greatly increased cost of living; but very few have probed for the real causes. Roughly speaking, nearly every one of the thousands of articles in use can be classified either as primary or secondary productions, or imported goods. Are honorable senators prepared to say that the primary producer shall not get the world's parity for his produce? 13156 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - Certainly not, but we shall check the speculators. 13156 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - Other elements have to be taken into consideration in connexion with this increase in the price of commodities. One element is the distributer, another the speculator, and still another the man who owns the means of transit, particularly the shipowner. I do not think* , any honorable senator will claim that the Bill will give the Government any control over the cotton manufacturer of Lancashire, the cotton-grower of the United States of America, the manufacturer of woollen goods in Yorkshire, or the manufacturer of galvanized iron or paper in America. Nor will they claim that the Bill will give the Government power to control the .price asked by the British shipowner for freight to Australia from other countries. Therefore, in analyzing this problem of hig-h prices with a view to ascertaining where profiteering is going on, we have to eliminate all these commodities and services from the ambit of any possible control by the Commonwealth. Let me go a little further. We find that £90,000,000 worth of goods imported from abroad will not, by virtue pf this measure, come under the control of the Commonwealth Parliament at all, so, really, attention must be turned to our secondary industries and the distribution of their products and imported goods. This, roughly speaking, covers the' whole field of any possible Commonwealth control over the cost of living. My honorable friend the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) admits that he is not prepared to say that the primary producer should not get the world's parity for his goods; and he will admit, I think, that we can have, no control over the prices charged for goods imported into this country. Therefore, when we talk about profiteering and Government control of the cost of living it seems to me, getting down to fundamental principles, that, some of the causes are to be found in public waste as the result of the war, public extravagance as a result of - the aftermath of the war, and the scarcity of world's production as a consequence of men being deflected for so long from their ordinary occupations. Let us analyze this question of high high prices a little further. It is said that the prices of buckets and tubs made by the Australian manufacturer are considerably higher than they were before the war, and that, consequently, profiteering is going on there. Those who make such loose statements forget apparently that the raw material used is galvanized iron, which is two or three times higher in price than it was before the war, and, unfortunately for Australia, the whole of it has had to be imported. Let me give another homely illustration. It is said that the jam manufacturers are charging 50 per cent, more for their jams than prior to the war. That is a fact. Jam is now 2d. a pound more than it was in 1914. Where does that 2d. go to? Certainly not into the pockets of the manufacturer, because one penny of the increase is due to the increased cost of tin plates necessary for packing the jam, and the Commonwealth have no control over the cost of tin plates because they are not made here. Then one halfpenny goes to the Queensland sugar-grower under an agreement, which was ratified here not so many weeks ago, and the other halfpenny goes partly, perhaps, in increased profits - I am not go ing to dispute that - but certainly some part of this half-penny goes in increased cost of packages and labour. Thus I have explained the reason for this 50 per cent, increase in the cost of jam. Many more similar illustrations could be given. I might mention merchantable iron, angle iron, and ship-plates. It is well known that our iron industry has not been developed to the extent of supplying all our own requirements. A good deal of iron has to be imported, and it forms the basis of many of our secondary industries. Costs have gone up in proportion to the cost of the materials used. Machinery could be drawn upon to furnish further illustrations. In hundreds of directions it might be pointed out that Australia is suffering, not from profiteering by her own people - although I do not deny that profiteering does go on here - but largely from high prices caused by the worldwide scarcity of imported commodities. 13157 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - In some cases commodities have not been obtainable even at the highest price. 13157 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - That is so. Some time ago we passed a War-time Profits Tax Bill. 'Several honorable senators at the time quoted so-called excessive profits made by individual firms in the course of their operations during the war. I remind those honorable senators that, if our Acts are being administered in the spirit and letter in which they were passed - and I have no reason to doubt that they are - during the years 1915-16, 1917-1_8, and on 50 per cent, and 75 per cent, respectively of those excess profits revenue has gone into the coffers "of the Government; and, as a result, the Commonwealth authorities have collected some millions of money. I was glad that Senator Keating drew attention to a -speech which he made in this chamber some weeks ago, wherein he indicated what steps the Government could effectively and immediately take in connexion with alterations of the Constitution. It may be merely a coinci'dence, but the Government appear to have adopted his suggestions; and, as an outcome, we have this Bill before us. I view with considerable misgivings the continued bureaucratic control by a centralized Government. I agree with honorable senators on either side of the chamber who have said that the War Precautions Act gave the Government equal powers to any which, an amendment of the Constitution could confer in the direction of dealing with trade, commerce, and industry. The Government has had full opportunity to control the trade and commerce of Australia. But there is a fundamental difference between the powers exercisable under the War Precautions Act and those which may be exercised under an amendment to the Constitution. In the one case an edict was issued, whereupon the power came into force. That was during the period of war, when nobody desired to place undue difficulties in the way of the Government. But, in the other case, the power can only be exercised after full consideration of a parliamentary measure for a specific purpose. I am an opponent of Unification. I do not believe that a continent of 3,000,000 square miles, with such a sparse and scattered population, can be adequately governed from any one centre. I do not think our experiences throughout the history of Federation justify us in assuming that every function of government can be successfully carried on from one centre. Any attempt to gather to the Federal authority powers which should rightly belong to the States can only mean the further building up of a bureaucracy in Melbourne,- which will govern us, instead of our governing it. I believe that Unification would mean the diminution of the efficiency of government. I am certain that it would mean an increase in its cost, and, although much may be said in favour of the amalgamation of certain State and f Federal functions, the fact remains that Unification would mean decreased efficiency and increased expenditure. There is a movement, I understand, which is supposed to be a secret one, that, after the expiry of the present wool agreement, there shall be established in Melbourne a Wool Control Board to permanently control the whole of the output of the wool of Australia. I am of opinion that the Government cannot control legitimate trade as well as it can be managed and controlled by private individuals. 13158 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - The Government know nothing of such a secret proposition as the honorable senator indicates. 13158 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - I do not say that it emanated from the Government. Such schemes very often have their origin with the bureaucrats themselves, who do their best to convince the Government of the soundness of their selfish plans. I have undertaken some analysis in regard to profiteering ; but the most effective way in which to deal with that subject would be in the direction of a graduated profit tax. If I had my way, I would impose upon the business community a profit tax so graduated that unfair and extreme profits would be altogether taxed away. It is not economically sound to attempt anything in that direction by way of price fixing. That has been proved a failure in other countries. I freely admit that this Parliament should attempt to do something to check profiteering, but I have no great faith in the proposals so far submitted. I do not believe we shall be able to cover the whole ground as it ought to be covered. The community will have to exercise some degree of self-restraint. We have emerged from an era of prosperity, partly as a result of the war, which has expanded public and private extravagance. Now, as a Government, a Parliament, and a people, we must exercise some restraint upon expenditure. That is the doctrine which should be preached throughout the Commonwealth, together with the encouragement of increased production. Only with those combined reforms can the people hope to bear the added burdens of war. I listened very attentively to the remarks of Senator Keating. Those of us who had the pleasure of following him closely will agree that he advanced a very cogent argument when he urged that, if the Bill be passed in its present form, and the proposed amendments of the Constitution be carried by referendum, the Commonwealth may find itself, on the expiry of the period over which those amendments will operate, without even the control over trade and commerce which it possesses to-day. I hope that the Government will take into their serious consideration the suggestion which he has made, and will see to it that we do our business in this Chamber in a businesslike way. Another point connected with this measure relates to the calling of the proposed Convention for the purpose of revising our Constitution. The Bill does not provide that the Convention must meet_ before the 31st December next year, but it does affirm that if no such Convention is called before that date, the powers for which we are now asking will expire by effluxion of time. I should like some pronouncement from the Leader of the Senate as to what is in the minds of the Government in regard to the method of electing this Convention. 13159 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - If the honorable senator can promise me that the Government will be returned to office armed with these powers I will hazard a guess. 13159 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - Some information should certainly be forthcoming upon this point. The Premiers of the. States may possibly be called together, and as an extreme case their meeting may be designated a Convention. On the other hand, certain members of both branches of the Commonwealth Legislature may be asked to revise the Constitution, and their meeting may be called a Convention. I indorse the suggestion which has been made here this evening, that the proposed Convention shall be based on popular representation under the proportional system of voting. 13159 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - And with equal representation for each State. 13159 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - We shall then be able to get a fair reflex of all classes of opinion within the Commonwealth. Senator Bakhap, by his interjection, has raised another very contentious question to senators from New South Wales, which happens to contain 42 per cent. of the people of the Commonwealth. The Government should indicate what is in their minds in regard to the proposed Convention, which we hope will be summoned to meet next year. This is a most important matter to the. small, as well as to the large, States. It is a matter that we should approach on an absolutely democratic basis - on the basis of one adult one vote, and on a system which will enable all shades of opinion throughout Australia to be represented in proportion to their strength. But whatever amendments may be made in our Constitution - whether they , be made at the instance of my honorable friends opposite or of the Government - are doomed to disappoint those who repose implicit faith in their efficacy to reduce the high cost of living, so long as the present world conditions prevail. Even if the whole of the proposed amendments be ratified by the electors, this Parliament will, to some extent, still remain ham strung in regard to the control of many commodities in daily use, which are dear, not because of profiteering in Australia, but because of world conditions over which this Parliament and this Democracy can exercise no control whatever. That is the real position to-day. I intend to vote for the proposed amendments of our Constitution because I believe that a National Parliament should evolve national powers. I do not think that this Parliament, in view of the experience of the past eighteen or nineteen years, and especially in view of the tremendous war which has devastated the world during the past five years, can go on in the same old way. I think that we should proceed slowly and carefully, and I regard the proposed amendments of our Constitution as the minimum which are' necessary at the present stage of our national existence. 13159 JZ9 Tasmania 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE . - - I suppose that it is idle to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to consent to an adjournment of the debate. 13159 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Yes. 13159 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I recognise that at this hour it would be unfair for me to protest that I am obliged to forego my right of criticism upon this measure. But there are quite a number of honorable senators who desire to speak upon it, and in view of that fact, and of the circumstance that we are going to be asked to consent to vital alterations in our Constitution, it is remarkable we should be told that we must sit here all night, and, if necessary, all to-morrow, and to-morrow night, till we pass the Bill. 13159 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I have just given the honorable senator, two days' holiday. 13159 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Wha What a childish interjection! The Vice-President of the Executive Council gave us no holidays, but he and his colleagues gave us six or seven months' recess when we should have been here transacting the business that we were elected to transact. Since June last we have practically been marking time, awaiting the return of the Prime Minister from England. Now we are asked to rush this Bill through within the limits of a single sitting. It is an absolute farce that we should be obliged to legislate in this way. 13159 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - It is an outrage! 13160 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - It is an outrage. Fancy Senator Bakhap and myself being in agreement! While I take quite a different view from the honorable senator upon the question of the necessity which exists for amending our Constitution, I at least give him credit for consistency. To-day he stands exactly where he stood some years ago. I recollect that he thundered vociferously on every platform throughout Tasmania against the alterations to our Constitution which were then advocated by the Labour party. Strange to say, a number of those who then supported him are to-day pretending to see the light. We are asked by the Government to dispose of this Bill at a single sitting, although the debate upon it might very properly be spread over at least half-a-dozen sittings. The measure has been put forward by the so-called National Government. Some of us claim that we are justified in doubting their sincerity, because of the limitations which they have attached to it. We are further warranted in doubting the desire of the party which supports' them in the country to give effect to it. I shall presently read a line or two regarding this Bill from the chief newspaper supporter of the present Government, and the bitterest opponent of the Labour party in Tasmania. It will also be instructive to note the opinion expressed upon it by the Premier of Tasmania, because he was amongst the State Premiers who met the Prime Minister in conference upon this matter only a few days ago. According to the newspaper reports, the Prime Minister on that occasion said to the Premiers, " Here are the constitutional amendments that I want." The Premiers replied, " We will not give them to you; but we will give you so much"; to which the Prime Minister at once answered, "Very well, I will accept that." 13160 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - The honorable senator must have had a peep in at the Conference. 13160 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I r I read between the lines as most people do. The Premiers went back to their States leaving the Prime Minister to suppose, if we can judge by newspaper reports, that they intended to support him with all their power in the country.' I have here a telegram sent to one of the senators representing Tasmania, with a request that he would confer with other Tasmanian representatives upon this matter. The telegram reads - Following wire sent to the Prime Minister representing views of State Government re Constitution amendments. The State Government have fully considered same, and are agreeable- (1) Support section 5 of first Bill giving Commonwealth power to deal with trusts, combinations, monopolies; (2) support second Bill power for Commonwealth take over declared monopolies; (3) would support the granting of such power necessary to enable Commonwealth to regulate profits, or fix prices throughout Australia. Re other powers asked for dealing with trade and commerce, corporations, and industrial disputes, State Government of opinion much wider than necessary to secure object sought. Would urge these be omited from Bills, and submi ted to Convention in 1920. Would strongly urge you confer Tasmanian representatives to obtain in Bill to alter section 51 of Constitution, clause 2, in addition to railways, to include State hydro-electric power undertaking, and, if possible, all State enterprises. That means that the Premier of Tasmania, speaking for his Government, is against giving the power to the Federal Parliament to interfere in any way with State enterprises. 13160 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - With wages; let the honorable senator put it plainly. 13160 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Exa Exactly. The State hydro-electric power undertaking is a, public enterprise, and the Tasmanian Government are against giving the Federal Government the powers asked for to deal with that. 13160 JXV ALP; NAT from 1917 0 0 NEWLANDS, John Senator NEWLANDS - That is always the way, and it always will be. 13160 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Why should the Federal Government desire to interfere with a State enterprise like that? Did they help it in' any way ? 13160 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The These interjections are very helpful, because they supply the best kind of proof, and from the right quarters, that it is a sham, a delusion, and a snare to expect that the powers behind the State Premiers and State Governments are going to assist the Federal Government to secure these powers. 13160 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - And Tasmania has the lowest wage rate in Australia. 13160 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Tasmania managed to over-subscribe her quota of the Peace Loan in spite of her low wage rate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon). - Order! I must ask honorable senators to keep order. If they will not do so, I must adopt more stringent measures. 13161 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I w I want to see these powers transferred from the State Parliaments with their Legislative Councils, who have thrown themselves across the way of progress whenever a proposal has been made to secure better conditions and wages for workers in the State. I want to see them transferred to a Parliament elected by adult suffrage. But my honorable friends behind the State Governments do not want to see that. 13161 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - We do. 13161 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - H - Honorable senators opposite are joined in one party, but they will find that oil and water will not mix. 13161 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - What about the newspapers ? 13161 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - T - The newspapers that are supporting the Government, and will support them at the general election on everything else, will not support them in their appeal to the people for these powers. Here we have the Hobart Mercury slating the Prime Minister to some extent. 13161 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - No one takes any notice of that newspaper. 13161 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Rea Readers of it in Tasmania do take notice of it. It says - It seems to us that Mr. Hughes, desirous of "dishing" the Labour party, is going to combine a referendum on proposals which that party must support with a general election in which it will be against him. This is ingenious, but very dangerous. It is quite possible that by this means he will carry his proposals for the alteration of the Constitution, but he will most assuredly make such a split in the Nationalist party that a serious disaster may follow. What we mean is that those powers which he proposes to use with wisdom and discretion are quite likely to be thrust into the hands of the Labour party, which will use them, not only without wisdom or discretion, but with absolute malignity. When Mr. Hughes was accepted as the Leader of the Nationalist party, he took on certain obligations. If now he intends to twist that party into a big Labour tail, something will break. He may be able to carry with him the greater number of those who sit behind him in Parliament, but ho will not carry with him the Nationalist organizations or the Nationalist electors. We hope that Mr. Lee will, with the shortest possible delay, be able to assure the Prime Minister that the Nationalist party in Tasmania is not prepared to sacrifice all that it has fought for in the past merely in order to fit in with very doubtful electioneering tactics. This Bill is, in the opinion of the writer of this article, only electioneering tactics. Let me say that this newspaper influences about half the votes recorded in Tasmania. Senator Mulcahy, and other Tasmanian senators, will agree with me that it exerts a very big influence. It considers that this Bill is only electioneering tactics- 13161 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - The newspaper is right. 13161 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I have it from Senator Bakhap that the newspaper is right in saying that this Bill is only electioneering tactics. That is a nice admission to come from a supporter of the Government. 13161 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Supporting the Government does not involve subscribing to inaccuracy. 13161 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The The Hobart Mercury goes on to say - It is sheer madness to court disaster in this way. The modification accepted with a view to limit the operation of these new powers to three years has very little value. If these powers operate for three years, the Federal Parliament may pass legislation so far-reaching in its character that its effects will be permanent. We have had experience of that with regulations made and powers exercised under the War Precautions Act, the effects of which remain with us to-day, and will never be overtaken. If Mr. Hughes has some clear and definite legislative proposals in regard to the prevention of what is called profiteering, they will receive sympathetic consideration on their merits. But, as has been the case before, he asks the people of Australia to sign blank cheques, to be filled up at his discretion, and he asks, in addition, the State Governments to assure the people that they are quite safe in signing. The tentative proposals of the Premiers do not bind them or their Cabinets, and we hope that Mr. Hughes will, with the shortest possible delay, receive the assurance that, if he proposes to enter upon a policy designed to wreck the Nationalist party, he will do so without their support. My honorable friends opposite do not like that kind of instruction, but it should be instructive to them to learn just where they stand with regard to the support they may expect from Nationalist newspapers. The Hobart Mercury, and most of the other newspapers that are to-day supporting the Prime Minister and his Government, do not desire that power shall be transferred from the State Parliaments to the Federal Parliament. 13161 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - We want them. 13161 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I believe that some of the supporters of the Government do desire that this Parliament shall have these powers. 13161 JXV ALP; NAT from 1917 0 0 NEWLANDS, John Senator NEWLANDS - Does Senator O'Keefe not want them ? 13161 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I w I want these powers, and would be very glad to have them if I felt that I could trust' the Government to put them into operation. In saying so I am merely repeating what was said by the present Chief Justice of Victoria a year or so ago when the Labour party submitted certain alterations of the Constitution. He agreed with every line of them, and said that they were necessary for the good government of this country, but he would not trust the party that was bringing them forward. 13162 JXV ALP; NAT from 1917 0 0 NEWLANDS, John Senator NEWLANDS - "Was he Chief Justice of Victoria when he said that? 13162 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - N - No, but he is Chief Justice of Victoria now, and he occupied a prominent position at that time- 13162 JXV ALP; NAT from 1917 0 0 NEWLANDS, John Senator NEWLANDS - He was then a politician. 13162 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I wished only to show that in doubting the good faith of political opponents,. I was doing only what he did then, and if erring, I am erring isa good company. The limitations of the powers proposed make it appear pretty plainly to those of us who really desire that wider powers shall be vested in the Federal Parliament that there is not a burning desire on the part of a great number sitting behind the Prime Minister that these powers shall be transferred from the States to the Commonwealth. I point out that the Prime Minister is the same gentleman as he who advocated in 1915 very vital alterations of the Constitution, but he has been compelled to place these remarkable limitations upon these present proposals. He has also omitted on this occasion a most important proposal which he made in 1915 affecting the railway service of the States. He has omitted that proposal in deference to those who sit behind him, and do not desire that the Federal Parliament should have the right to interfere with the wages and conditions of the railway servants of the States. 13162 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - The honorable senator thinks that he is still the same. 13162 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I do not know whether he is or not. 13162 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - The honorable senator said just now very definitely that he is the same. 13162 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I shall not let Senator Reid put words into my mouth. I say that I do not know whether the Prime Minister is still of the same opinion as he was in 1915, but if he is, he should have had the courage to bring down in this Bill a proposal affecting the railway servants. 13162 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - He was not allowed to do so. He has his masters. 13162 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - P - Probably he was not allowed. I certainly should like to see a provision in this Bill such as that contained in the 1915 proposal, giving the Federal Parliament power to regulate wages and conditions of railway employment 13162 K8L NAT 0 0 THOMAS, Josiah Senator THOMAS - The Democracy of Australia twice turned that proposal down. 13162 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - If Senator Thomas is still a good Democrat, the fact that the people of Australia turned that proposal down twice would not prevent him from including it in this measure, because he is agreeing that the people should once more be asked what additional powers they will give to this Parliament. If we could lift the veil of the Caucus of the other side, probably we would find that Senators Thomas and Reid had advocated the inclusion of the provision relating to railway servants. The measure we now have before us excludes railway servants, although the gentleman who is Prime Minister to-day strongly urged their inclusion in the amendment he submitted three or four years ago. I do not intend to take up the time of the Senate in repeating the objections urged on both sides of the chamber - at all events, from this side - regarding the time limitation, and to the method of appointing the Convention. It is the duty of the Minister to give honorable senators some idea of what is in the mind of the Government in regard to the constitution of the Convention. Is it to be a body appointed entirely by the Government, or is it to be appointed partly by the Commonwealth Government and partly ' by the State Governments ? Is the Convention to be elected by the people? The question has been put to the Minister by several honorable senators, but we have not received any reply. I now ask the Minister if he will not give the Senate some information? 13162 K8L NAT 0 0 THOMAS, Josiah Senator THOMAS - -Can you tell us what Government; will be in power? 13162 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - T - The Minister is assuming that his Government will be in office. Is it to be a " hotch-potch " Convention appointed by the Commonwealth and State Parliaments? It is due to the Senate tb have this information while the measure is under discussion, but apparently wo arc not to have it, as the Minister remains silent. 13163 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - My personal opinion is that it should be constituted as was the original Convention, but that is not a collective opinion. 13163 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - We We want the composite mind. 13163 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - You cannot get that until you know what Government will be in power. 13163 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - T - The Government presents this Bill for our discussion, and we are unable to obtain information on a very vital point. The amendments will automatically lapse at the end of three years, or after twelve months if the Convention is not appointed. One of the most vital proposals in the Bill is that relating to the Convention. The measure states that the Convention is to be constituted by " the Commonwealth." What is the interpretation of " the Commonwealth." Does it mean the Government of the Commonwealth or the people of the Commonwealth? The measure certainly falls short of supplying the information to which we are entitled. The Minister says he does not know the collective mind of the Government. 13163 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I cannot say what a future Government will dOi 13163 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - It is the duty of the Government to make the position quite clear. At a later -stage it is my intention to move an amendment which I shall outline before the Bill goes into Committee. Regarding the general principles of the measure, I say, " Take it to the people " ; if they like it, trust the Government. But I hope the Government will do what they promised to do. The very fact that these remarkable and peculiar limitations are included makes those of us who have been here for a number of years doubtful as to whether the Government really want the powers outlined, and whether they intend to put them into operation if they secure them. It is for that reason I would like Senator Gardiner's amendment to have been accepted. It seems absurd to place any limitation on the powers. 13163 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - They could not name one monopoly that they would take before the Court. 13163 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - T - The honorable senator and I do not agree on the necessity for altering the Constitution. 13163 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Which monopoly would you go for? 13163 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I am not dealing with monopolies, but with the general principles of the Bill. It was never intended when the Constitution was framed by the eminent gentlemen alluded to by Senator Keating, and when it was accepted by the people of Australia, that alterations would be proposed for a year. That seems an absolute farce. I would have preferred to see Senator Gardiner's amendment accepted, and I am sorry that the President ruled it out of order. I would also like the amendment outlined by Senator O'Loghlin accepted, and I hope the good sense of the Senate will support it, because we would then have a reasonable proposal to submit to the people instead of the remarkable one that is now before us. I intend moving to amend the Bill .by adding at the end of clause 2 the following words : - And by the adding at the end of paragraph xxiii thereof the words, " and pensions to widows with children dependent upon them." I am seeking to alter section 51, which outlines the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament. Paragraph xxiii is really one line, and reads, " Invalid and old-age pensions." The effect of the amendment would be that Parliament would have the power; not only to deal with invalid and old-age pensions, but also with pensions for widows with children .dependent upon them. I am. sure there is no difference of opinion in the Senate regarding the justice and the necessity of this amendment. I have never been able to find any honorable senator, on the various occasions I have mentioned this matter, objecting to the Federal Parliament having power to complete its pensions scheme by adding the words, "Widows with children dependent upon them." I have brought this matter forward on several occasions, and on our notice-paper to-day I have a motion, reading: - That, in the opinion of the Senate, paragraph 23 of section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act should be altered to empower the Parliament to provide for payment of pensions to widows with children dependent upon them. 13163 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Why should that be mixed up with such a vexed question as that embodied in the Bill? 13164 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - T - There is a good reason. We are asked to amend section 51 of the Constitution, and paragraph xxiii of it refers to pensions-. Under our present Constitution, Parliament has power to deal with invalid and old-age pensions. I desire Parliament to have the power to deal with pensions- of the kind I have indicated. The carrying of the amendment will not provide that the pensions must be paid, but it will give to Parliament the power to render them payable. 13164 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - This is tacking a desirable amendment of the Constitution on to an undesirable one. 13164 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - It is a desirable amendment, and as we are now considering amendments to the Constitution, this is the only time to submit such a proposition. If I cannot have this amendment embodied in the present Bill, I shall be precluded for Heaven knows how long. 13164 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - What would be the position of an honorable senator who was in favour of your amendment and antagonistic to the other proposals? 13164 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - H - He would probably vote against the second reading of the Bill and support the amendment in Committee. It is an amendment on which I think we are all in agreement. 13164 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Why not bring in a separate Bill? 13164 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I cannot do that, because I do not control the Government. The honorable senator knows very well that only measures brought forward by the Government have any prospect of being carried. This is the fourth time that I have introduced this matter. T first moved in this direction in 1911, and received support from the majority of honorable senators, but the matter was never taken up. 13164 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - Is the honorable senator sure that the power does not already exist? 13164 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I am glad the honorable senator has raised that point, because it is not a new one. It has been contended by a number who consider themselves constitutional authorities, and also by a number of lawyers, that the power already exists in the Constitution. On the other hand, it is contended by quite a number that the power is not there. As a layman, I can understand the position only in my own way, and it seems to me that it does not exist. Section 51 of the Constitution gives the Commonwealth power to legislate for the order and good government of the Commonwealth in respect of .what have been termed the 39 articles, and article xxiii specifically mentions " Invalid and old-age pensions." 13164 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - Which one mentions the maternity bonuses? 13164 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Not Not one. The bonuses are being paid, and I do not know whether their validity has ever been questioned in the High Court, Anybody has the right to question their validity. On the 30th November, 1911, the 18th July, 1912, and the 23rd October, 1913, I brought a similar proposal forward. There has never been any serious opposition to it, but it has never been made the law. Leaders of several Governments have been committed to it, and Mr. Fisher, when Prime Minister of a Government I was supporting, promised to introduce it, but he never did so. It would be very beneficial to a numerically small but very deserving section of our community. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - I have allowed the honorable senator a good deal of latitude. He is debating an amendment which he intends moving in Committee, and that is not in order. 13164 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I thought, sir, that you would have allowed me to make passing reference to the matter in a general way. This is not a party question. At the Labour Conference in Adelaide three or four years ago, I moved that the provision be placed in the Constitution so as to remove all doubt; but so far no Government has seen fit to take the matter up. New Zealand is the only place in the British Dominions that has legislated directly on these lines. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order ! The honorable senator is again going beyond the proper limits of the debate. 13164 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - May May I be permitted to give my reasons for bringing this matter forward ? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- The honorable senator will be perfectly in order in doing so when the amendment is before the Committee. 13164 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I recognise that, perhaps, the Committee stage would be the proper place; but I am rather disappointed at not being allowed to refer to the matter further at this stage. I wish you had taken a wider interpretation of our Standing Orders, and allowed me to give the reasons why I think the power should be vested in this Parliament. However, I have no desire to dispute your ruling. It is a matter of interpretation of our Standing Orders. I had the honour of sitting in the Chair for about four years, and I think I got along pretty well. 13165 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - It is not usual to discuss an amendment when giving notice of it at the second reading stage. 13165 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I thought I would be allowed to ' refer to my amendment at greater length in the second-reading debate, but the Deputy President has ruled against me, so I will have to take advantage of the time at my disposal in Committee, even if I have to speak on the amendment in instalments. 13165 KRZ Western Australia 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH .- T The Bill before the Senate does not require any apology or explanation. It is quite true that it has been urged that the measure has been introduced with undue haste, but when we review the history of the movement for Constitutional amendment, we find that during the last eight or nine years similar measures have been introduced on no fewer than three* occasions, and so the charge of undue haste cannot be sustained. In 1911 Bills similar to these now before Parliament were introduced and passed. ' In 1913 the same Bills, with some slight modifications, were adopted; and again, in 1915, Bills de- signed to accomplish the same ends, but with modifications, were passed by the Federal Parliament. This, therefore, is the fourth time that Parliament has been called upon to consider measures drafted for the purpose of giving relief in well understood directions, and, in the present case, a new direction as well. I do not know how many more times it will be necessary for the Government to introduce Bills of this nature before they can escape the allegation of undue haste. If ever a set of measures were discussed with the utmost care, and subjected to the keenest criticism, it is the Bills now before the Senate, in respect of which there is now the charge of undue haste. 13165 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - You do not claim that they are the same as the former Bills, do you ? 13165 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - These . are practically the same as those introduced by the Government of which Senator Gardiner was a member. 13165 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - They are not. 13165 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - I think I . will prove to the honorable senator that they are. I could quite understand honorable senators urging that undue haste was being displayed if this was the first time we had heard of such a Bill as that now under consideration ; but I point out that honorable senators who are criticising this Bill took their share in piloting similar measures through Parliament on former occasions. So much, then, for this flimsy pretext that these measures for Constitutional amendment are being passed with undue haste on the present occasion. All the causes that- justified action on the part of previous Governments in regard to these amendments of the Constitution stand unimpaired to-day, with one additional cause, namely, profiteering, of which we have heard so much of late, as an urgent reason for the adoption of this measure. It ought to be quite plain to men of ordinary understanding that if the causes that were responsible for the introduction of measures of a similar character eight years ago still stand, and if, in addition, there is, as I have shown, another urgent reason, there can be no ground for the complaint that these Bills are being presented with undue haste. Montroud's declaration that language was given to man to conceal his thoughts is particularly applicable on the present occasion to honorable senators opposite. They are uneasy because the measures convey more power than they want to see conveyed ; because their protestations have been too fully met; and because they cannot claim the credit of piloting the Bills through Parliament. We will not be told this, but I take the opportunity of saying it. Measures similar to- the one now before the Senate were passed in 1911, 1913, and 1915, so this Bill should be accepted with open arms, and there should not be any desire on the part of the Opposition to adopt embarrassing tactics to prevent its passage through the Senate. We just heard an amendment moved by Senator O'Loghlin which, if adopted, would place no limit upon Commonwealth authority. The honorable senator reminds me of a very old professor I heard of in the Old Country, who advertised that he intended to give a lecture on the ' ' universe and collateral subjects." Senator O'Loghlin's amendment is almost as comprehensive. 13166 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin - I - It only puts the Commonwealth on the same level as other Dominions. 13166 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - The causes that led to the introduction of the measures in 19"1 1 stand in the year 1919, with an additional reason, namely, the need to deal with profiteering, which, notwithstanding anything that may be said to the contrary, is 'an evil that requires radical and immediate treatment. Why any honorable senator professing to be a Democrat should use his position as a custodian of the public welfare to withstand the endeavour' to pass this measure quickly passes my comprehension. 13166 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - Do you object to my amendment? 13166 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - I stand as a supporter of the proposals which the Government of which Senator Gardiner was a member indorsed and asked this Parliament to pass. 13166 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - All right; I will claim your vote for my amendment directly. 13166 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - I stand where Senator Gardiner stood in 1911. Let us clear away all misunderstandings. In connexion with the War Precautions Act, we have heard it said that it was conceived for the purpose of punishing our political opponents. We have never heard from its critics anything of the good that it has accomplished; but from various sources we have ascertained that that Act has proved beneficial to the country. Mr. Ryan, the Premier of Queensland, who is now making a descent into the Federal arena, has placed on record the following opinion, voluntary and unsolicited, regarding the effect of the War Precautions Act in keeping prices within reasonable bounds, and in holding the profiteer in check. On the 10th July last the following particulars appeared in the Brisbane Daily Standard- The announcement that the Kew South Wales Government is to re-establish price fixing in an attempt to cope with the scandalous profiteering everywhere existing, was brought under the notice of the Premier this afternoon. Mr. Ryan remarked that the Commonwealth had let loose the profiteers on the people properly. Under the War Precautions regulations the prices control had been let up fairly promptly after the signing of the armistice. He did not know why it was so, but the fact remained that they had yielded to the pressure of those who wanted to make excessive profits out of the .people. Mr. Ryan concluded, "I have the matter in hand with a view to taking some action in Queensland." Three months have passed and nothing has yet been done in that State. Nevertheless, Mr. Ryan placed it upon record that up to the period of the armistice the War Precautions Act. and Regulations had undoubtedly kept the profiteer in check. A desperate effort is now being made to bring the railway servants of the States within the scope of this amending Bill. It is true that on three previous occasions attempts were made to clothe the Federal authority with power to regulate the wages and conditions of labour existing upon State railways; I refer to the Bills brought forward in 1911, 1913, and 19.15. Then caine the increased pressure of war conditions. The party of which Senator Gardiner and I were members had seen the necessity for the concession of in- creased powers to the Commonwealth Government; and the State Governments were thereafter consulted. But the significant fact is that all reference to the railway men. was dropped. 13166 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - That is not so. 13166 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - After considerable discussion it had been resolved not to put the referenda again to the people, owing to the war. But the view was expressed that a Conference should take place between the then Prime Minister. (Mr. Hughes) and the State Premiers. It was prior to that that the party had decided that the case of the State railway servants should be dropped. 13166 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - That is not correct. 13166 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - Senator Gardiner will not deny that the State Premiers were assembled at the instance of the Labour Prime Minister of the Commonwealth (Mr. Hughes), who was a colleague of Senator Gardiner. The honorable senator states that it is not correct that the case of the railway servants had then been dropped. I will furnish proof to' the contrary. Did Mr. Hughes confer with the State Premiers on his own initiative? Did he go behind the backs of his colleagues in the Labour Government? Did he act without the knowledge and consent of his party ? A decision had been arrived at that certain powers should be sought from the State Premiers, but that those powers should not include authority to deal with: the railways. 13167 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - Neither the Hughes Government nor the Fisher Government ever considered what Mr. Hughes should put before the State Premiers. 13167 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - If that is so, this is the first we have heard of it. 13167 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - Why has the honorable senator kept that to himself for years ? Why were we not told about it in Caucus? 13167 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - This is the first time we have heard that it was not decided in Caucus that the railway men should be excluded from the scope of the State enabling measures. The Act subsequently passed by the New South Wales Parliament contains the following preamble: - And whereas certain proposed laws for the alteration of the Constitution of the Commonwealth have been passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth and writs have been issued by the Governor-General for the submission of those proposed laws to the electors of the Commonwealth; and whereas as a result of discussion which arose at a financial conference of the Premiers of the States, held in Melbourne in the month of November, in the year 1915, it was agreed' between the said Premiers and the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth that the Premiers would bring forward in their respective Parliaments legislation for referring to the Parliament of the Commonwealth the matters specified in this Act, and that the Government of the Commonwealth would postpone during the currency of the war the taking of the vote of the electors of the Commonwealth upon the said proposed laws for the alteration of the Constitution: Be it therefore enacted- Then follows an enumeration of the powers which the State Premiers undertook, at the request of Mr. Hughes, to include in their Bills. The subject-matters are - Trade and commerce, corporations, employment and unemployment, strikes and lockouts, the maintenance of industrial peace, the settlement of industrial disputes, conciliation and arbitration, trusts, combinations, monopolies. Section 4 of the Act states that - Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to empower the Parliament of the Commonwealth or any authority constituted under the Commonwealth to affect the control or management of railways the property of a State, or the rates or fares on such railways. That is an emphatic exclusion of anything having reference to the administration of the railways or to the conditions of employment upon the railways of the States. 13167 K8L NAT 0 0 THOMAS, Josiah Senator THOMAS - And was that submitted to the Parliament of New South Wales as an outcome of the conference with Mr. Hughes ? 13167 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - That is the Act, and its preamble indicates exactly the reason for its introduction to the State Legislature. 13167 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - I will state the truth; I will put the whole of the facts before the country. There is nothing discreditable in them; and when a man endeavours to discredit me the whole of the facts should be given publicity. 13167 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - This Act, passed by the Parliament of New South Wales, expressly excludes reference to State railway activities. Senator Gardiner has hitherto withheld information of what occurred prior to the Conference between Mr. Hughes and the State Premiers. He has failed to announce that he dissents from the phraseology of a State measure that emanated from that Conference, and deliberately excluded the railway activities of the States. Senator Gardiner cannot square the circle in that way. The light of day is now glaring strongly upon his lack of action, upon his want of sympathy for the railway men in those days more than four years ago. The New South Wales Legislature was the only State Parliament which passed a measure following upon that Conference. The preamble to the Act shows that it originated in the Conference convened by Mr. Hughes, whose colleagues included Senator Gardiner. The wording of that Statute indicates that Mr. Hughes failed to request the State Governments to include reference to railway servants and railway administration. Now we are led to believe that Mr. Hughes took whatever action he did take upon his own initiative. 13167 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - As a matter of fact, we were not represented at the Conference. The State Premiers met, and at the conclusion of their deliberations they sent for the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes). But Senator Gardiner and I were consulted before the matter went to the party. 13168 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - Yes, we were consulted, but it did not come before the Cabinet. I will go into the whole matter fully. 13168 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - Here is an extraordinary circumstance, that Mr. Hughes should have continued in the confidence of the Federal Labour party for many months after that Conference, and after the New South Wales Government had passed an Act, at his request, to give power to the Commonwealth to do certain things, but expressly excluding all reference to the railways of the States. We are to understand that Mr. Hughes made this agreement apparently behind the backs of his colleagues and party, and that there was not a word of protest subsequently uttered by those gentle lambs and sucking doves who to-day are ranged on the Opposition side of the Senate. I well remember that the case for the railway servants was dropped because it was recognised that it would damage our chances of securing public favour for those other matters in relation to which we desired to amend the Constitution. Those solicitous gentlemen who are now so anxious to bring the railway servants of the States within the ambit of Federal control forgot all about them in 1915. In that year they were prepared voluntarily to drop them. They made no request for the inclusion of the railway men in the enabling measures which they desired the State Parliaments to pass. Those are the same gentlemen who are now fighting like gladiators for the very employees whom they turned down some four years ago. 13168 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - If the Standing Orders permitted me to do so, I would say that the honorable senator is a cowardly liar! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon). - Order! The honorable senator must withdraw that remark. 13168 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - I withdraw it if it is not in order, but it is the truth, nevertheless. 13168 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - Senator Gardiner is a. big man, but I have tackled as big as he before now. 13168 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - Yes, at Coolgardie. 13168 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - And anything that he wants in that direction- This is where 'the " bully " comes in. But the honorable senator will not " bully " me. It is practically the unanimous opinion of this Chamber that something must be done to enlarge the powers which are already possessed by the Commonwealth Parliament. The Anti-Trust Act is a legislative misnomer. Owing to the limitation of the powers vested in the central authority no protection is given to the people against the operations or depredations of Trusts and Combines. I have here evidence of that fact. A firm in Western Australia trading in the ordinary mercantile way wished to purchase dried fruits from people in Eastern Australia engaged in their production, and so well organized are these persons that when the Perth merchant sought to get his supplies from them, he received a communication from their agents enclosing the following form for his signature : - I [(a) partner, (6) principal] of the firm of Perth, in the State of Western Australia, do solemnly and sincerely declare that I have purchased the following quantities of A.D.F.A. fruits for the season 1918, from Messrs. ' :- Thirty boxes sultanas, eleven boxes lexias, sixteen boxes currants. And I declare that I have not been, directly or indirectly, interested in the purchase of dried fruits outside the association, nor, to the best of my knowledge and belief, has any of the fruit purchased by my firm [or company] been divided into parcels, or in any way syndicated, and that I will absolutely retain in its entirety the rebate of id. per lb., less 2 1/2 per cent, granted to me under this declaration. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing 'same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an act of the Parliament of Western Australia rendering persons making a false declaration punishable for wilful and corrupt perjury. I submitted that communication to the Crown law authorities here with a view to ascertaining whether there was any case against the persons who were trading under those conditions. I received the following reply from the Trade and Customs Department dated 21st August: - With reference to your letter of the 12th July, relative to one received by you from Mr. Arthur Kemp, 625 Hay-street, Perth, respecting the statutory declaration which retailers are required to sign in order to enable them to receive a rebate on purchases of A.D.F.A. fruits, i . have to inform you that the Crown Law. authorities have advised that the action complained of does not constitute a breach of the Australian Industries Preservation Act. Massy Greene. That reply shows conclusively that the powers possessed by the Federal Government are absolutely worthless for the defence of the consumers of this country from the acts of Trusts and Combines. I have no desire 'to prolong this debate, because these Bills have been threshed threadbare on three previous occasions. Yet they are alleged to have been introduced with indecent haste! It is because they will serve their purpose so well that this objection is now taken to them, and because they are being supported by honorable senators upon this side of the chamber, who have hitherto been opposed to them. The change in the opinions of these honorable senators has been brought about by the progress of enlightened thought throughout the world. The fact that these gentlemen are aiding us who are true Labour men - better Labour men than are those who are constantly babbling about Labour - has provoked the wrath of honorable senators opposite, who now put forward the flimsy excuse that the Bil] has been brought forward with Undue haste. I shall support both measures in the belief that they will fulfil a great national and economic want; that they will clothe the central authority with the powers which it badly needs, and that those powers will be used wisely for the benefit of the entire community. Senator GARDINER (New South Wales) [11.181.- I desire to make a personal explanation. I regret that whilst Senator Lynch was speaking I lost control of my temper. There are occasions, however, when a man can be angry and sin not. One of those occasions is when an' honorable senator upon the floor of this chamber endeavours to build up a set of circumstances which do not exist, for the purpose of falsifying the attitude of a political opponent. Sorry as I am when I lose my temper, I am not sorry to do so when a man deliberately attempts to place me in a false position. What are the facts in connexion with the Constitution Alteration Bills originally submitted to this Senate? If there be as much manhood in Senator Lynch as I thought there was when I first met him, he will, after I have stated the facts, recognise the need for withdrawing the statement which he has made. 13169 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator Lynch - I will withdraw when I am proved to be wrong, but that is not now. 13169 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - On the 30th November, 1916, leave was granted to introduce a certain Bill. That Bill was introduced by me, as Vice-President of the Executive Council. It was a Bill which was designed to secure an alteration of our Constitution, with a view to enabling this Parliament to legislate in respect of the State railways. That measure was introduced and passed without any undue haste. The Standing Orders were not suspended to enable it to be rushed through this Chamber. After it and other measures had been passed, the State Premiers met the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) in conference in Melbourne. The object of that Conference was to see whether an arrangement could not be arrived at by which certain powers could be conferred upon this Parliament which would obviate the necessity for taking a referendum in time of war. Mr. Hughes came from that Conference, - I am sure honorable senators themselves will recollect the occasion when their memories are refreshed regarding it - and whilst sitting at the Ministerial table yonder, I was invited outside to hear a statement of the position which the negotiations had reached. Mr. Hughes said to me, " These are the powers which the Premiers have offered me. Here we can get practically all that we want without a vote of the people, and I think that we ought to accept their offer." I shall never forget my answer to him, because I am a reasonably cautious man, although some honorable senators doubtless think that I am not. I said to the Prime Minister, " The Premiers have now put you in the same position in which you placed Mr. Cook when you offered to suspend party hostilities upon the outbreak of the war, and I think you ought to accept their proposals." It will be recollected that towards midnight upon the occasion I refer to, Mr. Hughes asked the House of Representatives to adjourn for a brief period - about an hour or so. The Senate was similarly asked to adjourn. Mr. Hughes then went up to a Caucus meeting, where he made a similar statement to that which he had made to me. He said, " This is the arrangement which the Premiers have offered in order that we may avoid taking a referendum in time of war." In common with every other member of that Caucus, I accepted that arrangement as an honorable one, and for my action to be put before the country in the light in which Senator Lynch has put it to-night was enough to make me lose my temper. As a matter of fact, I have never withheld anything. I accepted the proposal submitted by the Prime Minister as one coming honestly from the State Premeirs, and one under which we could avoid taking a referendum in time of war. 13170 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator Lynch - Leaving the railway men on one side. Of course, the honorable senator will not say that. 13170 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I was just as much in the dark in regard to that matter as was Senator Lynch. The question of the railway men being thrust aside was never mentioned sufficiently to emphasize it. For Senator Lynch to stand up and publicly brand me with having remained silent upon this matter during all the period that has intervened was surely enough to disturb my equanimity. I regret that the honorable senator has followed the bad example set by the Prime Minister. If after their long and friendly association with honorable senators upon this side of the chamber, they can attempt to falsify our position, some day, when they themselves are desirous of accepting a reasonable way out of a difficult position, they may find that the worst construction is placed upon their actions. To brand me with having done something dishonourable- 13170 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator Lynch -i did not do that. I merely referred to a change of opinion that the honorable senator should stand up to. 13170 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - There has been no change of opinion. It is a fact that what I accepted every other member of the party accepted. 13170 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator Lynch - That is the way to talk. 13170 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - If the honorable senator intended to convey that the whole of the provisions of the Constitution Alteration Bills were discussed at that Caucus meeting, the shortness of the adjournment of both branches of the Legislature will show that that was impossible. Senator Lynch evidently thinks that he gains a point by a skilful attempt to discredit a political opponent by means of half-truths, which are a great deal worse than lies until the real facts are known. But instead of doing so, he merely discredits himself. Any other honorable senator who may endeavour to twist facts for a similar purpose, will not do credit to the position which he holds in this Parliament. I do not. want that little incident to draw me off the track of one or two things I wish to say on the amendment. I wish to enter upon the discussion of the amendment without heat or anger. I am, perhaps, one who analyses his own feelings and actions as carefully as does any other member of the' Senate. Sometimes I really have to smile under the moat cutting criticism. It was quite charming to-night to listen to Senator Keating's attack. I can only put it down to the assumption that possibly my mental make-up and temperament is such that the fates have decided that I shall always be misunderstood. Senator Keating charged me with moving my amendment with a view to delaying the passage of the Bill, and, upon that assumption, ho severely criticised my action, though I moved the amendment with a view to. expediting the passage of the Bill. 13170 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - Senator Keating said that the honorable senator's amendment would lead to endless discussion. 13170 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - He. said that after I had disclaimed any intention to delay the passage of the Bill. He elaborated his charge that my amendment was moved for the purpose of delaying the measure. If I had been in the humour to delay the passage of the Bill, when the President ruled my amendment out of order, I might have delayed the measure for an hour, or half-an-hour, in discussing whether it was really out of order or not. I may say that these constitutional amendments are to me so serious and important that I have been inclined ever since the Government introduced them to enable them to get them before the people at the earliest possible moment; but not out of any respect for the Government, because the Government have shown no respect for me. I say deliberately that when the Government were planning this rushing of legislation through at the close of the session, they made me the scapegoat for the passing of a certain standing order. I said at the time that the expeditious passage of legislation through this Parliament can only be secured by the mutual good-will of parties on both sides. The Government thought otherwise, and decided to use force, and so "proposed restrictive Standing Orders. I was biding my time. I knew that it would come when the end of the session approached. Had these constitutional amendments not been submitted, the Government would not have gone a step with their legislation, because we would have tested the existing Standing Orders to see whether the Government had gained anything in securing the despatch of business by the adoption of their new methods. These constitutional amendments have raised questions too serious for party warfare, and the adoption of tactics by which a man might get back some of his own. I was quite prepared to let the Government have these Bills in their own time, and in their own manner. Their time and manner was a proper subject for criticism; and I think that, in the fairest possible way, I criticised the manner in which they introduced these proposals before they had. considered them themselves. 13171 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - They are not sure of them yet. 13171 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - That is so, and they have given notice of amendments to alter the form in which they submitted them. Let me get back to the criticism of the amendment now before the Senate, which says that these proposals are unsatisfactory. In what way are they unsatisfactory? Senator Keating argued very ably for the proposition I put forward that the public could not pass constitutional amendments that would be only temporary. The honorable senator was speaking against me, but his argument went to prove that fact. I direct the attention of honorable senators to the one method by which we can amend the Constitution. It is a very simple method, and, strange to say, there can be no other means adopted for its amendment. The drafting of the Constitution is so definite and clear that when a question is raised as to the powers of the Parliament or of the people to amend the Constitution, it must be settled in accordance with section 128, which reads - This Constitution shall not be altered except tn the following manner. I ask honorable senators to mark that provision. The section does not say that the Constitution may be altered in any manner, but that it shall not be altered, " except in the following manner." If, then, temporary alterations of the Constitution a re not included "in the following manner," I say that temporary alterations are not constitutional. 13171 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - That will not do. 13171 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Then I must read the whole of the section, and let us see whether it will do or not. It provides that- This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: - The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each Bouse of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State to the electors qualified to vote for the elections of members for the House of Representatives. But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned House, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority, with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, ;the Governor-General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first mentioned House, and either with or without any amendment subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives. When a proposed law is submitted to the electors, the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament describes. But until the qualification of the election of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails, And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor- General for the Queen's assent. No alteration diminishing the proportionate representations of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the States, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law. 13172 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Is there any mention of a Convention there? 13172 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - No ; and the Constitution can only he amended by that means. It is so definite on the subject that the section is prefaced by the words - This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: - There is no other means of altering the Constitution except that provided in section 128. SenatorSenior. - It is a question of manner, not a question of time. 13172 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I venture to say that the finest feature of the Commonwealth Constitution is the clearness of its drafting. Any man who reads it without bias or prejudice, or without trying to twist its provisions to meet what he desires, must see that there is only one manner in which it can he altered, and that no other manner is constitutional. That is the case which I did not elaborate, because I was in a hurry. I have one or two remarks to make about what Senator Pratten had to say on the subject of price fixing. Senator O'Loghlin's amendment says that these proposals are unsatisfactory, because illusory. Senator Pratten asks whether we would fix the prices of the primary pro- ducts of this country, and suggested that if we did not fix prices for them there would not be much hope for improving the conditions of the people by securing the power to fix prices. I want to say here and now that, not only would I not fix prices for the primary producer, but I would not fix the price for the man who, by applying labour to material, manufactures goods. But what I would do would be to fix prices to prevent profiteers, or business men, if honorable senators please to so call them, trafficking in things that are needed by the community. I can give one or two illustrations which may bring home to Senator Reid some idea of who is a profiteer. This is an illustration of a case in which price fixing was effective. The Government with which I was connected controlled shipping. The Constitution gives us power to do so, and a price was fixed for the freight on each case of fruit carried from Tasmania. The price fixed was 3s. or 3s. 6d. per case. The ships had no right to charge any more than that price. That went on until the present Government came into power, or until their War Precautions Act expired, and what is the price today? It is 7s. 6d. per case. The price of freight immediately went up, and the shipping company got the profits. 13172 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - The shipping companies did not carry a case of fruit. 13172 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - If Senator Guthrie does not know any more of the business than that, let me refer him to honorable senators from Tasmania, who will tell him that the shipping company carried thousands of cases of fruit. 13172 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - The Commonwealth carried them, because the Commonwealth Government controlled shipping. 13172 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER -I say that the Government fixed, the price for carrying a case of fruit. 13172 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - For mail steamers, or cargo steamers? 13172 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - It is the usual thing for Senator Reid to try to introduce something which has no bearing on the argument. The fact is as I have stated it. 13172 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - It is not a fact. 13172 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - The night is young, and Senator Guthrie will have plenty of time to speak. If he can refute what I am saying, so much the worse for me. I seldom find interjections contradicting a statement followed up by facts which justify the contradiction. I invite Senator Guthrie to prove that what I have said is incorrect. 13172 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - The ship-owners had nothing to do with it. 13172 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I know that the Minister for Trade and Customs fixed the price which might be charged for the carriage of a case of fruit, and the ships could not charge a higher price; but immediately the price fixing was removed the freight on fruit soared up. Senator Lynch seemed to think that Mr. Ryan's effort at price fixing had not been effective. He quoted something from a speech by Mr. Ryan, but if he endeavoured to put that gentleman in a false position honorable senators will know how much what he said was worth, in view of his effort to place me in a false position. What are the facts with regard to price fixing in Queensland ? For the first twelve months of the war Queensland was administered by a Liberal Government, but at the election held in May, 1915, a Labour Government came into power, and, even before the House met in July of that year, the new Government had actually appointed Commissioners to fix prices and prevent profiteering. From that date, and so long as the State laws controlled price-fixing, the price of commodities was at a lower level in that State than in any other State of the Commonwealth, but when the Hughes Government came into office in the Commonwealth, and issued regulations under the War Precautions Act, taking over the control of price-fixing, and the Queensland State law was over-ridden by Commonwealth legislation, there came about that rise of 40 per cent, in the price of commodities to which some honorable senators have drawn attention. 13173 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - The Queensland Government had control of fish and meat. 13173 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Queensland produces more meat and sugar than any other State does, and by arrangement with the Commonwealth, or otherwise, the Labour Government of Queensland was able to keep down the price of those two products to a much lower level than was reached by other necessaries of life. 13173 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - I referred to fish. The Queensland Government had nothing to do "with the fixing of the price of sugar. 13173 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - It was only after the Queensland Labour party had won the election in Queensland that the Commonwealth Government was in a position to arrange for the purchase of sugar. It was the legislation introduced by that party which gave the State Government the power to do it, and it was because of the three-cornered arrangement between the Commonwealth Parliament, the Queensland Parliament, and the sugar companies, that the price of sugar was kept so low. 13173 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - It was not because the Queensland Government had the right to fix the price of sugar; it was because they were mill-owners. 13173 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - The facts are that, by the agreement entered into be tween the Ryan Government and the Fisher Government, we were in a position to enter into an arrangement with the sugar companies, which, when they found that the control was in the hands of the Labour Government, entered very willingly into it. However, it was not until there was a Labour Government in Queensland that such an arrangement could be made. It was not until the High Court gave its decision in May, 1916, in the Bread case, that the Commonwealth Government were assured that they had the power to fix prices under the War Precautions Act. The decision of the Court was, in itself, a very questionable one. The Bench simply looked at the War Precautions Act, and said that if the Executive which was conducting the war considered that the fixing of the price of bread was essential for the carrying out of the war, then it had the power to fix the price of that article. Of course, prior to May, 1916, when that decision was given, the Commonwealth Government could have gone on fixing the price of everything, but when there was a test case pending it was only common sense not to complicate matters until a decision was given in that case. Senator Pratten will say, on behalf of the primary producers, that there is not much advantage to be gained by a policy of price-fixing. Within the last four months I have seen the hide of a draught horse sold at 10s. I do not know what its price would be when it reached the leather merchants. 13173 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - What is the value of the hide of a politician ? 13173 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I do not know that there is any market value for hides of that description, but if there were any value attached to the politician's hide, Senator Bakhap's life would not he worth a minute's purchase outside, because the hide-hunters would be after him ; his hide would certainly be worth having. " Let us see where price-fixing is effective. The Trust which manufactures Big Ben clocks regards it as effective. It issues a circular tff its wholesale customers, stating the price at which its clocks must be sold, and pointing out that if any firm sells them at a Tower figure, its supply will not be continued. 13173 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - Many proprietary companies do the same thing. 13174 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Then, if pricefixing is good for them, and can be carried out by them, surely, we can ask in this Constitution Alteration Bill for power to fix and control prices in the interests of the community. Nowadays, with the growth of combines, corporations, and monopolies, an increase of |d.' or Id. in the £1 in the price of any one commodity in every-day consumption means an enormous fortune to the particular combine controlling it. We hear people 6ay that the primary producer gets the increased price of meat. 13174 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - Not in Queensland. 13174 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I understand that there is an agreement between the Queensland Government and the American Beef Trust, into, which the Trust have .gladly entered, to supply the Government with beef at 3£d. per lb. 13174 JYR 0 0 FAIRBAIRN, George Senator Fairbairn - Not gladly. They were forced into it. 13174 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I do not say that the Meat Trust are philanthropists. As half the meat consumed in Australia is grown in Queensland, I understand that the meat companies gladly entered into the arrangement to sell the very small quantity required by the Queensland people, which is a mere bagatelle compared with the rest of their output, at 3 1/2 d. per lb., so long as the Queensland Labour Government would not interfere with their export trade, or trade with the other States. When I am looking for information, I generally go to an intelligent man in the trade about which I am making the inquiries. Consequently, when investigating the question of fixing the price of beef, I made my inquiries from a most intelligent butcher in Sydney. He assured me that from the time the beast is sold in the sale-yards until it is delivered to the retail shops for sale, there is an increase of 3d. per lb. in the cost of the carcass.' On an animal weighing 720 lbs., an increase of 3d. per lb. between the sale in the yards and the delivery to the retail shop means £9 per carcass for the cost of delivery. I am informed that the cost of killing and delivering a beast to the retail shops should be considerably less than jd. per lb. 13174 K3B 0 0 ROWELL, James Senator Colonel Rowell - Nonsense ! The abattoirs charges in South Australia are l|d. per lb. 13174 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Let us see whether the cost should be 1 1/2 d. per lb., even at the high -rate of wages slaughtermen are receiving. The industrial agreement under which they work in New South Wales provides that the minimum number of beasts each man must deal with in a day is fourteen. The slaughtermen are paid extra wages over and above that number. If the cost of killing is allowed to be. Id. per lb., seeing that the butcher gets £3 to cover the cost of killing a beast weighing 720 lbs., and that fourteen beasts are killed by each slaughterman each day, the consumer is charged £42 for the slaughtering of beasts for which the actual slaughterman is paid the wage of 36s. Honorable senators can clearly see that even if the charge for killing is fixed at one-twentieth of a penny per lb., the butcher is still earning considerably more than is actually paid for killing the beast; and even if we say that the other costs amount to 1/2 d. in the lb., that leaves 2£d. in the lb. in which a saving could be . made on beef out of the 3d. per lb. costs between the saleyard and the retail shops. We have read the evidence given by the Beef Combine, and we have seen how the Court has indicted members of it for perjury. We know that these companies fix prices at the highest figure they can drag from the people. Therefore, I heartily support the amendment. I rose chiefly on account of the attitude taken up by Senator Lynch, and to show that I was heartily in accord with Senator O'Loghlin in moving his amendment. Now that we have, the opportunity to do so, I hope that all honorable senators will support us in sending the Bill to a Select Committee, so that it may be amended in a way that will be creditable to the Parliament that is submitting it to the people. Sitting suspended from 12 (midnight) to 1 a.m. (Friday). 13174 01:00:00 KVD Tasmania 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY . - My reason for speaking at this early hour in the morning is the importance of the matter with which we are dealing. My attitude in .the past towards the special proposition embodied in this Bill has been of such a character that it is desirable that some explanation should be made. The proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the present Bill was submitted to the electors of the Commonwealth in, I think, April, 3911. A year prior to that the .people of Tasmania, in conjunction with those of the other States, had returned a Parliament which gave the Labour party a very substantial majority to administer the affairs of the Commonwealth. In the State of Tasmania a very substantial majority has returned Senator O'Keefe and his two colleagues, and the Liberal candidates were defeated. Twelve months later a proposal, similar to that in the Bill, was submitted to the electors of Tasmania and of the other .States by the party which had been returned to power. It is significant to note that a substantial vote was recorded in Tasmania- in Opposition to that proposal. That must not be forgotten, and it will not be forgotten by men like myself, who took a very active part in inducing the people to oppose the constitutional amendments proposed at that time. It is not a matter of wishing to be consistent, but of explaining to one's constituents the different circumstances of to-day compared with those of 1911. At the time of which I am speaking, those opposing the amendments were to those supporting them as three is to two, and such a majority in a small State like Tasmania, of approximately 9,000 electors, is very important. T am not going to say what the electors of Tasmania will now do in regard to this temporary proposal, but I am prepared to state, both for the information of the Government and of any one who .takes an interest in the matter, exactly what I think. It is quite within the powers of this. Parliament to introduce a Bill to temporarily amend the Constitution in the way proposed, notwithstanding what honorable senators opposite may say. The Constitution is only primarily amended by this Parliament; it is the people of Australia who do the real work. The electors either accept or reject an amendment of the Constitution. It is the people who are to be called upon to say whether, they are prepared to try an experiment for three years, or whether they will not do so. If they decide to make the experiments now proposed, they will be committing themselves for a term of three years, when the alterations will automatically cease to have effect unless in the meantime some permanent arrangement has been come to. If they do not desire to make the experiment, that is their own responsibility, and I cannot see why they should not be allowed to determine the question for themselves. What is the supposed justification for the amendment? Irrespective of party politics, there is the unanimous feeling that profiteering is in our midst. I do not wonder at honorable senators asking for a definition of "profiteer," as up to the present no proper definition has been given. Owing to the very high prices, it is easy for the public to believe that it is being robbed and that excessive profits are being made, not only in the principal cities, but in all the towns throughout the Commonwealth. I have made some inquiries, not only in regard to the business of which I may claim, after forty years' experience in the softgoods trade, to have some knowledge, but also in other directions. I have confined my inquiries particularly to the softgoods trade, and I do not intend offering an expression of opinion as an expert in regard to other trades, although I may be justified in so doing, as an ordinary business man. At present an inquiry is being conducted 'by a Royal Commission appointed by the Government of Victoria, and it is .not for me to disparage the methods adopted by that inquiry, although it is considered by many that the investigations are not being carried out by the right men. All investigations relating to commercial matters should, I think, be made by business experts. On the first day on which the Commission sat, one of the facts elicited from a Government expert was most interesting. He informed the Royal Commission that when eggs were scarce in the country they were dear in the city, and that when they were plentiful in the country they were cheap in the city. What a wonderful discovery ! All over the world articles are being sold at a higher price than- they were bringing five years ago. Could we expect anything else after five years of destruction such as the world has never witnessed before? Material of every description has been destroyed, and labour diverted from productive work to the manufacture of engines and weapons of destruction. Such a diversion of labour impoverished manufacturers, and resulted in a scarcity of material and labour required in the manufacture, not merely of the requisites necessary for comfort, but of those required for human existence. The world has been depleted of its stocks , of raw materials and of manufactured articles. Prices have risen to an alarming extent, and, perhaps, more in the softgoods trade than in any other business. 13176 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - The tailor is the profiteer. 13176 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - I have not time to go into the matter fully at this hour. I was, however, hoping to have the opportunity during the session of placing some very interesting facts before the Senate. I have travelled from one end of Flinders-lane to the other, and have inspected some of the balance-sheets of the firms I am acquainted with. It has been my privilege to discuss this matter with business men whom I trust and men who trust me. Speaking generally, profiteering always exists and will exist in the future; but in the softgoods trade in Melbourne, whether in Flinders-lane, Collins-street, Bourke-street, Collingwood, or Prahran, it is always kept reasonably well in hand by keen competition. There is no such thing as a Ring or a Combine in the softgoods trade, so far as I can ascertain, though some of the trade conditions are anomalous and interesting. It is not my intention to go into the question at great length, but I would like honorable senators to be acquainted with one or two facts that I have ascertained. The Commonwealth have established a fine woollen mill at Geelong, and whilst I have amongst my friends people who speak in derogatory terms concerning Government activities they are prepared to admit that the material turned out by that mill is remarkably good and well finished, and iS supplied at a very low price to the Government. That mill, however, has not to make a profit on its turnover, and it is not conducted by men who have to make their living out of the business. That material goe3 to another Government factory - which also is under the control of the Acting Minister for Defence - where it is manufactured into clothing. The establishment is well managed from beginning to end, and the whole business is carried on in a most satisfactory manner. The Commonwealth Clothing Factory is really a model establishment. Every machine is up-to-date; every operator is able to earn a first class wage. I was told that very few of the women operators earn less than £3 per week. Senator Bakhap and I went through the factory together, and we found that the Commonwealth, operating in this way and under these circumstances and conditions, is supplied with a suit of clothes, well made of woollen material, for 29s. 4d. No firms in Flinders-lane can supply clothes at that price, because they are unable to get the materials in England at within 50 per cent. of the price at which they are supplied to the Defence Department through its own factory and mills. 13176 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'loghlin - T - That is an argument for nationalizing the industry. 13176 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - It is an acknowledgment of success in that line. It would not pay any firm in Flinders-lane having an up to-date manufacturing plant to sell a suit at less than, approximately, 10s. more than the price at which the Defence Department is being supplied, because a private firm must show a profit for those who have invested their money in the business; otherwise it could not carry on. Another consideration is that the Government carries no bad stock. If a misfit occasionally happens the factory has only to call upon its customers to come along. The private manufacturer, on the other hand, must wait for its customers to come, and must take the chance of a colour going out of fashion or of a particular material which he has not got being in demand. Materials are being imported by Flinders-lane merchants from the northern part of England, chiefly Yorkshire and Lancashire, at a cost three times as high as the price at which the same materials were being sold here to their customers. I could exhibit a material which was sold within my own knowledge by a firm five years ago at 3s. 9d. per yard, and which to-day is priced at 9s. 6d. in Yorkshire. Very often the public think they know more than they actually do as to the cost and value of materials. I have stood behind the counter long enough to be told thousands of times by lady buyers what certain materials had cost me. I could only pity their ignorance. The wife of a legislator told me a little time ago that she had gone into a shop and bought material which had been on the shelf for three years, at three times the price she had paid for it before. Fancy a woman being able to identify a piece of material she had seen on a shop shelf three years earlier ! Still the public believe that profiteering is going' on, and they demand that the Legislature shall put a stop to it. No argument that I could advance on a Tasmanian platform or elsewhere would convince the people that they are not being fleeced to some extent. There is always some profiteering taking place. If you go into a man's shop and take up a certain piece of material you may find that he is making on that particular article what may seem a very big profit. But his trade is not confined to that piece of material; he has to sell all his materials, and if you would arrive at his real profit you must take the profit on the whole turnover. 13177 KNB ALP; NAT from 1917 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator GUTHRIE - That means that very often a man's pants have to pay for the loss on a woman's hat. 13177 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - More often the reverse is the case - a woman's hat has to pay for a man's pants. The hat is usually loaded with a very large profit, for it is a risky article to sell. You" may make a lot of money out of millinery, but you may just as easily lose a lot. Tha justification for this Bill is the fact that all over Australia the public are imbued with the idea that profiteering to an unlimited extent is taking place. Inquiry is being made into the conditions of trade and industry, but not by men who really know what they are doing. They have not sufficient knowledge of the wholesale and retail business. For instance, the Commissioners in Melbourne have recommended that the prices of boots shall be fixed. Has any honorable senator ever been in the sample room of a large boot factory, and noticed how many varieties of sizes, shapes, and colours are on view ? 13177 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - And shoddy leather. 13177 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - There is some shoddy leather, because there are always people who want it. There are people who always buy the lowest-priced article, and if one shop does not stock it they go to another that does. The permanent fixation of prices is practically impossible. I am reminded of the celebrated utterance by Abraham Lincoln, " You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time." Applying that to price fixing, I admit that it is possible sometimes to fix the prices of some things for a short time, but the fixing of prices of all tilings for all times is an absolute impossibility. 13177 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - Does not the honorable senator think that Flinders-lane fixes prices? 13177 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - Each warehouse fixes its own prices. There is as keen competition in softgoods in Flinders-lane, Bourke-street, Collins-street, Smith-street, and Chapel-street as there has ever been at any time in the history of Melbourne. That arises from the fact that the prices are high, and any man who can bring his prices a little below those of his competitors is very ready to do so. The idea of there being profiteering in softgoods is absurd when there are so many thousands of people competing in business as there are in Melbourne and Sydney. I find that reels of cotton which I used to retail at 1 1/2 d. each are now being sold, wholesale, without any profit, at 5s. 3d. per dozen. 13177 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - And every Flinders lane merchant quotes the same price for them. I refer particularly to Coates' cotton. 13177 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - Reel cottons are supplied by one big Combine in England. I am not arguing that there are no Combines in existence, or that there is no profiteering; but I declare that it does not exist in Melbourne in the particular trade -that I know to anything like the extent that is generally supposed. Profiteering is taking place in Great Britain, and it is very interesting. Most people think that the man who is selling is the profiteer. It is not to be expected of human nature that when a man has more customers than he can supply he will not raise his prices. What I have mentioned as having happened . in regard to eggs is happening in regard' to woollen materials. People in " the Lane" to-day are trying to place orders in Great Britain for materials, -and are receiving a cabled reply, " Try next year." At the Commonwealth Clothing Factory we found that orders for £20,000 worth of stuff had been declined because they could not be fulfilled. 13177 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - Let us get more machinery. 13177 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - I am speaking of, amongst other things, material for trimming, which could not be supplied for months. While the present state of things continues at Home, and while we have to import most of our textile fabrics from abroad, as we shall have to do for some years, the manufacturers can command whatever prices they like; and, as I have already stated, in some cases the price abroad to-day is three times higher than that at which the material was being sold in Melbourne to the ordinary trade. It is the general feeling amongst the community on the subject of profiteering which, exaggerated though it be, justifies us, first, in notifying the people of what every honorable senator knows to be correct, viz., that the Commonwealth Parliament is not to-day endowed with powers to determine prices; and, secondly, in asking the people to give us those powers for three years at most, and we shall exercise them. I believe that very little will result from the granting of these additional powers to the Commonwealth, but the public are demanding that this be done, and it is they who will have to pay. They must be satisfied with the failure or success which attends the operation of the new laws. I am afraid they will be characterized much more by failure than by success., Already the Tasmanian Parliament is considering a Bill to deal with necessary commodities, and before, the measure is half way through the Lower House the tone of doubt in the speeches of honorable members indicates that they have very little hope of its proving successful. Prices can never, be fixed until they can be prevented from falling. I am not disparaging the farmers of. Tasmania when I mention as an instance of profiteering that they are now, accepting from £23 to £25 for the potatoes that they are able to send to Sydney. Who is going to blame them if they take it, because in former years, when they have over-produced, they have had to accept as low as 25s. per ton, and at times the price was so low that they allowed the potatoes to rot in the ground. I am not going to commit myself to recommend these Bills to my constituents.- I intend to explain to the people, as clearly as I can, what I think will be their result. I know this will not be a popular thing to do, because if I address an audience of 400 or 500 people and try to explain that profiteering is not so pronounced as is generally believed, they will not accept my statements absolutely. This will not be a popular thing to do; but, in my opinion, it will be the right course to adopt. Quite recently a gentleman who has since become a prominent public man stated, without any evidence to support him, that Commonwealth serge costing 7s. 4d. is being retailed over the counter at 25s. a yard. There was not an atom of truth in it. No local serge was sold at that price. It is quite possible, that British serge was being sold at 27s. a yard, and it is possible also that it was not much better in quality than serge manufactured in Australia; but it is likely that those who were selling it at 27s. a yard could not sell it at a lower figure. It is surprising what prices are being obtained for textile goods in England, and I may remind honorable senators that British manufacturers do not want our orders. How are our people to live unless they get material t» sell? 13178 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - Make it ourselves. 13178 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - It will take a very long time to do that, because the range of materials obtainable in Australia is very limited, and a thousand and one fabrics are wanted by the community. I have often heard the question asked, " Why do we send so much of our wool Home?" We do that because it will be 200 or 300 years, at the present rate of progress, before we shall have a population large enough to utilize all the wool grown in Australia. It is a very good policy to urge that we should make up as much of the material as possible, but the man who thinks we can make every fabric required in Australia does not know much about the trade. It is impossible to do this. Take, as an illustration, the smallest garment one wears. For a vest, the material for the buttons comes from one place, the buttons are made in another, the linings in another, the- fabric itself elsewhere, and it is probable that the material for the woollen cloth is produced in half-a-dozen different places. 13178 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - And the Commonwealth Woollen Mills is doing everything in one establishment. 13178 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - Yes, with r«:gard to one particular class of material, a loosely woven tweed. I wonder if the honorable senator himself is .wearing an Australian suit. 13178 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - Yes, I am. 13179 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - I am. very glad to hear it. I am endeavouring to show that honorable senators on both sides are acting very inconsistently. My honorable friend Senator O'Keefe some years ago advocated the adoption of these particular measures. I do not know how his vote is going in regard to this Bill, but judging from the tone of his remarks- 13179 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - They are not the same measures. Surely you will not say they are. 13179 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - They may not be quite identical; but still there is nothing in this Bill that Senator O'Keefe did not recommend in 1911. 13179 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - I - I certainly would like to have an opportunity of recommending these Bills if they were the same as the measures in 1911. 13179 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - I do not want to cross swords with individual honorable senators in this matter, but I do think that my honorable friends opposite are showing a great deal of inconsistency, for they are opposing Bills which they so strongly advocated a few. years ago. 13179 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin - W - We want to restore them to the position they occupied then. 13179 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - Honorable senators have also complained of the limited time allowed for dealing with this most important matter, and yet the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) has introduced an amendment of an absolutely revolutionary character, and wants it dealt with in the same time. 13179 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - I do not. I do not mind sitting here until Christmas to deal with this matter. I am not in a hurry. 13179 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - So far as I am concerned, if I thought these proposals were the same as those introduced in 1911, I would oppose them very strongly again. 13179 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - A - And I would support them. 13179 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - And I will give the honorable senator credit by saying that I believe he would support them just as conscientiously as I would oppose them. But I remind honorable senators that one feature in the general policy of the Labour party is an acknowledgment of public opinion as' evinced at the ballot-box, and that these proposals were turned down in Tasmania by about 33,000 or 34,000 votes to 23,000 or 24,000. That should be a sufficient reason for my honorable friends not to endeavour to foist them on the people again. 13179 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - B - But you have said that they are different now, and that is why you are going to support them. 13179 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - I say that I am going to allow the Bills to pass, but I am not pledging myself to recommend the amendments of the Constitution. I intend to give my opinion as judicially as possible, regardless altogether of party considerations as to their probable effect. The people are clamouring for something to be done to stop profiteering, which they think exists, and these measures ask the people to give the Commonwealth Government power to deal with the profiteer. They are not obliged to accept the amendments if they do not want them. It is hard to prove charges of profiteering, because what is believed to be profiteering is sometimes really the result of a depletion of stocks of material owing to the war, and a serious dislocation in manufacturing industries. I hope we may now get to a division on the Bill. It has been said that these measures are . being rushed through. I am not partial to hasty legislation, but I think it is right that we should pay some respect to public opinion just now. I think also that it is expedient and in. the interests of Australia that an entirely new Parliament should set about the extremely difficult work that will have to be done during the next few years. We shall have to deal with a serious financial situation, and, I think, must be prepared, for increased taxation. 13179 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - T - The Government, with a majority in both Houses, ought to be doing that now. 13179 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - After the elections, honorable senators opposite may have an opportunity of dealing with this matter. 13179 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - And we will take full advantage of it. 13179 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - The action I am taking in regard to this Bill is, I believe, in the interests of Australia. The people of my State have a right to say whether they approve of these measures or prefer to be careful. Tasmania, associated, not geographically, but federally, with the larger and more important States, which have much more representation in the other branch of the Legislature, is justified all the time in being exceedingly cautious. My honorable friend, Senator Bakhap, was, no doubt, quite justified in his attitude towards the Bill. That is his lookout, not mine. I intend to allow both Bills to pass, and to explain the position to the people of Tasmania. 13180 01:45:00 K18 Tasmania 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP . - I shall not delay the Senate for more than a few seconds. With that part of the amendment which says that the present proposals are unsatisfactory, I cordially agree; but the amendment is so redundant, and proceeds to emphasize the necessity of amending the Constitution so substantially - a necessity which I do not acknowledge or concede - that I cannot consistently, notwithstanding my opposition to the measures before the Chamber, leap, so to speak, from the "frying pan into the fire." I must, therefore, oppose the amendment. Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out (Senator O'Loghlin's amendment) - put. The Senate divided. 5 21 Majority . . . . 16 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. 13180 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens - There being only one "No," the question is resolved in the affirmative. 13180 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - On a point of procedure, I wish to draw attention to the fact that section 128 of the Constitution provides - This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: - The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament. The motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders, if I may trust my memory sufficiently, is to the effect that so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as will enable the Bill to be passed through all its stages without delay. Therefore, Mr. President, I respectfully contend, and ask your ruling on the point, that as the Bill has to be passed through all its stages, the words " through all its stages " must be inferred and implied to exist after the word "passed." I claim, subject to your ruling, of course, that an absolute majority must be ascertained and declared on a division, and that a division is necessary in connexion with the motion that has just been put. I respectfully ask your ruling on the point. 13180 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens - The position that has been consistently maintained and upheld by Parliament, and, so far as I know, by all constitutional authorities, is that this Chamber is not the interpreter of the Constitution, and cannot be the interpreter of it, with regard to whether a Bill is or is not within the competence of Parliament, or as to whether this Parliament has power to pass legislation of any kind; but it is within the competence of this Parliament, and it is its duty to interpret the Constitution in so far as its procedure is laid down in the Constitution. The only provision in the Constitution which deals with Bills of the character now under discussion is that they must be passed by an absolute majority of the whole House. The passing of a Bill is its third reading. It has never been contended, so far as I know, that in the case of the first reading, the second reading or any amendment to the second reading, or on any clause in Committee, it is necessary to have an absolute majority. All that is necessary is that for the final passing of the Bill there shall be an absolute majority, otherwise it cannot pass in a constitutional sense. Therefore, if my ruling. is insisted on, I must rule that it is not necessary at each of the preliminary stages of the Bill to have an absolute majority, that being necessary only on the final passing. However, even if an absolute majority were required on the question now before us, there is far more than an absolute majority of the whole Senate present; and as there is only one dissentient voice, I declare that the second reading has been carried by more than an absolute majority. Bill read a second time. In Committee: Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 - Section 51 of the Constitution is altered by omitting from paragraph (i.) the words "with other countries, and among the States ", and by adding at the end of paragraph (i.) the words " Provided that the alteration of this paragraph, by Constitution Alteration (Legislative Powers) 1919 shall not be construed to empower the Parliament to make laws with respect to the control or management of railways the property of a State, or the rates or fares on such railways:". 13181 01:56:00 KKZ New South Wales 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I move - That all the words after the word " States ", line 3, be left out. If these words are struck out, this Bill will be identical with the measure which the Labour party introduced on various occasions. There are very good reasons why the words should be struck out, and an opportunity given to the managers and employees of the railways to having their industrial disputes settled by the Federal Arbitration Court. I know that some senators and others claim that the Commonwealth should not interfere with the State management of the railways; but I take it that this amendment does not interfere with the functions of the Governments of. the States. When the State Governments come out into the open and carry on an industrial concern, an appeal to arbitration in their case is, to my mind, quite on a level with an appeal in the case of a private employer. The reason I am so much in earnest on this matter is that, since the Bill was introduced, I have met a deputation representing the secretaries of all the Federal Unions of Australia. That deputation handed to me another amendment, which I shall move later on ; but if the amendment which I have now moved be carried, it will be an indication that this Parliament will insist on settling industrial disputes on the State railways by Federal arbitration, and it will prove an effective means of obviating such disturbances as have recently occurred in Great Britain. The railway employees in Australia are at present backed by all the organized unions of the country. I do not say that as a threat, but mention it as a fact within my knowledge. Further, I think that Parliament ought to put itself in line with the industrial organizations . of Australia, and before evil arises, do what Mr. Lloyd George and his Government have been compelled to do in Great Britain. When the trouble arose in Great Britain from one end to the other, the Government had to give way. The union representatives to whom I have referred waited also on Senator Russell, and put their proposals before him. They asked that they, in the course of their State employment, should be permitted to come under the same provisions in respect of arbitration as persons in private employ. They held that it was only their right that they should be able to appeal to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Although the various railways are within the sole control of the State Governments, it is an undoubted fact that a dispute involving a strike of railway men in any one State interferes with railway transit in neighbouring States. Victoria cuts railway communication between New South Wales and South Australia; South Australia divides rail communication between Victoria and Western Australia; New South Wales separates railway communication between Victoria and Queensland. I ask honorable senators to concede to the railway employees of the Commonwealth that which is ho more than their right. 13181 K3E Victoria NAT Vice-President of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL . - This Bill does not amount to a. proposal for the consideration of the merits or demerits of our Constitution. No such pretentious are made in its behalf. The Government has pledged itself to call together a Convention. That body will probably take months to properly consider the Constitution, and the necessity for amending it in various directions. At that Conference, not only may the case of the railway men be considered, but the interests as well of every industry within the Commonwealth.. Consideration so comprehensive is bound to take time, and it was with an idea of avoiding the necessity for having to give extensive consideration, when there was so little time available, that the Government decided to seek the amendment of the Constitution in the terms of the Bill before the Senate. Australia, like almost every other country in the world, is in a stage of transition following upon a time of war. Australia is going through her period of trial and turmoil. Two facts stand out prominently, namely, a condition of industrial unrest, and the necessity for dealing with profiteering. This measure is intended to grapple only with those two things. Greatly to our disappointment, it appears that the world will not settle down to normal conditions of industrial and commercial life as quickly as had been hoped. I am not prepared to accept any amendment of the Bill. 13182 JZ9 Tasmania 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE . - If any further arguments were required, in support of Senator Gardiner's amendment they are furnished by the remarks of the Minister. He claims that the reason, for urgency in dealing with this measure lies in the fact that there are two outstanding facts in the life of the people to-day. He holds that it is necessary to hastily pass legislation so that the Government may be ' given power to end profiteering and settle industrial unrest. There is just as great a possibility of industrial strife developing among the railway workers of the Commonwealth as among any other section of the industrial community. A railway dispute in. any one State may create chaos over the whole of Australia. The railway workers rightly feel that they are being unjustly treated in that they are excluded from such benefits as may be available through the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. I know that I am voicing the sentiments of nine-tenths of the railway workers in the State which I represent when I say that they desire to be placed within the scope of the Commonwealth Constitution. They do not wish to be at the mercy of any State Legislative Council, nominee or otherwise. 13182 02:10:00 JYF Tasmania 0 0 EARLE, John Senator EARLE . - I fully expected that some honorable senators opposite would move just such an amendment as Senator Gardiner has presented. I know that the railway employees desire to come, within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court; and with that desire I have a great deal of sympathy. Public employers, State or municipal, should set an example to private employers with regard to remuneration and treatment of employees generally. This Bill, and another which has been introduced, are practically the outcome of a Conference representing the whole of the States. It is reasonable to suppose that if the compact entered into at that Conference is honoured there will be unanimity of action when the referendum is submitted to the> people. Such unanimity should insure the indorsement of the people with respect to the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Some honorable senators profess to believe that serious commercial robbery is going on, and that there is danger of an outbreak of industrial strife which could not be dealt with under the Constitution to-day. They are now taking action, however in supporting Senator Gardiner's amendment, which, if they are successful, will almost certainly insure the defeat of the efforts of the Federal Government to ameliorate industrial conditions. If honorable senators insist upon the breaking of the compact agreed to at the Conference of State re*presentatives, they will be responsible for the possible rejection of the proposals to amend the Constitution. Thus the profiteers would, be left to pursue their activities unhindered by Federal authority, and industrial unrest might well develop into strife. 13182 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - You You spoke of a compact, but the Premier of Tasmania has wired to Tasmanian members here that he is opposed to certain things in this Bill. 13182 JYF 0 0 EARLE, John Senator EARLE - The Bill, when slightly amended, will, according to the legal Advisory Committee, give the Government only sufficient power to deal with profiteers, and to prevent, so_ far as they can, industrial trouble within a State, or, if they cannot prevent it, to end it. I can reasonably rely upon the1 Premier of Tasmania to support a measure which will give that power to the Commonwealth, because he, and I believe all the other Premiers, admit that, if that is the only power the Commonwealth wants, it has a right to it. If the Premier of Tasmania disagrees with that, then I disagree with him. _ . 13183 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - H - He will fight it. 13183 JYF 0 0 EARLE, John Senator EARLE - I do not think so. I have enough confidence in the intelligence of the electors to believe that these Bills will be carried by a substantial majority; but, if the amendments which are now sought to be made - I am not arguing against their merits - are included, we will lose what we have every reason to believe that we will otherwise get, and remain in the helpless position we have occupied so long. 13183 02:18:00 JXJ Western Australia 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM .- The very arguments adduced by the Minister and Senator Earle prove conclusively that Senator Gardiner's amendment should be carried. Senator Earle said that a Conference of representatives of the States had been held and had come to a certain determination. I question the quality of that representation. None of the railway workers of Australia was represented at the Conference, and none of the railway organizations was- consulted by the Premiers before they .came here and gave us this promise. It is false to say that a compact has been entered into when the very men affected were not consulted or represented at the Conference. Senator Earle expresses sympathy with the request of the railway men; but his sympathy is of no use unless the amendment is carried. There has been no compact, so far as those men are concerned. We now learn from Senator O'Keefe that the Premier of Tasmania is opposed to certain matters in the Bill, even after the compact has been entered into. I believe that Mr. Holman, Premier of New South Wales, is an even, greater man than Mr. Lee, and according to Mr. Holman's statements as published in the New South Wales press during the last few days, he is going back on the compact also. When these Bills go before the people, I believe they will find no stronger opponents than Mr. W. A. Holman, Premier of New South Wales, and Mr. Lee, Premier of Tasmania. Senator Russell stated candidly yesterday that he is in sympathy with the inclusion of the railway men; but both he and Senator Earle tell us that if we include them, we smash the Bill. We can take that statement for what it is worth. We wish to preserve industrial peace in Australia; but there is no better invitation for an industrial upheaval than the exclusion of the railway men from the benefits of the Bill. I have received a telegram from the general secretary of the Railway Association of Western Australia, asking me to do my best to see that the railway men are included. 13183 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin - I - I have the same from South Australia. 13183 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - I - I have learnt since I spoke that the same thing has come from Tasmania. 13183 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - Those statements support my argument. Surely the general secretary of the railway men 'of Western Australia knows what he is doing. He would not send that telegram without the consent of his executive, and the executive would not give their consent without the consent of their members. In the circumstances, I want, not Senator Earle's sympathy, but his practical assistance to carry the amendment. Senator Russell, if he were a free man', would be with us, because his sympathies are. with the railway men. 13183 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I did not pin myself down. I said I believed the amendment would be fatal to the measure. 13183 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - Are not the railway men to be considered as well as this alleged attempt to kill profiteering?1' I call it " alleged " because the Government will do nothing. Surely we want to preserve industrial peace. I have always striven for it. I have suggested to men on strike to go back to work, and to men about to strike not to strike. I am not here to make threats, but I say advisedly that the rejection of the amendment will be extending a deliberate invitation to' the railway men of Australia to plunge the Commonwealth into industrial strife. It only needs one State, or portion of one State, to take certain action, and we shall' have industrial chaos. The profiteer for the time will be out of the question, be cause transportation will be stopped at once. I hope this will not take place, and' I am not advocating it. I urge the Committee to accept the amendment, and bring us back exactly to where we were when we were a united Labour party seeking these powers- from the people. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) on i that occasion advocated the principle of this amendment. He said it was imperative that the railway men should be included in order that Australia might not be brought into the meshes of a great industrial dispute. 13184 JXV ALP; NAT from 1917 0 0 NEWLANDS, John Senator NEWLANDS - Did you not say, " To Timbuctoo with arbitration "? 13184 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I did say it in Perth, but that was on a different occasion, and I referred to quite a different Court. 13184 02:26:00 KPE Tasmania 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING . - I have an amendment to submit which should precede Senator Gardiner's amendment. 13184 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - I ask leave to withdraw my amendment temporarily. Amendment, by leave, temporarily withdrawn. 13184 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I move- That after the word " by ", line 1, the following words be inserted : " inserting after paragraph 1 - ' 1 (a) for the period of time provided in Constitution Alteration (Legislative Powers) 1919, trade and commerce. Provided that the insertion of this paragraph ' ". Then would follow the words of the proviso now appearing in the clause. It will be a much clearer and cleaner method of amendment if the new proposals are super-added to the existing provisions of section 51 of the Constitution, and their duration is clearly expressed in the amendment itself. The period of their duration will then be obvious, and at its conclusion they will automatically terminate. In addition, there will be no doubt as to our retaining our existing powers. Since I dealt with this matter on the second reading, I have had the benefit of a conversation with Sir Robert Garran, the Solicitor-General, who is one of the legal advisory Committee of the Government, in connexion with this Bill. 13184 JYF 0 0 EARLE, John Senator Earle - All you want is provided in clause 6. 13184 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I pointed out before that that was clumsy, and its effect very doubtful. Sir Robert Garran does not agree with me as to the necessity for taking the course I am now following, but a draftsman invariably adheres as long and as strongly as he can to his own form of drafting. One of the arguments he used in our discussion was that, if, for instance,"the 31st December, 1922," was put into my proposed provision in section 51, it would certainly mark the furthest limit of the duration of the amendment. He pointed out that under clause 6 of this measure the proposed alterations, if made in our Constitution, will remain in force - until the expiration of three years from the assent of the Governor-General thereto; or until a Convention constituted by the Commonwealth makes recommendations for an alteration to the Constitution, and the people indorse those recommendations, whichever first happens, and shall then cease to have effect. Sir Robert Garran argued that under the proposal which I have outlined I would be providing the maximum limit of time during which the amendments should operate. At that stage my idea was that we should inert before each of these amendments the words " for a period of time not extending beyond the 31st day of December, 1922." I now recognise that it would, perhaps, be better to provide the time limit that is contained in clause 6 of the Bill. It will then be manifest to everybody that the operation of the amendments is to be limited either to the three years provided in the Bill, or until the acceptance by' the people of amendments drafted by the proposed Convention. To my mind, it is eminently desirable that we should make that point clear, and also that the proposed amendments should be kept separate from the existing provisions of our Constitution. Then, when they cease to operate, we shall not lose one whit of the powers that we already possess. Sir Robert Garran said that he does not consider that the question of whether, when these amendments cease to operate, we should, ipso facto, revert to our present position, is arguable. That, however, does not settle the matter. The High Court might readily think that the question is not merely arguable, but that the position which I have suggested is quite tenable. Certainly, if we follow the course that I have indicated, the amendments will be kept quite distinct from the existing provisions of our Constitution. The fact that their duration is limited to a specific period will also appear upon their face. In addition,' there can then be no possible doubt that when these amendments disappear from our Constitution, we shall revert to our present position so far as our legislative powers are concerned. For these reasons, I have every confidence in submitting the amendment to the favorable consideration of honorable senators. 13185 02:35:00 K3E Victoria NAT Vice-President of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL . - I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment, because I am quite satisfied that Senator Keating is actuated by a genuine desire to improve the drafting of the Bill. But I have obtained competent legal advice in respect of this matter, and I am assured that there is no real principle involved in the amendment. I have full confidence in our professional draftsmen, and upon a constitutional measure such as this I do not feel justified in departing from their recommendations, especially when I am not too clear as to what would be the effect of the amendment. Consequently, I ask Senator Keating not to press his proposal. At the same time, I desire to express to him my thanks for the advice which he has tendered upon this matter. Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted (Senator Keating's amendment) - put. The Committee divided. 4 23 Majority ' . . . . 19 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Amendment (by Senator Gardiner) again proposed - That all the words after the word " States," line 3, be left out. Senator Lt.-Colonel O'LOGHLIN (South Australia) [2.44 a.m.]. - I intend to support the amendment of Senator Gardiner. Having failed to carry the broad proposal which I outlined upon the second-reading discussion of this measure - a proposal which I regard as furnishing the only satisfactory solution of this constitutional problem - I am now out to get as much as I can. Upon two previous occasions I supported the proposal which is now under consideration, and I am proud to say that South Australia not only indorsed it, but carried the whole of the proposals of the Labour party in regard to amendments of our Constitution. I am surprised at the attitude which has been adopted by Senator Earle, who seems to think that this Bill is to be submitted to the State Premiers and the State Legislatures for their approval. 13185 JYF 0 0 EARLE, John Senator Earle - I did not suggest anything of the kind, and the honorable senator did not understand me to do so. 13185 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'LOGHLIN - T - The honorable senator evidently thinks that the support of the State Premiers and State Legislatures is necessary to carry this Bill. 13185 JYF 0 0 EARLE, John Senator Earle - Judging from past experience, we require further assistance. Senator Lt.Colonel O'LOGHLINMay I point out to the honorable senator that half the State Premiers are opposed to this Bill, and that the States which they represent contain a majority of the population of the Commonwealth. But how often have we succeeded in carrying proposals in opposition to the State Premiers and the State Parliaments? Have honorable senators forgotten the referenda which were taken upon the question of conscription? Although we had all the State Premiers and Parliaments, with one exception, against us, we defeated the conscriptionists. It is the people, and not the State Legislatures, that have to decide this question, and the majority of the people of South Australia, at all events, are in favour of bringing State railway servants within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court. When speaking on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, I pointed out that a provision of this kind had already been carried at the instance of the most Conservative Government that ever held office in the Commonwealth, and that it was only because of a decision of the High Court that it was necessary to re-enact it. The excuse made by Senator Lynch that, because the Labour party on a previous occasion entered into a compact with the State Premiers - a compact that was violated by aE the State Legislatures with one exception - he and others who formerly belonged to the party are justified in supporting a similar procedure on this occasion, is a most flimsy one. I had nothing whatever to do with the making of that compact. I was not in the Commonwealth at the time. When I left here, in 1915, the Labour party's referendum proposals, including that providing for State railway servants being brought within the jurisdiction of the Federal Arbitration Court, had been carried in their entirety by this Parliament. I was much surprised to learn in Egypt, some few weeks later, that they had been dropped, and that a compact had been made with the State Premiers. 13186 K8L NAT 0 0 THOMAS, Josiah Senator THOMAS - No doubt, had the honorable senator been here, he would have opposed it. We always regarded him as one of the most radical members of the Labour party ! 13186 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'LOGHLIN - I - I have always been a radical Democrat. I supported the most radical party in the State Parliament before the Labour party came into existence. 13186 K8L NAT 0 0 THOMAS, Josiah Senator THOMAS - In the old days, the honorable senator was looked upon as one of the most radical members of the Labour party. Senator Lt.-Colonel O'LOGHLIN do not know, nor do I care, how the honorable senator regarded me. My record as a public man extends over thirty years, and I am not ashamed of it. I may say that, had I been in Australia at the time, I would have opposed the compact in question, because my experience of the Legislative Councils of the States - and I was a member of the South Australian Legislative Council for some fourteen years - would have led me to recognise that it was hopeless to expect them to agree to such a scheme. I shall cordially support the amendment proposed by Senator Gardiner, and I hope those honorable senators who have strenuously supported the principle in the past will not go back upon it. If they do pot, we shall carry the amendment. I object to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court being spoken of in this connexion as a purely Federal tribunal. It is an independent tribunal, to be considered apart altogether from its Federal association. It is said that we should not allow a Federal Court to fix the wages and conditions of labour to be observed in the State railway services, since the State Governments would have to bear the cost of carrying out such awards. That, however, is the position of every private individual to-day. 13186 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - But not of the States. Senator Lt.-Colonel O'LOGHLIN.Yes, the State Governments have to observe awards made by Arbitration Courts, and I fail to understand why the State railway services should be placed in a position different from that of private employers and companies. If it is fair to compel private employers to observe awards made by the Court, it is reasonable to require the States, as employers, to do so. I hope that honorable senators will remain true to their principles. I have only to say, in conclusion, that I received last night a telegram from a large railway association in South Australia urging that the provisions of this Bill should be extended to State railway servants. 13186 02:52:00 K18 Tasmania 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP . - I should like to test the knowledge of railway matters in Australia possessed by those honorable senators who so glibly urge the application of this Federal panacea for all industrial ills. What, for instance, do they know of recent railway happenings in Tasmania? Are they aware that in that island State, whose railways by no physical possibility can have any connexion with those of the mainland, the Legislature, including, of course, the poor derided Legislative Council, a few months ago instituted a classification scheme in respect of the State railway servants, and voted £45,000 to make that scheme effective? 13186 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - And made it retrospective. 13186 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - Quite so. It was competent to do that much for its own railway servants, and it certainly should not have that service brought under Federal control. Tasmania has a different railway gauge from that of the mainland railway systems, and has' no relation whatever to the mainland railway services. 13186 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - T - The honorable senator's knowledge of railway matters is at fault. The Western Australian railway gauge, and that of Queensland, is the same as that of Tasmania.. 13187 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - The Tasmanian railway gauge is certainly different from that of the nearest State. Will the honorable senator deny that some 125 miles of bold sea water flows between Tasmania and the mainland ? What is the matter with honorable senators when they will insist upon this constitutional orgy in the hope of placating the industrials of the Commonwealth ? The Federal Government had complete jurisdiction over the seamen's dispute which took place a few weeks ago; but could it bring the seamen into the Arbitration Court? No; the men struck rather than go to the Court. 13187 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - But the State railway servants wish to appeal to the Federal Court. 13187 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - Were not the representatives of the seamen, only a few years ago clamouring for the establishment of a Federal Arbitration Court, and urging that the principle of arbitration should rule generally throughout Australia ? Where were those men when we were held up by the seamen a few weeks ago? Where were the Commonwealth Government ? They were quaking in their shoes, afraid to apply anything like decent community force to that strike. Will honorable senators say that the conferring of additional power upon a Government represented by the spineless individuals who handled that strike is going to better Australia's industrial life? As I nave already instanced, it was not until Tasmanian soldiers practically instigated the representatives of that State in this Parliament to go in a body to the then Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) that any action was taken by the Government. When it was found that there would be practically a legislative rebellion in the ranks of the Nationalists unless' something was done, the Government was at last roused, and, before the exhibition of a little firmness, the difficulties disappeared in an instant. 13187 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Is that not a rather hot statement to make ? I am not spineless. 13187 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - It is the truth, and the truth may be hot. 13187 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I strongly object to any honorable senator describing me as a spineless individual. I think the honorable senator ought to withdraw that remark. 13187 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - I alluded to the Ministry collectively. It has a collective and corporate capacity, and I maintain that it acted in regard to the seamen's strike in a spineless manner. 13187 10000 0 0 SHANNON, John The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon -Order ! The Minister has objected to the remark made by the honorable senator, and has asked that it be withdrawn. 13187 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Let it go. 13187 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner -Iriseto a point of order. When an honorable senator takes exception to a statement as being objectionable to him, the rule of the Senate is that it shall be withdrawn. 13187 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - On the point of order, sir, I would remind you that last night I drew the attention of the President to a very objectionable statement to which two honorable senators took exception, but it was not ruled out of order. 13187 10000 0 0 CHAIRMAN, The The CHAIRMAN - If the Minister takes exception to the statement, the honorable senator must withdraw it. 13187 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - But does he take exception to it? He knows that I made no personal reflection. I maintain that I am at liberty to make any reflection of a political nature in regard to a lack of executive competency on the part of the Administration. 13187 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator Keating - The honorable, senator was referring to the Ministry's composite spine. 13187 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - I was. During the war the Government was vested with complete control over industrial and all other matters in the Commonwealth ; but what power of compulsion had it in regard to a few hundred recalcitrant seamen ? The portals of the Arbitration Court were open for the determination of that dispute, which was admittedly of an interState character. The seamen, however, would not enter the Court, and powers of persuasion that were independent of any legislative enactment had to be exercised. Yet we are told by way of excuse for this attack on the Constitution that it is desirable to rope in every feature of Australia's industrial life so that the Ministry, which could not induce a few hundred seamen to go into the Arbitration Court, will be able to extend the beneficent principles of arbitration to people who really do not wish to have anything to do with it, except in so far as it may be a temporary expedient to secure to them some passing advantage. The Tasmanian Government have exhibited full competency to deal with their own railway problems, and I do not intend for a moment to give countenance or support to the amendment proposed by Senator Gardiner. I am not going to take up the attitude of delaying the progress of this measure beyond exercising my full right to criticise amendments in the ordinary fashion, or to move amendments that have been suggested to me by the Administration of the State I have the honour to help in representing here. Senator O'Keefe was quite right in suggesting that the Premier of Tasmania, representing his Government, is more concerned to add to the exemptions from the provisions of this Bill than to consent to their application to a fresh instrumentality. I purpose moving an amendment later to exclude from the operation of this measure, not only the State railways, but any State enterprise. It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to repeat that my vote shall be given in a spirit of decided antagonism to the amendment submitted by Senator Gardiner. 13188 KRZ Western Australia 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH . - Having heard Senator Bakhap, we can realize that he is the most consistent opponent of the measure before the Committee. He would not have it, in the first instance, root or branch. He is against it now, horse, foot, and artillery. I wish to direct attention to the attempt now being made to saddle the Bill with a provision which can only result in the defeat of the measure when it reaches the electors. The speech just delivered by Senator Bakhap gives a fair indication of the feeling that will be aroused in the country when the electors are asked to vote upon these proposals if the amendment moved by Senator Gardiner is carried. Here we have a proposal to include the railway servants, who, as Senator O'Loghlin has correctly said, were specially excluded from the compact that was arrived at four years ago. I am at a loss to understand why the dropping of the railway bundle could be justified in 1915 and cannot be justified now. The railway men had no more grievances to rectify four years ago than they have to-day. If they had grievances, then they have not diminished as the years have rolled by. When Senator O'Loghlin and other honorable senators opposite now try to saddle this measure with provisions which, if accepted, could have* only the one baneful result of killing it, I am inclined to. question their sincerity in voting for the second reading. We know how a performance can be damned by faint praise, and we know that a Bill can be killed by including in it provisions which may render its salient and substantial features nugatory. I find in the amendment a confession on the part of honorable senators opposite either of political faith or political imbecility with regard to arbitration as a principle. We have seen railway systems in this country involved in no end of turmoil because the railway men themselves would not accept arbitration. In the parent State of New South Wales, when the railway men had a grievance, real or imaginary, did they resort to arbitration? The portals of the Courts of the country were open to them; but did they avail themselves of the means of settling their dispute that is so loudly clamoured for to-night? Did the railway men of Queensland quite lately, and under a Labour Government, resort to arbitration for the purpose of settling their disputes? We know that they did not. They successfully resorted to the use of a power which the railway men and State servants can always resort to. They can use the political lever to rectify their grievances whenever they have real grievances. All this profession of a desire to throw the shield of protection over the railway men of the country goes by the board in view of our recollection that, in the recent past, when the railway men in more than one State had the opportunity of going to the Arbitration Court, they neglected that opportunity. I am speaking quite plainly on this matter. I do not like circumlocution, and never did like it. I have always held that I have been given a tongue, and the power of expression to state the thoughts of my own mind, and not those of some one else. When I see this newfound devotion to the principle of arbitration amongst members of a party who could have done a lot more than they did in the immediate past, when they had the chance, and know that the application of their new found devotion would result in the killing of this Bill which might be used to remedy the evils of the country. I am inclined to question their sincerity in voting for the second reading. With regard to the railway men and State servants generally, I will repeat what I have said before. I do not care a brass farthing whether what I say is mutilated and twisted as it has been in the past. I repeat that the State servants of this country have an infinitely better chance of having every just grievance rectified by an appeal to a sympathetic public and Parliament than have any private employees. Every member of the Senate is a potential employer of labour to-day, or the steward of . the public in seeing that justice is dealt out to the employees of the State wherever they are found. The employees of private persons are in a vastly different position. They have to resort to many devious and expensive methods to remedy their grievances. Any intelligent or fair-minded State employee will admit, as he must admit, that he always has Parliament to appeal to, and that if he has a hardship, however small, it will find an echo in this or in some other Parliament. That being the case, Parliament is his Court of Arbitration. Why cannot we speak fairly and squarely on this matter? My words will no doubt be quoted against me and twisted and turned and distorted by the Labour official press, as they have been in the past; but my troubles about that! I do not care for the elector' flavour, if that in turn depends upon how I stifle my inmost feelings on any given public matter. I have a head on my shoulders and two hands with which I can still earn a livelihood. If the electors do not vote for me, they can do the other thing. I do not cower and shiver before them. The obligation to find a man worthy of their suffrages is just as great upon the electors a3 is the obligation on the part of the chosen man to go to Parliament, and there to faithfully honour his trust. If any section of them think they are conferring an obligation upon me, or "making" one, as is sometimes said, the boot is on the other foot, let me tell them in turn that perhaps the obligation is on the other side, and they might not find another man like me to represent them. That is the way to talk. We have had placarded from Cape Yorke to the Leeuwin and from the Barrier Reef to the Abrolhos, on the western coast, the one word, " profiteer." There is everything in the cry about the profiteer; but if there is 50 per cent, of genuine warrant for that cry, those who have made the country reverberate with it should not throw any obstacle in the way of an immediate remedy for the evil of profiteering. Yet they are .throwing the biggest obstacle they can find in the way of the successful carrying out of this proposal/ Did my honorable friends opposite study, in 1915, the welfare of the railway men when they dropped the railway men's case for the sake of expediency ? That was considered necessary then, in order that the major portion of the powers asked for might be secured. For the same reason - in order that the major portion of what we are aiming at now may be secured - a similar course may now well be adopted. I am glad that this discussion has arisen, because it has offered the members of the Official Labour party in this chamber an opportunity to display a newfound faith and respect for the principle of arbitration which, up to the present, they have not manifested. I am here to declare for arbitration. I have always done so. Men who have been through the mill and know what arbitration has done to lift the worker from a lowly position know how to estimate its value. We see men who have come in later times scorn and deride the principle of arbitration, but we men of the old brigade, who have gone through the ordeal and know how we were treated by the competitive system, can respect that principle. We see men in this Parliament keeping their tongues in their cheeks when they should speak out and say to people outside, "You are killing your best friend. You are destroying the agency established for you after enormous sacrifices in this country. Do not do it. If you do, you will be standing in your own light." They do not talk in that way; but we have. I am pleased to think that honorable senators opposite have renewed their submerged faith in arbitration, although, at the same time, let me say that arbitration as a means of settling railway disputes has not been proved effective by instances which I have quoted from the recent past. I ask honorable senators opposite to allow this Bill to pass, if only in the interests of the railway men themselves, and . not to throw obstacles in its way by proposing provisions which, if accepted, would certainly result in arousing opposition to the measure on the part of the electors, and so, instead of getting the bone we should not get even the shadow. I appeal to honorable senators opposite to show their sincerity in voting for the second reading by receding from the false position they have since taken up. 13190 03:15:00 KKZ New South Wales 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER . - Immediately this Bill was introduced in another place, a deputation waited on me representing 200,000 organized unionists. They informed me that they were anxious for the maintenance of arbitration, and put before me particularly the position of the railway men, who sought to be given the opportunity of securing arbitration under Commonwealth laws. They asked me to move the following amendment: - To add at the end of clause 4 - " h. Conciliation and arbitration for the, prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, including terms and conditions of service or employment in any trade, industry, occupation, or calling, including service or employment in any State or instrumentality of any State.'' This amendment, which I have not altered in any way, and which I shall move if my present proposal is defeated, fully describes what the unionists require, and is complete answer, if answer be necessary, to men of the type of Senator Lynch, who claim that these men have discarded arbitration. Let us consider the matter calmly. It is regrettable that in late years Senator Lynch and I seem to be able to inflame ourselves against each other. The honorable senator seems to indicate that some of us have been outside the pale of those who seek to give the railway employees the right of having their grievances redressed by a Commonwealth Arbitration Court, quite overlooking the conditions under which Mr. Hughes agreed to drop his proposals in 1915. Those conditions were that the State Parliaments would give the Commonwealth Parliament the necessary power to deal with these matters. Mr. Holman, the Premier of New South Wales, kept to the letter of the agreement, and passed the necessary legislation through both Houses of Parliament. 13190 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - The necessary legislation also passed the Lower Houses of Tasmania and Queensland. 13190 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I know that Senator Earle, who was Premier of Tasmania at the time, got a Bill through the Legislative Assembly, but, so far as I could learn, he did not make avery strong effort to get it through the Upper House. 13190 JYF 0 0 EARLE, John Senator Earle - I made the effort. 13190 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER -But as a Minister of the Commonwealth Government at the time, I felt that the honorable senator's effort was a very poor one for a Labour man. The amendment which I have read represents the opinions of 200,000 organized unionists. Surely their support for this Bill is worth having ! I do not say that the non-inclusion of their proposals means that their votes will not go for the Bills as they stand, but it is just as well to balance the voting capacity of these unions against the support of the State Premiers. Honorable senators have received telegrams from the railway unions of every State asking for the inclusion of railway employees in these proposals. In the past, there have been two powerful conflicting parties in the unions, those who advocate direct action, and those who favour parliamentary action. I realize that the workers themselves have a keener knowledge of their industrial conditions than I possess, but when it came to a question of direct action or parliamentary action, I have never failed to advise them to stick to parliamentary action, when I have had to depend on their support. Unlike Senator Lynch, I cannot say that I do not care for their votes. I want their votes., not only for myself, but for the party with which I am associated. I do not go round trailing my coat on the ground asking some one to tread on it. I ask for the favour of their votes so that in the near future this party may be able to give them that for which they are asking, the opportunity to put . their case before a Conciliation and Arbitration Court. 13190 03:22:00 KPE Tasmania 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING . - Reference has been made to telegrams received from different States. Last week a telegram reached me from Tasmania. It was probably on al] fours with the telegrams received by others from other States, but it was addressed to the members for Tasmania, care of myself. 13190 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I received ten telegrams, all of which were fairly uniform. 13190 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - It came from the representatives of railway organizations in Tasmania, and I passed it on to my colleagues from Tasmania in this Chamber, and took it to another place, where I found that a similar message had been received by a Tasmanian member. Senator O'Keefe happened to be engaged in business elsewhere at the time, and I could not show the message to him, but I informed him of it to-night. Had the message been received by mail, I would probably have had copies of it struck off, and given to other honorable senators, but as it was handed to me when I was in the chamber,I immediately passed it round. My position in regard to Senator Gardiner's proposal I can sum up very concisely. The proposals contained in the Bill are the outcome of a special arrangement made on a special occasion, and for a specific purpose, namely, to enable the Commonwealth Parliament to deal with the question of profiteering; and I intend to support a measure which is confined as far as possible in its terms to that purpose. I have always advocated that any, amendments of the Constitution should be considered by a Convention. Provision is made in this measure for a Convention. I recognise that the amendments contained in the Bill are temporary proposals put forward for a specific purpose, and, as I have already said, it is desirable to limit ourselves in connexion with them to the occasion in every respect. The more compact the proposals are the greater chance we shall have of getting them accepted. ' If honorable 'senators are anxious to get at the profiteer with tooth and claw as soon as possible, I advise them to confine the provisions of the Bill to amendments that will meet the present necessity. Any attempt to overload the Bill may put us in the position of the fabled boy who put his hand into a vessel to take out some nuts, but instead of satisfying himself by taking out a quantity that would enable him to extract his closed fist, sought to grasp all he could, with the result that he so swelled his fist that he was unable to withdraw it at all. Let us not attempt to grab too much. Let us make sure of what we desire. The Convention is to meet very shortly, and its scope will not be limited. It will deal with the Constitution in a broader and more general way, and I am quite content to leave it to deal with all necessary amendments of the Constitution. 13191 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin .-This ame amendment would secure 200,000 additional supporters for the proposals. 13191 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - Does the honorable senator say that those 200,000 unionists will not vote for this. Bill? Senator Gardiner did not say so. While he thought that the passage of the amendment would insure the support of the 200,000 organized unionists, he was candid enough to admit that if the extended scope which his amendment seeks were not given to the Bill they would not necessarily oppose the acceptance of the measure. 13191 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - It would be absurd for me to try to speak for such a large body by saying what they would do, but I can claim that they would be very enthusiastic supporters of my amendment. 13191 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - That is what I. understood the honorable senator to say. When we are dealing temporarily with an amendment of the Constitution for a specific purpose, we would be well advised not to overload the measure if we want to secure what we are aiming at. I think we can safely trust an elected Convention hereafter to deal with the Constitution generally on the broadest and most comprehensive lines. 13191 03:28:00 JZ9 Tasmania 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE . - Senator Keating is emphatic on the point that this measure is designed for one purpose only, and that is to prevent: what is known as profiteering, while Senator Russell is equally emphatic in saying that it has two purposes, to prevent not only profiteering, but also industrial unrest. 13191 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - The two matters are related. 13191 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - E - Exactly. I agree with what Senator Fairbairn said recently, that all the industrial unrest in this country is due to the enormous increase in the cost of living. Senator Keating asks the Senate to reject the' amendment because it might jeopardize the acceptance of the Bill by the people, and prevent us from taking early steps to stop profiteering. Votes have been mentioned, but a more important principle is involved. Is it just to exclude from the Federal Arbitration Court such an enormous body of industrial workers as our railway men? Honorable senators cannot by fair argument justify their attitude in excluding the railway workers from the provisions of this Bill. The arguments in favour of Senator Gardiner's amendment are unanswerable, from whatever point of view it may be considered, and I hope that, even at this hour, honorable senators will realize that it will be only an act of justice to support it. Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Gardiner's amendment) - put.The Committee divided. 6 20 Majority . . . . 14 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the. negative. Amendment negatived. 13192 03:37:00 K18 Tasmania 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP . - It is my intention to move an amendment to clause 2. I wish to make it quite clear that I consider, in a crisis such as this, when amendments so seriously subversive of the principles of the Federal Constitution are being proposed, that it is right for an honorable senator to render all the assistance he possibly can to realize the intentions and objectives of Ministers exercising executive control in . a State which he helps to represent in this Chamber. Senator Keating and Senator O'Keefe have referred to the fact that the Premier of Tasmania on the 8th October sent a telegram which was received by Senator Keating on that day, copies of which were distributed among the Tasmanian senators in this Chamber. Whatever arrangements were made between the State Premiers and the Prime Minister, it is clear that at least one Minister was not satisfied with the measure as introduced here. 13192 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator Keating - The Bill was not before the Premiers when they were in Melbourne. 13192 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - No ; but this telegram contains evidence to show that they were well acquainted with the provisions of the Bill. 13192 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I understand that the measure was before all the Ministers with the exception of Mr. Holman, who left for Sydney on the Friday. 13192 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator Keating - This measure? 13192 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Yes, with the exception of the proposals suggested by the Committee of Inquiry. 13192 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - Whatever the circumstances may be, it is clear that the Premier of Tasmania desires to substantially amend clause 2. 13192 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator Keating - Not merely the Premier, but the Government of Tasmania. 13192 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - The Premier is the representative of the Government. I have not any hesitation in coming to the conclusion that this is a wellconsidered telegram, and that a good deal of collective thought was given to it by Ministers before the final phraseology was adopted. 13192 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator Lynch - What does the telegram say? 13192 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - It reads- Launceston, Tasmania. Following wire sent to Prime Minister representing views of State Government : - Re Constitution Amendments, State Government have fully considered same, are agreeable (1) support section 5 of first Bill giving Commonwealth power to deal with Trusts, combinations, monopolies : (2) support in second Bill power Commonwealth take over declared monopolies; (3) would support granting of such power necessary to enable Commonwealth to regulate profits or fix prices throughout Australia. Be other powers asked for dealing with trade and commerce corporations and industrial disputes, State Government of opinion much wider than necessary to secure object sought. Would urge these be omitted from Bills and submit same to Convention in 1920. Finish would strongly urge you confer Tasmanian representatives to obtain in Bill to alter section 51 of Constitution, clause 2, in addition to railways to include State hydro-electric power undertaking, and, if possible, all State enterprises. Lee, Premier. I am not in accord with the views expressed by the Premiers in connexion with their willingness to give power to enable the Commonwealth Government to regulate prices throughout Australia. The views_of the Tasmanian. Government, as expressed in this telegram, and those of the Tasmanian Minister are views to which I do not subscribe. However, I think it is my duty, as a representative of the State of Tasmania, to place the views of the Tasmanian Cabinet before the Senate without committing myself to support the measure, even if the Committee decide to include the amendment I will later move. I repeat that I think it is my duty in a crisis such as this to do something in the direction indicated by the Tasmanian Cabinet; but the ultimate responsibility will certainly rest with them. I am going to attempt to realize the objective of the Cabinet in regard to the excision from clause 2 of all State enterprises. Railways are exempt from the provisions of clause 2, and if they are exempt, why not other enterprises established with State capital and run under State auspices? Is anybody prepared to contravene that logic?. If it is right and proper to exclude railways, which are State enterprises, it is equally right and proper to exclude all State enterprises. The hydro-electric enterprise in Tasmania is one of which Senator Earle must have considerable knowledge. The undertaking was initiated by a private company, but it is now the property of the Tasmanian Government, and will have a marked effect upon the industrial well-being of the State of Tasmania, as also the Mount Reid and Rosebery mines on the west coast of Tasmania. It is the expressed intention of the Tasmanian Government to inaugurate another hydroelectric scheme of mammoth proportions. If that is so, I think the desire of the Tasmania Administration is to exclude from the provisions of this measure such enterprises as I have indicated, and the intention is a laudable one. I shall assist the Tasmanian Ministers to realize an objective which is dear to them, and which seems to me the most important of those outlined' in this telegram, without committing myself to any support of the measure, even if it be amended by the Committee in the direction desired by Premier Lee and those associated with him. All the arguments which apply to the exclusion of State railways, one of the most important of State enterprises, equally apply with full logical force to the exclusion of any other form of State enterprise, and, without attempting to be obstructive by discussing the matter at any length, I content myself with moving my amendment, relying fully upon the logic of the case and the imperative necessity for not conferring power on a central Administration to interfere in State enterprises of a particularly local character. I move - That the following words be added at the end of the clause : - !< or laws for the control of any enterprise established by a State." 13193 03:47:00 K3E Victoria NAT Vice-President of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL . - I ask Senator Bakhap not to press his amendment, because, so far as I know, it represents an application from only one State, and relates only to one or two particular enterprises. I do not think the honorable senator need have any fear of what the Commonwealth Government may attempt to do. They have done all that was possible to encourage the development of Tasmania by means of the hydro-electric works. 13193 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Why are all State enterprises exempted in the Bill relating to the nationalization of monopolies? 13193 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - Because the State Premiers in conference asked that' that should be done. Senator Keating asked whether the State Premiers saw these Bills for the alteration of the Constitution. I know that the State Premiers asked the Prime' Minister to put before them in black and white what he desired, and I am of opinion that when they reassembled on the 'Saturday morning they saw typed copies of the Bills which I know were available at that time. The State Premiers in conference did not make the special request that has been made by the Premier of Tasmania. The Commonwealth did not desire to make the exemptions which have been provided for, but they were granted because the representatives of the States pressed for them, and .because the Commonwealth Government desired to secure unity for the general purpose we had in view. 13193 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - What argument does the Minister advance for Commonwealth control of State enterprises of a purely local character? 13193 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - The argument that was applied by Senator Bakhap to the hydro-electric works might be applied with equal logic to the State Brickworks in New South Wales. The Bill before the Committee does no more than empower this Parliament to legislate in respect of trade and commerce. The Commonwealth certainly ought to have power to deal with a matter of such importance to Australia as the Murray waters scheme. If the Tasmanian Government should decide to enter into a partnership with the Electrolytic Zinc Company - and I wish the Tasmanian people good luck in the larger developments that they anticipate - they might as well come along and ask for an exemption of the electrolytic works on the ground that they were a State enterprise. 13194 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - If the honorable senator wishes them good-luck, for God's sake do not meddle with them. 13194 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL -We are not meddling with them. But I hope that all Australia will be subject to uniform trade and commerce laws. Such an able man as Sir William Irvine, although, to my mind, he is a great Conservative, has stated quite clearly that we cannot make artificial distinctions in regard to the trade and commerce of the country. We can exempt certain special functions as we propose to exempt the railways. But the railways are different from ordinary trading concerns, inasmuch as the States have big financial interests bound up in them, and the earnings represent, in most States, more than one-third of the total revenue. That is the sole reason for the apprehension of. the States in regard to Commonwealth interference with their railways. The railways are not an. ordinary State trading enterprise; they represent the investment of a considerable amount of State capital, and are a big source of revenue. 13194 03:52:00 KPE Tasmania 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING . - One matter to which reference has not been made is that if the trade and commerce power is extended after the Constitution has been amended in the way provided for in clause 2, without such an amendment as that now before the Committee, it would be competent for the Commonwealth Parliament to pass laws for regulating, for instance, the prices to be charged by the State Government of Tasmania for current supplied from its hydro-electric works and the conditions of employment in connexion with those works. In asking for extended powers for a temporary period and for a specific purpose, for goodness' sake let us confine ourselves to the necessities of the occasion. Why seek these wider powers? Why not agree to the amendment proposedby Senator Bakhap? It is on all-fours with the provision relating to the railway services of the States. It does not specifically exempt the operations of a certain State industry in a particular State. Its terms are broad and general, and apply to all State enterprises, no matter where they are situated. As it is not necessary for the Commonwealth to have jurisdiction over those enterprises for the temporary period for which this Bill will operate, and as it is not necessary for us, for the purposes of this measure, to exercise such powers, we might very well specifically except such State functions from the operation of the amendment, just as we except the railway systems of the several States. Question - That the words proposed to be added be added (Senator Bakhap's amendment) - put. The Committee divided. 3 22 Majority . . . . 19 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 3 - Section 51 of the Constitution is altered by omitting from paragraph (xx) the words " Foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth : " and inserting in their stead the words - " Corporations, including - the creation, dissolution, regulation, and control of corporations;" corporations formed under the law of a State . . . hut not including . . . any corporation formed solely for religious, charitable, scientific, or artistic purposes .... Senator RUSSELL (Victoria- Vice- President of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence) [3.58 a.m.]. - I move - That paragraph a be left out. As was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) in another place, the State Premiers, after hearing from him a statement of what powers he wanted to enable the industrial unrest and profiteering to be dealt with, expressed the opinion that the Commonwealth was asking for wider powers than were necessary. To meet that objection, the Prime Minister promised, on behalf of the Government, that fie would be quite prepared to permit three experts to consider the question, and if they unanimously decided that the power asked for was wider than was required for the specific purposes for which it was sought, he would abide by their decision. The three gentlemen appointed were Sir Robert Garran, Professor Harrison Moore, and Professor Jethro Brown, who are all well known in the Australian legal world. The committee came to the conclusion that paragraph a was not necessary, and its deletion will prevent the creation by the Commonwealth of any corporation; but power for the dissolution, regulation and control of corporations formed under the law of a State, will be retained. All corporations at present in existence are operating under State laws. In view of the limitation of the powers asked for, namely, three years or until as determined by the proposed Convention, paragraph a is unnecessary, because it would not be fair to ask people in Australia to take any part in the formation of a company under a three years' charter. I ask the Committee to accept the amendment. 13195 KKZ New South Wales 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER . - I am surprised that the Minister should have moved this amendment. The Government drafted the Bill and passed it through one House, and now, at the instigation of an outside committee, they propose to amend it. It appears to 'me that the State Premiers could not be persuaded to agree to the proposals of the Government, and that the decision . of the arbitrators, who were called in to settle the difference between them, must be final, because we are asked to accept their recommendations. I quite recognise that this committee consisted of three very distinguished lawyers, and I may say that I have very great respect for distinguished lawyers, so far as concerns their views upon points of law, but I have very little respect for their judgment in a matter such as this, affecting, as it does, the right of the Commonwealth Government to create corporations. The man in the street - the layman - might conceivably be quite as good a judge in a matter like this as any eminent lawyer. There is no reason whatever for the Committee to accept the amendment. 13195 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator Keating - You say that this is a matter of policy; not a matter of law. 13195 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - According to Senator Russell, these eminent lawyers decided that the power asked for in paragraph a is not necessary for the purpose of dealing with profiteering. It might not be necessary now, but it may be required a few years hence. I am surprised at the Government so readily deserting the principles which they believed in last week, and for which members of the Labour party have always stood. Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left put (Senator Russell's amendment) - put. The Committee divided. - 19 5 Majority . . . . 14 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to - That after the word "charitable," in paragraph b, the word " educational " be inserted. 13196 04:11:00 JZ9 Tasmania 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE . - I move - That the following words be added to the clause : - " and by adding at the end of paragraph (xxiii) thereof the words, 'and pensions to widows with children dependent upon them.' " Our magnificent pensions scheme will not be complete until we can legislate in the direction I have indicated. New Zealand is the only part of the British Dominions with legislation providing for pensions for widow's with young dependants, and the average cost per hoad of population is only Sd. I do not propose to go into details as to the amount which should be granted. All I want is indorsement by this Parliament of the principle, and as we are now amending section 51, we may achieve my purpose. I think the proposal will be acceptable to every individual in Australia who believes in the old-age and invalid pensions scheme- 13196 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - But to secure the adoption of that principle we must swallow the whole of this Bill? 13196 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - No. No. The Bill has already been accepted, and we are now in Committee considering the details. 13196 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - But the people have not accepted it yet. 13196 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - It It will be submitted to the people. There would be a better chance of the amendment I propose being carried than is the case with any of the other amendments to be submitted to the people under the Bill. The total cost of the Commonwealth Invalid and Old-age Pensions this year is something like £4,000,000, as against £3,830,000 last year. The cost in New Zealand of such pensions as I now suggest for the last year of which I have the figures was £39,386; and comparing our population with that of the Dominion, I estimate that it would cost an additional £177,000 to complete our splendid system of pensions. There can be no sadder sight than a woman suddenly deprived of her bread-winner, and left with two or three children, absolutely on the charity of the world. It has often and truly been said that the child is the best asset of the State; and if that be so, it should be the State's business to do everything to develop the best that is in the child. In its early years, the natural guardian of the child is the mother; but when a widow with children has to go out to earn bread and clothing for her family, she must leave her children - to some kindly-disposed neighbour. Such children never have a chance, and our gaols are said to be full of men who " never had a chance " in their youth. The additional cost of such pensions would be infinitesimal ; and I am sure my proposal has the approval of the vast majority of the people of Australia, no matter how they view the other proposed amendments in the Constitution. 13196 JYR 0 0 FAIRBAIRN, George Senator Fairbairn - The State Government in Victoria has the power, and such pensions are in force in the State. 13196 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I am sure there is not one State of the Commonwealth that has legislated for pensions .to widows and children. 13196 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - They are paid under a Red Cross system. 13196 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Tha That is not the method adopted in New Zealand, which is the only Dominion of the Empire with pensions of this kind paid under law. The estimates made by me some years ago, when ' I brought the subject before the Senate, were based on New Zealand figures, and have proved to be very correct. I do not believe that the principle I advocate has any opponents in either Chamber of the Commonwealth Parliament, or in the country at large. 13196 K3E Victoria NAT Vice-President of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL . - I quite agree with Senator O'Keefe when he says that he does not suppose that any honorable member of the Senate, would oppose the principle of giving this power to the Commonwealth. It must be remembered, however, that we are not reviewing the whole Constitution, but proposing certain amendments for specific purposes. There is not only this question, but dozens of others of a similar kind, which, I trust, will be de a t with by the Convention. The amendment now proposed only shows the necessity for the constitution of such a body, to consider matters which may not come prominently under notice, but may mean the review, and, perhaps, the recasting, of the Constitution. 13196 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - When shall we have the Convention ? 13196 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - The Government have not yet considered the question of constituting a Convention; but, so far as I am concerned, it will be at the earliest possible date, and on the most democratic basis. 13197 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - W - We have the opportunity now. Is there not a possibility that there may be no Convention ? 13197 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - The Government have given their word that there will be a Convention, ana if honorable senators opposite are returned to power, we may take it that, in the absence of a Convention, there will be an amendment of the Constitution at an early date. In voting against the amendment, I do not question the principle that is advocated, and I ask the honorable senator not to press it. 13197 04:24:00 K18 Tasmania 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP . - Senator O'Keefe is well aware of my sympathy with him in this matter. I believe I went so far as to second a motion on the subject moved by him a few years ago; if I did not, I distinctly remember speaking strongly in favour of it. 13197 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - T - The proposal is always met with the objection that it is not the right time to submit it. 13197 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - Senator O'Keefe must see clearly that the inclusion of 'a salutary proposal such as he has outlined would be all right if it were not that the principles of the measure in general, and its provisions in particular, are obnoxious to me, and certainly will be very obnoxious to thousands of people throughout the Commonwealth, who will take very good care to vote against the Bill in toto. Does the honorable senator think it right to put people in the same position ae he is now putting me, of voting against a principle with which they thoroughly agree, because it is incorporated in a pernicious measure of this kind ? That is most unfair to myself and others whose opinions I feel sure I represent. In voting against this amendment, if I do vote against it, I shall have in view the danger of inducing people to vote for the Bill because there is incorporated in it the amendment of Senator O'Keefe, the spirit of which is most congenial to me and thousands of electors. I hope the honorable senator will see the injustice of incorporating an amendment in which nearly everybody believes in a Bill in which, I am sure, the majority of the electors will show they have no faith, and will deem it desirable to reject. Such people must either not vote at all, or vote against the proposal now before us. 13197 04:26:00 JZ9 Tasmania 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE . - I have no desire to put Senator Bakhap in a false position, knowing as I do his sympathy with the spirit of the amendment; but we now have an opportunity of asserting the principle, and no further opportunity will occur for heaven knows when. We do not know that there will be a Convention, but we do know what is before us to-night; and we have an opportunity of incorporating a proposal, which,' 1 say, is agreeable to three-fourths of the people of Australia. If Senator Bakhap does not feel that he can support the amendment, 1 hope he will not oppose it. The honorable senator is, of course, against the Bill, lock, stock, and barrel, but he cannot prevent its submission to the people, who ought to have an opportunity of voting for this constitutional amendment with the others. I am sure that it is an amendment likely to be accepted by a far greater number of electors than will vote for the other amendments. 13197 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - I do not want the electors to swallow the poison for the sake of the jam. 13197 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - T - The " poison " is going to the people, and, if they swallow the "poison," let them also swallow the *' jam." 13197 04:28:00 K5R South Australia 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator SENIOR . - I think that Senator O'Keefe has overlooked the fact that this Bill will cease to operate at a certain time, and under the circumstances it is undesirable to incorporate in it an- admittedly desirable proposal. It would be far better, as Senator Russell has said, to leave the matter to the Convention. 13197 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - The Convention would ratify Senator O'Keefe's amendment. 13197 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator SENIOR - It might; and if the supporters of this amendment leave the matter to the Convention, they will gain more than they will lose. 13197 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - The m - The majority of honorable senators seem to think that these proposals will continue to operate even if there is no Convention. 13197 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator SENIOR - I grant that; but if the other amendments of the Constitution are rejected by the people, so will be the amendment now proposed by the honorable senator, and if all the amendments are accepted, it is only for three years, unless there is a Convention. The honorable senator has stressed that he does not know whether or not the Convention will be called together. I think Senator O'Keefe will be well advised not to press his amendment. Question - That the words proposed to he added (Senator O'Keefe's amendment) be added - put. The Committee divided. 5 17 Majority . . . . 12 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4 - Section fifty-one of the Constitution is altered by omitting from paragraph (xxxv.) the words " Conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State:", and inserting in their stead the words - " Industrial matters, including - labour; employment and unemployment; the terms and conditions of labour and employment in any trade, industry, occupation or calling; the rights and obligations of employers and employees; strikes and lock-outs; the maintenance of industrial peace; and the settlement of industrial disputes;" 13198 04:35:00 KKZ New South Wales 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER . - I move - That the following words be added : - " (h) conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, including the terms and conditions of service or employment in any trade, industry, occupation, or calling, including the service or employment of any State or the instrumentality of any State. My amendment has been drafted by the unionists themselves. It embodies their acceptance of the principle of arbitration, and represents the views of 200,000 unionists, whose delegates waited on me, and asked that I should move in this matter I ask the Senate not to shut out from the Federal Arbitration Court all those workers, some of whom, I will admit, believe in the weapon of strike The next strike will be the worst in the history of Australia.. The railway strike in Sydney was brought about by the Railways Commissioners making an alteration in conditions which had been laid down under the State Arbitration Court awards. That strike was the best con-; ducted in my experience, but its aftermath was the most brutal, along the lines of victimization, that I have ever known.. When another such . strike occurs it will be the worst in the history of the Commonwealth. 13198 K3E Victoria NAT Vice-President of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL [4.38 a.m.!. - I think Senator Gardiner will fail to accomplish his desires by way of this amendment. He has spoken as though the Government were seeking to wipe out the principle of conciliation and arbitration. That, of course, is not the case. Experience has proved that the inclusion of the term " conciliation and arbitration " has been tantamount to a limitation. The terms "labour" and "employment and unemployment" cover the whole range. The desire of the Government is that every possible means should be provided for entering the Arbitration Court. I ask the honorable senator to stand by these proposals, which were contained in the measure of 1915, when he and I stood together in a united party upon this subject. The desire of the Government is not to wreck the Arbitration Court, but to strengthen it, and facilitate the means of approach thereto. 13198 04:43:00 KRZ Western Australia 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH .-Senator Gardiner's amendment merely amounts to another attempt to reduce the chances of the amendments contained in this Bill meeting with the favour of the people. If the railway employees of New South Wales do not respect the Arbitration Court in their own State they cannot be expected to give greater respect to the Federal tribunal. The railway men of New South Wales had a grievance. We are aware of its origin, and are acquainted with the opportunities available to the men to settle the trouble The railway employees, however, flung their chance aside. Is there any guarantee that they would show higher respect for the Federal Court? The same observation applies to the railway men of North Queensland Arbitration machinery had been established by the Labour Government in that State, yet the railway men rebelled, and the Government were unable to find an arbitrator within the borders of Queensland. They had to search for some outside tribunal. They appealed to the Federal Government, as is on public record, and even asked for an arbitrator from New Zealand, and then failed. If the railway men of North Queensland failed to abide by arbitration under a Labour Government, and with a State arbitration system established by a Labour Government, what guarantee is there that they will abide by the Federal tribunal? How has Mr. Justice Higgins been treated by professed believers in arbitration? Some of the old brigade here, including Senator Guthrie and myself, know from our own experience that the awards of Mr. Justice Higgins' Court have been torn to ribbons in the past. Although no man in the community was looked on as a fairer friend to the worker than that learned Judge, he was often taunted with being a partisan by old reactionaries, but his awards were not respected by the workers at Broken Hill, or on the waterside front, or around the Australian coast-line in the maritime carrying trade recently. His awards, and the industrial agreements which have the same force and effect as awards, were torn to ribbons. Where is the assurance that he and his Court will be any better treated by railway servants than by the other Labour bodies named, who did not respect arbitration within their own State borders, under tribunals instituted by Labour Governments ? This is an attempt to load the Bill with conditions which can have only the one possible outcome - its defeat when it comes before the electors. The questions I have put need . answering, because honorable senators opposite cannot play all the time with men of well-balanced minds. We have been abroad in the world, and some of us have contributed more to the establishment of- arbitration, and made more sacrifices for that purpose, than some of our critics will ever do. I am one of those who made sacrifices to establish arbitration as a successful principle in this country. I rode about the country on my bicycle, and was never paid a farthing for all I did. I have worked under 'both systems. I worked under the competitive system, in which I was ground down to the lowest level. We looked out of the surrounding murkiness of our situation for some daylight, and the only gleam that appeared on the horizon, in the opinion of the men who went before us, was arbitration. We looked to it to relieve us from the necessity of submitting to a destiny dictated by competition. We still stand by the principle of arbitration, the best and fairest friend of the worker, but when we see it brought into ridicule, not by its enemies, but by the men whom it has so greatly befriended, the time has arrived to indulge in some straight talk without apology. This Bill has been introduced to enlarge the powers of the Commonwealth, and when an attempt is made to bring about its defeat, I can only protest that the effort is not genuine. 13199 04:49:00 KKZ New South Wales 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER . - Senator Russell made a mistake in saying that the principle we are trying to insert in this Bill is the same as that we knocked out in 1915. The Bill which I introduced in the Senate when occupying the position now occupied by the honorable senator provided that - Section 51 of the Constitution is altered by inserting after paragraph XXXV. the following paragraph: - " XXXV.. Conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes in relation to employment in the railway service of a State." The amendment I now submit is the proposal of the union, but it includes employees of all the State instrumentalities as well as the railways. That answers Senator Russell's statement. Let me tell Senator Lynch how the railway strike in New South Wales was brought about. The men in the railway workshops were working under an arbitration award. By the arbitrary actions of the Government the conditions of the award were broken, because the Government tried to introduce fresh conditions. Senator Lynch asks if the railway men will respect the Judge of the Federal Arbitration Court. The respect paid to Mr. Justice Higgins by the great majority of the people is marvellous, considering the difficult position he has always occupied. Honorable senators on the other side in this chamber have criticised him, and Senator Millen, in answering a deputation on one occasion, inferred that the Government were considering his removal. The employing class was incensed against him. Where big interests are at stake, whether of the employers or the employees, dissatisfaction will be expressed. No Judge can hope to escape criticism of that kind, and public men know that when passions are aroused, that sort of thing must be expected. This is an opportunity for Parliament to meet the wishes of men who say they are anxious to participate in the benefits of the Federal Court, and to allow the Australian people to enlarge the powers of the Federal Parliament under the Constitution. If the people fail us, we must go on patiently until such time as the employers and the employees are educated sufficiently to accept it, but it is of no use to lay down a hard and fast rule. It is also of no use for men to pretend that they have changed their minds regarding something which they endorsed a little while ago, and then try to put the blame oh somebody else. This is the proposal which honorable senators opposite agreed to before. It would have been agreed to by this time if it had been put to the people in 1915. I ask that there shall be one united labour action to give the employees of State instrumentalities, including railways, an opportunity to put their case before the Federal Arbitration Court. 13200 04:55:00 K3E Victoria NAT Vice-President of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - Both Senator Gardiner and I were right, because while he was speaking about one Bill I was quoting another. The one I was speaking of is the measure to which the honorable senator is now seeking to make this addition.. There was a long discussion to-day on' the inclusion of the railway men, and senators voted with their eyes open. I hope we shall not have a repetition of that debate. Senator Gardiner emphasized the fact that this amendment included the railway men. 13200 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator O'Loghlin - I - It includes more than the railway men. 13200 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - But I understand that that is its real object. I object to being asked to debate a question that has already been decided. I have given the reasons why the railway men are not to be included, and I have nothing to add to that statement. Senator Lt.-Colonel O'LOGHLIN (South Australia) [4.57 a.m.]. - The amendment is considerably wider than the one which dealt with the railway men. Its purpose is to give State employees the same right as we concede to every one else, railway men included. According to some of the statements made here, the workers are a bad lot, and do not know what they want, and are never satisfied. When they state definitely what they require, and we move their amendment in their own words, we are told they are hypocrites, asking out of pure cussedness for something they do not intend to observe. Senator Lynch ask3 whether the workers will obey the decisions of the Federal Arbitration Courts. The honorable senator will find from the early history of the Court that it has a splendid record. Up to the present, even including the last seamen's strike, there have only been five or six instances in the fifteen years or longer in which the decision of the Court has been questioned. When Mr. Justice Higgins took a vacation about two years ago, he was able to state that up to that period no decision of his had been disputed by the employees. In a number of cases the employers have departed from them. 13200 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - The honorable senator cannot point to one. 13200 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator O'LOGHLIN - I r I refer the honorable senator to the records of the Court. I can point to cases where employers have been penalized for departing from the award, in every State in the Commonwealth. Considering the difficulties, the Arbitration Court has a magnificent record. I support the proposal, which I have always stood to, and see no reason to depart from. 13200 KNB South Australia 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator GUTHRIE . - I do not think there is a single member of this chamber who took a more active part in bringing about conciliation in connexion with industrial disputes than I did. When I remembered the early days of 1890, I resolved that strikes as a means of securing a settlement of such industrial disputes were an absolute failure. It is to the credit of the late Right Honorable C. C. Kingston, that he drafted the first Conciliation and Arbitration Bill submitted in the Commonwealth with a view to the abolition of strikes. From one end of Australia to the other, the workers at that time advocated the principle of conciliation. But since the referenda upon conscription, there has been a movement in trade union circles in the direction of repudiating conciliation. Senator O'Loghlin was never a member of the Trades and Labour Council until the day before yesterday. What does he know about the matter? :I repeat that he was not a member of a trade union until the day before yesterday, and that he only became one then for political purposes. Yet he now sets himself up as an authority on trade unionism. 13201 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin - I - I was shearing nearly forty years ago. 13201 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator GUTHRIE - Not as a trade unionist, but as a blackleg - a scab. 13201 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin - T - The honorable senator's wild statements are unworthy of notice. When was I a scab ? 13201 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator GUTHRIE - When the honorable senator was shearing forty years ago he was not a trade unionist. 13201 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin - I - I rise to a point of order. I take exception to the statement of Senator Guthrie that I was ever a scab, and I ask that it be withdrawn. 13201 10000 0 0 CHAIRMAN, The The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon - If the honorable senator objects to the statement made by Senator Guthrie I must ask the latter to withdraw it. 13201 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator GUTHRIE - I withdraw it. 13201 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin - A - And the honorable senator should be ashamed of himself for having made it. 13201 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator GUTHRIE - I am not. I regard Senator O'Loghlin's statement as objectionable, and I ask that he be compelled to withdraw it. 13201 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin - I - I withdraw it. 13201 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator GUTHRIE - I am as strong a believer in the principles of conciliation and arbitration to-day, as I ever was. During the twenty-seven years that I occupied the position of President of the Seamen's Union, that body loyally observed the decisions of the Arbitration Court. Nobody can urge that the awards of that tribunal were ever flouted by it. As a matter of fact, the seamen were specially commended by Mr. Justice Higgins for the way in which his determinations were respected. But what has since happened is quite another story. During the twenty-seven years to which I have referred, no seaman ever lost half an hour's work, and his industrial conditions were improved more than those of any other unionist in Australia. 'But as soon as the direct activists took charge of the union, not only were the seamen out of work for thirteen weeks, but the whole of the industries of Australia were paralyzed. 13201 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - Bu't we are now dealing with the railway employees. 13201 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator GUTHRIE - So far as the railway men are concerned, they sought to have a means of settling their disputes by arbitration. I do not suggest that the South Australian railway employees should be allowed to come before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Our Constitution enables that Court to take cognisance only of disputes' which extend beyond the limits of any one State. 13201 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin - U - Upon a previous occasion the honorable senator advocated that State employees should be allowed to come before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. 13201 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator GUTHRIE - I did not, and the honorable senator knows it. 13201 10000 0 0 CHAIRMAN, The The CHAIRMAN - These dialogues are quite out of order. 13201 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator GUTHRIE - I am addressing you, sir, and nobody else. The State Parliaments have to vote the money with which to pay their railway servants, and the State Governments are responsible for the running of the railways within their own borders. We ought not to jeopardize this Bill by including in it some provision to which the States will object. 13201 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - The time is not ripe ? 13201 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator GUTHRIE -Senator Needham is here to protect State rights. The State Governments are not profiteers. I doubt whether, under the title of this Bill, we have a right to go outside the question of profiteering. The State Governments cannot be accused of profiteering. They are not making a profit from their railways. There is not a single railway in Australia to-day which is paying working expenses and. interest upon the cost of its construction. I hope that those honorable senators who are anxious to deal with the profiteer will drop this amendment. Certainly, they ought to refrain from jeopardizing the Bill by insisting upon the inclusion in it of extraneous matter. Senator Lt.-Colonel O'LOGHLIN (South Australia) [5.10 a.m.]. - I do not intend to make the discussion of this clause a personal wrangle between myself and Senator Guthrie. Whilst he was. speaking, I interjected that he had supported these proposals when they formed a part of the Labour party's programme, which was made the subject of two referendums. He denied my statement. Does he still deny it? 13202 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - I did not deny it. 13202 JZC 0 0 O'LOGHLIN, James Senator Lt Colonel O'LOGHLIN - T - The honorable senator did deny it, and if he continues to do so he will deserve the epithet which he applied to me, and which he had to withdraw. In other words, he will be a scab on the Labour movement. Senator SENIOR (South Australia; [5.11 a.m.]. - If Senator Gardiner will look at the Bill carefully he will see that the proposal of the Government is far more embracing than is his own amendment. 13202 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - I merely desire to add certain powers to the Bill. 13202 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator SENIOR - The honorable senator reminds me of a certain Irishman who made a will in which he bequeathed to his beloved wife Bridget all that he possessed without reserve, whilst to his brother he left one-half of what remained, and to a third party in Ireland, one-third of the balance of his estate. 13202 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - The honorable senator's imitation of the Irishman is a very bad one. 13202 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator SENIOR - The general powers contained in the Bill include those which Senator Gardiner seeks to specifically express. Consequently, there is no need for his amendment at all. In that amendment he merely repeats what is included in the clause in a general sense. In the circumstances, I ask him not to press it. Question - That the words proposed to be added be added (Senator Gardiner's amendment) - put. The Committee divided. 5 21 Majority . . . . 16 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. 13202 05:17:00 K18 Tasmania 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP . - I have again to refer to the fact that I have received from the Premier of Tasmania a communication in which this clause is regarded as much too comprehensive, and the suggestion is made that the matter be relegated for discussion to the somewhat mythical convention for which the Bill provides. It is only right for the Committee to be acquainted with the fact that the Tasmanian Ministry is inimical to the conferring of these large powers upon the Commonwealth Parliament. It seems to me quite evident that if the Commonwealth secures to its jurisdiction complete control over - Industrial matters, including - labour; employment and unemployment; the terms and conditions of labour and employment in any trade, industry, occupation or calling; the rights and obligations of employers and employees; strikes and lock-outs.; the maintenance of industrial peace; and the settlement of industrial disputes, it will take over a work so colossal that its Arbitration Court Judges will have to be increased to dozens. We cannot have these disputes settled by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court sitting here in Melbourne. There will have to be branches of the Court with resident Judges, established in every State. And in what regard will they be superior to tribunals which the States at present are competent to establish? ls it argued that Judges appointed by the Commonwealth are a superior order of beings compared with those appointed to the Benches of the various State Courts? Is it not a fact that many Judges appointed to the Commonwealth Courts have graduated, so to speak, in the Courts of the States? There is no difference between the qualifications and forensic training of Judges who exercise their functions in the State Courts and of those who exercise their functions in Courts constituted by the Commonwealth. That being so, seeing that such a multiplicity of matters will come within the ambit of Commonwealth jurisdiction in this connexion if this clause is carried, it is evident that a host of judicial appointments must be made to carry out the myriad complexities of adjudication that will arise out of the matters I have just enumerated. Resident- judges must be appointed who will not leave the capital cities of the various States. They must be domiciled there. In what way will the industrial situation be advantaged by this complete jurisdiction being conferred upon the Commonwealth Court? 13203 JYF 0 0 EARLE, John Senator Earle - Because in some cases a common rule can be made. 13203 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - What ! A common rule for a continent - one applying to Port Darwin and embracing Bruni Island ? Common humbug, that is what it is. I have voiced the collective opinion of the Cabinet of Tasmania as conveyed to me by cablegram. I am. entirely in sympathy with the Tasmanian Government in their desire to preserve State jurisdiction in connexion with matters dealt with in clause 4, and shall therefore vote against the clause if the Minister does not recognise the wisdom of the suggestion made in this cablegram, to the effect that the consideration of the transfer of these powers, in their completeness, should be relegated to the proposed convention. The Tasmanian Cabinet . is also opposed to the completeness of the phraseology of the provision under which matters relating to the trade and commerce power are transferred to the Commonwealth by this measure. It seems hopeless, however, to- attempt to convince honorable senators, and all I can do is to hope to produce on the minds of the electors of the Commonwealth an effect which will secure a complete rejection of the measure in Tasmania. Clause agreed to. Clause 5 (Trusts). 13203 05:25:00 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP . - The arguments to which I have referred in connexion with the comprehensiveness of other clauses of this Bill apply equally to clause 5. I have no hesitation in telling the Committee that, in my opinion, there is only one way in which the alleged profiteering and this much desired power to fix prices can be effectively dealt with, and that is by the complete socialisation of all our national activities It can be made effective only by constituting a State or the Commonwealth the sole wholesale agent for commodities produced in the Commonwealth or imported into it. 13203 KTD 0 0 MCDOUGALL, Allan Senator McDougall - Does the honorable senator recommend that ? 13203 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - I do not, but it is the only way in which the alleged undue securing of profits by individuals can be stopped. Once the State becomes, the sole dispenser of commodities, it of course can fix the wholesale prices, and then, perhaps, can exercise some complete and meticulous jurisdiction in regard to. retail prices. But until . the State itself becomes the sole national wholesaler, any attempt to interfere with the production, manufacture,, or- supply of goods, the supply of services, or " the ownership of the means of production, manufacture, or supply of goods, or supply of services," will fail to have .any practical effect. Do. 'not, for' one moment, imagine that I am suggesting it would be desirable to make the nation the sole wholesale agent. That would result in the complete paralysis of national energies. But if it is thought desirable to introduce uniformity ot: practice in regard to the purveying of commodities, it is the only way in which it can be effectively done with anything like symmetrical completeness. That being so, I am opposed to this clause. I believe it is simply a bit of window dressing - a kind of suggestion to the electors that something can be attempted and achieved. Nothing, however, can be effectively done even by the medium of a clause like this. It will only constitute a- pernicious interference with the nation's activities. My opinion in this matter is not the ' opinion of the Tasmanian Ministry. Their expressed view is somewhat favorable to this clause. I do not hesitate, however, to say that the clause will be ineffective, because the nation is not prepared to constitute itself the only wholesale agent of commodities produced in the Commonwealth or imported into it. In that way alone would we secure uniformity of prices and profits. I do not believe, however, that there should be any uniformity in regard to profits. We should have great industrial and commercial rewards, and they should be held up before the eyes of the enterprising spirits of the nation, since they contain, I think, the essentials to those efforts which make for national progress. Question - That the clause stand as printed - put. The Committee divided. 24 2 Majority . . . . 22 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Clause 6 - The alterations made by this Act shall remain in force - until the expiration of three years from the assent' of the Governor-General thereto; or ' until a Convention constituted by the Commonwealth makes recommendations for the alteration of the Constitution, and the people indorse those recommendations, whichever first happens, and shall then cease to have effect: Provided that if no such Convention is constituted by the Commonwealth before the thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and twenty, the alterations made by this Act shall cease to have effect on the said thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and twenty. 13204 05:38:00 JZ9 Tasmania 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE . - I move - That after the word " recommendations," line 10, the words " or until the Parliament ' otherwise provides " be inserted. I do not like paragraphs a and b of this clause, but I shall not waste time now in reiterating my objections to them. They make something in the nature of a farce of this measure in the opinion of those who really desire that there should be an alteration of the Constitution as proposed. Senator Keating earlier in the debate questioned the sincerity of honorable senators on this side; but he will have an opportunity, on my amendment, to test our sincerity and his own at the same time. If the amendment is agreed to, this Parliament' will have the power to bring forward alterations of the Constitution as these proposals have been brought forward. We are about to have a general election, and no one can tell what may happen as a result of it. If the present Government should not continue to occupy the Treasury bench after the election, their successors may desire to bring forward proposals for the alteration of the Constitution. Senator Keating, in replying to Senator Gardiner, referred to the fact that in a number of sections of the Constitution the phrase " until the Parliament otherwise provides " is used, and by adopting that phrase in this . clause we cannot go very far wrong. 13204 K1J New South Wales 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN . - I regard this clause as one of the safety valves of the Bill. Very much indeed to my satisfaction it places a limit of time upon what, after all, is only a partial attempt to amend the Constitution after about eighteen years' experience of its working. I hold the view that it requires amendment in other directions, as well as in the extension of the powers of this Parliament in the way proposed in this Bill. As I indicated in my speech on the second reading of the measure, I am somewhat concerned about the wording of this clause, in so far as it affects the proposed Convention. I think I pointed out that this clause committed us practically to nothing, and that various sorts of Conventions might be constituted to comply with the strict letter of the clause. I desired to know what was in the mind Oj. the Government. I asserted that I was in favour of a Convention elected by the people to deal with this and other matters in connexion with the recasting of the Constitution. I intimated that a Convention might be constituted of the Premiers of the States, together with the Commonwealth Cabinet, or that the letter of the law might be fulfilled by the Commonwealth Government of the day constituting a Committee of Parliament. In passing this clause we are giving whatever Government may be in power next year a blank cheque, which is neither sound business nor good politics. It suggests itself to me that, by using the words " electors of the Commonwealth " in the clause we might make it obligatory that the Convention must be constituted by the electors of the Commonwealth. However, the various divisions we have had during this debate have indicated that it is somewhat futile to move amendments unless the Leader of the Senate (Senator Russell) agrees to them. Although, much to my satisfaction, a limit is placed upon what we are doing now in so far as time is concerned, there is some danger, and a good deal of uncertainty, with regard to how the Convention may be constituted. I am making these remarks so that the Minister may be able to pledge the Government, if it remains in power until next year, to see that nothing but a democratic Convention is elected, and- 1 think I have already expressed the view that ,a democratic Convention can only be elected on the proportional system, giving all trends of political thought representation on it, which will insure that the Constitution drawn up and placed before the people will harmonize, not only with the experience we have had during the whole era of Federation, but also with what has evolved as the result of the experience of the war. 13205 05:52:00 JXJ Western Australia 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM . - I am amazed at the innocence displayed by Senator Pratten in asking the Minister to adopt a system of proportional voting for this supposed Convention, when the Ministry which he has supported for the last three years has failed to bring in proportional voting for the election of members of the Senate. 13205 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - Does the honorable senator advocate proportional representation? 13205 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - The honorable senator is supporting a Government which pledged itself to bring in proportional representation for the Senate. If honorable senators doubt my word, I refer them to the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) at Bendigo. In my opinion, this Convention will never be convoked by this Government ; but supposing it is convoked, there is nothing in the clause to indicate what its character will be. I am not enamoured of the amendment of Senator O'Keefe. I do not believe in giving even to this Parliament the power which he seeks to give it. I would rather see the clause deleted, because I realize that the Government have no intention of making any effort to call a Convention. I had intended to move to add the words " by a referendum of the electors of the Commonwealth on adult suffrage not later than January, 1920." I had intended to move this to test the sincerity of the Government in the matter of summoning a Convention and determining the duration of this Bill. That is the crucial point. The duration of this Bill depends entirely on the meeting of a Convention. If no Convention -is held, the Bill ceases to operate on the 31st December next year. No honorable senator can tell me that a. Convention will be held, or will inf orm me as to the method of summoning it. In fact, this clause is the greatest piece of political bluff that I have ever known to be put before a Parliament. I do not believe that any attempt will be made to put into operation even the flimsy powers proposed to be submitted to the people. If a division is called on the amendment, I shall . vote with Senator O'Keefe, but I would much rather vote to delete the whole clause. 13205 05:56:00 K18 Tasmania 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP . - All the natural powers of one who is not a member of the legal profession are required to get a clear grip of the relation of some of the sections of the Constitution to these proposed alterations. Section 128 of the Constitution says, " This Constitution shall not be. altered except in the following manner " ; and then it describes the' procedure which is actually now under way, in that the proposed law for the alteration must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of Parliament, and so on; but in the machinery section to which I am referring, the Constitution makes no mention pf a Convention. Any Convention which is summoned must he called into being by some extraneous agency which is not defined in clause 6. It is true that mention is made of a Convention, but the clause provides that it is to be constituted by the Commonwealth. By what Commonwealth authority? By an enactment of the Commonwealth Parliament ? If it is to be the latter, I venture to say that the necessary words should be inserted in this clause. No mention is made of submitting the recommendations of the Convention to the Commonwealth Parliament. There is absolutely no mention of any intervention on the part of this Parliament. Is it contemplated that, after the Convention meets, deliberates, ends its session, and makes recommendations, those recommendations shall be sent direct to the people? 13206 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator Keating - That is not contemplated. The clause is badly drafted. 13206 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - It seems to be an instance of a badly-framed clause. We have had one referendum, of unhappy memory so far as I am concerned, which was in essence a violation of the strict Federal principle. The Bill in which the question was referred to the people did not insure that the majority must be a majority of the electors in the aggregate and a majority of the electors in a majority of the States; but simply provided for obtaining an expression of opinion of the electors in the aggregate. No provision has been made for an observance of the lights of the various electors in the different States of the Commonwealth. Although I supported the principle of compulsory military service, that referendum was in essence a violation of the Federal principle. I suggest to the Minister that there is a possibility of the proposed Convention making this Bill ultra vires. I would like to hear Senator Keating on this phase of the question. I believe there should be some clear reference to section 128 of the Constitution; although admittedly while it provides the machinery, it does hot make any mention of a Convention. The introduction of the proposal for a Convention into a constitutional amendment seems to present possibilities of the whole measure being regarded by the High Court as outside the ambit of the Constitution. I suggest that sub-clause b of clause 6 be amended to read - Until a Convention constituted by an enactment of the Commonwealth Parliament makes recommendations for the alteration of the Constitution, and the people indorse those recommendations. ... We should have such a clause, but I am not going to take the responsibility of expressing an opinion which should fall from legal lips. It may be that a Convention could be constituted in half-a-dozen different ways without reference to the Federal Parliament, but I am of the opinion that a Convention sanctioned by Parliament should be appointed, and that the recommendations of the Convention should have the approval of Parliament before the electors are asked to indorse them. 13206 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - All these questions have to be decided. 13206 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - By whom? 13206 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - By the Government of the day. 13206 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - Is not Parliament to be consulted? 13206 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Certainly. 13206 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - The Government, in submitting' a measure of this importance, should make the position perfectly clear, and not leave it in a state of mystery and doubt. I welcome the limitation provided in clause 6. That clause is a disgrace, and makes it clear that a honest attempt is not being made to amend the Constitution. It is faulty, in effective, and vague, and no responsible Legislature should be asked to pass it. 13206 KPE Tasmania 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING . - I agree with what Senator Pratten has said in regard to the vagueness of the provision dealing with the Convention. I am in accord to some extent with Senator Bakhap's argument,, but I do not agree that it necessarily means that if this clause is passed it is reasonably probable that we would be held to have exceeded our legislative powers, and that we would he legislating in derogation of, or contrary to, section 128 of the Constitution. Any amendment of the Constitution will have to be effected by the procedure indicated in section 128. The phraseology of this particular clause is a striking illustration of what I said earlier in the debate in regard to the whole measure. It appears upon the face of it that it has been drafted in haste and with precipitation, and there is every indication of recklessness or carelessness. As honorable senators know, I have repeatedly stated that one of the features that justifies the Bill to me is the prospect of a revision of the Constitution by a Convention. At present there is a motion on the notice-paper in my name, which I cannot discuss at this juncture, which deals with the question of a properly-elected Convention. I believe that a Convention should be composed of members consisting of an equal number of representatives from each State, as was the original Convention which framed our present Constitution. The Convention should be limited in its scope, and its functions should be controlled by an Enabling Act passed by this Parliament. In relation to the matters mentioned by Senator Bakhap, paragraph (2) of the motion I have on the notice-paper reads in regard to my proposed Convention's recommendations - That any such amendment or amendments so adopted shall be a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution, and shall be dealt with in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution for passage by Parliament and submission to the electors. 13207 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Do you regard that as merely formal? 13207 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - It is certainly clear. 13207 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Would you allow Parliament to amend the law? 13207 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - As far as that particular motion was concerned that was the view I had in mind. 13207 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - For Parliament to amend ? 13207 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - My object was to take the party spirit out of the amendment procedure. 13207 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Parliament would have the right to amend. 13207 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - The State Parliaments. 13207 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - In the original Enabling Bill, those Parliaments had to be consulted. There is much in what Senator Bakhap says as to the necessity for making it clear; but, all the same, the absence of any expressed provision to the effect that the recommendations of the Convention should be submitted to the Parliament would not necessarily invalidate it. I think a Court would hold that the object of the enactment was perfectly clear, and that the Convention having adopted a series of recommendations they could be submitted to the people after passage through Parliament. 13207 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - When the language of section 128 is so mandatory that this Constitution cannot be altered except in a certain manner, should clause b be passed without some reference being made in it to section 128 ? 13207 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - Under the Bill the words " until a Convention constituted by the Commonwealth makes recommendations" are used. But for what? The alteration of the Constitution. There is only one way in which to alter the Constitution, and that is in accordance with section 128. 13207 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - If the matter is not submitted to Parliament, and the people indorse this measure, could the recommendations be taken direct from the Convention and submitted to the people without reference to Parliament? 13207 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - Certainly not. Those recommendations are for the alteration of the Constitution. The constitutional procedure would have to be followed, and the proposals, embodied in a Bill passed by an absolute majority of both Houses, would have to be submitted to the people within not less than two months. 13207 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - All of this is based on the good faith of the Government. 13207 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - We are depending absolutely on the good faith of the Government. I am not at all satisfied with the form in which the Bill has been drawn up, and I do not like the draftsmanship. It is little use moving amendments, as the Government have evidently made up their minds, and, therefore, our position is hopeless. 13207 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - If we made an effort, could not we postpone further discussion until to-morrow? I am afraid the Government will not get the other Bill through. 13207 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - They will get these measures through in the long run, as they have the numbers; even if it is next week. Judging by the divisions already taken, it is utterly useless to submit amendments. We have to depend absolutely upon the Government, and the drafting employed leaves the position very vague. It is left to the Government to constitute the Convention, which may be composed of six State Premiers and a Minister or Ministers of the Commonwealth. There are all kinds of possibilities in the Bill. 13208 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - You must remember that this Government may not be in office. 13208 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - We have this security that, whatever the recommendations of the Convention may be, they will have to be approved by Parliament and submitted to the people. Believing that the Convention will be something of the nature I have indicated in the motion on the notice-paper, I cannot see any other course open to us but to pass clause 6. 13208 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator Lynch - Even if the worst of these eventualities comes. to pass, will not the power of Parliament remain intact? 13208 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - Undoubtedly. Whatever the recommendations of the Convention may be, they will require to be indorsed by an absolute majority of both Houses of this Parliament, and then by the people and the States. I anticipate that the Convention will be a popular one. Any Government that set up a Convention constituted otherwise than on the elective principle would be courting disaster. This clause may be safely allowed to stand. I cannot support the amendment proposed by Senator O'Keefe. For years past, I have advocated an amendment of the Constitution by a Convention. I am supporting this Bill only because it is of a temporary nature, and because it promises the appointment of a Convention. That is my reason and justification for supporting the clause. 13208 06:16:00 K3E Victoria NAT Vice-President of the Executive Council, and Acting Minister for Defence 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL . - The Government have not considered the constitution of the Convention beyond deciding that there shall be a Convention. The arguments advanced by honorable senators seem to be based on suspicion of the Government. 13208 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator Pratten - Not of the Government, but of a Government. 13208 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - I shall speak only from my own judgment of the situation, and only with personal responsibility. The people of this country determined long ago that every adult should have a voice in all matters pertaining to the Constitution. The Government have not considered this question, and I trust will not consider it until after the elections, when we shall know whether or not we are to continue in office. But any Government, present or future, who attempt to place any restriction on the right of every adult, except those in jails and asylums, to express through the ballot-box his opinion on any proposed amendment of the Constitution, I shall oppose. No Government dare interfere with the rights of the majority of the men and women in this country to rule; whatever Government may be in power, we have passed beyond the stage when that right can be denied. The proposed Convention will be a most interesting one, not because the men of to-day are greater than those who originally formulated the Constitution - I doubt if we are as big men as they were - but because we have lived longer and through more stirring times, and we have had opportunities to discover the weaknesses in our instrument of government. And if, with the added knowledge of our times, we can only bring to our task even one half the ability that the members of the original Convention displayed, the prospects for Democracy will be brighter here than in any other country. I hope the Government will not deal with the constitution of the Convention until we know that we have been intrusted by the people with the most important work that any Government could do. The Convention should not be limited to one political section of the community. Regardless of what party may be handling the additional powers which are being conferred by this Bill, we can all be bigger Australians than we are as party men. And, although I am not enthusiastically in favour of proportional representation, I hope the Convention will be representative of public thought, even outside the ranks of politicians. We desire a Convention on broad, national, democratic lines, and without committing the Government, I promise to do anything in my power to bring that about. I hope the honorable senator will not press his amendment, because the Bill, as amended, must be returned to the House of Representatives to-day, and then the Senate will be able to adjourn until next week. 13209 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - What about the Bill relating to the nationalization of monopolies ? 13209 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - That will not take more than ten minutes, I hope. The Committee may very well agree to this clause, for whatever Government makes the arrangements for the Convention it will be one fresh from the country and bearing the impress of the Democracy. Question - That the words proposed to be added be added (Senator O'Keefe's amendment) - put. The Committee divided. 5 21 Majority ... 16 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. 13209 06:27:00 KVD Tasmania 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - Attached to this clause is a proviso, that if the proposed Convention is not constituted before the 31st December, 1920, the alterations made by this Bill shall cease to have effect. The intention is to submit the proposed amendments to the people at the' next election, and if the people give a favourable judgment legislation will follow. I think it is desirable that there should be some experience of the effect of that legislation before the Convention is called upon to deal with the Constitution generally. But there is no possibility of that experience being available. If the Convention is called together towards the end of next year I hope that it will be elected by the people, but it might as well be appointed next month if it is not to have the advantage of a knowledge of the working of the Constitution as amended by this Bill. It would be advisable for the Government to extend the date before which the Convention must be called together to the 31st December, 1921. 13209 06:30:00 K3E Victoria NAT Vice-President of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL . - I am in favour of the Convention being convened without delay. It ought to be created within six months after the general elections, and if it cannot complete its labours within two years it will be doing very poor work indeed. I move - That the following sub-clause be added:- "(2) No law passed by the Parliament by virtue of the powers conferred by this Act shall continue to have any force or effect, by virtue of this Act, after the alterations made by this Act have ceased to have effect." This appears to be a logical outcome of the limitation of the period. 13209 06:34:00 KKZ New South Wales 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER . - This is an opportune time to initiate! , a discussion upon: the point raised by the Minister (Senator Russell). The Bill, I understand, has been introduced for the purpose of enabling the Government to be vested with power to deal with profiteering. Why should such legislation be allowed to perish? If the new Parliament devises means of effectively dealing with the profiteers, why should not that authority continue for more than three years ? If the Convention is not convened within twelve months we shall be powerless. It may be that within twelve months we shall be engaged in another war. 13209 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator Pratten - Or a double dissolution. 13209 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - One of the probable results of the coming election is a double dissolution within six months, because, if the Labour party come into power with an overwhelming majority in the other House, we would not attempt to carry on the business of the country with a majority against us in the Senate. If honorable senators had time to give attention to the amendments I indicated, they would realize that I was aiming at the abolition of the Senate. I do not say that I have any personal desire to see it abolished, but I am 'in close touch with the democratic currents in this community, and I know that the desire is to have a Parliament with one effective House. The future is fraught with grave issues. Profiteering is neither a new nor a strange growth. Dick-Turpin carried on his business in a decent way> but the modern profiteering merchant is very often beneath contempt. This Senate is an intelligent gathering, and yet some honorable senators pretend that profiteering is not being carried on in the community. I venture to say that the housewife who goes down the street to buy boots for her sons or daughters, and pays three times the price formerly charged is of a different opinion. Forty or fifty years ago, and when manufacturers had not the elaborate machinery of to-day, it was possible to . buy a pair of boots for less than the present-day prices. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Preamble and title agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. 13210 Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed - That 'this Bill be now read a third time. 13210 10000 0 0 GIVENS, Thomas The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon: T Givens - As this Bill requires an absolute majority of the whole Senate, I direct the bells, to be rung for two minutes, so that all honorable senators may have ari opportunity of being present to vote. Question - " That the Bill be now read a third time," put - 13210 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - No. 13210 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - There being more than an absolute majority of the whole Senate present, and only one dissenting, voice, I declare the third reading carried, and I direct the Clerk to take a list of all honorable senators present, so that there may be a record of. the vote. . 13210 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Do you, Mr. President, direct the Clerk simply to record the names of all honorable senators present without recording the dissentient voice ? 13210 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - The Clerk will record that there was one dissentient voice, and, there being only one, no division is required. AU other honorable senators will be recorded as voting in the affirmative Jil 13210 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Will not the dissentient senator be. mentioned by name ? 13210 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - If the honorable senator dissenting requires his name to be recorded it may be done. 13210 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Then, Mr President, I desire my name to be recorded as dissent.ng from the third reading of the Bill. 13210 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - Is it customary, Mr. President, to give a direction to the Clerk on a matter like this? 13210 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - It has been customary, although not strictly required by the Standing Orders, to take a record of the passage of any Bill of this nature The Standing Orders really require a call of the Senate to assure that every honorable senator shall be present at the third reading of a Constitution Alteration Bill. My object in directing the Clerk to record the names of honorable senators present is to remove all doubt as to the Bill having been passed by an absolute majority of the whole Senate. I take this responsibility on myself, so that there can be no cavil as to what has occurred. 13210 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - May I ask, then, why a call of the Senate was not made so as to make doubly sure? 13210 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - For the simple reason that there was not time. I maj also point out that the Standing Orders were suspended, and, therefore; it was not necessary to have a call of the Senate. Later: 13210 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - I wish to announce that the tally taken by the Clerk of senators present is twenty-seven, and only one dissentient voice leaves twenty-six voting in the affirmative. That is far. more than the required statutory majority, and, therefore, I declare the third reading carried according to the Constitution Act. Bill read a third time. 13210 bill 13210 13210 K3E Victoria NAT Vice. President of the Executive Council 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL . - I move- . That this Bill be now read a second time. I referred to other Bills as " old friends," and the one before us is certainly one. It is practically the proposal submitted on at least two occasions to the people- in order to give to the Commonwealth Government power to perform several functions in connexion with the ownership of businesses, and, if necessary, to take over a monopoly under, certain conditions. A condition in the previous Bills was that Parliament, by resolution, could declare a particular industry or business a monopoly, and then acquire it by resolution of the House on just terms. However, I do not think that Parliament itself would have attempted for one moment to determine the just . terms, but would probably have referred the matter to the High Court. Under the proposal before us now, there is the guarantee that a resolution of both Houses, passed in one session, will be required for the remission of the question for inquiry to the High Court. 'On receiving a report from the High Court, a resolution of both Houses will be again required to enable Parliament to acquire a business. 13211 K8L NAT 0 0 THOMAS, Josiah Senator THOMAS - That all has to be done in three years. 13211 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - In the same session. The Ministry could go as fast as Parliament would allow or desired, and I am not in a position to determine the pace. The present provision is practically the same as that introduced before, though different in words. I do not think that Parliament itself is quite the institution to deal with the question of valuation and of the fair rate- at which it should take over the assets and goodwill of any existing business; and in my opinion the High Court is the most competent tribunal we could select for a purpose of the sort. , The Bill, further, gives power to the Commonwealth to exercise certain functions which, I think, ought to be enumerated. They are as follows: - The Parliament shall have power to make laws for carrying on by or under the, control of the Commonwealth, the industry or business of producing, manufacturing, or supplying any specified goods, or of supplying any specified services, and for acquiring for that purpose- on just terms the assets and good-will of the industry or business . . . And so on. That clause shows the power to be a fairly comprehensive one; but I believe its greatest value will not be in its use, but rather in pointing a finger of warning as to what may happen should any body or company conducting a business become a close monopoly. I do not put the Bill forward in the hope or fond belief. that it will cause the Government to adopt a policy, of the nationalization of any or every industry. That power is carefully guarded and limited to monopolies ascertained by the Government to be such. However, power is given to the Commonwealth to conduct and carry on certain businesses, and it is a large power. 13211 06:50:00 KKZ New South Wales 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER . - I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to follow the usual course, and grant me the adjournment of the debate at this hour of the morning. We have had a lengthy sitting, and we must have proper time to consider this important Bill. The debate might "be adjourned until next Wednesday or Thursday, or any day the Minister wishes. 13211 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens - An honorable senator cannot make a speech when moving the adjournment of a debate. 13211 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I cannot sit down, or I shall lose my opportunity. 13211 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - If the motion for the adjournment of the debate is defeated, the honorable senator will not forfeit his opportunity. 13211 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - The honorable senator has been very patient, and I think we might proceed with the Bill. 13211 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I should like to say a few words on the subject of monopolies, of which Senator Pratten seems to think there are none. I remind the honorable senator that in the Queen City of Sydney, so many voters of which he ably represents, there are quite a number of monopolies, both growing and well developed. 13211 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - What- is a monopoly ? 13211 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - A monopoly is created when a company, person, or corporation obtains control of some commodity or service that the rest, of the community must use, and I give as an illustration the. ferry service in Port Jackson. "Quite recently the ferry company increased fares by 50 per cent:; and these fares the residents in the northern- parts of the city are compelled to pay in order to attend their business. The monopoly of that company has been created by concessions granted in the early days> and their action has been deemed so important that a Commission has inquired into it. Then, again, there is the gas monopoly in Sydney. I am well aware that the Gas Company's shareholders comprise all sorts and conditions of men and women, but the monopoly is already one of the most iniquitous the city ever suffered under 13212 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - 1 thought the State Parliament had passed an Act relating to the Gas Company. 13212 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - That is not so. One of the evils of the gas monopoly is that when there is industrial trouble, and the supply of coal is running short, and the hours for using gas are limited, the gas bills, by some mysterious means, are as large as under ordinary circumstances. In saying this, I speak of a fact that I know, and such action on the part of people who have the control of commodities and services ought to be dealt with drastically. I am watching the move-" ments of the world in dealing with monopolies, and, so far as I can see, they are dealt with most effectively in Italy. There direct action is taken; and I venture to say that we are within easy distance of direct action here. If Senator Newland will join me. leaving the Adelaide gas monopoly to be dealt with later, I think that, when the next industrial trouble is on, we could " deal it out " to the Sydney Gas Company. I am informed, though I am not scientist enough to know whether it is correct or not, that a certain method of mixing water and gas was used, making it quite a marvel that it did not explode. With a view to imposing on the people, the gas company took that great risk, and might have been the means of blowing Sydney to pieces. However, no explosion occurred. This is a Bill in which the Government promise to deal with monopolies, but they deliberately eliminate provisions for taking monopolies over, though in similar Bills previously presented to Parliament, that power was given. The shipping companies trading on the Australian coast combine to form a huge monopoly, and are able to take the biggest share of the profits from the producers. The power to deal with a monopoly of that kind should rest with Parliament. One shipping company on the immense coast of Queensland eventually got the monopoly of the trade, and by skilful manipulation of prices created a burden that the people have to carry day by day and year by year. In the Bills introduced by the Labour Government there was a sensible, practical, and rapid way of denying a monopoly, by means of a resolution. In the present Bill that definition is left to the High Court. As I said earlier, the members of the High Court have my respect and esteem as men well fitted to give decisions on points of law, but there is nothing to show that they are in any way equipped to decide what constitutes a monopoly. They are busy men, carrying on functions for which their life training has fitted them. But why give them another function for which they are not equipped with any particular knowledge? 13212 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - The High Court has only power to inquire and report - it has no power of prohibition. 13212 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Can the High Court declare what is a monopoly? 13212 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - It inquires and reports as to whether there is a monopoly. 13212 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - So that if they report that a business is a monopoly, it is one; and if they report that it is not a monopoly, it is not one. 13212 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Parliament could ' still take action in face of a report favorable to a monopoly. 13212 K8L NAT 0 0 THOMAS, Josiah Senator THOMAS - What chance would Parliament have if the High Court said a business was not a monopoly? 13212 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I would not mind such a report as that, because if the High Court said that the Sydney Ferry Company, for instance, was not a monopoly, and we knew that it was, we would decline to accept their report. 13212 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - The power supposed to be given to the High Court is more illusory than real. 13212 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I am sure the exposition of this measure- will be in abler hands if left to Senator Bakhap, and, therefore, I shall not proceed further. 13212 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - But I shall go a little further. 13212 06:59:00 JXJ Western Australia 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM . - It is most remarkable that, after sitting all night, we should be called upon now to consider another measure for an alteration of the Constitution. If the Bill we have just passed could be described as rushed through without decent consideration, so can the Bill now before the Senate. - We assembled here yesterday afternoon at 3 o'clock. We are here as elected representatives of the people. 13213 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - Doing our duty. 13213 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - Does the honorable senator tell me he is doing his duty when assisting to pass this measure in the few moments remaining at our disposal, after an all-night sitting ? 13213 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - You have been wasting time since three o'clock yesterday afternoon. 13213 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I have never wasted any moment of the time of the Senate. 13213 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I do not think this is quite fair. Before it was decided to adjourn on Wednesday last, 1 arranged with your Leader for these Bills to be dealt with. 13213 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I am not aware of any arrangement having been entered into; but, for the Minister's own sake, I think we should now adjourn. A strain is being put upon him which no Government or Parliament should seek to impose. Senator Russell is the only Minister attendant in this Chamber now, and he cannot well leave it. The position now is that the Senate must continue its sitting, even if the discussion has to be driven along until twelve o'clock to-night. 13213 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - This is a good old friend ; you have often met it before. 13213 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - This is not the Bill for which I voted on previous occasions. This measure seeks to impose upon the Federal Parliament another Parliament, namely, the High Court. 13213 K5R 0 0 SENIOR, William Senator Senior - To furnish a report. 13213 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - To declare what is a monopoly. This is not the same old friend ; it is a stranger. Even supposing that Australia were to be so fortunate, after the next elections, as to witness the return of the Labour party to power in the House of Representatives, there would not be a Labour majority in the Senate. The procedure indicated in this measure is that the investigation of a monopoly must pass through the intricacies of the High Court and run the gantlet of both Houses of Parliament ; then back again it goes to the High Court. This is certainly not the Bill I voted for in 1911 and 1912. We should be quite honest, and tell the people that it is a sham and a bluff, and as big a fraud as the measure which has just been disposed of. 13213 07:10:00 K18 Tasmania 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - The greatest monopoly of all - that which has aroused the greatest indignation among the people of the Commonwealth - has been the State monopoly exercised by Queensland, New South Wales, and South Australia. I remember bringing before the Senate the fact that the . South Australian Government had prohibited the export of wheat to Tasmania when a quantity was about to be. despatched in pursuance of a contract entered into between Tasmanian millers and the Farmers Union of South Australia. Honorable senators will recall the indignation expressed throughout Australia over the action of Mr. Ryan in prohibiting the export of cattle across the borders of Queensland. The New South Wales Government also prohibited the export of wheat to sister States. I expect to be regarded as a Conservative, and as one who believes that the Federal Constitution is sacred. I do not hold that view of the Constitution, I regard it rather as a structure in which the young Commonwealth resides. We should continue to live in that house until we are thoroughly conversant with any. structural defect which time may disclose. The actions of the States in setting up monopolies amount to a stultification of the intentions of the people of the Commonwealth, who have entered into the Federation. We believed that the Federal Constitution would set up a condition of complete free trade between the States; but it did not do so. I am prepared to vote for an amendment of the Constitution which will limit the sovereignty of the States with respect to their powers of prohibiting export, thus interfering with the principle of InterState Free "Trade. Is* Mr. Ryan touched by this measure ? Is Mr. Holman ? Is Mr. Peake ? Are the States to be in any way hindered in refusing to export commodities if they prefer to be selfish ? The powers of the States are in no way circumscribed by this measure. Mr. Ryan, unfortunately, was recently successful u] in regard to the principle underlying the prohibition of State export. The Premier of Queensland will be in no way prejudiced by the provisions of this Bill. This measure is a delusion and a snare. It is set up to attack enterprises which have been instituted by successful corporations or private individuals. The continued existence of a power such as this would do much to check the enterprise of the Australian people. Who would ' care to employ his capital in the establishment of a big enterprise if, because it became a profitable concern, it rendered itself liable to acquisition by the State authority ? Any industry or business may be acquired by the Commonwealth under this Act if each House of Parliament, by resolution, refers the matter, in the first place, to a Judge of the High Court for his decision. In connexion with a remark made by Senator Gardiner L. desire to point out that a Judge of the High Court has no power to prohibit parliamentary action. The a question really involves very little in the way of protection to the man who is conducting a successful business. Each House of Parliament, while respecting the report of a Judge of the High Court, may in turn pass a resolution declaring an industry or business to be a monopoly; it may do that in spite of a report of a Judge of the Court. I promised to be brief in discussing this measure, and I merely wish to indicate that it is my intention to move an amendment in line 18 of sub-clause 1 of clause 2 to insert after "monopoly" the words "detrimental to the Commonwealth." I also intend moving to insert at the end of subclause 2 the word' "detrimental" before "monopoly." Surely the logic of my intention is evident to honorable senators. I do not wish all businesses to be placed in the position of being acquired at the will of Parliament, even after a Judge of the High Court has reported that a business is a monopoly. There, are monopolies that may be detrimental and there are those that may be beneficial to the Commonwealth. 13214 K3B 0 0 ROWELL, James Senator Colonel Rowell - What about the Colonial Sugar Refining Company ? 13214 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - Yes, the Colonial Sugar Refining- Company is an industry which is carried on with great success, not only in Australia, but in the British Dependency of Fiji. I ask the Minister (Senator Russell) in all seriousness if the Government contemplate dealing with such an undertaking ? The Minister is dumb. The Colonial Sugar Refining Company has been carrying on its operations with great success, and has been mixing sugar with brains. This enterprise is placing sugar in the hands of the Australian people at a price per head that is trifling. Is such an industry to be exposed to the dangers of an inquiry by a High Court Judge, who may report that it is a monopoly, while, at the same time, he may be of opinion that it is not a detrimental monopoly, or one that is at ali prejudicial to the interests of the nation ? The fact that he reports that such an undertaking is a monopoly will give Parliament the power to control it, simply because the success with which its operations are carried on makes the mouths of some people' water. Let honorable senators remember that if Senator Gardiner's prediction comes true these things will be done by a unicameral Legislature. I think any fair-minded man will realize the fairness of the amendment I suggest. If a Judge of the High Court reports that an industry or business is detrimental to the best interests of the Commonwealth, it will be time enough for this Parliament to take action. Why should it take action or hold the scourge, so to speak, over any successful business that may be of the greatest value to the community. ' Action may be taken towards a company that may be valuable in the way of paying dividends for. distribution, or valuable from a hundred different stand-points. Although this measure is premature it is not necessary to say that it doe3 not touch the great State monopolies which interfere with the principle of Free Trade between the States. Its claws will be clipped to some ' extent if the amendment I have suggested is adopted by the Committee. I ask honorable senators in all fairness not to pass the Bill in its present form. 13214 07:22:00 JZ9 Tasmania 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - It is not my intention to discuss the merits of the Bill, but to voice a strong protest against the action of the Government in asking honorable senators to sit for such a lengthy period. 13214 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - What is the use of protesting ? 13214 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I am objecting to the manner in which these measures have been introduced. The present procedure is being followed merely to please the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) - that past master in the art of political dodgery. Honorable senators have been compelled to sit through the whole night and well into the morning, so that the Prime Minister may have the opportunity of arranging for a general election to be held on a day that suits him. The Government have a strong working majority, and there are five or six months available, in which a lot of useful work could be done. We are asked to perform the impossible task of intelligently discussing measures of supreme importance after an all-night sitting. 13215 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Thus do we legislate the rights of honest people away. 13215 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Y - Yes; and I know that Senator Bakhap believes we should not legislate at all in this direction. It is not my intention to discuss the Bill. I am disgusted with what we are being asked to do. It is ah outrage on political decency; and even in the most strenuous party warfare, with all its bitterness, we should not be asked to work in this way. Even if honorable senators on this side now walked out of the Chamber and allowed the Government to carry the measure without opposition, we should not be asked to submit to such a physical strain as these night-long sittings impose. Yesterday there were taken from the Queen's Hall the mortal remains of one who has been called the greatest Australian who has adorned this Legislature. He was a great Australian, but his services were lost to this country many years before they should have been, owing, principally, to the physical strain imposed upon him in the early days of his parliamentary life. Is it fair to ask men, elected by . the people, to sit here all day and all night to watch their interests ? Or are we to allow the Government to do as they like? We are asked to pass these Bills in a few hours, to allow the Government to hold an election before Christmas. The Government have had ample time and power in the past few years to do almost everything they are seeking to do under this Bill. Ever since the famous High Court decision was given in what is known as the Bread Case, in 1915, the Commonwealth Government have known they possessed power to deal with profiteering. It is solely to suit the wishes of the Prime Minister that honorable senators are asked to expedite the passage of these Bills. So long as the Government have their silent majority at hand day and night, we can " lump" it if we do not like it. What opportunity have we had of dealing with the important questions involved ? I will not accept any blame in the matter; the fault will lie with the Government. It is an insult to the intelligence of the men sent here, and to the intelligence of the people who elected us, that we should be asked to legislate in this. way. If honorable senators supporting the Government dared to tell the people what is in their minds, I am sure they would re-echo my sentiments. The Bill contains so much that is of vital importance to the electors that one would be mad to attempt to discuss its merits and demerits after the strain of a sitting extending over sixteen hours and a half. I merely repeat my emphatic protest against what the Minister has compelled us to do. I quite anticipate that the Minister will reply that an arrangement was made with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) that these two constitutional' amendments should be passed through the Senate by to-day. I was not aware of that arrangement until an early hour this morning, because, owing to my absence in another State on important political business, my Leader. had not an opportunity of telling me earlier. 13215 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - I made no arrangements that interfered in any way with the right of full discussion by every honorable senator. 13215 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The The Leader of the Opposition never does do anything to interfere with the right of discussion by every honorable senator. I have always contended that the Leader must have from his party power to make such arrangements as are necessary for the convenience of the Senate. 13215 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I object to the accusation that I sprang a surprise upon the Senate. I told the Senate and its responsible leaders that the two Bills had to be passed by Thursday night. I am half a day behind. 13215 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - One One day was lost because of the sad event which was concluded in this building to-day. 13215 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I am only defending myself against the attack made on me for rushing these measures through. 13215 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I a I am blaming, not the Minister, but the Government. 13215 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - Senators Mulcahy and Bakhap " stone-walled " the previous Bill last night. 13215 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I - I believe that there has been as much discussion by Government supporters as by honorable senators on this side of the House. I conclude by indorsing the statements made by Senator Needham in condemnation of the provision that a Judge of the High Court must declare what a monopoly is after both Houses have declared some business to be a proper subject for reference to the Court, and that then the whole business must be gone through again by Parliament. This roundabout method of legislation destroys a good deal of the usefulness that was in the original Bill. Nevertheless, I support the Bill as it is for the good that there may be in it, whilst offering a strong protest against the method that the Government have adopted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee: Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 - The Constitution is altered by inserting, after section 51, the following section: - "51a. (1) The Parliament shall have power to make laws for carrying on by or under the control of the Commonwealth, the industry or business of producing, manufacturing, or supplying any specified goods, or of supplying any specified services, and for acquiring for that purpose on just terms the assets and goodwill of the industry or business, where each House of the Parliament has in the same session, by resolution passed by an absolute majority of its members, referred to the . High Court, for inquiry and report by a Justice thereof, the question whether the industry or business is the subject of a monopoly, and where, after the report of the Justice has been received, each House of the Parliament has, in one session, by resolution passed by an absolute majority of its members, declared that the industry or business is the subject of a monopoly. 13216 07:37:00 K18 Tasmania 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP . - For reasons which I indicated in my remarks on the second reading, I move - That after the word " monopoly," line 16, the words " detrimental to the Commonwealth " be inserted. Amendment negatived. 13216 07:38:00 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP . - I do not necessarily regard my defeat on the previous amendment as conclusive in regard to parliamentary action in the same direction. I therefore move - That before the word " monopoly," line 21, the word " detrimental " be inserted. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 3 - The alterations made by this Act shall remain in force - until the expiration of three years from the assent of the Governor-General thereto; or until a convention constituted by the Commonwealth makes recommendations for the alteration of the Constitution and the people indorse those recommendations, whichever first happens, and shall then cease to have effect: Provided that if no such convention is constituted by the Commonwealth before the thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and twenty, the alterations made by this Act shall cease to have effect on the said thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and twenty. 13216 07:39:00 JXJ Western Australia 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM . - I move - That before the word " Commonwealth " in sub-clause (b ) , the words " electors of the " be inserted. If that amendment is agreed to I shall later move to insert a provision that the Convention must be held not later than February, 1920. The effect of the two amendments is that a Convention chosen by the electors of the Commonwealth shall be held not later than February, 1920. 13216 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - How can that be done? The count for the Senate election will hardly be concluded in February. 13216 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - The elections will be held on the 13th December, and we shall know before the following February who are to' represent the people in the new Parliament. But even if by that date the result is not known because of the bastard system of electing the Senate that is to be introduced, there will still be a Government in power who will be able to take the steps necessary to give effect to the amendment. 13216 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Why did not the honorable senator propose that amendment on the previous Bill? 13216 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I supported another amendment, which would have had a similar effect. I desire to test the sincerity of the Government by ascertaining whether there is to be a Convention, and when it will be held. Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided. 6 20 Majority . . . . 14 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to - That the following new sub-clause be added : - " (2) No law passed by the Parliament by virtue of the powers conferred by this Act shall continue to have any force or effect, by virtue of this Act, after the alterations made by this Act have ceased to have effect.'' Clause, as amended, agreed to. Preamble and title agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. 13217 Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed - That this Bill be now read a third time. 13217 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens - This being a Constitution Amendment Bill, it requires a statutory majority of the whole Senate, and I direct that the bells be rung for two minutes, so that all honorable senators may have an opportunity to be present to record their votes. Question - " That the Bill be now read a third time" - put. 13217 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - No. 13217 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - I hear only one dissentient voice, but in order that there shall be no doubt as to the constitutional majority in the affirmative, I direct the Clerk to take a record of all honorable senators present, and I ask Senator Bakhap if he desires to have his name recorded as being the dissentient? 13217 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Yes, Mr. President, I request that my name be recorded as that of the dissenting senator. 13217 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - There being twenty-six members present, and only one dissentient voice, I declare the Bill carried by more than the statutory majority required by the Constitution Act. Bill read a third time. 13217 special adjournment Motion (by Senator Russell) agreed to - That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Wednesday next. 13217 miscellaneous Senator RUSSELL (Victoria- Vice-President of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence [7.53 a.m.]. - I present the Estimate of Receipts and Expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1920, together with the Budget papers, and move - That the papers be printed. I ask leave to continue my remarks on a subsequent occasion. Leave granted; debate adjourned. 13217 miscellaneous Report of Joint Committee of Public Accounts on the Working of Commonwealth Railways, presented by Senator Earle. 13217 papers The following papers were presented : - Taxation of Leasehold Estates in Crown Lands - Report of Royal Commission. Defence Act 1903-1918.- Regulations amended. -Statutory Rules 1919, Nos. 236, 237, 240, 242. War Precautions Act 1914-1918. - Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1919, No. 241. 13217 adjournment 13217 13217 07:58:00 K3E Victoria NAT Vice-President of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL . - I move - That the Senate do now adjourn. On the 1st October, Senator Gardiner asked the following question : - Whether the Acting Minister for Defence has received a communication from Captain Hayne, who retired through ill-health from the Defence Department, in which he complains that the record of his military services was actually cancelled by regulation? I am now able to furnish the honorable senator with the following information : - Owing to a clerical error, the word " Cancelled " was used in terminating the appointment of Captain R. Hayne, instead of the word " terminated." The necessary alteration is being made. 13218 KKZ New South Wales 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER . - I very much regret to detain the Senate at this hour of the morning, but I desire to say that the answer just given by the Acting Minister for Defence (Senator Russell) in regard to Captain Hayne is not correct. When, some time ago, I asked the Minister whether he had received a letter from Captain Hayne, he informed me that he had not. Since then, I have had a letter from Captain Hayne, and the facts disclosed are such as to show that he has had his services to Australia cancelled; and, further, that from the military records, which came out after the cancellation, his period of service in the military since 1916 has been removed, along with that of another officer. The letter which Captain Hayne wrote to the Minister was as follows : - " Park View," Bourke-street, Waverley, 11th September,1919. The Hon. the Minister for Defence, Melbourne Dear Sir, I wish to bring before your notice a very serious matter in connexion with the records of my service in the Permanent Military Forces. In 1916, I was appointed D.A.Q.M.G. (A.I.F.), the appointment appeared in M.O. 170 of 18th April, . 1916, which read as follow: - District Staffs. 2nd Military District With reference to M.O. 508/1915, the following temporary appointments are approved to date from 1st April, 1916: - district head-quarters staff. G.S.O. (A.I.F.), Captain (Hon. Major) P McFarlane, A. & I. Staff. .A.A.G. (A.I.F.), Captain T. P. Conway, A. & I. Staff D.A.Q.M.G. (A.I.F.), Captain R. Hayne, A. & I. Staff After I had carried out the duty allotted to me for over twelve months, Military Order 272 of 30th June, 1917, was issued cancelling the appointment. The following is a copy of the Order: - District Staffs. 2nd Military District The appointments of Captains T. P. Conway and R. Hayne, A. & I. Staff, to be D.A.A.G., Australian Imperial Force, apd D.A.Q.M.G., Australian Imperial Force, respectively, which were notified in Military "Order 170 of 1916 are cancelled. It will be noted that the appointment is not " terminated " but " cancelled," which, in effect, has expunged from the records the fact that I performed the duties of D.A.Q.M.G. (A.I.F.), thus depriving me of the credit of having carried out the important and responsible duties of this appointment in connexion with the war. That it was the intention of the Order to expunge this important duty from my records is borne out by reference to the Officers' List of the Australian Military Forces, dated 1st July, 1917, page 255-9, where the appointment of D.A.Q.M.G. for A.I.F., 2nd Military District, is shown opposite my name; and to the Officers of the Australian Military Forces, dated 1st August, 1918, page 241, where it will be noted that the appointment in question has been expunged. May I invite your attention to the fact that one of the appointments made in M.O. 170/1916 was not cancelled. These appointments (vide M.O. 170/1919) were made oh the recommendation of General Ramaciotti, when he was Commandant of New South Wales, and were approved by the Military Board; which plainly shows that they were considered necessary. It would appear that my duties were carried out in a satisfactory manner, as my name was brought to the notice of the Minister for specially meritorious services rendered in Australia in connexion with the war, and an entry was made accordingly -in my records of service.(Vide M.O. 447/1917.) I now claim that I am entitled to receive credit in my records for the performance of the duties of D.A.Q.M.G. (A.I.F.), 2nd Military District, in accordance with the tenor of my appointment in M.O. 170/1916. I contend that no one has power over the past. I was appointed to the position, and I performed the duties for over twelve months. These facts cannot be altered. Consequently, I consider it a gross injustice to expunge it from the records. I, therefore, request that this matter be fully inquired into, and that the Officer or Officers responsible for the cancellation of the appointment be called upon to show what justification he or they had for such an arbitrary act of unjust' repudiation. Yours faithfully, Hayne, Major, Retired List. (Late of the A. & I. Staff.) The Minister has said that the records will be put right. This man is now out of the Service, broken down in serving his country, and retired on account of ill-health, with a full allowance obtained after some delay. There were three officers appointed in one Gazette notice' - Major MacFarlane, Captain Conway, and Captain Hayne; and I should like to know whether, if Captain Hayne's record is restored, Captain Conway's will also be. 13218 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - The two cases are different. 13219 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - The facts are identical, and for months 1 have been aware of them ; but I do not make a practice of bringing officers' complaints before the Senate. When, however, I see an attempt made by officers in authority to take away records of meritorious services, it is time to take some action. When Captain Hayne answered the roll call at the Newcastle Camp, he answered to the titles of five different positions; and it was in doing three men's work that this powerful young man broke down.. Captain Conway is another brilliant young officer; and both he and Captain Hayne were prevented from going to the Front. The Minister now says that a mistake has been made, and no doubt he believes he is stating the facts; but if there is a mistake, it is one that cannot be allowed to continue. Everything. I have stated here is exactly true. I have seen the list where the names appear in one year, and are struck out the next. Three officers were appointed, and two had their appointments cancelled, while the third had not; and I ask the Minister to give his serious attention to the matter, and not be satisfied with information that makes it appear that there has been merely a mistake. 13219 JXJ Western Australia 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM . - Has the Acting Minister for Defence (Senator Russell) any further information to impart as to the trouble on the Bahia Castillo, which, I understand, is to arrive to morrow? The Minister informed me that he desires to have an inquiry by a combined tribunal, representing his own Department and that of the Navy; and it is only right that the Senate and the country should know whether, and when, such an inquiry is to be held. We should also know definitely the composition of the tribunal, and whether it will be open to the public, with evidence taken on oath. 13219 K3E Victoria NAT Vice-President of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL . -On the last occasion when I replied to a question by Senator Needham relating to the Bahia Castillo, I said I intended to communicate with the Minister for the Navy (Sir Joseph Cook) in order to have as full and complete an inquiry as possible. I do not think I have left the chamber since then,'.but I hope to see the Minister for the Navy some time to-day. If a definite decision is arrived at, I shall communicate with Senator Needham. As to the subject referred to by Senator Gardiner, I have to express my personal regret if any injustice has been done to the officers concerned. I took a personal interest in Captain Hayne's case, and I. shall see that any honours to which he is entitled are given to him. As to Captain Conway's case, this is the first time it has been brought under my notice; and, assuming that what we have heard is correct, I shall look into the matter personally. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 8.10 a.m. (Friday).