Mr. DEAKIN.-The Opposition did not support 10 per cent. of vital alterations proposed by the Government themselves. Mr. WATSON.-There was only one vital alteration proposed by the Government. Mr. DEAKIN.-The Government proposed five vital alterations, as I shall show presently. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I contend that preference to unionists is not an essential to compulsory arbitration. Mr. GROOM. But the honorable and learned member favoured the granting of preference to unionists. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I supported it as an incident, but it is not an essential to compulsory arbitration. I think we can appeal to the people of Australia to decide this point. HONORABLE MEMBERS.-Hear, hear! Sir JOHN QUICK. — I hold in my I hold in my hand a copy of a report by the Chief Inspector of Factories in Victoria, dated 25th June, 1904. Referring to the provisions of the Victorian factory law, he says The principle of compulsory arbitration, which has been abolished, so far as several boards were concerned, by the substitution of seven-tenths majorities by the Act of 1902, was restored by the Act of 1903. In this State we have in force a number of boards charged by Act of Parliament with the duty of determining rates of wages, hours of work, and conditions of labour. In this report it is shown that a large number of boards have been appointed, have done their work, and have made awards dealing with various branches of trade and industry. Mr. BATCHELOR.-But the machinery is entirely different. Sir JOHN QUICK.-There are no less than thirty-eight boards affecting over 38,000 operators, and according to this report Determinations made by the above boards are now in force, with the exception of the Artificial Manure, the Dressmakers, the Ironmoulders, and the Tinsmiths' Boards. The determinations in force appear to be well observed considering the numbers affected. There have been breaches of the law during the year under review, but many were the result of misunderstanding or inadvertence. In Victoria, therefore, we have no less than thirty-eight trades in connexion with which there has been compulsory arbitration for the settlement of labour disputes. Mr. MAUGER.-There is no compulsory arbitration, Sir JOHN QUICK.-There is. Mr. MAUGER.-Where is the compulsion? Sir JOHN QUICK.-Under the Factories Act not one of these boards has power to give preference to unionists. Mr. MAUGER.-Where is the compulsion? Sir JOHN QUICK.-Why does the honorable member, who is one of the strongest advocates of the Wages Boards system, ridicule what I say? Mr. MAUGER.-I am not. I am only ridiculing the comparison which is sought to be established between the two systems. Sir JOHN QUICK.-The comparison is most important, and quite relevant, because one of the tests applied to a democratic candidate in this State hitherto has been, "Are you in favour of Wages Boards and the Factories Act ?" These boards have made determinations in thirty-eight industries, and the awards have been enforced by the Government without reference to the question of preference to union ists. Mr. MAUGER.-With what result? Sir JOHN QUICK.-The chief inspector told me yesterday that the awards have been enforced very satisfactorily; Mr. MAUGER.-With what result to those who helped to enforce them? Sir JOHN QUICK.-There are inspec tors appointed to see that the awards are enforced, and receive complaints if there is any breach of an award. When there is a breach of an award the occupier of the factory is prosecuted. Mr. MAUGER.-And some of the best men are starving to-day, because they are out of work. Mr. SPEAKER.-Order; I ask the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, who has not yet spoken, and who will therefore, have an opportunity to reply to any speaker, not to interject. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I noticed that the Hansard report of my speech last night contains more interjections than observations of mine. I have no objection to occasional interjections from a friendly source, but when they come like a hurricane, one is upset, to some extent. Mr. MAUGER. I apologize. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I would ask the honorable member to reflect upon the good work done by the Wages Boards here, and to consider whether it does not support my argument that, whilst we may put preference to unionists as an incident, there is no necessity to make it the essence and the condition precedent to Federal legislation on the subject. Sir JOHN QUICK.-No; because the Wages Boards are founded upon the assumption that the workmen will obey their Mr. HUTCHISON.-Then the unionists will awards. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I do not believe Mr. POYNTON. The honorable and learned member does not seriously compare the two measures? Sir JOHN QUICK.-I do, most decidedly. Mr. POYNTON.-What power does the State law give to enforce an award? Sir JOHN QUICK.-When there is a breach, the award is enforced by a prosecution in the Court. Mr. POYNTON.-What guarantee is there that the award will be given effect to? Sir JOHN QUICK.-The guarantee is that the Court will give effect to the award. Mr. POYNTON. There is no power in the union to make the award effective. Sir JOHN QUICK.-The honorable member assumes that an award, when it is made, will not be carried out by the workmen. He has no right to make that assumption. Mr. POYNTON.-I did not say that. Sir JOHN QUICK.-If the honorable member believes in compulsory arbitration, surely he ought to believe that the parties to a dispute will obey an award when it is made? Mr. POYNTON.-No machinery is provided in the Act for enforcing an award. Sir JOHN QUICK.-What right has the honorable member to assume that the workmen will not obey an award? Mr. POYNTON.-Are the Wages Boards empowered to enforce their awards? Mr. POYNTON.-Any excuse is better than none. Sir JOHN QUICK.-The honorable member appears to assume that the workpeople would have to be forced to obey the awards by criminal prosecutions. Mr. POYNTON.-Any excuse is better than none. The hon Mr. SPEAKER.-Order. orable member for Grey will have an opportunity to speak later. Sir JOHN QUICK.-If the honorable member continues to interrupt me, I must continue to direct my remarks to him. I say that the honorable member seems anxious that there should be a provision in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill for the purpose of coercing workpeople. That is what he desires. I contend that that is not necessary. If the workpeople of Victoria and Australia generally are let alone, they will obey these awards without coercion. Mr. POYNTON.-The Miners' Association says that preference is necessary. Sir JOHN QUICK.-They will obey these awards without the intervention of any Court or trades union council. I may say that they have done it in Victoria, and it is therefore not necessary that we should create these huge trades union organizations, and intrust them with Ministerial powers to coerce workmen. I believe that most of the democratic organs of public opinion in Australia have arrived at the conclusion that compulsory preference to preference to unionists, as developed in the Bill, and as advocated by the Labour Party, is a menace to personal liberty, and a danger to those whom it is intended to benefit. In this connexion, I should like to quote one or two passages from the Age newspaper, which has always been the advocate of the working classes in this State. It has advocated the passing of factory laws, and the due administration of those laws. Mr. MAUGER.-Will the honorable and learned member quote what the Age says about the Coalition at the same time? Sir JOHN QUICK.-The honorable member for Melbourne Ports is interrupting again, but I can tell him that I shall come to the Coalition presently, and to the honorable member's participation in the alliance. Will the honorable member kindly listen to this, from the Age of 27th July. It is rather interesting reading, and it will probably be found to be useful to honorable members during the Federal campaign?-- The proposed wholesale dismissal of men an? women from their employment by order of an Arbitration Court is becoming more distasteful to members of the Federal Parliament the more its moral and industrial consequences are inquired into. Preference to unionists must mean the dis missal of non-unionists; and this must take place on a very extensive scale if the principle of prefer. ence is to be applied in anything like the way proposed by the Watson Government. Sir JOHN FORREST.-Honorable members opposite are all silent now. Mr. HUTCHISON. They cannot come under the Act at all unless they are unionists. Sir JOHN QUICK.-Here is another passage Members do not take kindly to the idea of instructing ary Court, or even giving it the power, to compel employers to dismiss one set of employés and give a right of preference to others. Mr. HUTCHISON.-Does not the honorable and learned member see how ridiculous that is. when they must belong to unions before they can come under the measure? Mr. HUTCHISON.-Apparently he does not know it either, and requires instruction. Mr. TUDOR.-The honorable and learned member for Bendigo may have to ask the editor of the Age to support him in a little while. Sir JC passage arena of practical politics, the less it commends itself to common-sense people who retain their ordinary notions of justice and humanity. Mr. KELLY.-What does the honorable and learned member for Indi say to that? Mr. FRAZER.-I think the honorable and learned member must be quoting from the Argus. Sir JOHN QUICK.-That is from the Age of 27th July. I now propose to quote some passages from a leading article appearing in the Age of 12th August, which was published on the eve of the great division upon the amendment proposed by the honorable and learned member for Corinella, and in this leading article we are invited to support the amendment, by language and argument stronger than any used by honorable members on the floor of the House. Mr. WEBSTER.-Did that influence the honorable and learned member? Sir JOHN QUICK.-No, certainly not; but I place these arguments on record for the use of the honorable member for Gwydir during the Federal campaign. Mr. WEBSTER.-The honorable and learned member need not trouble about me; he will have plenty to do in looking after himself. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I take these passages from the leading article of the Age of 12th August— Members have now fully realised how deeply they will be compromised in the eyes of many of their constituents if they use the mandate given to them at the general elections for the purpose of driving men and women out of their employment QUICK.-Here is another instead of promoting industrial peace and goodwill Nothing could be The true influence which in this matter of the Arbitration Bill has converted the Watson Government's majority into a minority has been the thought that the measure, instead of being a means of promoting industrial peace, is being converted into an instrument for ejecting large numbers of persons from their billets. Mr. HUTCHISON.-Yet they must be unionists before they can come under the law. How absurd! Sir JOHN QUICK.-Here is another passage Extreme State Socialists, who are concerned in the working of the Political Labour Councils, are acting quite logically in setting great store by the preference clause. A Trades Hall Council, sitting in judgment to determine who was to be thrust out of employment in favour of its nominees, would be almost an exact counterpart of the Socialistic rulers whom such theorists as Marx and Lasalle would have installed in absolute control of the universal State industry. But the more this kind of scheme is realised in actual life, or in proposals which have been advocated in the among the workers. I say that those extracts from leading ar- Mr. WEBSTER.-After the experience of the New South Wales Arbitration Court they are. Sir JOHN QUICK.-They show that it is possible to have a system of compulsory arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes founded upon democratic principles, without the introduction of a provision which may be used as an instrument of hardship and tyranny-for the purpose of driving innocent men and women out of employment. Mr. WEBSTER.-I deny the honorable and learned member's statement of the case. Sir JOHN QUICK.-As I have said before, the division on the amendment proposed by the honorable and learned member for Corinella was one which established a line of cleavage in this House, and led to the resignation of the late Ministry. As a matter of personal opinion, I do not think that it was necessary that the late Ministry should have resigned on account of the result of that division, especially in view of the statement made by the late Prime Minister himself, that this preference provision was only intended to be brought into action where the majority in any trade or industry required it, and that it was merely giving legal effect and expression to the practice of the New South Wales Court. If that be so, it merely expressed in writing, in the form. of an Act of Parliament, what the late Prime Minister himself desired, and intended should be done. If that be so-and I accept the honorable gentleman's honest at the table that it was so then why all the uproar? Why all this fuss because of the insertion of an amendment which was merely intended to give effect to the desires and intentions of the framers of the Bill? The amendment was merely intended to give effect to the desire that the principle of preference should be applied only where the majority of those engaged in any trade or industry desired it. It should not be forgotten that the clause after all was not introduced for the protection of minorities. It was introduced for the protection of majorities. That was the essence of the clause. It was introduced to prevent any small union which might be scratched up for the purpose of raising a dispute and bringing a case before the Court of Arbitration, being able to snatch a preference behind the backs of the majority of the workers in a trade. assurances Mr. TUDOR. That would give the preference to Chinamen in the furniture trade. because they form the majority of the workers in that trade. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I am not the friend of Chinamen. We are dealing here with white men and Europeans. Mr. WATSON. The Chinese would come in under the amendment moved by the honorable and learned member for Corinella. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I point out that the honorable member for Bland himself said-and he cannot go behind it—that he only intended the principle to be brought into operation where majorities were agreed that it should apply. Mr. WATSON.—Yes; but I proposed to give the Court power to go beyond that if it wished. Sir JOHN QUICK.-Then the honorable gentleman's statement, as reported in Hansard, to the effect that it was only intended to apply in the case of majorities, does not accurately express his intention. I believe, as I said last night, that if the late Prime Minister had been left to his own sober judgment and discretion, he would have cheerfully acquiesced in the decision of honorable members, and would have allowed the amendment to remain in the Bill without raising such a noise about it. - Mr. BATCHELOR. The honorable and learned member does not know the man. Sir JOHN QUICK.-It was only because other influences were at work. Mr. WATSON.-Ridiculous! The honorable and learned member has a keen imagination. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I point out that the honorable member for Bland did not exhibit much alarm when the amendment was first proposed. He allowed the debate to go on in a complacent sort of manner, and scarcely took any part in the discussion. Mr. WATSON.-There was no debate on the amendment. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I told the honorable gentleman very clearly what my attitude was upon it. Mr. WATSON. The honorable and learned member did nothing of the sort; he never said a word about it. Sir JOHN QUICK. I did. If the honorable gentleman will read my speech, as reported in Hansard, he will see that I expressed my intention to support the amendment moved by the honorable and The honorlearned member for Corinella. able gentleman got up afterwards in reply, and said formally that he objected to the amendment. Mr. POYNTON.-There are only sixteen lines altogether in Hansard upon it. Sir JOHN QUICK.-He did not give any grave reason why it should be objected to. Mr. KELLY.-The amendment of the honorable and learned member for Corinella was referred to by several speakers before him. Mr. WATSON.-It was never mentioned by any other honorable member. Mr. KELLY.-We all knew of it; it was mentioned by half-a-dozen honorable members. Sir JOHN QUICK.-Honorable members will remember that the amendment was carried by the substantial maiority of five, after the lapse of a considerable time, during which honorable members on the Government side at the time had an opportunity to reconsider the matter. The Government asked the House to reverse its decision. Honorable members who had voted for it were invited, forsooth, to reverse their previous votes on a clause which was suddenly regarded as one of immense vitality and importance. So far as I am concerned, having thoroughly understood and considered it. and having spoken on it, I could not plead ignorance of its effect. The honorable member for Riverina has complained that he was taken by surprise, and desired time for further consideration; but I could offer no such plea as that. I do not think that the honorable member for Bourke pleaded ignorance. Mr. McCAY.-He has not given any explanation yet. Mr. HUME COOK.-Because he has not altered his vote. He has not had a chance He has not had a chance to alter it. Sir JOHN QUICK.-The honorable member announced his intention to alter it. Mr. HUME COOK.-I did not. Sir JOHN QUICK.-Then I beg the honorable member's pardon, because I understood that he had done so. While some honorable members may justifiably plead ignorance, or misapprehension, or inadverence, as a reason for reversing their vote, those who understood what they were doing had no reason for reversing it. The memers of the Watson Administration voluntarily staked their existence upon the chance of procuring a reversal of that vote. I believe that they thought that the vote would he reversed, but they miscalculated the material upon which they were operating. They thought that if they could not obtain a reversal of the vote, they would be granted a dissolution, and that the resignation of office would not be necessary. The Go vernor-General upset their calculations on that point. But, having resigned office upon that vital question, why is it that they are So anxious to get back again? Because the same situation will be reproduced, the same vote will have to be taken, and the same or a similar crisis will eventuate, if they again take office. In my opinion, they were practically outgeneralled. If they had shown better generalship, they would have allowed the decision of the Committee to stand, and left the development of the matter to the ordinary course of debate in the other Chamber, and afterwards of messages between the two Houses. Instead of doing so, they asked us to rescind our votes, and to give up a provision which a large number of us were determined to fight for in this House, and, if necessary, in the country. He That Mr. POYNTON.-In order to kill the Bill. Sir JOHN QUICK.-Certainly not. I have already pointed out that it was not to kill the Bill. In the Victorian factory legislation there is no such thing as compulsory preference to unionists, and the absence of such a provision has not killed that legislation. The honorable member for Yarra is a powerful advocate of the settlement of industrial disputes in Victoria by means of the Wages Board system. knows what an immense amount of good has been done by those boards without the granting of preference to unionists. fact, coupled with the arguments which I have already given, is sufficient to show that the qualification of a provision giving preference to unionists would not kill the Arbitration Bill. But such a qualification may do this: It may prevent organizations registered for the settlement of industrial disputes from being converted into political organizations. Indeed, the only object of preference was to bring that about. It was desired that the unions should be clothed with a certain amount of power and patronage in connexion with industrial disputes, so that they might be used as the outposts of the Labour Party. I think that I have now said enough on the subject of preference to unionists, though, as it was the main issue which caused the crisis. I think it is as well to accentuate the fact. But I would ask honorable members why are we requested to make a change of Government at the present time? The Liberal Protectionists were divided as the result of a division on the clause, a large number of them |