Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 11 July 1906

Mr POYNTON (Grey) .- I rise to support the principle embodied in the amendment. Conceal it as much as we may, this Bill is protection in disguise. We have heard Ministers and others, especially the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, speak of the " new protection " ; and I take it that the amendment of the honorable member for Angas is simply an endeavour to carry out that new protection - to protect the workers as well as the manufacturers. To show how necessary such an amendment is, I may point out that the chief mover and father of this Bill, Mr. McKay, when, some time ago, the Wages Board system was applied to Ballarat, removed his works from that city to Braybrook, in order that the number of his apprentices might not be limited, and that he might not be brought under the control of the Wages Board. I take it that if the amendment be embodied in the Bill, any attempt of that kind will deprive the manufacturer of the right to protection against dumping.

Mr Frazer - Such a manufacturer would have to move into a city before he could get that protection.

Mr POYNTON - That does not follow ; because if a manufacturer paid the ruling rate of wages, and observed Wages Boards conditions, he would be entitled to the protection, whether within or without the jurisdiction of the Wages Board. However, the case of Mr. McKay is one in point, because he shut down his works in Ballarat so that his employes would not be able to obtain the wages to which the Wages Boards declared1 they were entitled.

Mr Mauger - That was not the cause of the removal.

Mr POYNTON - What I am stating is a fact. Is it not a fact that Mr. McKay did close his factory at Ballarat, and move beyond the jurisdiction of the Wages Board?

Mr Mauger - That was not in order to escape paying the wages fixed by the Board.

Mr POYNTON - But Mr. McKay did escape paying the wages fixed by the Board, though I believe he made the excuse that he had more apprentices than he was entitled to employ, and that he wanted them to complete their indentures.

Mr Hutchison - The question is whether Mr. McKay is observing Wages Boards conditions.

Mr Mauger - He is.

Mr POYNTON - I understand that Mr, McKay is observing Wages Boards conditions now, having received a broad hint to do so.

Mr Mauger - Mr. McKay did not get a hint, but was told straight that if he did not observe Wages Boards conditions we would not work for him.

Mr POYNTON - It was not until he was told that if he did not observe Wages Boards conditions he would not be protected against the dumping by the International Harvester Company, that he made the promise. Let us have some provision in the Bill to insure that all the protection shall not be given to the manufacturer.

Suggest corrections