House of Representatives
11 May 1945

17th Parliament · 3rd Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. J. S. Rosevear) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1646

QUESTION

ROYAL NAVY

Pacificfleet - British Dock

Operatives

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– The press has announced to-day that 6,000 British skilled dock operatives are being brought to Australia to service units of the British Fleet. Will the Minister for the Navy say whether or not that is correct ? If it is, when was the decision made to bring these workmen to Australia! Does it imply that the number of skilled Australian workers either in civilian occupations or in the armed forces is insufficient to undertake this class of work? Will these workmen be attached to the British Navy, andbe subject to naval discipline and uniform, or will they be civilian workers and receive rates of pay in accordance with Australian industrial awards?

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for Munitions · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The figure given by the press was not supplied by me.

Mr Holt:

– Is it wrong?

Mr MAKIN:

– It is; to my knowledge, the actual number is not nearly so great. These men will be attached to the administration of the British Pacific Fleet, and will form a part of its trained auxiliaries for the purpose of helping to service units of that fleet. The decision to bring them to Australia was made from six to nine months ago, and has no connexion with any industrial difficulties that may exist at present in this country.

Mr Holt:

– They will bo under the supervision of the British Fleet authorities ?

Mr MAKIN:

– They will be under the supervision of the British authorities, not the Australian authorities. Their rates of pay will be determined by the’ British Admiralty. If the honorable gentleman desires any further information, and will place a question on the notice-paper, I shall obtain it for him.

page 1646

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Withdrawal op Long-service Troops -

Notification of Death to Next of Kin - Call-up of Youths.

Mr CHAMBERS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– As many men who have served in the Army for three, four and five years are now over 40 years of ago and desire to return to civilian life, will the Minister representing the Acting Minister for the Army expedite consideration of the possibility of granting the discharges of those who have applied for release?

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– The whole matter of granting discharges to men with long service is at present under the consideration of the Government, and it is hoped that a statement upon it will be made very shortly.

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– Upon the death of an Australian prisoner of war, the Department of the Army notifies the next of kin, to whom is sent about three days later Form WF66, with the bald statement that the reason for the cancellation of the deceased soldier’s allotment is so and so, that he died on a certain date; and that he had overdrawn his pay by a stated amount - which may be up to £50. Will the Minister representing the Acting Minister for the Army investigate the possibility of devising a more humane form of notification to next of kin, and of extinguishing any indebtedness of the deceased soldier to the department?

Mr DEDMAN:

– If the facts are as stated, I agree that a better method should be adopted. I shall refer the matter to my colleague for immediate action.

Mr FALSTEIN:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Acting Minister for the Army prevent the further call-up of youths when they turn eighteen if they are capable of filling important positions in essential industries?

Mr DEDMAN:

– This is only one feature of the use of man-power, and the honorable member’s suggestion will undoubtedly be considered by the Government when it makes a general review of the man-power of the country. At this stage, I cannot say whether it. will bo possible to comply with the honorable member’s request.

page 1646

QUESTION

MAN-POWER

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the extra strain that will be imposed on Australian primary production and food producing industries, by the reported influx of British dock workers and the transfer of over 2,000,000 American soldiers to the Pacific theatre of war, will the Acting Prime Minister make immediately, instead of waiting until next month, a Teview of the man-power position in rural industries and the rate of releases from the Army, with a view to stepping up production?

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I assure the right honorable gentleman that the review of man-power is being made as far as it can be carried out, naving regard to the commitments into which Australia has entered in connexion with the present phase of the war in the Pacific. The influx of dock workers to which the righthonorable ‘ gentleman has referred, was anticipated from six to nine months ago and was the subject of discussion between the Governments of Great Britain and Australia prior to the despatch of any British naval units to this country. The matter is receiving constant consideration.

page 1647

QUESTION

POST-WAB RE-ESTABLISHMENT

vocational training of merchant Seamen- -Technical Instruction - Government War Factories - Employment.

Mr MULCAHY:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction whether or not merchant seamen are excluded from the technical training scheme that is associated with the re-establishment of members of the fighting services? If they are, will the the honorable gentleman, assure that they shall be given facilities equal to those that are available to other members of the fighting services ?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– It is not correct that merchant seamen are excluded from the facilities that are available to servicemen under the reconstruction training scheme. At the moment, because of the general shortage of manpower and the limited accommodation, the facilities available for technical training are extremely restricted. As more accommodation and man-power become available, the matter of extending the scheme to cover merchant seamen will receive sympathetic consideration.

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction aware that, in giving evidence before the soldiers’ committee on repatriation and post-war reconstruction, the Director of Technical Education, Mr. Eltham, said that there were not sufficient technical instructors, buildings, plant and materials available for the instruction of anything like the number of persons who would be applying for post-war training. Will the Minister say what steps are being taken to ensure that a sufficient number of instructors and adequate facilities will be made available so that there will be no delay in the training of men after their return?

Mr DEDMAN:

– I have already said that the Government fully realizes that there is not at present available sufficient accommodation, or a sufficient number of trained instructors, to undertake vocational training on the scale which it is expected will be required. The Government is doing its best in difficult circumstances to ensure that improved facilities and a greater number of instructors will be made available in the future. The honorable member must realize that the number of men who can be released from the services is limited by our commitments. Men cannot be doing two things at the same time ; they cannot be fighting in operational areas, and at the same time acting as instructors in technical schools. The Government is doing its very utmost to ensure that a sufficient number of trained instructors will be available to enable vocational training to .be undertaken on. an appropriate scale.

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, considered a plan for the use of war factories as submitted by the Metal Trades Federation, which represents 250,000 workers in war factories? A document in which this plan is set forth in detail has been distributed to honorable members. Will the Minister make an announcement regarding the policy of the Government for the post-war use of factories, setting forth, for the guidance of those interested, what it is proposed to do with each factory?

Mr DEDMAN:

– The Government has received from the organization mentioned by the honorable member suggestions for the use of government factories after the war. They are being examined, together with suggestions received from other quarters. As opportunity offers, the Government is taking steps to ensure that the factories will be used for post-war production in Australia. Not much more can be done at the moment, because the staffing of the factories’ to undertake civilian production is limited by our war commitments. It would not be of much use to say that certain factories will boused for certain purposes, if the necessary labour cannot be obtained.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Oan the Acting Prime Minister say whether the Government intends to comply with the request of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions that it should be told during the week-end of the Government’s post-war policy for full employment? If so, will he take an early opportunity to let members of this Parliament into the secret ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Judging from what one reads in the newspapers there does not seem to be much secrecy about what the Government is doing or proposes to do. I hope that, at a very early date, the Government will be able to issue, through the Ministry for Post-<war Reconstruction, a white paper on the subject of employment. There will be a meeting this week between Ministers and representatives of trade unions, organized by the Australasian Council of Trade Unions in the same way as other meetings of the kind have been organized, to permit of an exchange of views between the Government and the trade unions. I do not know whether any special request has been made for information on the matter mentioned by the honorable member, but it is possible that the subject will bc touched upon briefly. I expect that the paper which is to be issued will deal with the subject comprehensively.

page 1648

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Publication of Casualty Lists - Curtailment of Activities

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Information, whether or not the Sydney Morning Herald broke faith with his department as recently as last Monday, when it published a Royal Australian Air Force casualty list before the stated time? Did it publish the list on Monday morning, although the copy was specifically marked in large type, “ For publication in the press of Monday afternoon”? Because of this unethical conduct, did it break- faith not only with the department, but also with its competitors in the newspaper field? If I have stated facts, will the Minister ensure that in future the Sydney Morning Herald will not be supplied with casualty lists until such a time as will prevent it from breaking faith in the manner mentioned ?

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Information · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is true that the Sydney Morning Herald has broken faith with the Department of Information. The lists supplied to it for publication were marked, for Monday afternoon publication only, yet they were published on Monday morning. I assure the honorable member that a newspaper which breaks faith not only with the department but also with other newspapers, will not have an .opportunity to repeat the breach so long as I am Minister for Information.

Mr RYAN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– In to-day’s issue of the Canberra Times, it is stated that changes are to take place in the strength of the Air Force in Australia. It is said that, among other things, there will be an almost immediate suspension of recruiting of aircrew personnel; the possible disbanding of the Air Cadet Training Corps; the reduction, or possible abolition, of the Volunteer Air Observers Corps; and the suspension of Elementary Training Schools for aircrew trainees. Can the Minister make a statement on this matter?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Canberra Times is usually a well-informed paper, but on this occasion it has been doing some speculation regarding what may be probable. It is true that an examination is being made of the possibilities mentioned in the article, but no definite plan has been prepared. Honorable members must realize that thousands of men will be arriving soon from overseas at irregular intervals, and their disposition must be arranged according to their length of service. Consideration is being given to the future of the Air Cadet Training Corps and the Volunteer Air Observers Corps, having regard to the obligation to take our full share in the future prosecution of the war. As soon as I am in a position to state what plans have been prepared, I shall do so, but it must be remembered that any plans made may have to be altered in the light of changing circumstances.

page 1648

QUESTION

BRISBANE WOMEN’S HOSPITAL

Mr ADERMANN:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs whether or not the charge made by the Brisbane Women’s Hospital has been increased from 12s. to 15s. a day, as the Brisbane Courier-Mail of the 9th May has reported ? Has this increase been authorized by the Prices Commissioner? If not, how does it fit into the policy of pegged prices and the control of charges for services? Is this hospital one of the institutions which will be entitled to a subsidy under the Government’s hospitalization plan ? Does the increase of the charge mean that the patient will receive a benefit of only 3s. a day from the proposed Commonwealth subsidy of 6s. a day? As the Brisbane

Women’s Hospital is operated by a board, under the control of the Queensland Government, will the Minister state what action, if any, may be taken for the removal of the increased charge from Queensland women who become inmates of the hospital?

Mr BEASLEY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall have the matter investigated.

page 1649

QUESTION

PATRIOTIC FUNDS

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Acting Prime Minister give consideration to the introduction of legislation providing for the establishment of a Central Distress Fund, into which shall be paid all moneys remaining in the hands of patriotic and other similar organizations at the conclusion of hostilities, with the exception of, probably, the Red Cross Society and the Australian Comforts Fund, and for the distribution of the moneys among soldiers and their dependants who are in need of assistance and do not come within the scope of the Repatriation Act?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The matter of funds collected during the war for the provision of comforts and amenities for soldiers has been brought under my notice on several occasions. It will be remembered that, after the last war, there was an accumulation of funds which, in many instances, could not be expended for the purposes for which they were originally collected. I do not know just what are the legal powers of the Commonwealth, or what may be the rights and wrongs of the matter, but I shall have it examined.

page 1649

QUESTION

RAYON INDUSTRY

Lease op Factory at Rutherford - Visit of British Manufacturers-

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction make a statement regarding the conditions under which the Government has leased the munitions factory at Rutherford to a company for the purpose of manufacturing rayon?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I shall obtain for the honorable member the information which he requires.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Will the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction disclose to the House the result of negotia- tions between the Government and certain British rayon manufacturers during their visit to Australia? Will he say why the presence of this delegation in Australia was not disclosed to Parliament during the debate on the Wool Use Promotion Bill?

Mr DEDMAN:

– The honorable member’s question is couched in such terms as to suggest that something underhand has been going on. The delegation referred to came to Australia of its own volition. It was not invited by the Government, but when it arrived here, it took the opportunity to discuss certain matters with the Government.

Mr Chifley:

– At the request of the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom.

Mr DEDMAN:

– Nothing was said or done during the discussions which is in any way secret, and I shall consider whether there is anything which I can report to the House concerning the matter.

page 1649

QUESTION

VOLUNTEER DEFENCE CORPS

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Acting Minister for the Army, having regard to the altered war position, and to the great improvement which has taken place in the general situation, consider disbanding the Volunteer Defence Corps, which has in the past rendered very good service?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– The honorable member’s suggestion will be considered when a general review of the man-power position is undertaken.

page 1649

QUESTION

MIGRATION

Mr HOLT:

– I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Forde) and the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) discussed the subject of migration with the British Government while they were in London. Can the Acting Prime Minister add anything to the information already given to the House on this subject? Will he say whether Australia has a representative, either military or civil, on Amgot, ‘particularly in connexion with the administration of Germany, and other parts of Europe, which have been occupied by Allied forces?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I have received no information regarding the nature of the discussions which the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for External Affairs engaged in while they were in London. The Government has been asked to appoint representatives to nearly all the bodies associated with, administrative problems in Europe arising out of the Allied occupation. In most instances, such representation was to be in association with the representatives of the United Kingdom. 1 cannot remember for the moment whether Australia has direct ^presentation on the particular ‘body mentioned by the honorable member, but T shall obtain the information for -him.

page 1650

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Formal Motion for Adjournment

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– T have received from the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely -

The failure of the Government to maintain effort and production on the waterfront.

After I received this letter I tried to get some definite information as to the extent of the difficulties on the waterfront, and I think I should first be informed by the Acting Attorney-General (Mr. Beasley), who is in the best position to know, what is the position judicially in regard to disputes on the waterfront.

Mr Beasley:

– Two disputes on the waterfront are now before Judge O’Mara in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The first is a dispute between the Ship Joiners Union and the Building Workers Industrial Union regarding the registration of the former by the Arbitration Court. Also involved in the dispute are some other people whom the court has called before it to justify their actions in suggesting that members of the Ship Joiners Union be prevented from working on the waterfront. Counsel have addressed the court, which is now at the stage of making its decision.

Mr Menzies:

– What is the nature of the dispute, an application to deregister?

Mr Beasley:

– The right of the Ship Joiners Union to registration is being challenged.

Mr Menzies:

– Well, it is an application to deregister the union, is it?

Mr Beasley:

– The second case is a dispute involving the Balmain Branch of the Ironworkers Union and concerning a body of men working at Mort’s Dock who are protesting against the action of the union in the appointment of delegates to represent it at Mort’s Dock. This case has been before Judge O’Mara for more than a fortnight. It was adjourned yesterday to Monday for reasons which are not quite clear to me.

Mr Menzies:

– What is the nature of the proceedings?

Mr Beasley:

– I have told the right honorable gentleman.

Mr White:

– Not the second case.

Mr Beasley:

– I am telling the House as much as is necessary. Both matters are before the court. The court adjourned the ironworkers case until next Monday pending, I understand, certain discussions between the parties -which are proposed for the week-end. I am unable to say what the outcome of those discussions will be. Neither am I able to say what will be the decision of the court, or its outcome. All T can say is that both cases are before the court and that it has not made its decision in either.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In view of what the Acting Attorney-General has said, I desire to know whether the honorable member for Wentworth desires to proceed. The position plainly is that both cases are before the court. One, I understand from the Acting Attorney-General, has been adjourned to Monday. In the other case, counsel on both sides have addressed the judge, whose decision is now awaited. Obviously, under the practice of the House, it would be impossible to discuss either matter at present. I do not know just how much lie cases affect the matters that the honorable member for Wentworth desires to bring before the House or whether he would prefer to postpone his motion until both cases have ,been settled, thus enabling free debate, but, if he proceeds now I shall have to prevent all reference to the two cases before the court.

Mr Menzies:

– On the question of order, may I say something about this matter, because, you, Mr. Speaker, have indicated how you will rule if certain references are made ? We should be clear about this matter. There are two proceedings which have been referred to by the Acting Attorney-General (Mr. Beasley). The first, I gathered from what he said and from other information, is an application to deregister the Ship Joiners Union. It would, of course, quite plainly not be appropriate that in this House we should discuss whether or not it should be deregistered. That is the proceeding before the court. I do not understand that my colleague, the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), proposes to refer to the question of whether that union should or should not be deregistered. If he had intended to do so, I am 3ure that, in deference to what you have said and the general prac.tice of the House, he will not. The Acting Attorney-General has left quite unexplained what is before the court in the second proceeding. Matters go before the court, not in a general fashion, but on some particular proceeding. It may be, as in the other case, by an application to deregister a union or to settle a dispute, but the mere fact that a proceeding is before the court does not mean that industrial troubles associated with some particular action cannot be discussed by Parliament because it may call for a decision by the court. I should like the Acting Attorney-General to tell us the nature of the proceedings. It is not sufficient to say that some people are before the court. All sorts of people are before the court every day on all sorts of matters.

Mr Calwell:

– Some people ought to be before the court.

Mr Menzies:

– One, I believe, will be befor:e the court on the 28th of this month. What 1 want to emphasize is that the mere fact that some matter in which some union is involved is before the court for some purpose is no reason why discussion should not occur in this House on the general question of industrial trouble on the waterfront and the effect that it is having on the war.

Mr Beasley:

– In regard to the first case, the matter of the deregistration of the Ship Joiners Union is a part of the proceedings, but the proceedings extend far beyond that. Action concerning the Ship Joiners Union taken by the Building Workers Industrial Union had its origin in the refusal of its members to work on jobs on which members of the Ship Joiner3 Union were engaged. That involved a number of other unions in the dispute. Peace and harmony on the waterfront are being disrupted. Therefore the matter involves much more than application to deregister the Ship Joiners Union. I referred earlier to the fact that the court had called before it a number of gentlemen who were engaged in what the court claimed was incitement of other unions not to work with the members of the Ship Joiners Union. As a matter of fact, counsel’ appearing for the Ship Joiners Union suggested that the case might lead to criminal proceedings. Therefore the matter is very wide, much wider than the question of deregistration. The second dispute affects Mort’s Dock. The court, we believe, has power to deal with disputes affecting industry even though they may be disputes between unions or within a union, and, in this instance, the parties, before the court are not only the representatives of the two sides within the union, but also the employers. Whilst the right honorable gentleman’s suggestion that the matter before the court affects two sections of the Ironworkers Union may be basically true, the dispute now extends to the point at which it affects the industry itself, the peace of the industry, and the continuity of operations in the industry. That being the case, the matter is of the greatest importance and is so wide that the Crown has intervened for the purpose of putting before the court the effect of the dispute upon industry generally, shipbuilding and repairs, and naval matters in particular. In regard to the ironworkers case, it has been reported to me that it is the intention of the union to make application to the High Court for an Injunction to restrain Judge O’Mara from proceeding with the hearing.

Mr Menzies:

– It looks as if Parliament will be silent on the subject for a long time.

Mr Beasley:

– Ah! The point is that this matter had its origin, in a dispute between two sections of tie union; but it has now reached the stage at which it affects industry generally, causing the Crown to intervene, and it has possibly reached the stage at which the High Court, within the next 24 hours, will hear an application from the union for an injunction against judge O’Mara’s dealing further with it:

Mr Harrison:

– Before these cases reached the court, I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) specific questions which I now wish to debate upon a formal motion for the adjournment of the House. I put it to you, sir, that industrial matters go before the Arbitration Court day after day, and that if you persist in your ruling this House will be precluded from discussing any industrial matter, because the court is almost invariably dealing with matters affecting industry. Your ruling may have the effect of restricting debate in this House on any matter bearing on industrial affairs if that matter is before the court. What I wish to deal with now are the questions that I asked the Minister for La’bour and National Service before the matters reached the court, and I hope that you will not prevent, me from discussing them. I should like to proceed with my motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I wish to make it quite clear that it is not with the idea of preventing discussion of any public question that I have taken this course. But I do want to preserve the practice of Parliament not to discuss any matter which is definitely before the court, and it appears that the ironworkers case has been adjourned to Monday. It is common knowledge that it has been proceeding for a long time. The other ca.se has reached, the stage where counsel have addressed, the judge and are awaiting his decision. I think those two matters are in an entirely different category from questions usually asked here about industrial disputes. The two matters seem to foe so linked up with the subject of the motion, “ The failure of the Government to maintain effort and production on the waterfront “, that it would appear to me to be difficult for the honorable gentleman to keep within the practice of the House and still discuss the matter of production on the waterfront. The two oases are both so inextricably bound up with operations on the waterfront that I asked’ the Acting Attorney-General what the judicial position was. I then asked the honorable member for Wentworth whether those two matters were so interwoven with the matter upon which, he desired to address the House that they would interfere with the presentation of his case. I suggested to him that when these cases have been completed, the House may deal,’ with propriety, with the whole industrial situation on the waterfront. I have listened very attentively to the very clever reasoning of the Leader of the Opposition, but I cannot follow the distinction he draws between these cases and others. All I know is that one of the constituted courts of this country, presided over by a member of the judiciary, is hearing two cases related to employment on the waterfront, and that the proceedings have advanced to a stage at which it would be totally improper, in my opinion, for this House to discuss them. For that reason, the honorable member for Wentworth may proceed with his motion, but the debate will be most restricted. I insist that no reference shall be made to these two cases. If the honorable gentleman is prepared to wait until the hearings have been completed, he will then .be in order in moving the adjournment of the House to discuss them.

Mr Calwell:

– I desire to make a personal explanation. A few moments ago, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), replying to an interjection by me, referred to a case before the High. Court of Australia, in which I am interested. He said that the Minister for Information would be before the court on the 28th May. I desire to explain the position clearly to the House. If the court proposes to hear the case on the 28th of this month, I snail be before the court, as the plaintiff, and not, as the right honorable gentleman, with his usual venom, suggested, as the defendant. As Hansard is a permanent document, and as people who read the newspapers might get the wrong impression which the right honorable gentleman intended to convey, it is highly desirable thatI should at once make the facts plain. I have not the slightest doubt that the right honorable gentleman, in making the remark he did and in the way he did, was inspired by a desire to pollute the courts of justice.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I hope that the Minister will not again commit such an offence against the Standing Orders. Every honorable member has the right to make a personal explanation if he considers that he has been misrepresented; but he has notthe right, during that personal explanation, to give to other honorable members grounds for asking for the same privilege. Does the honorable member for Wentworth desire to proceed with his motion ?

Mr Harrison:

– I desire to proceed with it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Then the honorable member must observe the conditions that I have laid down. I desire the House to understand that no reference must be made to the two cases now before the court.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion supported ?

Five honorable members having risen in support of the motion,

Mr Holt:

– I rise to order. I was making a trunk-line call when you, Mr. Speaker, gave your ruling; but I should like to put to you one point. Do you rule that no reference whatever may be made to the existence of the disputes, the parties to them, or the events which may have led to them? I can understand a ruling that the merits of the dispute shall not be canvassed while the matters are before the court ; but, surely, it is not out of order for honorable gentlemen to refer to the fact that disputes are now before the court, to mention the parties to them and to make passing references to them without in any way endeavouring to canvass the merits of the cases?

Mr SPEAKER:

– My ruling was very clear, and it was unfortunate that the honorable member did not hear it. I do not propose to cover the ground again. I ruled that reference to those two disputes shall not be made during this debate.

Mr HARRISON:

– I have taken this action because an almost criminal conspiracy exists to delay the loading and unloading of vessels, and the repair of warships and cargo vessels. That is akin to direct sabotage of our war effort. In an attempt to accelerate the handling of cargoes, the Government has diverted to the waterfront, service personnel whose prime duty is to fight in the defence of this country. Because of the general unrest on the waterfronts, they are now engaged in loading essential supplies for their comrades in combat areas who are fighting to preserve our democratic institutions. If it had not, been for the strenuous efforts of those enlisted men, our war effort would have been completely sabotaged by the irresponsible actions of waterside workers. This situation is causing me grave concern. Out of deference to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I shall not refer to two cases which would have illustrated my argument, but I shall mention such matters as the acute shortage of wharf labour, particularly in Sydney, the amount of work that is being performed per man on the waterfront, and the general effect that waterfront unrest is having upon the repair of warships and cargo vessels, and the loading and unloading of cargo vessels which carry foodstuffs to war-torn Britain and the hungry people of devastated Europe. A large number of colliers, cargo vessels and warships have been held up not for days but for weeks and months, and the responsibility lies, not only with waterside workers, but also with another element which I am not now permitted to mention. These delays are occurring at a time when our troops are engaged in a desperate struggle against the Japanese. They lack equipment, as the Government has admitted in the report of the Acting Minister for the Army (Senator Eraser), because of the lack of shipping. Our troops are fighting to preserve the conditions under which wharf labourers in Sydney work to-day, and to give them an opportunity to bring pressure on this Government so that they may “ go slow “, slack, hold up essential supplies, and sabotage the war effort. That sabotage began before “ holy Russia “ entered this war.

As the result of -the unsettled conditions on the waterfront, colliers, which take sorely needed coal to our capital cities, are held up, and that is preventing the full development of our munitions programme. Arising fr.om shipping delays, the shortage of coal and coke is also preventing the casting of essential parts for munitions establishments. Already Australia has fallen down on its commitments to supply food to the United Kingdom. For instance, we have failed to deliver to Great Britain the promised quantities of butter and meat. This unrest on the waterfront is now restricting the shipment of the small quantities of food that we have to export. Recently, high authorities referred to the effect which this unrest is having on naval vessels. Because they cannot be repaired expeditiously in Sydney, they have been diverted to other ports. Last month, work ceased for nearly a week at the deep sea waterfront in Sydney, where overseas vessels load and unload. “What was the reason for that stoppage? It arose from resentment at the dismissal of a number of men who had returned late to the jab after a rest period. This smacks very much of the frivolous excuses which the coal-miners advance when they decide to hold up production. Now, the same tactics are being employed by waterside workers.

This conspiracy to hold up vessels has a sinister background. For the week ended the 6th April last, the shortage of labour on the waterfront was estimated at between 1,130 men and 1,230 mon. But on the 12th April, the Sydney Trades and Labour Council, a communistcontrolled body, supported an appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr, Curtin) against any further increase of the reserve pool of labour on the waterfront. Notwith- standing the acknowledged shortage of 1,230 men, the Waterside Workers Federation refused to work with any men who might be diverted to the waterfront. Let us examine briefly the amount of work which is being performed by water- side workers. .The number of men engaged on a project is not necessarily an index to the efficiency of the job. On the 3rd .April, .a gang of men reported for duty at 6 p.m. As three of them were too drunk to work, they were discharged. How did other members of that gang react ? Australia is .at war and those men knew the urgent necessity for loading ships expeditiously in order to get supplies to our troops. They knew also that the shortage of shipping is most acute and that every square foot of cargo space must be used quickly. Many vessels have .been delayed in Sydney over a period in which they could have carried two or three cargoes to their destinations. The result has been that one gang loaded three slings an hour as a protest against the dismissal of the man, .although 50 slings an hour was the normal rate of working. Those men were well aware that it was essential that they should Jill, as quickly as possible, the holds of ali the vessels that were available, in order to ensure that adequate supplies and equipment should reach the men who are fighting for us. But apparently the workers in the waterfront industries have no sense of responsibility. When they are directed to obey the law they go slow on the job.

One other matter tha’t I desire to refer to is the resignation of a Mr. H. Cheeseman from his post in Sydney, because he was directed by the man-power authorities to give preference in a pick-up to certain individuals. On the 23rd March I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service -

Whether a man-power officer, Mr. H. Cheeseman, has resigned from his post in Sydney, because he gave preference in a pick-up to members of the Building Workers industrial Union over members of the Ship Joiners Union? Is the present mini-power officer at that location working under such instructions?

The Minister replied -

Mr. Cheeseman did nothing of the kind indicated by the honorable member, and he was not ordered to do so. I, myself, gave him instructions that no preference should be shown to either one union or another, and that there should be no nomination of employees by employers, but that every worker attending the office should be picked up in his proper order, irrespective of the organization with which he was associated.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman is now disregarding my ruling.

Mr HARRISON:

-I do not think so, Mr. Speaker, for I have merely read a question and answer from the report of the proceedings of this House;

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable gentleman knows very well that the dispute which I ordered not to be discussed as it is now before the court, arose out of the incident to which he is referring.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I suggest, sir, that this resignation has nothing to do with the subject-matter now before the court.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The matter before the court has to do with preference to members of one union against another, and with registration; and that is what the honorable member is discussing.

Mr HARRISON:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr Speaker, but I consider that matters which arose in the House prior to the institution of the court proceedings may properly be discussed. However, I shall take the opportunity at another time, in another place, to deal with the subject.

I have already referred to incidents on the waterfront which have occurred because the workers will not obey the law. In consequence of some of these incidents naval vessels, colliers and supply ships have been held up, and the Government has failed to take any remedial action. There is, undoubtedly, a conspiracy of delay, and the Government must be held accountable for the disruptive tactics which it is permitting the waterside workers to employ. iStrong action should have been taken in this connexion. The Government could have intervened before the unrest had developed to its present stage, and had it. done so the difficulties might not have arisen. The Government did intervene, of course, in the interests of one union with strong communistic leanings. It appears to me that whenever big Communist-controlled unions bring pressure to bear upon the Government it capitulates.

Mr Beasley:

-Can the honorable gentleman give instances?

Mr HARRISON:

– The Minister knows what happened in connexion with the Building Workers Industrial Union and the Ship Joiners Union.

Mr Beasley:

– The Government did not intervene.

Mr HARRISON:

– If the Minister will read the report of the court proceedings he will discover that that is not so. Whenever the organizations of the miners, the wharf labourers, the building workers, the transport workers or the slaughterman, all of which are Communistcontrolled, bring pressure to bear upon the Government, it capitulates. I have referred to one extraordinary incident of the kind, and would have referred to others had the Chair permitted me to do so.

What is happening on our industrial front is causing great concern and uneasiness to the business community and the general public of Sydney, and it is necessary for the welfare of the country that the facts should be ventilated. Although a section of the people may be aware of some of the happenings on our industrial front, other sections are quite unaware of them, and it is the duty of the representatives of the people to make public the facts that have come to their notice. Many Communist-controlled unions completely disregard the law of the land, and the results of their actions are to be seen to-day on the Sydney waterfront. The Government must be held responsible for the delays that are occurring. Its inaction is undoubtedly prolonging the Avar, and causing our fighting men to puffer because of the shortage of supplies and essential equipment. Some such deficiencies have been admitted by the Acting Minister for the Army, who has given a shortage of shipping as the reason for them. Such shortages undoubtedly cause the loss of lives that could otherwise be saved, and the Government is therefore carrying a grave responsibility in this connexion. Unless it takes action at once to deal effectively with waterfront workers who are acting illegally it will deserve the severest indictment that can be laid against a government, for its inaction is adding to the distress of hungry people in the United Kingdom and on the mainland of Europe.

The excuses which have been given for the Government’s ineptitude and backsliding are most unsatisfactory. Ministers are doing nothing to remedy the plague of communism which has fallen on the waterfront, the coal-fields, and other industrial centres of New South Wales. [Extension of time granted. ‘So long as the Government fails to display the courage that is needed to correct this scourge of communism, the people will continue to suffer. The freedom, loving people of this country are not likely to condone the inaction of the Government, which is having such a paralysing effect on essential industries, particularly in delaying shipping and in reducing coal production.

I direct attention to a report which appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of the 9th May, which quotes Admiral Sir Bruce Eraser, Commander-in-‘Chief of the British Fleet in the Pacific, as saying that he earnestly hoped for an early settlement qf the waterfront dispute. He said that he doubted whether the immense importance of docking at this stage of the Pacific war was realized. People should be gravely concerned at the withdrawal of labour from the docks. He added -

I have no responsibility in this matter, but 1 have the responsibility of ordering ray ships to battle urens even if they are not in proper repair. My officers have nothing but high praise for the Australians who worked on board <mr ships.

That is a severe indictment of the Government. The units of the British Navy now in the Pacific have been brought here to continue the onslaught against the Japanese, and it is deplorable that they have been denied docking facilities which they had relied upon obtaining. The Sydney Sim of the 10th May reported that 3,000 British artisans, who will be classed as naval ratings but will be used as dockyard workers, are coming to Australia in order to provide service for the British Fleet, because Australian workers were not willing to give it. These men are required here in order to overcome delays in repair and maintenance work on British ships caused by local industrial troubles. The newspaper also reported that Ministers had told union officials that if the stoppages continued on the waterfront the number of British workers to be brought out might possibly rise to 5,000. The men are needed to clean up the horrible mess on the waterfront.

My colleagues wall deal with other aspects of this subject. I regret that I was not permitted to discuss certain other events on the waterfront. I assure the Government that if, as the result of its inaction, it hopes to obtain the support of Communists at the next general elections it is likely to pay dearly for its mess of potage. The Australian Communist party is constituted under law and it must be amenable to the law. The Government must enforce the law in relation to it. Unless it is prepared to do so, it will undoubtedly be recreant to its trust. It should take the strongest, possible action to ensure a more rapid turn round of ships in Australian ports, and a more efficient handling of cargoes intended for United Kingdom and European food relief, and for our forces in the field. The waterfront workers should be required to do their duty, otherwise relief for Europe will be delayed, and the war against Japan prolonged. These must be tie inevitable results of the refusal of workers on the Sydney waterfront to do necessary ship repairs and maintenance work.

Mr BEASLEY:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · West Sydney · ALP

– There is a debit and a. credit side to practically all that we do in life. That probably applies with equal force to the case presented this morning. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) was at great pains to particularize hold-ups on the waterfront. If we study the history of waterfront activity in Australia, we shall find that industrial disputes have occurred during previous administrations. The movement of millions of tons of goods, equipment, medical supplies, foodstuffs and all the other necessaries which the war has required Australia to supply, represents a most praiseworthy effort on the part of the men responsible for it. I am not here to defend unnecessary hold-ups on the waterfront or anywhere else. While I was ministerial head of the Department of Supply and Shipping, I was as anxious as any honorable member to maintain continuity of operations, and probably took steps as harsh as it was possible to take in order that shipping should be kept moving and the work of loading and unloading should be properly and efficiently performed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition charged the

Government with lack of courage. In my constituency prior to the last general elections, I had to display courage when I was faced with a general strike on the waterfront as a protest against the introduction of the gang system, which the men refused to accept. I am sure that the honorable member for Wentworth appreciates that courage has not always manifested itself on only one side of the House. I represent the districts affected by, and probably most of the men involved in, the present trouble. I was in charge of the Department of Supply and Shipping during the most critical period of the war with Japan and, I hope, did as well as any one else could have done in the circumstances. In Fremantle, also, courage had to be displayed in dealing with a situation that arose. Industrial difficulties on the waterfront are not peculiar to Australia, but are to be found also in other parts of the world, including /lie United Kingdom and the United States of America. If a balance were struck, I am sure that the credit side would outweigh the debit side. The situation on the waterfront has many pecularities. Unfortunately, in Sydney mid in other ports, many wharf labourers have reached an advanced stage of life. The statistics in that regard are interesting. They show that in Sydney there are 300 men between the ages of 61 and 65 years, 250 between the ages of 66 and ‘70 yours, 100 between the ages of 71 and 75 years, and 60 between the ages of 76 and SO years. The average age of all the men on the waterfront is 48.5 years. Many of these men have been unable to withstand the pressure which undoubtedly has been imposed on them during the last three years. A great deal of physical fatigue is in evidence. Honorable members who have a knowledge of the subject will appreciate that the loading and discharging of ship cargoes is very heavy work.

Mr Ryan:

– If that is so, why do they object to new labour being employed on Hie wharfs?

Mr BEASLEY:

– That is not the true glory. For three years, additional labour Ii;ib been accepted on the waterfront. Organized gangs have been sent from the shipping offices and other places, to give relief over the week-end. All the blame does not rest on one side.

Mr Guy:

– Is there any truth in the assertion that the Waterside Workers Federation has closed its books, and will not accept new members?

Mr BEASLEY:

– Recently, under Hie direction of the Man Power Directorate, the Waterside Workers Federation admitted an additional 500 members. Other professions .a.nd trades in this country jealously restrict their numerical membership for their own protection. That is done in all walks of life. An ordinary labouring man cannot be accused of wrong behaviour if he acts in protection of his employment. There are 600 members of the Waterside Workers Federation in the Australian Army. The federation maintains that it is entitled to ensure the re-engagement of those men in the industry in which they were employed prior to their enlistment. For upwards of three years, labour from other sources than the federation has operated on the waterfront. Arguments have arisen in connexion with some vessels that have been worked over the week-end, because they have suddenly been proclaimed high-priority operations. The federation believes that this has been done in order that the labour employed at the week-end might obtain double time. Perhaps there will be an opportunity later to present a report in regard to the conduct of some stevedoring companies. Evidence can be adduced to prove that at times disputes have originated with these companies, which could have dealt with the situation in a more placatory way. I aim not able to regulate the character and impulses of men under what they regard as provocative conditions; anybody would find that impossible. Difficulties can arise if the right persons are not on the spot to deal with a situation as soon as it arises. Even in this House, tempers become frayed at times, and regrettable incidents occur which would be avoided by intercession of Hie right kind. I do not condone many of the incidents that have been mentioned, nor does the Waterside Workers Federation. The Stevedoring Industry Commission, presided over by the Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. Don

Morrison, and having on it representatives of both the shipowners and the Waterside Workers Federation, adjudicates on disputes that arise on the waterfront. Port committees and other organizations also have been set up to deal with such matters. It can be proved that in every instance the federation has not condoned stoppages but, on the contrary, has done all that it humanly could do in the circumstances to prevent them. The honorable member for Wentworth has referred to a dispute which was handled by the federation, and the men were forced to return to work. I am not in possession of evidence of communist influence, in the form suggested by the honorable member, and am unable to say whether or not the Waterside Workers Federation is controlled by the Communist party, although I know that prominent officers of it are supporters of that party. Nevertheless, it is only fair to say that on every occasion the federation has done all that could be done to keep ships moving. During the general strike, it supported the introduction of the gang system, against which there were hot protests.

Mr Holt:

– Is that system operating now?

Mr BEASLEY:

– It is ; and strangely enough, many of the men who voted against its introduction would not have any other system to-day.

Mr Anthony:

– When was it introduced ?

Mr BEASLEY:

– About two years ago.

Mr Abbott:

– Is it operating in Fremantle?

Mr BEASLEY:

– Yes. The Govern ment could have remained aloof, but it has taken the stand that the Stevedoring Industry Commission is the authority constituted to deal with waterfront disputes. Whenever the commission has made a decision, it has had the backing of the Government. The handling of millions of tons of cargo in the port of Sydney redounds to the credit of the Director of Shipping, the Waterside Workers Federation, and all the men who have worked long and laboriously to complete the tasks in which they were engaged. There is a feeling abroad that the war situation is not so tense now as it was some time ago, and the tendency is to look forward to the post-war period. This is not confined to the men who are employed in industry, but relates also to many industrialists. I am not complaining about it. I noticed in the United States of America a great tendency to turn side-on to the war in order to keep one eye on the problem of how industry would fare when the conflict had terminated. This is an atmosphere which none can avoid. The law of the survival of the fittest comes into play. At the same time, I admit that the Government’s duty is constantly to keep its face to the war effort and not permit anybody to deviate from an allotted task until that great mission has been completed. References have been made to the shortage of shipping. The Director of Shipping has informed me that all equipment which he has been asked to lift has been lifted when the ships were available, but certain kinds of equipment need special kinds of ships to accommodate it. The Americans possessed the necessary kind of ships f or moving heavy equipment. However, as the scene of operations moved north, they took the ships with them. The ordinary ship’s gear cannot handle this heavy equipment.

I remember only one incident in which food ships for the United Kingdom left Australia without all the refrigerated space being fully occupied. Even in that instance the ship went to New Zealand and completed its loading there.

Mr Abbott:

– Were there any cases in which American ships were diverted from Australia because they could not get supplies?

Mr BEASLEY:

– Yes, from Fremantle.

Mr Abbott:

– Were they not diverted to India?

Mr BEASLEY:

– Yes. There were three ships involved.

Mr Abbott:

– How long ago was that?

Mr BEASLEY:

– About four months ago. We could have said to the Fremantle waterside workers, “ Very well, have it your own way”. On the contrary, the Government insisted that, as the Stevedoring Industry Commission had ruled that labour must be engaged in a particular way, that would have tobe done. Some men were prepared to work on some ships, But not on others. Some ships are net so good as others to work on because of the nature of the cargo carried. The Government said that the waterside workers would have to accept the gang system, and work the ships to which they were allotted. Had we done otherwise, honorable members opposite would have condemned us for surrendering to these men. When we stood firm, the situation arose of which honorable members are now complaining.

Mr Holt:

– What is being done to ensure that the men present themselves for pick-up?

Mr BEASLEY:

– If they do not present themselves they are stood down and dealt with by the port committee, consisting of representatives of employers and employees. I have not the figures here, but I know that many fines have been imposed by this committee. I have a great admiration for the union executives, which are in the position of buffers between the Government and unionists. It is ail very well for honorable members, in the peaceful security of this chamber, to say what ought to be done to the waterside workers, but I would not like to answer for what might happen to them if they went down to the waterfront and said the same things there.

Mr Menzies:

– It might be much more interesting.

Mr BEASLEY:

– That depends on the point of view.[Extension of time granted.] The Deputy Leader of the Opposition used the word “ conspiracy “. He seemed to suggest that all those who were responsible for stoppages were the friends and supporters of the Government. That is not true. There may very well be a conspiracy, but it may be directed against the Government and the trade union movement generally. I am old enough in the tooth to realize that a man is not necessarily my friend or supporter because he dresses in dungarees and carries his lunch to work. I have discussed this matter with trade union leaders, and warned them of the danger which confronts the movement. I have always recognized that union leaders occupy a position of great responsibility, being able, by virtue of their office, to influence the minds and actions of a great many men.

Let us not forget that there is a credit as well as a debit side to all this. Oh the credit side, there is the loyal and continuous service of a great many waterside workers who have their own sons fighting in the various Services, or in prisoner-of-war. camps. Their love of this country, and their loyalty to it, are not less than are felt by any man in this House. They have worked long hours over the years, and they are tired. Sometimes, their tempers become frayed, and they may do things which, in their calmer moments, they would not do. I appeal to honorable members not to voice a general condemnation of waterside workers. Without the loyal service given by so many of them, our position would have been bad, indeed.

Mr Harrison:

– We are condemning only the bad ones.

Mr BEASLEY:

– The honorable member made no distinction. He was. all out to magnify whatever trouble existed, ignoring the fact that the great majority of these men are good, honest toilers.

Mr Chambers:

– Is it not a fact that many of those now working on the wharfs have served in the present war?

Mr BEASLEY:

– It is. More than 1,000 waterside workers have served in this war. I have no doubt that some of the men involved in the stoppages are returned soldiers.

Mr White:

– They are dragged into it.

Mr BEASLEY:

– That is not true. Does the honorable member suggest that these men have no intellects of their own? I am sure that waterside workers as a body compare favorably with any other body of workers in Australia. Only the railway men, perhaps, have a better record of service. I am not opposed to the discussion of faults where they exist. Such discussions can be of assistance to the administration, but honorable members should not voice general charges against the waterside workers. I hope that honorable members will admit that our efforts have not been unsuccessful, that we have not lacked courage, and that the waterside workers generally have given good service to the country.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

– The conciliatory speech of the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Mr. Beasley) has impressed the House. Honorable members are prepared to believe that the Government is trying to solve an admittedly difficult problem. I believe that the Minister himself has done his utmost to keep the ships moving. His position has been rendered particularly difficult by the fact that his own constituency takes in a great part of the Sydney waterfront. I give him full credit for his efforts. L point out, however, that this matter is the responsibility of the whole Government, not of one Minister or a few Ministers. . The efforts of the more responsible members of the Government to overcome industrial troubles have been made more difficult by the utterances of their own colleagues, which have served to incite the unruly elements among the workers rather than to check them.

The Minister warned officials directing the trade unions that they need to watch those who would seek to discredit the movement and pull it down. I do not think that he was referring to the employers, or to those who are often regarded’ as the opponents of the trade union movement. I believe that it is for the good of this country that there should be strong and virile trade unions, that there should be organizations of workers able to speak with authority for various sections of those employed in industry. Anything which tends to destroy trade unions as law-observing organizations must ultimately damage the nation itself. My remarks therefore are addressed to the danger, which I see and which the Minister has placed his own finger on, of the gradual whiteanting of the trade union movement by Communist elements. Every one is fully aware of that, especially those on the Government side of the House. They have more reason than we have to know of the infiltration of the Communists into the industrial organizations.

Mr Sheehy:

– Not one union in South Australia is controlled by Communists.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I shall not join issue with the honorable member. I hope that it is so, and if it is, I sug gest that the honorable member endeavour to keep it that way. Sydney, at any rate, is recognized as the hotbed of the Communist organization. Many of the most important unions have as their leading officials, those with authority to call a strike on or off, confessed members of the Communist party, who, especially before the entry of Russia into the war, did their utmost to frustrate the national wax effort. Those elements constitute a threat not only to the peaceful development of the trade union movement but also to the Labour party itself. It may be thought that I, as a member of the Opposition side of the House, feel a little too tender about the survival and wellbeing of the Labour party, but I believe that, its survival as an organization such as has existed over the years is vital to the security of this country. We desire the retention of a sane, sound, wellbalanced Labour party with a respect for law and order and the constituted methods of government.

Mr Menzies:

– In other words, a strong Labour Opposition.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Yes, . a strong Labour Opposition. The Labour party has always done its best work in Opposition, and we hope that the day is not far distant when it will resume that role. But, in all seriousness, I think individual members of the Labour party should show a little more courage. I do not imply that they do not possess courage, but with these mounting industrial disputes, the time has come for the rank and file of the party to take a stand against the Communist-controlled union executives and the Communist propaganda directed at the destruction of the Labour party in particular, so that, having destroyed it, the Communists shall then be able to proceed by degrees to destroy every other worthwhile organization in the community. Until they destroy the Labour party they cannot destroy the others, and, therefore, it is of importance to the whole community that a sound Labour party should continue to exist, free from Communist control.

Mr Burke:

– It will be interesting to compare the honorable member’s statements with his propaganda at the next general elections.

Mr ANTHONY:

– At the next general elections I. shall, as I did at the last, pay tribute to the Labour party, but not to the Communist party. I believe that the Labour party, not through lack of foresight but through inaction, is allowing the industrial organizations to be infiltrated and ultimately captured by the Communist party. Tn the shaping of Labour policy we hear the voice of Labour men, but the hand working the machine is that of the Communists. These troubles on the waterfront are only a manifestation of the general industrial trouble throughout the community and one of the difficulties which the Government is up against. One of the real reasons for industrial unrest is luck of action when action is called for.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- No doubt some of the elements referred to by the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) are joined in a conspiracy, but they are not the friends of this Government, Australia, the men and women of the fighting forces, the Australian Labour party or the trade union movement. It is all very well for the honorable gentleman to make a sweeping condemnation of the Communists. Al least, certain sections of them have co-operated in this country’s war effort, whatever may have been their previous attitude or ideology or what reservations some of them may have as to the future. There are other sections, particularly the section known as the “ Trotsky-ites “. which have applied the traditional policy of disruption and sabotage of the war effort. Undoubtedly, there is a conspiracy against, the Government and the war effort by a combination of various subversive elements. On the one hand we have the “ fifth columnist? “, particularly the pro-Fascist element? that have been opposed to the war effort from the outset; their sympathies a re with the enemy. They are acting more subtly now than previously and ax* adopting a pseudo-democratic pose, as did the Nazis in Germany, who have been brought to book. The Chairman of the Industrial Corn m ission of New South Wales, Mr. Justice Taylor, has warned the country against the operations of those elements and stated what their real designs are. The waterfront, unfortunately, lends itself to their machinations. On the other hand, there are other elements, anarchists and international revolutionaries, who ‘believe that this war is just another capitalistic or imperialistic war. Their objective is to bring about industrial! strife and unrest. Then there are other elements politically opposed to this Government who, merely to serve selfish political interests, have adopted a disruptive role with reckless disregard of Australia’s well-being. It is well known that others are tools of those individuals. Honorable members W1 remember 1925 when the red bog? was raised for the same political purposes as it is being raised now. and the Waterside Workers Federation was -in the control of Walsh and Johnson, who were held at Garden Island pending deportation. The then Prime Minister, Mr. Bruce, in an election speech at Sydney Town Hall, said to the people of Australia, “ I promise that if you return my Government on Saturday, Walsh and .johnson next wee!” will be on the high seas”. Unfortunately, the people, infected by the propaganda, returned the Bruce-Page Government. But what happened in the following week? Where were Walsh and Johnson? Were they on the high seas? No. It was not very long before they were released from internment. Is Johnson any longer a trusted official of the union? No. Its members well know what role he played. And where if Walsh - -with the union? No. Until very recently he was interned as a sympathizer with the Japanese. In the light of history, the workers ought te realize that the same elements are operating- in their ranks to-day. As the Acting Attorney-General (Mr. Beasley) has pointed out, the great majority of the workers on the waterfront are loyal,, decent citizens who have made a good contribution to this country’s war effort. That was stressed only yesterday >by the Minister for ‘the Navy (Mr. Makin) when he quoted words of the CommanderinChief of the British Pacific Fleet.. Admiral Sir Bruce Fraser, commending the work that they had done in this war to assist the British Navy to repair ships. At the same time, I think that the workers are being misled by a combination of various subversive elements and that they should be on their guard. Certainly, there are factional fights going on for control of the unions, and the workers should be very careful, when those disputes arise, to ascertain the motives of those who agitate to hold up work. I carry my mind back to the time when the Japanese submarines came into Sydney Harbour. On the previous night, two ships in the harbour had on board the first anti-aircraft units trained in Australia, who were on their way north, together with bofors guns and other equipment which had been brought from Great Britain. A dispute occurred and the ships were held up, but the soldiers on board, got going and loaded them. They left harbour just ten hours before the submarines entered. Outside the heads, they saw what some of them regarded as submarines and others as logs. It may have been just a coincidence that an attempt was made to hold up those ships at the time when the Japanese were planning to attack shipping in the harbour. Had they remained, they would have been targets. The men on the waterfront, of course, did not know that the ships were going on an important mission or that submarines were waiting to enter. All those things show that subversive elements are at work on the waterfront, and I trust that the Government will look closely into the records of the people causing the disruption. I agree with the honorable member for Wentworth that there is a conspiracy on foot, but it is a conspiracy on the part of elements not supporting this Government, and, unless they are grappled with promptly and effectively, the time may arrive when this country will be plunged into civil war and bloodshed.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– I confess at tho outset that I know very little, no more than I have heard this morning, about the two proceedings that are now before the court, and consequently I shall be under no temptation to refer to them, but I have, like other honorable members, listened to the debate with a great deal of interest. My colleague, the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), put before the House a great deal of material in relation to the inexcusable state of affairs on the waterfront in Sydney. He, of course, was not able to develop his case completely, because the ruling of the Chair involved a re-arrangement of it at the last moment; but he has been answered by the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Beasley).

I listen to the Vice-President of the Executive Council year by year with increasing pleasure and wonder. I really believe that he could explain out of existence any trouble in the world. Standing at the table, he beams on us, his voice becomes mellifluous, and he says to us in the most disarming fashion, “ Of course, there are credits as well as debits ‘”. Then he gets neatly off the debits, and concentrates attention on the credits, and honorable .members go away feeling in a state of complete solvency. But all the smooth and honeyed words of the VicePresident of the Executive Council, and all the recognition that honorable members pay to him for his own work in connexion with shipping - and they do that very generously and completely - will not get away from certain facts, and I have risen merely to recapitulate some of them, which seem to me to be beyond all dispute. Those facts are of such a kind that they demand more action than this country has yet seen.

In the first place, it is beyond controversy that absenteeism on the Sydney waterfront is great and growing. Let us put it in its right setting. At the very time when the port of Sydney becomes increasingly important because this country is becoming the base of naval and military activity against Japan - in other words, at the very time when absenteeism should be falling - more waterside workers are staying away from their jobOn the Sydney waterfront, the man effort is falling at the very time when the man effort of the whole of Australia should be increasing, if we are to justify the existence of a fleet of the Royal Navy in these waters and our repeated claims that Australia is a base for hostile action against Japan.

The second fact is that the increasing absenteeism on the Sydney waterfront has held up, and is at this very moment holding up, vital -war supplies and naval activities. I do not need to go through the evidence on that matter. There is a fact which is beyond answer. The third fact is that, in spite of this rising tide of absenteeism, and its growing importance in view of the state of the war, nothing has been put before us in this House or in the press to indicate what the Government is doing about it. I am tired of having spokesmen from the Government in this House meeting all our arguments about industrial trouble with a shrug of the shoulder as if to say, “What can we do about it?” If they believe that they cannot do anything about it, at least they should refrain from saying so, because this pusillanimous attitude is merely encouraging disorder.

The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) made an interesting statement about conspirators and conspiracies, and various people who are anxious to disturb the Australian economy and war effort. Undoubtedly, there are such people, and some of them work in the most extraordinarily subtle fashion. But if they are trouble promoters, are they not assisted by the Government attitude of “What can we do about it?” They are able to go to the .meetings of indus. trial organizations, from which too many good unionists remain absent, and say, “ Let us get on with this business. The Government will do nothing about it”. They know that Ministers only express regret and say that it is deplorable, and that the Vice-President of the Executive Council, in his best ecclesiastical manner, will point out that there are credits as well as debits. But in the meantime, the tide rises and ships are being held up. A few days ago, one learned justice of the Arbitration Court - and I may refer to this because his statements were published - said, “ I will not make an order that these men shall return to work, because I am not prepared to make such, orders unless the authorities will enforce them “.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! If the right honorable gentleman does not know to what case those remarks refer, the Chair does.

Mr MENZIES:

– What is the case, Mr. Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is one of tha cases which I ruled may not be referred te during this debate.

Mr MENZIES:

– Very well, I shall assume that. I was not aware what case it was.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am- sure that the Leader of the Opposition was not.

Mr MENZIES:

– Well, I was not.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I said the Chan was sure that the right honorable gentleman was not.

Mr MENZIES:

– The implication being that the Chair was sure that I was.

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is quite out of order.

Mr MENZIES:

– I shall take a point of order. Am I to understand that when a statement has been made from the bench by a judge, published in the press, and subsequently repeated by the learned judge, it may not be referred to in this House ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– During my period in the chair, the Leader of the Opposition, more than any one else, has draws attention to statements referring to cases which were sub judice. Definite^, there is a connexion between the statements of the judge, and the decision that the judge has to make, and I do not consider that the Leader of the Opposition should prejudice it by mentioning it in a speech in this chamber.

Mr MENZIES:

-I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, although I entirely and utterly fail to understand it. I have never heard anything like it in. my experience.

Mr Ward:

– There are a few things which the Leader of the Opposition does not understand.

Mr MENZIES:

– The Minister foi Transport (Mr. Ward) is one of them. I have already referred to certain facts and they cannot be answered. They must be dealt with for the sake of Australia’s self respect. But not one word has fallen from Ministers to suggest that the Government is proposing, to do anything about any of them.

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for the Navy, Minister for Munition* and Minister for Aircraft Production · Hindmarsh · ALP

.- The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) and his supporters never tire of endeavouring to show that the workers of this country have failed in their obligations to the nation. Honorable gentlemen opposite have cast an unwarranted reflection on the working class, whose loyalty is unimpeachable and who have made a great contribution to our war effort. Among those workers are members of the Waterside Workers Federation and other organizations which have been identified with various phases of our war effort. At this moment, 600 members of the Waterside Workers Federation are serving in the fighting forces. To contend that these people have not made a worthy contribution to our war effort is to cast a totally unjustified reflection upon them. Members of the Waterside Workers Federation have assisted to train members of the fighting forces to handle cargoes. In every possible way they have endeavoured to impart their knowledge and technique to servicemen who are loading and unloading ships in the forward areas. Their assistance and co-operation deserve a word of praise, although they cannot expect it from honorable members opposite.

Undoubtedly, delays and difficulties have occurred in the handling of shipping, but they are inevitable. There is a shortage of approximately 1,000 men on the Sydney waterfront. This condition of affairs is not confined to Australia. It exists in many countries in organizations that “ cover the waterfront “. The handling of cargoes is heavy and difficult. That there is absenteeism among waterside workers is undeniable, but it is inevitable at this stage of the war. Sickness and the advanced age of many of the men employed make this position inescapable. From those remarks honorable members opposite should not assume that I am attempting to justify any unauthorized stoppages, and the Government deplores any conditions likely to hamper a complete war effort. In promoting this debate to-day, honorable members opposite have their eyes fixed on the next election. Their criticism is one of a series of shots that will be fired before the next election in anendeavour to bring discredit on the

Government. Their action is prompted by considerations of political propaganda, rather than by a genuine attempt to offer a solution of the difficulties. For a long period this old bogy of communism has served them rather well. At one election they issued it placard depicting the leader of a certain organization, which had caused some industrial dislocation, stamping on a Union Jack. As the result of the fervour which they were thus able to create against those who represented the organized workers, they were returned to office. But the man whom they so placarded was later identified with their cause.

Mr White:

– Who was he?

Mr MAKIN:

– He was Tom Walsh.

Mr White:

– Did the Minister say that he was identified with our cause?

Mr MAKIN:

– Yes. Political considerations have prompted this debate. This morning the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) endeavoured to show that the Labour party was in sympathy with the Communists. The truth is that there is no bond between them. Honorable members opposite are endeavouring to convince the public that the Labour party is allied to the Communists, and hope that the charge will gain for them political support at the next election. This is a placard regularly paraded by the anti-Labour parties at election time. They will need to produce more convincing evidence than that before the great majority of the people will accept their statements.

Sitting suspended from12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr MAKIN:

– It was inexcusable of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to refer as he did to the British artisans who are coming to Australia as part of the British Pacific Fleet personnel. At question time to-day I explained the reasons why these men were being brought to Australia. They are uniformed personnel whose service in Australia was arranged for many months ago. In the circumstances, it was quite improper of the honorable member to say that they were being brought here because of local industrial disputes. It was equally inexcusable of the honorable gentleman to refer as he did to certain remarks made by Admiral Sir Bruce Fraser concerning the servicing of units o’f the British Pacific Fleet. I was the only honorable member of the House present when Sir Bruce Fraser’s remarks were made, and I know that they were not intended to bear the interpretation which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has given to them. Sir Bruce Fraser’s desire was to reconcile difficulties in the port of Sydney. lt is, to say the least of it, odd that honorable gentlemen opposite should challenge this Government on its war effort, because immediately before the Japanese were hammering at the gates of this country, the previous Government, of which the honorable gentleman was a member, was so lacking in leadership and administrative ability, and was so involved in internal quarrelling that it was put out of office by some of its own supporters, who realized that, in the state of disunity into which it had degenerated, it was quite unable to safeguard this country. The only political party that was capable of giving effective leadership was the Labour party under John Curtin. In those circumstances I am amazed that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should have attempted to criticize and condemn the present Government on issues involving any aspect of the Australian war effort.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:

– The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

. - I have been specially interested in the remarks made by the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Beasley) and the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Makin) in defence of the Government. This debate does not arraign the honest wharf labourers of Australia; it arraigns the Government itself for its inefficiency and vacillation. I have not the slightest doubt that the magnificent working men of Australia would be only too willing to give of their best if they were not prevented from doing so by what I shall call the fifth column element which has infiltrated into their midst. I wish to make my position perfectly plain on this issue, particularly as the Minister for the Navy has said that the Opposition was trying to bluff the people into believing dint the workers were failing in their duty to the nation. We have made no such attempt. We have endeavoured to show the nation, and I believe have succeeded, that this Government has been unfaithful to the trust which the nation reposed in it. The interjections that are being made by some honorable gentlemen opposite show clearly that I am telling the truth. I have no doubt that the people of Australia will, in due course, show that they know that their trust in the Government has been misplaced.

Because of the ruling you gave this morning, Mr. Speaker, I shall not be able to discuss certain subjects. Although I do not always agree with your rulings, I know that you, sir, are a man of your word, and that when you say “ Out “ you mean “ Out “. It is a pity that some other people are not equally certain in. their statements.

The speech of the Vice-President of the Executive Council was the most specious piece of special pleading that I have ever heard. If the Minister could return to Australia in some reincarnation I think he should come as a tanker full of oil, because his utterance whs one of the oiliest I have ever heard. The most casual examination of the present industrial situation in Australia shows that the Government has completely failed in its duty. During the regime of the Lyons Government the present Chief Justice of Australia, Sir John Latham, who was then AttorneyGeneral, introduced a system of working on the wharfs of Australia which resulted in the abolition of the discontent and dissatisfaction that had previously existed, and while the procedure introduced by that distinguished gentleman continued in force, the wharf labourers were able to earn more money than they had ever before earned, and their ranks were not divided by internecine strife.

What is happening on the wharfs to-day? Some weeks ago the Sydney Morning Herald published a scries of articles on the subject which recorded that, on the testimony of police officers, a considerable amount of lawlessness and anarchy on the wharfs of Sydney was clue to the fact that, an undesirable element had got into the unions. Certain individuals were trafficking in their wharf labourers’ badges, and hiring them out for 10s. a day. The only time when these criminals would not part with their badges was when they knew that valuable cargoes were about to he dealt with. They then retained their badges and engaged in cargo pillaging and the like. The genuine wharf labourers would be grateful indeed to the Government if it would display sufficient courage to step in and stop that kind of thing. A recent issue of the Melbourne Herald reported that a man named James Riley, aged 37, had appealed at the Quarter Sessions in Sydney against his conviction and imprisonment for three months for stealing on the wharfs. Riley admitted to the judge that he had a bad record, and had been declared to be an habitual criminal. It is a disgrace to the Government that, although it has been more than four years in office, it has done nothing whatever to correct the most undesirable state of affairs that I have described, lt is well known that habitual criminals have stolen goods and equipment intended for the use of our soldiers in the battle areas of the Pacific.

Nothing has been done, either, to correct the absenteeism to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. We were told six weeks ago that Cabinet had appointed a sub-committee of Ministers to inquire into this subject, but apparently that is all that has been done. The Government will not do anything, because it is afraid that it may tread on somebody’s corns, but the sooner it accumulates the energy and decency to deal effectively with these “ fifth-column “ elements that are infiltrating into the trade unions the better it will be for all concerned.

I wish to refer to certain remarks of the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Beasley) with regard to the introduction of the gang system of loading at Australian ports, because that honorable gentleman, and also the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Makin), have shown remarkable facility in twisting this way and that in order to avoid charges that have been levelled against the Government. I shall remind the House of certain happenings on the Aus- tralian coast, particularly at the port of Fremantle, in the Prime Minister’s electorate. A three weeks’ strike at that port has not long ended. While it continued vessels had to be diverted to other ports, and cargo for overseas shipment had to be left on the wharfs. Included in this cargo, on the 7th February, were between 20,000 and 25,000 bales of wool which were awaiting shipment to the United States of America. This wool had been sold to America, some of it as long ago as early December, and the purchasers were given to understand that there was every likelihood that the December purchases would be shipped by the end of December or early January. The wool was urgently required to manufacture war requirements to replace uniforms and blankets that were lost during the invasion of Normandy, and the fighting in Germany. After the strike ended and ships were brought into port loading proceeded so slowly that the wool could not be lifted before the vessels were scheduled to leave. It is estimated that, at the prevailing abnormally slow rate of loading, it would take about a fortnight to load 10,000 bales of wool. Prior to the war, wool was loaded at the rate of over 2,000 bales a day without overtime, or at the rate of 3,000 bales for a twelve-hour day. It should have taken at the most five days to load the 10,000 bales, but, with a few hours’ overtime each day, the loading could have been done in less than four days. According to a report published in the West Australian on the 7 th February, Mr. E. Saw, president of the Perth Chamber of Commerce, stated that only 24 bales of wool per hour per gang were being loaded. A stevedoring company stated that, in pre-war days, each hatch would take in an average of 90 bales an hour. At that rate, with three hatches working, 270 bales of wool an hour could be loaded, giving 2,160 bales a day.

In these circumstances it is surely high time for the Government to take effective action to deal with anarchy in industry. This morning I asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council a question about his statement that only one vessel loading refrigerated cargo had been delayed at Australian ports.

The fact is that three United States of America steamers were being brought from the Bay of Bengal to Australia at the request of the Australian Government, to handle urgently required cargo. [Extension of time granted.] The vessels were diverted al the request of the Australian Government and were intended to call at Fremantle, but the Vice-President of the Executive Council has admitted that the vessels could not be loaded there because of a strike that was in progress. Does the Government intend to allow the war effort of the country to be sabotaged because it has not the courage to deal with “fifth-column” activities? Both the workers and the “swinging vote” of this country would appreciate the Government far more than they do if it would take strong action to discipline unruly elements in the community. There is evidence of stupidity and red tape in the mismanagement of the affairs of this country. A press paragraph to-day reads - “

Days off to Find Tobacco.

Newcastle wharf labourers have decided to take a day off every week to look for tobacco and cigarettes. . . . The secretary of the union, Mr. H. Weaver, said to-day that the union had recently been assured by a member of the Newcastle Port Committee that the request for a special supply would be granted. . . “ Many other industries in Newcastle are given a special quota “, he said, “ and 1 cannot see why our men cannot get a similar concession “.

That is the result of more bungling by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Keane). There is no coordination, and no attempt to run the affairs of the nation on business lines. Because of all these things, this hopeless, weary, defeatist Government is dying on the treasury bench. The sooner the people remove it, and bring to an end the present mismanagement of the affairs of the country, the better will it be for Australia.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

].- Even had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harrison) not justified his bringing of this matter to public notice to-day. the spokesmen for the Government would have provided the justification for it. The VicePresident of the Executive Council (Mr.

Beasley), the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan), and finally the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Makin), admitted the existence of trouble on the waterfront, and did not deny that there is an element of conspiracy associated with it. They seemed to consider that it would be sufficient if they proved that they are not among the conspirators. The public will expect them to fight conspiracy, even when, as has been alleged during the debate to-day, the Government is a partial victim of it. The Minister for the Navy told us that 600 members of the Waterside Workers Federation in Sydney bad enlisted in the fighting services. 3 wonder what they think of some of the happenings on the Sydney wharfs within recent months, particularly those of them who have been sent back to work on the wharfs alongside their old comrades, at about one-fifth of the rate of pay which non-servicemen receive. Many recent ministerial statements have dilated on the national disability of a shortage of shipping. The report of the Acting Minister for the Army (Senator Fraser), placed before this House recently, admitted shortages of equipment in operational areas, but said that it was due, not to the failure of the Government to provide it. but to the lack of shipping, without which it could not be transported to the places in which it was needed. The one explanation for failure to grant leave to soldiers who have served beyond the allotted period in operational areas in the tropics, to transport the wives of servicemen from Great Britain to Australia or from Australia to the United States of America, or to transport wheat from Western Australia to the eastern States, is the shortage of shipping. Perhaps the most serious statement so far is thai! made by the Admiral of the British Fleet in these waters - that he is compelled to send units of his fleet into operational areas without their having had propel docking attention. No wonder the British Government is placing 3,000 dod workers on the. naval strength, and is bringing them to Australia in order to ensure that no longer will there be undue and inexcusable delays. Government apologists seem to forget that the results of « shipping shortage are equally damaging, whether it be due to shortage of shipping because of destruction by enemy action, or to the ineffectual use of the shipping that is available to us. The Minister for the Navy reminded us that industrial] trouble is not confined to the wharf labourers. This* House, particularly the Opposition portion of it, does not need to be reminded of that. The inaction of the Government in respect of other industrial disturbances probably has been responsible for recent happenings on the Sydney wharfs. A few days ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) broadcast on the eve of May Day a message in which he told the world that the workers of Australia had done their utmost to stand behind the Government and the nation in these times of stress. Almost before the reverberations of his voice had died away, 29 coal-mines were idle, there were stoppages at the abattoirs involving units of the British Navy which were transporting meat for the British Fleet, 3,000 dock workers in Sydney were on strike, and 4,000 members of the iron and steel industry at Port Kembla had refused to work. Al these stoppages prove conclusively that the Minister for the Navy was perfectly right when he said that industrial trouble was not confined to the wharfs, lt would be bad enough if there were real justification for the upheavals that have been such a sorry feature of Australian economy in recent times - had there been differences between the men and the employers - but we know that some of the reasons for industrial stoppages have been puerile, and have been so referred to by the Prime Minister and other Ministers. One example was the dispute in regard to the application of the rationing regulations to the men on the wharfs. The honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) has just referred to the report in to-day’s press, that men working on the wharfs at Newcastle have threatened to absent themselves on one day in each week unless they receive preferential treatment in the distribution of supplies of tobacco and cigarettes. There have been serious strikes which have sadly embarrassed the Government’s war effort, because men in the mass have chosen to protect their colleagues who have been convicted for pilfering or have been disciplined for absenteeism.

Recently, official’ representatives of the waterside workers declared that these men would refuse to work at week-ends with those whom they described as “ the white-collar brigade” - men who, having done a week’s work in other avocations, were prepared to give up their week-ends in order to accelerate the movement of shipping and thus help our lads at the front. The Government has failed, not only because it has submitted passively to the militant workers in various spheres of inactivity, but also by having deliberately associated’ itself with the strikers on certain occasions, abandoning a passive role in order to intervene in a dispute. Not long ago, the chairman of the tribunal constituted to deal with industrial matters on the waterfront resigned from his position because of what he considered the undue and unwarranted intervention of the- AttorneyGeneral in connexion, with a matter then in dispute. That is not the only illustration we have had of Government intervention; were I allowed to do so, I could cite another of a much more recent date. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is entitled to credit for having brought this matter once more to the notice of the people of Australia.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- One of the most critical problems of the war is the provision of adequate shipping to transport essential munitions to places in which they are most urgently needed. The subject of this debate is largely the cause of our inability to supplement the very limited shipping facilities that are available to the United Nations, by the most rapid turnabout of ships when they reach port, and the utmost speed and efficiency in repairing and servicing them. Time will not permit me to go into much detail ; consequently I shall direct attention only to two major aspects of the problem as they occur to me. The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Beasley) has adopted the most disarming and, possibly, the most effective of all parliamentary techniques by admitting, in effect, that he agrees with everything that has been said, and that the problem has not been dealt with as satisfactorily as he would like it to be. He has pointed to the inability of other countries to maintain a maximum effort on the waterfront, and virtually washed his hands of the whole problem when he said, “ “We have done as much here as has been done anywhere else, and a great deal more than others might have done had they been in our place”. I should like to have an hour to analyse that proposition. The record of Australia on the waterfront in the course of this war, is one of the most shameful blots that could be imagined on an otherwise worthy war effort by this country. That is not necessarily an indictment of the workers. At different times, I have had dealings with the representatives of the men on the waterfront, and am convinced that with firm handling, and just and speedy attention to their claims, their effort will be as good as that of men in any other part of the Commonwealth. But more than justice is needed when dealing with their claims’; it must be accompanied by firmness. In that respect, I challenge the practice which the Government has adopted from the outset. Much has been made to-day of the introduction of the gang system. That system was introduced months, if not years, after the Pearl Harbour episode, and certainly years after tEe outbreak of war in Europe. However reluctantly, the Government was driven at last by the emergency of the situation to “ bite the bullet “ on this issue. But there had been many crises prior to that, and -a policy of appeasement had ‘been pursued in relation to them. It has been common knowledge throughout Australia that some men who claimed to be registered as waterside workers were, in fact, nothing of the kind. They made the most sporadic and occasional appearances on the waterfront, and thus were able to secure exemption from other man-power obligations. There has been great difficulty in securing men for the daytime pick-up. Labour would offer at night, when the penalty rates operated, or on Saturday and Sunday, when possibly enough could be earned to keep the men for the rest of the week. There was no effective attempt to exercise discipline. Contrast the attitude adopted towards the malingerers who worked for, perhaps, sixteen hours a week on the waterfront, with the treatment meted out. to the soldier who goes absent without leave - confinement for a week, a month, or more. Yet we are assured that we are engaged in an all-in war effort, in which every member of the community has to be fitted into his or her proper niche. The slackness and casualness that are in evidence in all phases of work on the waterfront have been reflected in one ugly incident after another, and in the failure to keep ships moving and repaired. I should like the time to analyse the reasons which, not long ago, led to the resignation of the chairman of the Maritime Industries Commission and the Stevedoring Industry Commission. That gentlemen occupying such responsible positions found it necessary to resign proves that they were not receiving from the Government the bold and firm support which they regarded as necessary in dealing with the problems which came before them. There is also the matter of pillaging. It is not enough to get goods loaded on to the ships. It is also necessary that they be delivered in the quantity and in the form in which they were despatched. lt is well known that pillaging on the Australian waterfront has, within the last few years, assumed the proportions of a national scandal. And what has happened to those who have been caught? Once, when the Stevedoring Industry Commission proposed to deregister a group of men who had been convicted of pillaging, their comrades threatened to hold up work on the waterfront. The Government had to intervene, and prevailed upon the commission to reinstate the offenders. That was typical of the Government’s pusillanimous attitude towards industrial disputes during the whole of the war. Today, we read in the newspapers, and the Government has admitted it, that several thousand British dock workers are being brought to Australia so that ships of the Royal Navy may be adequately serviced while in the Pacific. Some honorable members may not have attached rauch importance to this, but it is, in fact, a grave reflection upon Australia. It was not necessary to bring British workers to Australia in order to establish the munitions industry. We have successfully undertaken the most difficult form of production, even including the making of optical munitions, which at first seemed to he an impossible task. We have shown that Australian workmen, properly led and firmly handled, can measure up to the best in the world. Why should it be necessary to bring British dock workers to Australia when we have here men capable of building, repairing and servicing ships? By applying the system of dilution of labour, as in other industries, we could have met the requirements of the British .Fleet in these waters; yet it is proposed to bring some thousands of workers from Britain at a time when every foot of shipping space is needed for other purposes, when wives cannot come to Australia to rejoin their husbands, and when even released prisoners of war have to wait before obtaining transport home. Those responsible for the servicing of British warships in the Pacific were not prepared to rely on Australian workmen. It is a disgrace to Australia that this should be so. lt has happened, not because of any lack of loyalty or ability among Australian workmen, but because the Government has failed to handle firmly industrial matters on the waterfront.

Debate interrupted under Standing Order 257b.

page 1670

RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND EMPLOYMENT BILL 1945

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 10th May (vide page 1607), on motion by Mr. Dedman -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

– This i3 a very important measure. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman), when introducing it, said that it was a bill designed primarily to give legislative expression to our sense of obligation to the .men and women of the fighting services, and their auxiliaries, for the part they had played in the most fateful of all wars. He went on to say - lt therefore embodies in a comprehensive statute the Government’s programme of aids to their civil re-establishment when their war service is ended.

The serviceman must, therefore, look to this bill for whatever benefit, privilege and opportunity he will get when he returns to civil life. Now, what is it that the returned man will look for? What he wants, shortly stated, is a fair deal. He wants a home to live in, care and attention if he is sick, special treatment if he is disabled, assistance to set himself up in a small business or to settle on the land, or training to fit him to take his place in the front rank of industry. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) very properly laid emphasis on this training as being of immense importance. Military service may probably have interrupted his preparation for effective civil production. In any case, he has been for years immersed in an environment calculated to unfit him for steady, humdrum, “ peace-time “ employment. A prolonged period of training is imperatively needed to fit him for civil life, and this training should be open to servicemen irrespective of their age at enlistment. On this point, returned men are emphatic. Opportunities for training should be open to all men, of whatever age, if this training will fit them more efficiently to perform their duties in civil life and be of benefit to the community.

The serviceman wants a fair deal, an even break with those who stayed behind. We know that those who stayed behind have worked diligently and many of them for long hours, for which, however, they have been well paid. They have returned at the end of their day’s work to warm, comfortable beds, undisturbed by the screaming of shells or the shock of high explosives and the haunting fear of death ever at their elbow. The soldier has a long leeway to make up. He has given great service to his country, and he deserves everything his country can give to him in return.

This bill, as the Minister has told us, is a comprehensive measure, and we must look to it for everything the Government proposes to do for the serviceman. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, this is a bill, not only to rehabilitate servicemen, but also to extend benefits to non-servicemen. No doubt many of them have served their country well and deserve well of their country; but there is, I suggest, a world of difference between the work done by the auxiliaries- the men. who have stayed behind, and the men who have gone out to fight for their country. I regret that the Government has included in the bill provisions for conferring benefits on non-service personnel.

I shall pass over the provisions made for reinstatement. They confer on the Soldier nothing that is at once substantial and new. I come to what must be regarded as the kernel of the measure - the provision of preference in employment for returned men. This is limited to a period of seven years. The reason given for this limitation is that, in seven years, a new generation will have arisen/ which must not be hampered and confined by old history. There is, of course, something in that argument, but not so very much when we come to examine it. We should remember that we are not dealing with academic doctrines, but with concrete conditions about which we are well informed. The Minister in charge of the bill directed our attention, as was proper, to the magnitude of the task before us. We have to deal with about 900,000 servicemen and women and between 700,000 and 800,000 employees in war industries of one kind and another, all of whom must be absorbed in our industrial economy when hostilities cease. Truly a gigantic task! Preference of employment to ex-service personnel is a recognition of the many and great services they have rendered to their country. But this preference is limited to seven years. The Minister contends that in seven years the children of to-day, including the children of servicemen, will be seeking employment and that they should not be debarred by what he calls “ old history “. This is the reason he gives for limiting preference to seven years. Let us examine it a little closely. The ma jority of servicemen are under 30 years of age; practically all are under 40. In seven years a man who is now 23 will be 30 - at the very crest of his life as a productive unit of the community. He will probably have settled down, have bought a house and incurred many responsibilities. His children will be anywhere between one and six or seven years of age. Even in the case of a man “who enlisted at 25- and who will be 38 or 39 years of age when his preference runs out, his children will be from seven to fifteen years of age. Very few of the children of servicemen will be old enough to work in seven years’ time. This talk of limiting preference to seven years because of the need to consider employment for the children of soldiers is so much plain “ hooey “. What is to become of the children of the soldier? What is to become of the soldier and his wife when he is denied preference? Either preference is worth something, or it is worth nothing. If it is worth nothing and the soldier loses his job, be falls back on the dole - no doubt, under this Government, a glorified dole, but still a dole - and the children, for whose wellbeing we are so greatly disturbed, will suffer with their parents. But the more closely we examine this argument the more untenable it becomes, for, if it is right that preference to the soldier should cease because of the needs and the claims of the rising generation, it is also right that whatever privileges the unionists have should cease at that time. Are the children of the unionists to have no opportunity in life? Why is it suggested that the privileges extended to the soldier must cease at the end of seven years? If he has sought to fit himself by a period of preliminary training, he will have had about five years, and no more, of the benefits of preference, whatever they may be. I submit that this is- a mere pretext. It is only fair that I should emphasize the point made by the Leader of the Opposition and my colleague, the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden). It is a staggering volte-face, which is, so far as I know, with out parallel in our history. The Labour party, which, for 25 years, has denounced preference to soldiers, has suddenly become converted and poses as their champion. It is true that it has gathered in, as is natural to persons in its position, civilians in order to confuse the issue and conciliate outside organizations. But here the Labour party stands now in favour of preference to soldiers - but not with the approval of all the members. I happened to hear, the other night, Mr. Clarey, president of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions, the most powerful combination of industrial organizations in this country, speaking in a debate on preference to soldiers. He was very definite. He was there to oppose preference to soldiers. He believed in preference to unionists. He is unashamedly standing for the policy that has been traditional with the Labour party ever since 1917. Mr. Clarey is a leading figure in the Industrial Labour movement, but the trouble with him is that he does not move with the times. He does not sail north to-day and south to-morrow, but keeps steadily on the old course.

I had better begin at the beginning. Preference to unionists -was introduced by my Government in 1915 when Labour had an overwhelming majority in both Houses, when we were returned, as my. friends sitting behind the Government to-day were, on the policy of preference to unionists; but we deliberately put preference to soldiers above preference to unionists, and on that principle I have stood during the intervening years. I believe in preference to unionists and I have done as much as many of my friends on the Government side for unionism, but I believe, too, in preference to soldiers, because I believe that unionism owes its very existence, certainly its greatness and influence, to what the soldiers of Australia have done for the country and for unionism. But for their valour and sacrifice unionism would have been swept away and we with it. The preference to soldiers given by my Government 28 years ago has operated from that day to this. Honorable members on the other side have criticized it and belittled it. They have endeavoured to persuade the public that the soldier has been forgotten. “Well, the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) can give the best answer to that, for he told us, when he introduced the bill to amend the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act in 11-43, that, up to that time, £273.000,000 had been spent on the soldiers and thai 223.000 people were then receiving pensions and assistance.

Mr Frost:

– That was correct. .

Mr HUGHES:

– Of course it is true. I am the fountain of truth, and I am tolling you these things. Did I not support the honorable gentleman?

Mr FRosT:

Yes. The right honorable gentleman was a good supporter.

Mr HUGHES:

– A little more support like mine on this bill and he will be undone. I have the right to speak as the head of the Labour Government that introduced preference to soldiers. Now I find that members of the Labour party, who, in the intervening years opposed that preference and looked sourly upon me, are now gathered around me in support of that policy, but it is a sort of illicit, evanescent relation. This seven years’ limit and the inclusion of civilians are devices designed to extricate the Government from the very awkward position in which it finds itself. Although it is a long time since I have been in the Labour caucus-room, I know instinctively what takes place there, and I know that there has been a good deal of heartburning, and I know that Mr. Clarey is not the only one who finds difficulty in keeping step with the Government. Like him they do not move with the times. For quarter of a century Labour was opposed to preference, but we live in days of change and. must be prepared to move rapidly. Something happens and instea’d of going nor’-nor’-west by a. quartet east, we go due south. The bil] proposes to give preference for a period of seven years and then to leave the soldier to his own resources. It proposes to repeal all Federal and State legislation providing for preference to soldiers. What that means can be gathered roughly from a realization thai tens of thousands of soldiers to-day are in positions in the Commonwealth and State public services and in the service of local governments and quasigovernmental1 institutions as the result of thai policy. It is a policy that has stood the test of time. It has conferred definite and lasting benefits on tens of thousands of soldiers. It operated in 1917 and operates to-d.ay. It is recognized as an integral part of the national and economic life of this country. Even when it is not enforceable in law, it has been through the year’s and is to-day accepted as a basic principle by which employers and people generally should be guided. When, only the other day, a man who was not a returned soldier was appointed to a certain position, questions were asked in this House about it. Only the other day, too, an old colleague of mine - a returned soldier of the last war - applied to the court for preference for appointment to an important position. It is recognized by the courts. It is, I say, an integral part of the fabric of our national life. Now it is proposed to sweep it away. The servicemen protest most emphatically against the repeal of ‘Commonwealth and State laws granting preference of employment to returned men. They ask that whatever benefits this bill confers upon theam, shall be in addition to. but not to the exclusion of, those that, they have under existing laws.

I turn now to consider the question of preference in relation to industry generally. The bill purports to extend preference of employment not only in the Public Service of the Commonwealth, but also in every phase of our economic life. I do not pose as an authority on the matter. I know of no authority other than the High Court. The powers of the Parliament are what the High Court from time to time says they are. 1 do not know what the Parliament oan do under its defence and external affairs powers. I am aware that certain dicta of the High Court lend support to the opinion that under these powers the authority of the Parliament extends as far as the Leader of the Opposition contended when speaking in the debate on the bill for the enlargement of Commonwealth powers - that whatever has been done under the defence power during the war can be undone under that power when the war ends. I do not know whether that is so or not, but I do know that the Government only last August believed that it had no power to make an industrial law; for, acting on the advice of the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt), for many years a Justice of the High Court, that it had no such power, it sought to amend the Constitution. This is an industrial law. This bill will also repeal State laws. In my opinion, this Parliament has no power to repeal a State la.w dealing with a matter within the ambit of that State’s authority. If a State law is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the law of the Commonwealth will prevail; but I do not believe that this Parliament has power to repeal a State law.

I doubt, first, whether the Parliament has power to pass an industrial law, or to repeal a State law relating to industry; and, secondly, if it has the power to make a law granting preference to exservicemen throughout industry, whether that law can be enforced. I have had some experience of unionism. To-day, as every one knows, unionism is a great power, and preference to unionists applies throughout all classes of industry. Will the Minister for Repatriation say that, if an. exserviceman applies for employment in a factory where unionists are employed, he will, solely by virtue of the preference granted him in this bill, obtain employment and be able to keep it? No one who knows anything at all about industry, and the’ conditions in which industry is carried on, would say so for a moment. If the soldier becomes a unionist, he may, if he obtains the position, continue in employment - although it does not follow that he will - but, if not a unionist, if he obtains employment because he is a soldier, I venture to say that, in nine cases out of ten, those in the factory or shop in which he desires to work will “down tools”. This preference is unenforceable. The present law granting preference to soldiers is legally enforceable only in the Public Service of the Commonwealth and in that of the States, which have passed similar legislation, but in practice it covers a much wider field. It is a real, definite and enduring benefit. It is enjoyed now by tens of thousands of men throughout this country. They and the soldiers of this war are asked to support this measure because it widens the range over which preference operates. In my opinion, it will do nothing of the sort. As I have said, it is extremely doubtful whether Parliament has the jurisdiction to make such a law, but, if it has. the law cannot be enforced.

The Government tells the people that this bill is a part of its comprehensive policy for dealing with all phases of rehabilitation. The bill covers the just and the unjust, the ex-serviceman and the non-serviceman. T agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is most unfortunate that the

Government has adopted that course. I should be the first to recognize the services of many non-servicemen. The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) referred to the merchant seamen.. They deserve recognition, but after all, there is a distinction to be drawn between the man in the fighting services and the merchant seaman. T regret that this bill was not confined to servicemen and that the preference will not be unlimited. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) said that it was useless to attempt to simplify this difficult and complex problem.. I agree that the problem is difficult and complex, but we do owe to ex-servicemen something that is real and not illusory.

This bill has many valuable features. Most of them have been taken holus-bolus from existing legislation. This bill confers no new benefit on the soldier. It takes from him something that he now possesses, and gives to him no compensatory benefit. It promises much, but performs little ; it limits preference to seven years. Many points in this bill can be dealt with more appropriately in committee, and I hope that the Government will agree, without further ado, to amend clause 23 which provides for the repeal of the existing legislation dealing with preference. It is suggested that we should accept this bill in its present form and if it operates badly for seven years, the Parliament then may repeal or modify it. I am opposed to the limitation of preference and the repeal of existing legislation conferring preference, and I hope that the Government, which has shown that it is not unmindful of forces working mysteriously but inexorably in a manner which may affect its very existence, will take note and amend the bill so that it shall.be in harmony with the desires of the men who have been fighting for Australia and the Empire. The Government owes something to them.. For years it has endeavoured to play its part, and has championed the cause of the soldier. As the Minister for Repatriation reminded me, I have given him support, because he has endeavoured to give effect not only to the letter but also to the spirit of our repatriation law. I urge the Minister to use his influence with his colleagues in an endeavour to persuade them to withdraw this bill and substitute for it legislation more in keeping with the desires cd the men who have fought for Australia.

Debate (on. motion by Mr. Haylen) adjourned.

page 1674

ADJOURNMENT

Dairying Industry - Australian Prisoners of War: Notification of Deaths - Migration - Aircraft Production - Manufacture of Agricultural Machinery - War Neurosis - Drought: Labour foe Scrubcutting.

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- I again direct attention to lie parlous condition of the dairying industry. The most urgent problem, which Australia must solve is an increase of population, and the most urgent problem confronting the world is the production of more food, particularly food of the right kind. The greatest home building industry in Australia has always been the dairying industry, and the greatest need of astarving post-<war world is an abundance of protective foods, full of vitamins, that come from dairy produce, such as whole milk, butter and cheese. Therefore, the preservation and expansion of the dairying industry are of the highest importance, and should have first priority in our national considerations.

A survey of Australian vital statistics shows that the dairying industry is the greatest of our home building industries, and that families are relatively larger in number on dairy farms than they are in other walks of life. This is not an accident; it is due to the fact that conditions in the dairying industry ensure a full diet of those foods which produce healthy constitutions. Work on the dairy farm - in the fields, in the yards and in the house - provides scope for useful, reproductive employment for all members of the family, including the boys and girls, until they are of adult age and able to earn their own living. The small children, no matter what the total income of the family may be, always have eggs, vegetables, milk and bacon in their diet.

Our national objective should be to give similar conditions to all other children, and improve their health and nutrition standards. Yet, in the face of this urgent need in Australia for more homes full of children, and more dairy products for the starving world, the Australian dairying industry is definitely on the decline. This is due to a number of reasons, but the principal one is that the financial returns are relatively insignificant, compared with those of many other primary and all secondary industries.

The restoration of the dairying industry is most urgent, and, as its history shows, a price that is an incentive to production is the surest and quickest method of restoration. The monetary returns, as well as the living conditions and amenities, such as electricity, water supplies, telephone, ready supply of machinery and, stores, and education must be made comparable to those which apply to secondary industries.

During the period between the two wars, the dairy production of Australia doubled. In 1920-21 butter production totalled 93,000 tons; in 1939-40 it was 212,000 tons. This great increase occurred mainly as the result of the policy adopted during the first ten years after the last war. In 1917-18 the number of dairy cows in Australia was 1,700,000, and butter production totalled approximately 90,000 tons. In 1932-33 the number of dairy cows had almost doubled, and by 1934-35, butter production had risen to 210,000 tons. The number of males employed in the dairying industry had grown from 60,000 in 1917-18 to 123,000 in 1939-40. The amount invested in dairy farms, in machinery to work the farms, and in stock had doubled, because the price of butter to the farmer had been gradually lifted by measures instituted by the Bruce-Page Government. Those measures gave the leaders of the dairying industry an opportunity to secure a 100 per cent co-operation of all the interests concerned in the production, manufacture, distribution and marketing of dairy products, with the result that in 1938, the price of butter in England was 184s. per cwt. and in Australia it was about 210s. per cwt.

This so stimulated the production of butter and the bringing of more land into dairy-farming that, in five years, despite the depression, the total quantity of butter produced in Australia had increased by 50 per cent. That increase persisted until the onset of war. In the first year of war the total production reached a record figure of 212,000 tons, of which 113,000 tons was exported to Great Britain. Since then, however, there has been a steady decline, year by year, from 212,000 tons in 1939-40 to 157,000 tons in 1943-44. The estimated production for 1944-45 is 139,000 tons which would represent a total reduction of 73,000 tons. Our exports of butter have declined from 113,000 tons in 1939-40 to an estimate of 40,000 tons for the current year. This decline in exports to Great Britain has occurred despite the fact that the consumption in Australia, inclusive of all that has been supplied to the armed forces, increased by only 4,000 tons between 1940 and 1944.

The total production of milk for all purposes has declined from 1,254,000,000 gallons in 1939-40 to 1,076,000,000 gallons in 1943-44. The estimated production of milk in 1944-45 is 966,000,000 gallons, or a decline of roughly 25 per cent. In 1939-40 the milk produced was converted into various products in the following quantities : -

That is to say, there has been a drop of 340,000,000 gallons of milk used for butter production, and an increase of 50,000,000 gallons for all other products, or a total drop of nearly 300,000,000 gallons. This decline is still continuing. Actual figures, collected by Mr. B. J. Williams of Bucca and obtained from the Clarence and Coff’s Harbour butter factories, show that of roughly 600 suppliers to the Grafton Dairy Company during 1944-45, 60 farmers have sold out, and over 1,000 cows have ceased to be milked. At Coff’s Harbour, the figures of receipts in the whole factory show that the average gross monthly cheque of all suppliers, between October, 1944, and March, 1945, was under £30 per supplier. The highest individual cheque in October was £126 for the month, from which the factory deducted £44 for feed supplied. That deduction would not cover all the feed purchased by the supplier as he would purchase also from business houses or, in some cases, direct from distributing agencies or the Australian Wheat Board. This average return during the flush season of the year of less than £7 10s. a week, must cover the labour of the man and his wife, and possibly other members of his family, all repairs, depreciation and interest on his capital investment in land, stock, and machinery, which would be at least between £2,000 and £3,000. From this it is obvious that the price being received for butter by farmers in this area, which has the most regular rainfall of any part of Australia, and is one of the best watered, gives return to the farmer of very much less than the basic wage.

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising to find that the Commonwealth Statistician indicates that the number of dairy cows in milk has declined from 2.600,000 in 1939, to 2,291,000 in March, 1944. The figures would be lower in March, 1945. The number of persons permanently engaged in the industry on the coastal districts of New South Wales, which are predominantly dairying, shows a decline of, roughly, 10,000, from 50,398 males in 1939, to 40.601 in March, 1944; and the number of females employed has increased from 6,400 to 10,800. The sharpest decline in male labour has occurred since 1941, as, in the following year, the basic wage was fixed for males, and farmers simply could not pay it with the prices at the existing level, especially as the labour was not nearly so skilled as before the war.

When the Government subsidy was under consideration in the House, I pointed out that it would require at least £8,000,000 a year in government subsidy, in addition to what was being paid, to enable the dairying industry to pay interest on its investment and to provide for repairs and replacements of depreciated equipment and machinery. There will be little prospect of the return to the dairying industry of the soldiers who enlisted from dairy farms, unless something be done to increase their opportunity to earn sufficient to provide the necessaries of life. Mr. J. G. Crawford, who is at present Assistant Director-General of PostwarReconstruction, in a statement on the question of rural awards, said that in 1939-40 the “gross incomes at-the-farm figures for persons permanently engaged in. dairying in each State “ were as follows : -

He went on to say -

These gross income figures in themselves compare unfavorably for three of the States and for Australia “as a whole with wages being earned in secondary industry at the present time. When it is realized that these figures are subject to deductions for direct production costs, wages and casual labour, and rent and interest payable outside the industry, it will be seen that the income standard of the dairying industry is predominantly low relative to other sections of the community. Moreover, it is probable that the number of employees used in making these estimates are underestimated and that the actual per capita incomes are accordingly lower than those stated.

The relative position of dairymen has since deteriorated as the result of war conditions.

In 1939-40, the retail price index number was 960, and in 1944 it was 1,125. This difference has not yet been compensated for in the increased returns that the government subsdy has given, but a comparison of the retail price index numbers is deceptive by reason of the fact that they are kept as low as they are only because the retail prices of butter and bread have risen very slightly since the beginning of the war. Yet in that, period, the cost of farm machinery has risen by 80 per cent., and the cost of clothing by from 80 to 100 per cent. The cost of cartage and transport has also advanced by a greater percentage than the increased return from the subsidy. In addition, the casual farm labourer available to the dairy farmer is relatively inefficient as compared with members of his own family, most of whom have gone to the war. A tremendous waste of time occurs also, due to difficulties and delays in transport, the impossibility of obtaining tyres and replacing parts of tractors and ploughs, milking machines, and so on. Difficulties in relation to telephone services, the uncertainty about securing the release of men from the Army, or the availability of labour for ploughing, have increased. The war weariness of the people who have been left on the farms, many of whom have passed the prime of life, or have some physical defect which prevented their acceptance for military service, are other factors that must be considered. [ Extension of time granted.]

It is worth comparing the conditions in 1928-29 with those of to-day. In 1928-29 the British price for butter was 184s. sterling per cwt., from which would have to be deducted, say, 20s. per cwt. for expenses. The Australian wholesale price in that year was, roughly, 2s. per lb. Until the new contract was signed this year, the British price per cwt. was 114s. 3d. sterling, or 142s. l0d. Australian, and the Australian price to the wholesaler was, roughly,1s. 6d. per lb., which the Government subsidized by approximately 35s. 6d. per cwt. It will be seen, therefore, that the equalized price over all was much lower than in 1928-29, despite the Government subsidy. But as costs of production have increased greatly owing to war conditions, the farmer is much worse off by reason of the operation of these two factors. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to understand why the Government has not permitted the butter producer of Australia to receive the increase of 42s. per cwt. that the British Government has given to both Australia and New Zealand in its recent contract. The Australian Government, apparently, is taking this money into the Treasury instead of paying it to the farmers. The amount involved will be approxi mately £2,250,000 on a 50,000 tons export. That would not be sufficient to restore the industry to a state which would enable it to attract outsiders to it, but it would help to “ keep the horse going while the grass is growing”. Further increases must be made. Surely no great incentive is offered to the industry to continue production, or to others to engage in it. when the Government says that it proposes to retain possession of this money rather than give it to the farmers, especially those whose sufferings have been increased during the recent drought throughout Australia by having to purchase fodder which ordinarily they would be able to grow ! Therefore, I urge the Government to make the money available immediately to the Butter Equalization Committee. It would make a difference of only from1d. to 2d. per lb. in the price received at the factories, and that would not be nearly sufficient. More must be given, in order to place the industry in as good a position relatively as, say, the vegetable industry, which has been fairly prosperous during the last three or four years, some portions of the fruit: industry - for example, bananagrowing, which has been very prosperous - the meat, industry, and secondary industries. To the men who are engaged in dairying must be given an opportunity to earn as much as can be earned in factories. Applications for the release of Army personnel for the assistance of dairy-farmers are frequently refused on the ground that the men whose release is sought are key personnel. It is most unreasonable to say that those released should receive only the basic wage. I appreciate the releases’ that have been made, and the promise of the Prime Minister to make further releases when the opportunity to do so occurs. The point I make is, that if these men are so important to the Army, surely they are entitled to receive a margin for skill when they return to the farm, thus ensuring that they will be on the same footing as men in secondary industries ! A dairy-farmer - or, for that matter, any other farmer - has to be a “jack of all trades”; he must be able to act as a veterinary surgeon, must have a knowledge of seasons, soil and seeds, and .must have some engineering knowledge so that he can handle the new tools which his industry employs. These men make good soldiers, because they have an all-round efficiency which enables them to adapt themselves to circumstances. In secondary industries, undoubtedly, they would always receive a margin for skill. If we desire more butter to be produced for ourselves and the whole of the starving world, we shall have to make certain that the dairyfarmers will receive sufficient to continue production. The whole community, not merely the farmers, is involved in this matter. Surely ,the dairymen are not to be asked to carry the whole of the burden of producing at a loss! The rest of the community must help. There is no way in which the industry can be restored except that which proved successful between 1920 and 1930, when a definite incentive was given to men to take up this calling. At that time, not merely did the price improve through the statutory producer organizations that were created by the Bruce-Page Government, but in addition roads were improved under the Federal Aid Roads Scheme, and telephones were made available at cheaper rates. The Government of the day said that it would find up to £1,500 of the cost of installing country telephone lines. That proved a payable proposition to the telephone system as. a whole, and I am sorry that the practice has not been restored. The Commonwealth should also take up with the States the matter of improving the educational facilities in country districts. Many decent schools which have been closed during the war period should be re-opened so that the children in the districts concerned may have an opportunity to obtain a proper education. The Government should say frankly that when it assists the dairying industry financially, the State can reasonably be expected to re-0Dan schools and make teachers available to staff them. The contrast between urban and rural amenities must be ended, by raising the country conditions to the level of those in the cities in every respect. In my district, under a local government measure, a hydro-electric scheme was developed twenty years ago, to provide electricity at a flat rate in both town and country. It has been found possible to reduce charges on ten occasions in the last twenty years, because of the increase of consumption. It is a shortsighted policy which dictates the withholding of expenditure on a project because it appears to be immediately beyond the financial capacity of those who would be benefited by it. The use made of it would more than recoup the outlay. Production would be stimulated. I have brought this matter to the notice of the Government, not in a partisan spirit, but in the hope that the whole position will be considered, especially in view of the existing situation in Europe. “We shall be required to provide the foods that are grown on dairy farms, particularly pigmeats, butter and cheese. I understand that the Dutch authorities, in their dealings with Unrra, claimed that they were entitled to three times as much of those foods as they would receive on a per capita basis, because of their outstanding importance in building up constitutions which long starvation had seriously undermined.

Dame ENID LYONS:
Darwin

. - In his usual masterly fashion, the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) has stated the position of the dairying industry. . Every one knows in general terms of the decline of the numbers employed on the farms and of the reduced production, of both milk and butter. The position is becoming increasingly serious, because of the depletion of dairy herds and the necessity in the near future to achieve an increase rather than a decrease of the products of the farms. All dairy products are now recognized as the most important of the body-building foods. The right honorable member has pointed out that these are particularly needed at the moment in many parts of the world. Were we seeking to build up our own population, an increase of dairy production would be necessary in order to maintain virile health from birth onwards. I do not intend to go into the figures which the right honorable member has placed before us. Each member who represents a country district knows something of the local conditions which have caused the decline of production.

In my district, it is largely due at the moment to the increase of cash crops, particularly potatoes. Herds have been sold, which otherwise would probably still be in production. There is no doubt that dairying is the Cinderella of all the primary industries to-day. It has been pointed out that the dairy farmers face many great difficulties of a personal character, such as isolation, and the absence of various amenities which are enjoyed by the city dweller. At the moment, the difficulty of obtaining telephonic communication is very grave, especially in districts where trunk lines do not already exist. Those who live in these districts’ find themselves cut off from so many of the things which are regarded to-day as a part of civilized living, that, they naturally feel a sense of deprivation. The conditions are particularly hard on the women, who do so much of the work of carrying on the farms. I have in my hand a letter which I have received from the secretary of the dairy-women’s organization, Mount Larcom, Queensland. As this lady has stated the case admirably for the woman who works on the dairyfarm., “I cannot do better than read her letter to the House. She says -

My organization has requested me to bring the following matters under your notice. Knowing that you are a “ family “ woman with a wide knowledge and understanding we are taking the liberty to present our “plight” to you, knowing that if it is in your power, you will take steps to rectify the existent injustice and give the dairy-women and children sympathetic treatment.

We are an educated body of women among whom are a number of school teachers, who have married farmers. The price that is paul for dairy produce to-day is totally inadequate. Everything you buy to-day has soared to three times its pre-war price. Dairy produce has remained unchanged in price. Dairy-farming can only be carried on toy the exploitation of women and children. So far this lias been no one’s concern. The fact that young children are being worked on farms doing men’s work hasn’t aroused any one’s interest.

The dairy-farmer’s wife rises early, assists her husband with the milking twice daily. She works at her home duties ingeniously and arduously between milkings, necessitating long hours of toil. From this monotony she knows no respite. Oftentimes during periods of pregnancy she is still in the cowyard juggling heavy buckets. When her baby arrives it is taken to the cowyard in a box. If there are toddlers they have to be at the yard, too, or left at home without supervision. The appre hension that a child may be injured is nerveracking. How many young lives have been wasted through fatalities which occurred while the mother was milking cows. One often utters inaudibly, “Oh, why did I marry a farmer?”

This district is passing through the second year of a disastrous drought. We can see no prospects, for in the months to come our income will probably not cover food bills. One official said 90 per cent, of the farmers were mortgaged. This clearly shows why we are mortgaged. We are worked like slaves, and, in face of that we have the worry of financial insecurity. No woman can be happy with the prospects of financial collapse in front of her.

Very few farmers’ wives ever enjoy a holiday. The standard of housing is definitely poor. Surely the farmer’s wife is entitled te a comfortable residence with electric light, water and refrigeration. These are merely essentials. Our income makes secondary education prohibitive.

We respectfully urge you to bring the disgraceful conditions in this “ Cinderella “ industry under the notice of those in authority. It is hypocrisy for us to deplore the slave conditions that existed in England, when child slavery was practised, when we close our eyes to slavery, of a worse type practised in this fair land of Australia.

Dear Mrs. Lyons, take up our cudgels and endeavour to better our conditions. We will be for ever grateful to the one who oan lift us and our unfortunate children out of this “ predicament “.

That letter is from a woman who obviously feels very deeply, and knows a great deal of the conditions which are prevalent in the dairying industry. I urge upon the Government, as the right honorable member for Cowper has done, that the increased price obtained from the United Kingdom should be passed on to the producer rather than be paid into Consolidated Revenue. I urge it very strongly to make an immediate survey of the whole situation, so that, if possible, these people may enjoy a part of the prosperity which has become general throughout the whole of the homeproducing industries. It is not fair that one section of the community should have to stagger on under such difficulties, both financial and personal. Conditions of this kind are liable to cause in the future even a greater exodus from the farms than already has taken place.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- To-day, I asked a question without notice in which I referred to the fact that a few days after the death had been notified of a prisoner of war his next of kin had been advised on a military form, W.E.66, that as the authorities had heard of the death only some time after it had occurred, overpayment of allotment had been made for so many days. I asked that the matter be looked into, and received an assurance from the Minister representing the Acting Minister for the Army that this would be done. Relatives of prisoners of war suffered sufficiently from the knowledge that the soldier had been in the hands of the Japanese in Malaya or elsewhere, without having this harsh and official demand served so soon after the notification of the death comes to hand. I do not believe that the word “ overpaid “ should be used. Surely it cannot be claimed that there has been overpayment, just because some official did not know the date of the soldier’s death. Such notices would be served in some cases even if next of kin had been notified that the prisoners had been executed by the Japanese for trying to escape, which is the invariable Japanese penalty. Here is a sample of the bald, official demand as it appears on the form -

Allotment was paid to … , and the allottee is therefore overpaid from the . . , 1944 to . . . , 1945, 300 days at 3s. per day, a sum of £45.

I believe that in some instances the amount thus overpaid has been waived and I maintain that it should be waived in every instance, not only when it can be shown that the wife or other dependant is indigent. It should be made a general rule. When a man dies in those circumstances, no debts should be held against his dependants. Also, the notification to the relative should not be sent in that cruel form, as if the man were merely a cipher, instead of a human being who had poured out everything in his country’s cause.

On the 4th May I asked the following question, upon notice, of the Minister for External Affairs : -

I ask the Acting Minister for External Affairs to ensure that no preferential rights in migration to Australia are accorded to Italy under the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, signed in 1883 between Great Britain and Italy, which gave Italians certain rights above other nationalities, will the Government take steps to abrogate this agreement as far as Australia is concerned.

I received the following reply: -

The Government’s attitude to this question was defined by the Minister for External affairs, the Right Honorable H. V. Evatt, in a statement to the House on the 21st November, 1941-

After the outbreak of war with Italy the treaty ceased to be effective. Whether it is annulled or merely suspended is a question of international law on which opinions may possibly differ. In any event, the treaty has no operation during the war and the Commonwealth Government will take care to see that in the treaty of peace the interests of Australian citizens are fully safeguarded in relation to the treaty.

What an evasion that is! Because of a treaty made with Great Britain before the Australian colonies federated, Italy over the years has enjoyed certain special rights in the matter of migration. There are some good Italian citizens here, but there are other Italians who are not good citizens. If any privileges are to be granted, they should be granted to our own British people. I should like to know what the Government proposes to do in this regard. Hostilities in Europe have now ceased and we are no longer at war with Italy. The people of Australia want to know whether the. flow of Italian migrants is to begin again, or are we going to encourage British migration ? It is of prime importance that we should encourage the immigration of people of British stock to settle this almost empty land with its population of two persons per square mile as against 600 per square mile in Great Britain. I know that many British servicemen want to come to Australia. There will be plenty of work in their own country after the war, but many British members of air crews have told their Australian comrades that they intend to go abroad. Unless the Australian Government tells them that they are welcome here, and guarantees to them profitable employment, they will go to other parts of the Empire or to some foreign country. There is plenty of scope for child migration, also, and I urge the Government to make provision for bringing to Australia promptly the widows and children of deceased Australian airmen. In some instances, widows have been told that it will be years before they can come to Australia.

Mr Frost:

– Already, twenty widows are either here or on their way. Others have said that they do not wish to come.

Mr WHITE:

-I am glad to hear that the Government has done something in the matter. However, I can supply to the Minister the name of one woman, the widow of a deceased serviceman, who was told at Australia House that it would he years before she could come to Australia.

Now that the war in Europe is over, I ask the Government to look into the matter of aircraft production in Australia. Here is an extract from an advertisement which appeared recently in the Melbourne Argus -

page 1681

QUESTION

TO AUSTRALIAN PRIMARY PRODUCERS

Machinery poh the Food Front.

Agricultural machines and implements! are being manufactured at a rate not nearly equal to your present demands. Estimates of requirements for 1.!I45-4U, published by the Government, show that production should be on a scale very MUCH greater than the current year’s objective which we know now cannot be nearly reached.

Unless additional man-power is made available to us, there will be an acute shortage of machines and implements, which must result in failure to produce sufficient foodstuffs to meet the requirements of the Armed Services and civilians.

The advertisement is signed by all the manufacturers of agricultural implements in Australia. Farming machinery cannot be manufactured in sufficient quantities because of a shortage of labour, yet there are in the aircraft industry between 30,000 and 40,000 skilled workmen. Some, of course, are doing essential work, but surely it is no longer necessary to continue our efforts to manufacture certain kinds of aircraft in Australia. There is a surplus of long-range bombers in Great Britain, so that there ought to be no need to continue the manufacture of hundreds of Rolls Boyce engines in Australia at a cost of millions of pounds. We have been told that Australian factories have been producing Mustangs. That is not quite true. One Mustang so far has flown, but the parts were not manufactured here; they were imported and assembled here. We have been told by the former Minister for Aircraft Production of Mustangs and Lancasters rolling off the assembly lines. I wish they were, but they are not. However, they are being made, and will eventually be completed. But there is a waste of money and manpower. One experimental aircraft of a certain type was completed at great, cost, but it crashed on its trial. I suggest thai Australia could make a more useful contribution to the war effort now bv switching a considerable proportion of its skilled mechanics to the production of agricultural machinery. Great Britain increased its food production by nearly 70 per cent. Even in spite of the drought, we could do mort than we are doing. The aircraft manufacturing industry should be reduced to pilot plant proportions, so that it would be ready to expand again in case of emergency. Unless this be done, Australia will be unable to do its utmost to help the liberated countries of Europe, where starvation will stalk, and where millions will undoubtedly die next winter. It may seem a far cry from famine in Europe to aircraft production in Australia, but unless man-power be allocated wisely, and directed to the production of food in increased quantities, our efforts te feed the people of starving countries will not do us credit. Private members have difficulty in referring to such matters except on a motion for the adjournment of the House, and, therefore, I offer no apology for bringing this matter forward to-day. I ask that sufficient manpower ‘be made available to do what I have urged should be done.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- The problem of war neurosis among serving members of the fighting forces and returned service personnel arising out of their war service is increasing. Number* of men from advanced battle station! are suffering from war neurosis, in addition to other war disabilities. Neurotic illness is causing a serious wastage of man-power in advanced battle areas; it is damaging the future efficiency in civil life of many men, and will lead to prolonged trouble in the post-war years unless it be dealt with promptly. Modern warfare imposes a heavy strain on the nerves of those in operational theatres. The stress and strain of present-day war, especially in the sand of the, desert, the snows of Greece, ‘Crete and Syria, iD the mud and swamps of tropical jungles, and in mountainous country, together with the effect of bombing will set up in some individuals reactions which, when prolonged or of frequent occurrence, may make life most difficult for them, even after their war service has ended. The position is aggravated by the use of dehydrated and tinned foods. Treatment by psychological methods will do much to restore patients to efficiency as soldiers, or, after their return to civil life, as efficient members of society. The Government should engage to a greater degree than now the services of leading psychologists to treat cases of war neurosis. The full co-operation of the medical officers concerned with the treatment of physical illness or injury is urgent. Acute neurosis can usually be cured quickly if the treatment be immediate. The Army is adding hundreds of thousands of pounds to our pensions bill. and is contributing to the illness of tens of thousands of men in our fighting forces, by its indifference in the matter of granting regular leave. The repatriation expenditure of the country has been, and will be, further increased if regular leave be not given to these men. It is not sufficient to say that regulations have been, or will be, issued. It is essential that the regulations or routine orders be carried out, and that men be given sufficient leave at regular intervals. I appeal to the Minister to see that prompt action shall be taken to deal with war neurosis, and that adequate and regular leave is given to members of the services. At present, men who are entitled to leave are not getting it. That applies not only to men serving outside Australia, but also to men within Australia. I have had correspondence from anxious parents concerning relatives in an engineering unit in New South Wales, who have not had leave for fourteen or fifteen months to visit their homes in Queensland. This is a serious problem, and I ask that attention be given to it. It has been said that a shortage of shipping makes the granting of leave difficult or impossible. If industrial disturbances on the waterfront-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member knows that under Stand- ing Order 266 he may not debate matters which have been discussed during the day.

Mr FRANCIS:

– I have made several attempts during the day to make a speech on that subject, but, apparently, I shall not be able to do so. The problem of war neurosis has been referred to by a number of medical officers in Queensland who have prepared a pamphlet under the title, ‘” Helping the Incapacitated Soldier “. I ask the Minister at the table to read it.

Mr Frost:

– I have read it.

Mr FRANCIS:

– I direct the Minister’s special attention to page 17 of the pamphlet, where the subject of war neurosis is dealt with. In company with the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) I have discussed this matter with various practising medical officers. They say that special treatment is necessary, but that in most States there are no facilities in repatriation hospitals to give such treatment. At 114 Australian General Hospital, Goulburn, New South Wales, insulin and convulsive therapy treatment are given to about 100 patients at a time. In Queensland there is a special hospital in which about 50 patients at a time are treated. Nevertheless, the provision for the treatment of these oases in Australia is hopelessly inadequate-. That is the considered opinion of men who know their job thoroughly. I ask the Government to regard this as an urgent problem, and to act promptly in order to avoid serious repercussions in the post-war years.

I take this opportunity to put on record the following telegram from Alan Philp, of Bollon, south-west Queensland: -

Dastardly treatment of graziers and selectors south-west Queensland regarding release axemen for scrub cutting beggars description atop man-power will not supply suitable men matter should be treated on lines of last year as matter of national importance stop.

Interview Adermann Maranoa who has full information of our efforts since March 10th.

This matter has been raised previously by the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann). All those people want is 35 experienced axemen, not the aged, infirm and inexperienced people whom the Man Power Directorate proposes to make available. I ask that the Minister for Repatriation treat this matter as urgent and immediately place it before the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) in order that his intervention may result in their request being granted. Australia has been ravaged by drought. Its people are on reduced rations. Soon we shall have hundreds of thousands of extra mouths to feed from the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Canada -sailors, soldiers and airmen. We have also the obligation to send more and more food to Great Britain and to devastated Europe. Stock which would help us to meet all those obligations are dying of starvation in south-west Queensland because a mere 35 experienced axemen cannot be provided to cut scrub, the only remaining stock feed. I impress upon the Minister the urgent necessity for immediate action.

Finally, I raise the matter of the new agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Australia for an increased payment by Great Britain for the butter that Australia sends to it. Australia provides all too little butter for Great Britain. We undertook to supply 100,000 tons annually,but are supplying only 40,000 tons. The increased price of £35 a ton amounts to about £2,250,000 and represents between1d. and l1/2d. per lb. I am at a loss to understand why that extra money has not been immediately passed on to the butter producers. There should be no hesitation in paying it over to the Butter Equalization Committee for distribution to the struggling dairymen. The money is provided by the semistarved people of. Great. Britain, who pay it in tax to the British Government, which sees that it is paid to us. It should be distributed without delay to those who deserve it and should not be paid into the Treasury as, I understand, is proposed. This grab by the Government is unthinkable. I protest most emphatically against this shabby treatment of a section of the community which for years and years, under the administration of the Labour party, has struggled without adequate return for the contribution that they have made to the United Nations’ war effort. Inquiry followed inquiry into the dairying in dustry and, when a report finally went to the Government, it was put in cold storage for a whole year, and the representatives of the dairy producers in this House were forced to debate the plight of the industry without knowledge of the contents of the report. This industry, which has had to squeeze out of the Government the labour necessary to carry on, wants justice. On its behalf, I demand that it shall receive justice and that the Government shall ensure the payment at the earliest possible date of the money to which the dairy-farmers are entitled.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.25 p.m.

page 1683

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

International Youth Committee

Sir Frederick Stewart:

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Who comprise the International Youth Committee which has chosen two New South Wales delegates to the World Youth Conference’)
  2. Are the New South Wales delegates prominent members of the Communist party?
  3. Is the Eureka Youth League, of which one of the delegates is senior vice-president, a Communist organization?
  4. Will the delegates claim to speak for the youth of Australia; if so, what justification have they for the claim?
  5. Are the International Youth Committee’s head-quarters at the Communist party headquarters in the Haymarket, Sydney?
  6. Has the Government authorized passages to England for the delegates referred to?
Mr Chifley:
ALP

– The information is being obtained, and a reply will he furnished to the honorable member as early as possible.

Post-war Re-establishment: Advances to Ex-Servicemen.

Mr Harrison:

n asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

How many men discharged from this was have applied for themaximum advance of £250 for rehabilitation purposes under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act and how many have received it?

Mr Frost:
ALP

– A total of 2,194 applications for advances for business plant, stock or live-stock had been received up to the end of March, 1945, of which number T56 were approved, 642 refused, 294 withdrawn and 47 lapsed; 455 were still under ‘investigation and consideration.. It would take much time and effort to have a dissection made to show those who actually applied for the maximum amounts, and if this were done it would not properly reflect the benefit which has been received under this provision. The foregoing figures dx> not include applications dealt with for gifts and loans under hire purchase agreements in connexion with tools of trade, plant and equipment under Regulation 81. The position in this regard at the end of March, 1945, was as follows: Applications received 10,394, of which 9,067 were approved, 908 refused, 185 withdrawn and 98 lapsed, the pending figure at the same date being 536.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 May 1945, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1945/19450511_reps_17_182/>.