Senate
7 July 1949

18th Parliament · 2nd Session



ThePresident (Senator the Hon.

Gordon Brown) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2116

QUESTION

GOAL STRIKE

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Fuel whether it is a fact that Mr. I. Williams, president of the miners’ federation, stated yesterday that unless Mr. J. H. King, secretary of the western district of the federation, was released immediately from gaol, action would be taken to withdraw safety men from the coal mines? If this threat is carried into effect, what safety precautions does the Government propose to take to preserve . the mines from damage?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I read, a report in the press purporting to record a statement made by the president of the miners’ federation, but that statement was to the effect that the federation was considering the possibility of withdrawing safety men from the mines. There is no need for the Government to take any action as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition until action is taken by the federation to withdraw the safety men. It will then be time enough for the Government to act.

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Yesterday,I asked the Minister for Shipping and Fuel whether statements made by certain honorable members in the House of Representatives were correct. Those statements were to the effect that on a three-shift basis, from 120,000 tons to 130,000 tons a week could ‘be produced in open-cut mines in New South Wales. In view of those statements, I ask whether the figure of 55,000 tons which the Minister gave in reply to my question is correct ? Has he seen the report published in the Sydney Daily Telegraph to the effect that “ a research service officer “ said that 210,000 tons of coal a week could be produced from open-cut mines in New South Wales? Did the Minister obtain his figure pf 55,000 tons a week from the Joint Coal Board, which is the only authority competent to give an accurate estimate in this respect? Does he not believe that any action to work the open-cut mines would cause further discord in the coal industry?

Senator ASHLEY:

– Yesterday I said that the maximum quantity of coal that could be produced by working open-cut mines in New South Wales would be 55,000 tons a week. I have since had that estimate confirmed by the Joint Coal Board. I point out that that production would he contingent upon favorable climatic conditions, and would be interrupted even by comparatively light rain.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Is that estimate in respect of open-cut mines’, throughout Australia?

Senator ASHLEY:

– No, it refers only to production from open-cut mines nnder the’ control of the Joint Coal Board. I have seen the statement attributed by the Daily ‘ Telegraph to the “ research’ service officer” to whom Senator Amour has referred. I understand that that research service is a rump of the Liberal party or of the Australian Country party. Invariably, it issues statistics to the detriment of the Government, and very often) as in this instance, it issues statistics which are incorrect. The statement that over 120,000 tons a week could be produced from open-cut mines in New South Wales is entirely incorrect. This morning, I made further inquiries upon the matter, and my statement was substantiated by a member of the Joint Coal Board who is directly concerned with open-cut mining in New South Wales.

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the fact that members of the Communist party are distributing pamphlets on the coal-fields at Collie, Western Australia, entitled “ Arbitration got the miners nothing “, will the Minister for Shipping and Fuel consider distributing pamphlets giving details of benefits conferred upon the miners since Labour established the Coal Industry Tribunal?

Senator ASHLEY:

– I am not aware that pamphlets of the kind mentioned by the honorable senator have been distributed on the Western Australian coalfields. I should think that the advertisements which have already been published in the press throughout Australia, and which set out very clearly the circumstances surrounding the coal strike, would be sufficient to acquaint the miners at Collie, and, for that matter, every one else in Australia, with the facts. The dispute occurred because of a declaration by a section of the miners’ federation of its preference for direct action over industrial arbitration. The Government still adheres to industrial arbitration, and every effort will be made by the Government to enforce compliance with that policy.

Senator COOPER:

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Fuel inform me whether it is correct that the Chairman of the Coal Industry Tribunal, Mr. Gallagher, recommended in April last that proceedings should be taken against union officials for the stoppage which occurred in the coal-mining industry that month. Were prosecutions launched in accordance with that recommendation? If not, why not?

Senator ASHLEY:

– T ani not clear concerning the matter which the honor, able senator has in mind. In any event any recommendation made by the Coal Industry Tribunal concerning prosecutions would be referred to the Government’s legal advisers. It is not my function to determine whether prosecutions should or should not be launched in such matters. Although the matter to which the honorable senator has referred may have been dealt with by the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, it has* not come to my knowledge. I shall make inquiries of my colleague the Attorney-General and endeavour to obtain that information for the honorable senator.

Senator COOPER:

– ‘I now ask the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral Whether the Chairman of the Coal Industry Tribunal, Mr. Gallagher, recommended in April last that proceedings be taken against union officials who were responsible for the stoppage in the coal industry during that month? Were prosecutions launched, and, if not, why not?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health · TASMANIA · ALP

– When I was Acting Attorney-General, the facts mentioned by the honorable senator were brought to my notice. The Coal Industry Tribunal, Mr. Gallagher, did recommend that, if possible, certain leaders- ^1 think that they were members of the federal council of the miners’ federation - should be prosecuted. It was not the Coal Industry Tribunal that referred- the matter to the Crown Law Department. That was done by the Joint Coal Board. The board communicated directly with the SolicitorGeneral or the Crown Solicitor. The matter did not come to my notice officially. The information presented by the Joint Coal Board was examined by the Crown Law authorities, and, on the facts that could be proven, and not mere newspaper statements, the Crown Law Department advised the Joint Coal Board that prosecutions did not lie. That matter did not come to me for opinion in my capacity as acting Attorney General* It went directly from the Crown Law Department to the Joint Coal Board. No prosecutions were possible on the facts that could be established1.

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is the report appearing in the Canberra Times of the 30th June correct, viz., that a leading private bank at Wollongong, New South Wales, paid out large sums of money to the Communist-led miners federation yesterday after the usual banking hours?
  2. Is it a fact that it is normal banking practice for a bank to require considerable notice when sums amounting to thousands of pounds are being withdrawn?
  3. In view of the recent legislation concerning strike funds, will the Prime Minister investigate these reports and ascertain whether the private banks are assisting the Communist leaders to prolong the strike in order to bring about the defeat of the Labour Government?
Senator ASHLEY:

– The Prime Minister has informed me that the matter raised by the honorable senator will be examined and replies to his questions will be supplied as soon as possible.

page 2118

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Reconstruction Training Scheme

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Postwar Reconstruction indicate what progress has been made with the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme in Tasmania, particularly in the training of ex-servicemen in the building trades?

Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– The Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme is progressing very satisfactorily in Tasmania. I understand that approximately 650 persons were enrolled for training courses in the building trades under that scheme. Of that number, approximately 100 have completed their training, whilst twenty are in the initial stages of training and the remainder are either engaged in subsidized employment or are at various stages of their courses. I am informed that less than 5 per cent, of the original number of trainees have failed to complete their training. Some have dropped out because of medical disabilities, whilst others have sought to rehabilitate themselves . in other trades. I assure the honorable senator that a very substantial contribution to the activities of the building trades in Tasmania has been made through the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme.

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction give the Senate an indication of the amount of money that has so far been expended by the Government in providing university type training for ex-servicemen under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme, and indicate the number of ex-servicemen that have been trained or are still receiving such training?

Senator McKENNA:

– I am able to inform the honorable senator that, to the end of April of this year, nearly £10,000,000 has been expended by the Commonwealth Government on university type training for ex-service trainees. Of that amount students have received approximately £6,250,000 in living allowances. More than 15,000 ex-servicemen and women are receiving full and parttime university type training, and more than 9,500 have completed full and part time courses. Of the £33,279,051 which has been spent under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme, nearly £6,000,000 has been disbursed in fees for instruction and tuition. Up till theend of last year approximately 1,750 students completed their courses with financial assistance. Of these, 1,550 obtained university degrees and 200 obtained technical college diplomas. Of the university students 625 obtained degrees in science; 303 degrees in engineering’; 236 degrees in medicine, and 139 degrees in arts. The Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme has been carefully planned and the splendid results which have been achieved have fully justified the Commonwealth Government’s work in adult education.

page 2118

QUESTION

COMMUNISM

Senator AMOUR:

– Has the Minister for Shipping and Fuel read the report published in to-day’s press that the sum of £23,000 was lent to the Communist party by the Australian Mutual Provident Society and the Perpetual Trustee Company, and that one of the directors of the latter company is a Mr. J. P. Abbott? Is the Mr. J. P. Abbott mentioned in the report and Mr. J. P. Abbott, the honorable member for New England, one and the same person? If the Minister is unable to answer my second question, will he have investigations made to ascertain whether the honorable member for New England is a director of the Perpetual Trustee Company, because, should the honorable member be a director of a company that has provided financial assistance to the Communist party, his attacks upon Communists and his statements about what he thinks should be done with Communists are “ phoney “ ?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I saw the statement in to-day’s issue of the Sydney Daily Telegraph referred to by the honorable senator, but although it mentions a Mr. J. P. Abbott it does not identify him with the honorable member for New England in the House of Representatives. However, the inference is that they are identical. I shall have inquiries made and communicate the result to the honorable senator.

page 2119

QUESTION

MR. JOHN BENNETT

Senator COOPER:

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Fuel say whether the Mr. John Bennett, radio spokesman, who has been selected and endorsed as the Australian Labour party candidate for the constituency of Latrobe at the next elections is identical with the Mr. John Bennett, who was mentioned by Mr. Cecil Sharpley, in the course of his evidence before the Victorian royal commission, as a leading secret member of the Communist party?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I am not aware of the political affiliations of the gentleman mentioned by Mr. Sharpley. As far as I know he could be a member of the Australian Country party or of the Liberal party as well as of the Communist party. I shall endeavour to get the information sought by the honorable senator.

page 2119

JAPAN

Exports

Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · ALP

– On the 10th March last Senator Cooper referred to an article which had appeared in the press that day to the effect that the revival of the Japanese export trade and the alleged dumping of millions of yards of

Japanese woven textiles on the American market, had seriously alarmed American business men, and asked what action the Australian Government proposed to take to protect our industries against the dumping in this country of cheap Japanese goods manufactured by coolie labour. I have had this press report investigated, and I have found that it is difficult to establish the justification for the American protests in March against the dumping of Japanese textiles. The threat does not appear to have materialized, and the reported American alarm appears, therefore, to have been of a temporary nature. There is, of course, a possibility that the danger of low-priced competition will arise again; but,, as I pointed out in my previous reply, it has been the consistent policy of this Government to protect Australian industry against the dumping of goods produced by cheap labour.

page 2119

QUESTION

TEA

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– On the 22nd June, Senator Cooper asked my colleague, the Minister for Shipping and Fuel, a question based on a public statement that unlimited supplies of tea could be obtained from Java. At the time I interjected my disbelief in the statement, aud that disbelief has been confirmed by subsequent inquiries. First of all, concerning the world position of tea, those intimately connected with the trade are forecasting that supplies from all sources this year will fall short of demand by more than 40,000,000 lb. Java production is included in world supplies, and if unlimited supplies were available from that country there would be no world shortage. Secondly, Java has not yet regained its pre-war position as a large exporter of tea. In the four years, 1935 to 1938, the average exports from Java were 165,000,000 lb. Estimated available exports this year are about 30,000,000 lb. of which a large proportion is of a kind not suitable for the Australian trade. Even if Australia purchased the whole of Java’s exportable surplus of suitable teas, the quantity would not be enough to satisfy half of Australia’s rationed requirements. The story of unlimited supplies is, therefore, without any foundation.

page 2120

ALICE SPRINGS SCHOOL

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator LAMP:
TASMANIA

– As Chairman, I present the report of the Public Works Committee on the following subject: -

Erection of a new school at Alice Springs, Northern Territory.

Ordered to be printed.

page 2120

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

British Medical Association: Freezing of Funds

Senator FINLAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I am rather perturbed about the questions that are being constantly asked in this chamber about a certain section of the working-class community that is defying the law. Therefore, I ask the Minister for Health whether the Government is contemplating action to freeze the funds of the British Medical Association because of its defiance of the law of the Commonwealth relating to the provision of pharmaceutical benefits for the people of Australia?

Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– Action to freeze the funds of the British Medical Association could not properly be taken under our arbitration law. That law applies to organizations that are registered with the Arbitration Court. The power of the Commonwealth to deal with those organizations arises solely from its power over conciliation and arbitration. It is essential, of course, that employees should not approach the court individually to meet individual employers. Accordingly, there must be recognized organizations. Those organizations have to be registered with the Arbitration Court, and it is implicit in the incidental power that laws relating to their behaviour, control andrules should be made. It is pursuant to that incidental power, which is incidental to conciliation and arbitration, that legislation dealing with registered organizations is on the statute-book. I assure the honorable senator that, apart from the provision relating to disputation between employees and employers, in the completely technical sense, there is no power under the Commonwealth Constitution at all whereby the Commonwealth could take charge of, or regulate, the affairs of voluntary organizations that are not registered with the Arbitration

Court. The Commonwealth has no more control over an organization of that type than it has over a football club or any other voluntary body. The Government believes, however, that it is not necessary to control the very large funds that have been raised by the British Medical Association to publicize the views of its members, I may add that that money is being disbursed in a heavy barrage of propaganda, some portions of which are definitely not factual. My attention has been directed to the fact that some doctors are now sending out propaganda with their accounts. Some examples of that propaganda have been sent to me by various patients who have asked whether I have any pamphlets that could be sent with their compliments, to the doctors concerned, when the accounts are paid. I am examining that request to see what can be done. However, there is no question at present of freezing the fund’s of the British Medical Association. We have not the power to do that, and whether we would exercise it if we had it, is a matter that the Government would have to consider. In my opinion, there is no need to freeze the funds of the British Medical Association. I hope later to-day to indicate the date on which the recently passed pharmaceutical benefits legislation will come into operation. The pharmaceutical benefits scheme should be in full operation a little later this month. I believe that the desired results can be achieved without interfering with the money now being expended by the British Medical Association on propaganda.

page 2120

QUESTION

FEDERATED IRONWORKERS ASSOCIATION

Female Members

Senator TANGNEY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

How many female members are there in the ironworkers’ union of New South Wales, on what types of work are they engaged, and what are the necessary qualifications for membership of the union?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following information : -

The Commonwealth Statistician does not maintain for public information the membership of specific unions. However, my department has been informed by the New South

Wales branch of the Federated Ironworkers Association that there are 550 female members in the union in New South Wales. These female members are mainly engaged on general process work in the light metal industry, while a few are engaged on core-making in foundries. Any female employed on work covered by the Federated Ironworkers Association constitution who pays the prescribed entrance-fee and agrees to abide by the rules of the organization may become a member. The entrance-fee is 10s. if the female member is receiving 75 per cent, of the male rate as her remuneration and5s. if in receipt of less remuneration.

page 2121

QUESTION

FREEDOM OF WORSHIP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

As, according to repeated press reports, the same tragic and inhuman treatment as befell the Cardinal Primate of Hungary now imminently threatens the Archbishop of Prague, will the Government, acting in concert with the governments of other civilized countries, make such representations as are appropriate in an endeavour to save him and other Christian leaders from being sacrificed upon the altar of atheistic communism?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

The Government is endeavouring to ascertain the facts in this present case. If the circumstances in Czechoslovakia appear to be similar to those which occurred in Bulgaria and Hungary and which were discussed by the United Nations, the Government will again support United Nations intervention in the matter for the purpose of protecting fundamental human freedoms, including freedom of religion.

page 2121

QUESTION

WILLARD GARFIELD WESTON COMPANY

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Shipping and Fuel, upon notice -

  1. Will he inform the Senate whether the following report is true, viz.: - That Mr. Willard Garfield Weston (Canadian millionaire baker) has bought out Gartrell White Limited of Sydney - Australia’s largest baking concern - for approximately £437,000 and has also secured a controlling interest in the Golden Crust Bakery, North Adelaide?
  2. If so, will the Government ascertain, if possible, from the chairman of Australian directors of the Willard Garfield Weston Company (Sir Earle Page) what steps are intended to be taken by the company to fulfil Mr. Weston’s statement, viz., “We plan to give Australia the best bread in the world “?
  3. Will the Government ascertain whether the places in other lands now served by this monopoly are being supplied with the best bread in the world?
  4. Will the Government confer with State governments and do everything possible to prevent possibly hundreds of small bakers being put out of business by such capitalistic monopolies ?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– Inquiries are being made, and further advice will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 2121

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator COOPER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

  1. What was the number of appeals awaiting hearing in each State of the Commonwealth immediately prior to the disband men t of No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal?
  2. What was the number of appeals awaiting hearing in each State as at the 31st May, 1949?
Senator CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister for Repatriation has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -

only has been functioning, and a second tribunal has been appointed as a temporary measure to hear appeals which, while only one tribunal has been in existence, have gradually grown to a number in excess of the capacity of one tribunal.

page 2122

COCKATOO AND SCHNAPPEB ISLANDS BILL 1949

Secondreading.

Debate resumed from the 29th June (vide page 1612), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– The purpose of the bill is to repeal the Commonwealth Shipping Act 1923 and to provide for a new form of control and management of Cockatoo Island and Schnapper Island. The 1923 act placed the islands under the control of the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board. The islands, which are situated in Port Jackson, New South Wales, have been used as shipbuilding yards and dockyards. The 1923 act also gave to the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board full control of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. When the line was disposed of in 1927, except for a few vessels that were retained by the Commonwealth, the board remained in control of the islands. This bill will discontinue the board, and operations at the islands will be transferred to the control of a department. I understand that the financial transactions connected with the shipyard and docks will in future be dealt with by the Parliament in the normal manner. The Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) has not stated which department will assume the management of the establishments. I assume that it will be the Department of Shipping and Fuel.

Senator Ashley:

– It will probably be the Department of Supply and Development.

Senator COOPER:

– I thank the Minister. I should also like to know whether operations at the two islands will be the subject of special annual reports to the Parliament, or whether they will be dealt with in the general summary of departmental activities that is presented annually in the budget papers. The Opposition has no wish to oppose the bill.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

. - in reply - The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) asked what department would control operations at Cockatoo Island and Schnapper Island. That has not been finally determined. The Department of the Navy his claimed preference over the Department of Supply and Development and its application will be considered by Cabinet. Operations at the islands will be subject to review by the Parliament and will be reported upon in the normal way by the department that is selected to take control in place of the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board. Special reports will not be presented to the Parliament on those activities.

Question resolved in the affirm ative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2122

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1949

Secondreading.

Debate resumed from the6th July (vide page 2025), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– As the title of this bill indicates, it is for substantially the same purpose as was the Stevedoring Industry Act 1947, under which the Stevedoring Industry Commission was established. I am not suggesting that there was any sinister or ulterior motive, but as this is a matter which ordinarily should be dealt with by the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) in this chamber, not the Minister representing him in another place, and as this chamber has initiated very little legislation, it is a shame that this measure was not introduced in this chamber. Of course, there may be a very good reason why the bill was introduced in the House ofRepresentatives. I should be glad if the Minister would explain why that was done. If the bill, when enacted, will do something to provide for the settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration, and if it will provide a facile and expeditious means of regulating and controlling stevedoring operations, it will fulfil a very good purpose, and will receive the blessing of the people of Australia. I hope that the fate that will befall it in the fulfilment of this very commendable objective will be a little more satisfactory than has been the fate of the act that it is superseding, and which was introduced for precisely the same purpose. What would have happened without that act I do not know, but even with that legislation in operation, conditions on the waterfront are still a long way from satisfactory. At this stage I am not attempting to apportion the blame or responsibility and am looking at the matter factually. I am convinced, after examination of the facts, that any Minister charged with the responsibility of these matters must consider that there is still a great deal to be done. Apparently every effort was made to conciliate and appease the workers on the waterfront, who are entitled to every consideration, because they perform hard, onerous work. However, there must be a measure of co-operation and appreciation by them of what is done for them. They must be impressed with their responsibility to the community. Despite advantages that have been conceded under the act now being repealed, and although there is now an increase of 40 per cent, in available tonnage compared with that available in the last year before the war, the interstate freights being carried are about7½ per cent. less than before the war. This is a vital matter because in the final analysis any increase of freight rates falls inevitably on the shoulders of the average men and women of this country. The average rate of discharge decreased from about 804 tons a day in 1934 to about 234 tons a day in 1948, while the loading rate has decreased from an average of 434 tons a day to 321 tons a day. Although I cannot say what is the actual cause of that decrease, there is no doubt that the Stevedoring Industry Commission has made a very earnest and generous attempt to ameliorate the conditions of the waterside workers. But it would appear that the considerations extended to them have not been appreciated by them in the form of a little more work and efficiency. The conditions of those engaged on the waterfront can hardly be regarded as entirely unsatisfactory. I shall not bore the Senate with the full details, because any honorable senator interested may read the Hansard report of speeches on this matter that were delivered at great length in the House of Representatives. Broadly speaking, for a week of 35 hours the average pay in the industry throughout the Commonwealth is £10 9s. 8d. In relation to the rates generally prevailing in other industries, that cannot be said to be meagre or mean. If there are any ways and means contemplated in this measure which will have the effect of lowering costs on the waterfront, ameliorating the conditions on the waterfront, and bringing peace and harmony in the industry, it is to be highly commended. There are some features of this bill to which I object, and with which I shall deal fully at the committee stage. Nobody can work as a waterside worker on the waterfront unless he is registered under the act. Nobody can be registered under the act unless he is antecedently a member, of the Waterside Workers Federation.

Senator Katz:

– That is incorrect.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Clause 21 provides that the registration of an employer or waterside worker under this act shall be in the discretion of the board, except that at such ports as the board determines, a waterside worker shall not be registered under this act unless he is a member of the federation. In spite of any interjections, if words mean anything at all, that provision means that nobody can be registered for employment under this measure unless he is antecedently a member of the Waterside Workers Federation. I do not cavil at the principle of preference to unionists, but the effect of that provision is that although a person who is desirous of becoming a waterside worker must first apply for registration, his application cannot be considered unless he is a member of the Waterside Workers Federation. That places inthehandsoftheexistingexecutivecompletepowertosaywhomayor maynotbecomeawatersideworkerat any time.Therewouldbenoviolation ofunionviolationasIunderstandthe matterof……toanybodyto apply for registration on condition that after registration he applied for membership of the Waterside Workers Federation. As the matter stands, however, the executive of the Waterside Workers Federation has complete and absolute authority to say who may or may not be eligible for employment on the waterfront. I understand that monopolies of any description are obnoxious to Labour’s principles, but, in this instance, the liberty of the individual who wants to become a waterside worker is placed entirely in the hands of the executive officers of the federation. I do not cavil at the provision of preference of employment to members of the federation, but, as I have already pointed out, under this bill, a man cannot become eligible for work on the waterfront unless the executive of the federation “ O.K’s “ him. That gives to the federation a very dangerous power, particularly when we remember, as the Minister indicated in his second-reading speech, that the waterside industry traditionally has been a turbulent, industry. It is also notorious that the control of the Waterside Workers Federation in many ports, although not in all ports, in Australia is in the hands of Communists. There is no need for me to impress upon honorable senators that Communists are not disposed to encourage peace and harmony in industry. Yet, in this very vital industry they are given complete control. It is extraordinary that three industries, which are most vital to our economy and well-being - the waterfront and seamen’s industries and the coal-mining industry - should be removed from the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. I am delighted with this measure to the degree that it will replace those engaged in the waterfront industry within the jurisdiction of the court. It is a very vicious blow at the principle of arbitration to remove from the ambit and jurisdiction of the court any important industry, or union. Such action has not tended one iota to establish peace in the three industries to which I have referred. On the contrary, since the principal act was passed more disputes have occurred in the waterfront industry than occurred previously. I welcome the provision in the bill to replace the water- side workers and their industry within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court.

Another feature of the bill to which I object is that it tends to destroy the direct relationship between employer and employee., Under this legislation the employers do not directly engage their employees, and the employees do not directly accept employment from their employers. A third party, the board, or the Employment Committee acting on behalf of the board, actually engages the employees. In such circumstances, it is impossible to establish peaceful and harmonious relationship between employers and employees. It is impossible to achieve success and efficiency in the industry unless the personal relationship between employer and employee is maintained. Under this legislation, the employees are chosen by somebody and are then handed over to the employers. Such a system inherently denies even the prospect of establishing peaceful relationships. Subject to the protection of employees against wanton or unreasonable treatment or dismissal, there must be the right of discipline existing between employers and employees. That requisite is inherent in such a relationship. Employees can be protected against wanton, or arbitrary, action on the part of employers by having the right of appeal to the Arbitration Court. The denial of even the possibility of establishing harmonious relationships between employers and employees must preclude the establishment of an efficient and peaceful industry.

The title of the bill indicates that it is a measure “ to provide for the prevention or settlement by conciliation or arbitration of industrial disputes”. The board should give consideration to the elimination of the casual nature of employment on the waterfront. I understand that the reason pleaded for the payment of appearance money waa to provide some compensation for the casual nature of this work. Having regard to the expenditure that has been incurred in the Government’s endeavours to establish peace and harmony in this industry, I do not think that any one would object to money being made available with the object of eliminating the casual nature of this employment*. It is unreasonable to. expecthardand efficient work from people when they do not know what may be. their relationship with their employer or for how long their employment may last. I urge the Government to evolve ways and means; of placing this employment on a. permanent basis, or at least on. such a basis as will enable those engaged is the industry to ascertain to a reasonable degree their prospects and. earnings in the industry.I shall defer my remarks on other provisions of: the bill until the committee stage.

Senator KATZ:
Victoria

.- When SenatorO’Sullivan was speaking,

I said by way of interjection that all persons engaged on the waterfront would not necessarily have to be members of the Waterside Workers Federation. The honorable senator then referred to sub-clause 2 of clause 21, which, of course, bore out my point. That provision is necessary because what has been manifested on the waterfront has been due to the attitude and actions of certain employers’ organizations.

SenatorO’Sullivan. - How does that provision bear out the honorable senator’s point?

Senator KATZ:

– It upholds my point that not all persons engaged on the waterfront have to be members of the Waterside Workers Federation.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– What persons do not have to be members of the federation?

Senator KATZ:

– Clause 21 reads- (1.) Subject to the next succeeding subsection, the registration of an employer or waterside worker under this Act shall be in the discretion of the Board. (2.) Except at such ports as the Board determines, a waterside worker shall not be registered under this Act unlesshe is a member of the Federation but nothing in this subsection shall affect the operation of paragraph (b) of sub-section (3.) of section five of this Act

That provision has been rendered necessary because of action taken in the past by certain employers. At one time, those employers assisted and financed what is known in trade union circles as a “ scab “ organization. To-day, in the Port of Melbourne, there are two organizations engaged in the industry, namely, the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union and the Waterside Workers

Federation; and, without clause 21, members of the Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union would have no chance of being employed on the waterfront Although that organization originally was formed as an employers’, or bosses’ organization, that provision will ensure that its members shall not be victimized by being prevented from working on the waterfront in Melbourne. As time went on, of course, the usual thing happened, and “ Corns” eventually captured control ofthe Permanent and Casual Wharf Labourers Union.

Senator O’Sullivan said that he wbuld like to see something done to eliminate the casual nature of employment on the waterfront As a representative of the Clerks Union I have met representatives of ship-owners in conference on various occasions. I recall that on one occasion, in the Port of Sydney, when the unions tried to eliminate the casual nature of waterfront employment the proposal was opposed by the Steamship Owners Federation, whose representatives said that they would not make provision for permanent employment because that would limit the number of men which would be available for work on the waterfront. They wanted to have about twice as many men available as were actually needed for the work offering. Such an arrangement has best suited their interests during the last 30 years, when they have always sought to have 500 or 600 men waiting to obtain work that was sufficient to engage only 200 men. However, during the war that system was revised through the efforts of the Department of Labour and National Service, with the object of ensuring not only that sufficient men would be available for the work offering, but also that there would be continuity of employment for those engaged on the waterfront. I do not hold a brief for any organization in this matter, but I commend the Government for attempting to do something of this nature. We must realize that we are living in the twentieth century. Almost nine out of every ten questions asked by members of the Opposition in the Senate relate to workers and their employment. They want to know why some sections of the workers do not work harder, or why the Government does not do something to discipline the workers. However, when the Opposition parties were in office, they did not attempt to discipline the workers. Now, they attempt to throw that responsibility upon this Government. Let us examine the psychology of the waterside workers, for instance, in Melbourne. Shortly after I was elected to the Parliament, I received a telephone communication concerning the steamship Mahia, which was lying at Victoria Dock. I went to the vessel, where I saw a number of dead bodies and more dead bodies were discovered during my visit. The unfortunate individuals concerned had died because they had been suffocated by fumes from a cargo of soda ash. I point out that when such tragedies occur steamship owners do not suffer, as do the unfortunate waterside workers, such as the members of the Ships Painters and Dockers Union who lost their lives in the tragic occurrence to which I have just referred.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Were the men who died, members of the crew of the vessel i

Senator KATZ:

– No, they were members of the Waterside Workers Federation and of the .Ships Painters and Dockers Union, and were citizens of Victoria. One can understand the attitude of mind which such occurrences develop in members of certain trade unions, and when a Labour administration attempts to legislate in respect of such workers it has to encounter the resentment brought about by that state of mind. Senator O’sullivan said that there should be more harmony between employers and employees. It is not possible any longer for employers to develop harmonious relations with their employees, because the days when employers were in direct contact with their employees have long since gone. In the course of their employment or in dealings which their unions have with their employers, waterside workers and other employees of large undertakings do not come in contact with their actual employers. The only people with whom they have dealings are the industrial officers and advocates employed by ‘the companies concerned. I do not suppose that any individual member of the steamship owners of Australia h asmet a single representative of the Waterside Workers Federation in conference inrecent years.

Senator O’sullivan complained that the Government had selected three industries, stevedoring, maritime and coal, for special treatment by removing them from the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. It is true that those industries have been removed from the ambit of the Arbitration Court, but Labour had to do so in order to restore harmony in those industries. It cannot be emphasized too often that the unco-operative attitude displayed by many waterside workers and their union representatives is due to the conditions of casual employment under which they work. Until this Government instituted the payment of appearance money, individual waterside workersnever knew when they left home to go to the pick-up places whether they would receive employment. I have repeatedly seen crowds of as many as 400 or 500 workers waiting at the pick-up place, and when the employers’ representative arrived he selected perhaps only about 20 or 30 men. The rest had to return home. They received no compensation whatever for having set aside the day to make themselves available for work on the waterfront, or for the money which they expended on their fares to reach the pick-up place and return home. Many waterside workers in Melbourne live from 20 to 30 miles from the docks, and their fares are considerable. In order to provide some encouragement to the men to remain in the industry and to afford them some sense of social security, the present Government decided to pay appearance money to workers who attended the pick-up places. That payment amounts to only approximately 12s. a day. All this criticism about the rate of loading and unloading cargo having declined from, say, 25 tons to 23£ tons per shift is not calculated to improve industrial relationships. The measure now before the Senate is designed to facilitate the expeditious handling of imports and exports by providing an appropriate industrial tribunal to deal with the industry. I impress upon honorable senators, that the men employed on the waterfront are not stupid. They realize that the volume of this country’s exports has increased’ very considerably, and they cannot be accused fairly of hampering our export trade. I myself have counted from 38 to 48 vessels loading cargo in Victoria Dock at one time. Although honorable senators opposite have criticized the legislation that was introduced by the present Government in 1947 to improve conditions on the waterfront, they cannot deny that a considerable improvement of workers’ conditions was justified, and they would not, if they were in office, consider for a moment repealing that legislation. I emphasize, however, that they do not give the present Government the credit which it rightly deserves for having been the first Administration to introduce such progressive legislation. Because of the progressive outlook of the Australian Labour party, which is reflected in such measures as that now before us, not only the workers but the entire community will benefit substantially. I support the bill.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland’

– I listened with a great deal of interest to Senator Katz, and I can assure him that members of the Opposition are just as anxious as he is to provide reasonable conditions for the waterside workers of this country. I certainly do not intend to oppose the passage of this measure. In the course of the second-reading speech delivered by the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley), he admitted that the 1947 legislation was nothing more than a bold, legislative experiment. The failure of that legislation to achieve its objective is, admittedly, not the fault of the present Government. However, we must get down to bedrock to discover the causes for the failure of that legislation. Undoubtedly, the principal cause is that the waterside workers have placed the control of their affairs in the hands of Communists, whose avowed object is the destruction of industrial arbitration and the disruption of our economy.

This legislation proposes to establish a board to carry out the functions that are at present exercised by the Stevedoring Industry Commission, and to place the industry again under the general supervision of the Arbitration Court. The 1947 legislation, it will be remembered^ removed the waterside workers from the court’s ambit, and ‘placed them under the control of the Stevedoring Industry Commission. As Senator Katz admitted, separate tribunals were created for the stevedoring, maritime and’ coal industries. These are all key industries, and, unfortunately, they are dominated by Communists, a fact which is as well known to the Government as it is to me.

Senator Katz:

– Would the Leader of the Opposition prevent a Communist from working on the waterfront?

Senator COOPER:

– I am not at the moment discussing whether they work or not while they are on the waterfront. Mr. Healy, for instance, apparently got quite a good job on the Stevedoring Industry Commission, although he did nothing whatever to deserve it. He was not even loyal to the decisions of the commission.

Senator Critchley:

– The honorable senator should not be so envious !

Senator COOPER:

– I am not envious. I was indicating the hold that the Communists have on certain key unions, and I was pointing out that their hold on those unions was increased when the Government acceded to the request of those unions to control their own affairs. The effect of appointing Communists to the bodies that were established to control those three industries was tantamount to placing the industries under Communist control. The Communists’ tactics are to isolate various industries in watertight compartments as part of the general plan to disrupt our economy. Honorable senators who support the Government are everlastingly complaining that members of the Opposition always endeavour to beat the workers down, to “sweat” them, to deride their efforts, to whittle down the favorable conditions which they enjoy, and to make them work harder. Senator Katz said that nine out of every ten questions asked by Opposition members were of that kind, but a glance at to-day’s notice-paper reveals that, out of twelve questions on notice, only four, or one-third, were asked by Opposition members, and not one of them had any relation to labour troubles in industry.

Senator Ashley:

– The honorable senator asked three questions about the coal strike to-day.

Senator COOPER:

– Every question I ask is in the interests of the people of thu country. Another benefit enjoyed by waterside workers to-day is that, by direction of the Arbitration Court, their wages are computed at casual rates based on a 30-hour week. Senator O’sullivan has pointed out that the average wage cf waterside workers throughout the Commonwealth is £10 9s. 8d. a week. Much of the work on the wharfs is unskilled. There are some skilled employees in charge of mechanical equipment and so on, but, generally speaking, wharf labour does not require skill, and I have no doubt that many tradesmen who have served long periods of apprenticeship would be very pleased indeed to receive an average of £10 9s. 8d. over the year.

Senator Critchley:

– But the work is not constant.

Senator COOPER:

– I am speaking of the average wage over twelve months. That, as I have said, is the equivalent of mere than £500 a year.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– They did not get that before the Labour Government came into office.

Senator COOPER:

– I am speaking of present conditions. Obviously Government supporters know that they have a very poor case, and they do not like matters such as this being ventilated publicly. I am endeavouring to show the true position of the waterside workers to-day. The average wharf labourer is in a very sound position indeed. He has been granted substantial benefits, one of which is annual leave. I do not oppose that, but somebody has to pay for these things. The waterside workers also receive appearance money. As Senator Katz has pointed out, there is ample justification for such payments and I am not against them. I am merely drawing attention to the benefits accruing to workers in this industry. I have spoken to waterside workers on wharfs in Queensland, and they have all agreed that their amenities have improved considerably in the last few years.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Only since Labour came into office.

Senator COOPER:

– I am glad that honorable senators agree with me. If everything possible has been done for the waterside workers, is there not an obligation on them to give of their best to the community? Obviously there is, but that obligation is not being fulfilled today. Senator O’ Sullivan has shown that the loading and discharging of cargoes in 1947-48 was much slower than it was in 1938-39. That would indicate slackness, lack of supervision, or bad organization. I remind honorable senators also that, according to Government spokesmen, most capital city ports are now equipped with mechanical loading and discharging machinery. That makes the position even worse. If the wharfs have been mechanized, obviously the rate of loading and unloading should be greater than it was when those operations were carried out purely by manual labour.

How will this legislation alter the present position? Its most important effect, I consider, will be to place industrial matters relating to the stevedoring industry back once more in the hands of the Arbitration Court where they belong. I have never agreed with the setting up of separate industrial tribunals for special industries. That policy can only lead to discontent in other callings. Conditions applying throughout industry generally should be uniform. In the past, lack of uniformity has caused considerable dissension. For instance, a special industrial tribunal such as the Stevedoring Industry Commission, might make an award granting to waterside workers conditions much better than those enjoyed by employees in a similar undertaking. That state of affairs is not conducive to general satisfaction in industry. I am not a pessimist, but I am afraid that even although the waterside workers are being placed once more under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court, this measure will not bring peace on the waterfront. The root of the trouble lies in the leadership of the unions. The only remedy is to rid the waterside workers of troublemakers such as the Communists, Healy and Roach. Until that is done, harmony cannot exist. The penal provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act should be invoked. The Government’s policy of appeasement has brought the coal industry in this country to its present state of disruption. Senator Katz said that members of the Opposition parties were always talking about the need for discipline. I maintain that until there is discipline in industry, there will be no industrial peace. We must all be prepared to subject ourselves to necessary discipline.

Senator Katz:

– How would the honorable senator discipline the workers?

Senator COOPER:

– As I have already said, by invoking the penal provisions of the arbitration act.

Senator Cooke:

– Is that not a matter for the court itself?

Senator COOPER:

– Probably it is. I sincerely hope that this bill will do all that the Government hopes, but I am afraid that further legislation will’ be necessary within twelve months. By that time, of course, the present Government will be out of office. The obligation will then fall upon the succeeding administration to ensure the operation of this industry in a peaceful manner. I shall reserve further remarks until the committee stage.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– in reply - Senator O’sullivan complained because this measure was not introduced originally in this chamber. The honorable senator should know, because of his legal training, that bills involving a financial obligation cannot be initiated in the Senate. Clause 41 of this bill provides -

There shall be paid to the Board, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is hereby appropriated accordingly, such amounts as are equivalent to the amounts raised under the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947 after the commencement of this Act.

A message from the Governor-General is required before a measure such as this can be introduced. Therefore, it must be introduced in the House of Representatives.

Senator O’sullivan:

– But the tax is already being levied.

Senator ASHLEY:

– That does not matter. A financial obligation is involved and that precluded the initiation of the measure in this chamber.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– I disagree.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I assure the honorable senator that the advice that I have obtained is correct. I confirmed it a few minutes ago. Whenever possible, bills will be introduced in this chamber. That has always been my policy. In fact, the Senate is now awaiting the return from the House of Representatives of a number of measures that were initiated here.

The general theme of the Opposition attack upon the bill was the same as usual. Honorable senators opposite complained about the Government’s generosity and its efforts to provide fair conditions for waterside workers. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) began by saying that he waB concerned about securing good conditions on the waterfront, and then he executed a smart about-face and slated the waterside workers because of their alleged slowness in handling cargoes to-day as compared with 1938-39. He complained that those men, who play a vital part in maintaining Australia’s trade and commerce, were led by Communists pledged to the disruption of Australia’s trade. I remind the honorable gentleman that the most nourishing period of the Australian Communist party’s history occurred during tha regimes of antiLabour governments, when hundreds of thousands of men were unemployed. After listening to Opposition senators, one might think that such men as Healy, Roach, Elliott and Thornton had become prominent in the industrial life of Australia only within the last couple of years. I remind the Senate that those men were in charge of trade union affairs when the Opposition parties were in power.

Senator O’sullivan:

– They were not so affluent or powerful then as they are to-day.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The present leaders of the miners’ federation were not in office then. They were trying to gain control of the organization and I recall that a government which was supported by the Leader of the Opposition and Senator O’sullivan provided a “ slush fund “ to deal with them. That was its method of attempting to prevent the Communists from gaining control of a trade union. Yet the Opposition now talks as though Communists had arrived n this country only yesterday. A great deal has been said in this chamber from time to time about the reduced rate of loading and unloading cargoes, but I noticed to-day that honorable senators opposite were careful not to mention the s;ow turn-round of ships. No doubt that was due to the fact that their complaints have been fully answered on more than one occasion. The truth is that, before World War II., ships arrived in port only half loaded and went away again only half loaded. To-day they are always loaded to the plimsoll line. That explains the slower turn-round of vessels in port to-day.

The Opposition has also complained about conditions of work on the waterfront and has objected to waterside workers being required to be members of the Waterside Workers Federation. I remind the Senate that the Government has carried into effect the recommendations concerning waterfront employment that were made by Judge Foster after he had carried out a prolonged and detailed inquiry into the industry. Those recommendations were implemented by the Stevedoring Industry Act 1947 and will not be affected by the passage of this measure. One of the principal recommendations submitted by Judge Foster was that there should be only one union on the waterfront. Exception has been taken to the fact that men who work on the waterfront must be registered. The virtue of that requirement becomes obvious after a little careful study of the facts. Some waterside workers to-day are 75 or 80 years of age. They are called “ disability members “. They must be included in the pool from which workers are drawn to handle cargoes. Naturally, work cannot be expedited very much while such men are engaged in the industry. The provision for the registration of waterside workers enables recruits to be screened by the union so as to ensure that men over a certain age will not be admitted. Recruits are also required to pass medical examinations, which ensure that they are physically fit. Only by such means can the rate of loading and unloading of ships be increased. Of course, the situation cannot be completely rectified until somemethod of pensioning aged members of the union is adopted. Senator O’Sullivan complained that the relationship of employer to employee had been destroyed. His argument was answered very effectively by Senator Katz. I do not think that Senator O’Sullivan can be very well acquainted with conditions on the waterfront. Had he visited the wharfs very often, he would be aware that ship-owners are never known to visit the waterfront. They are represented by agents.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Ships are owned by companies, not by individuals.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Representatives of the ship-owners are never to be seen on the wharfs. They direct operations from offices. There has never been any close relationship between employers and employees such as would encourage harmony and good feeling on the waterfront as Senator O’Sullivan alleged. The companies employ industrial officers to attend to their affairs on the waterfront.

The Opposition referred to the payment of “ appearance money “ to wharf labourers who attend for work at pickingup centres. The object of providing appearance money is to stabilize the industry by eliminating the casual nature of employment and providing security for the workers. Before this Government improved conditions on the waterfront, waterside workers who lived in the outer suburbs of our big ports often had to rise at 5 a.m. in order to be in attendance at the wharfs at 7 a.m. in the hope of obtaining a day’s work. The Leader of the Opposition would like those conditions to return so that the employers could have a surplus of unemployed at their beck and call. He would like to see a pool of unemployed in every industry so that the employers could do as they did on the waterfront for many years in the bad old days, when they chose only the able-bodied mcn, those who were known as the “ bulls “, and turned the weak ones away. Men who were not big and strong were given only occasional small jobs. They received scant consideration. Many of them travelled long distances to the wharfs day after day, only to be turned away.

Such disgraceful conditions do not pre- vail to-day. Men who attend for work must be paid appearance money. Honorable senators opposite represent the shipping companies and the wealthy people of Australia. That is why they complain so much about the improvement of conditions on the waterfront and demand a quicker turn-round of ships. This bill will maintain the system that has operated under the Stevedoring Industry Act 1947. That legislation provided continuity of work on the waterfront, a state of affairs that was previously unknown. There has been no serious disruption or disputation on the waterfront anywhere in Australia since it came into force. I am confident that conditions in the industry will continue to improve to the benefit not only of the workers and the employers in the industry, but also of the remainder of the people of Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Definitions).

SenatorO’SULLIVAN (Queensland) [4.18]. Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) to explain sub-clause 2, which states -

For the purposes of this Act -

a person whoputs another person to work shall be deemed to engage that other person for employment; and

a person who is put to work shall be deemed to accept employment.

What is the purport of that provision? Does it mean that the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board or a waterside employment committee will be the employer? Is there any particular significance in the provision?

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– Most of the operations on the wharfs are undertaken by stevedoring companies. Those companies engage men for waterfront employment. The sub-clause refers to such employers.

SenatorO’SULLIVAN (Queensland) [4.20]. - I should like the Minister (Senator Ashley) to explain whether the phrase “ a person who puts another person to work” in paragraph 2 (a) refers to theboard to be established.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– One of the functions of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board will be to provide and register the number of men capable of carrying on the operation of any port.

SenatorO’Sullivan. - Is that meant to be the same as “putting people to work “ ?

Senator ASHLEY:

– I cannot follow the honorable senator’s question. It will be the function of the new board to provide sufficient members of the Waterside Workers Federation, and to register them for each port. That has been a function of the Stevedoring Industry Commission. If there was no method of regulating the men they could engage in other industries when there was not much work offering on the waterfront, and, in addition, collect appearance money because they were registered as waterside workers. There must be control of the labour offering and consequently all of the men must be registered.

SenatorO’Sullivan. - If there were three ships in port, each requiring a certain amount of labour, am I to understand that the principal stevedore for each ship would ask the board for a specified number of men, and that the board would send the men to whatever ships it decided?

Senator ASHLEY:

– That is quite wrong. I think that the honorable senator is trying to “ lead me up a lane “. The priority committee determines the order in which the ships will be worked. It may be that one ship would’ be left without labour, depending on the circumstances. The priority committees comprise representatives of both employers and employees.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 (Functions of the board).

SenatorO’SULLIVAN (Queensland) [4.25]. - Paragraph b provides that the f unctions of the Board shall be - to develop, or (subject to the approval of the Treasurer) to make advances to port authorities for the development of, port facilities used in connexion with stevedoring operations, including the introduction, modification, replacement and operation of machinery, plant and equipment;

This is becoming a very common provision in legislation introduced by this Government. I submit that this provision must be read in conjunction with clause 42, whereby the board shall have power to borrow money on overdraft from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia upon the guarantee of the Treasurer. There is no limitation of the amount that may be expended by the board, without any reference to the Parliament, but purely at the whim and discretion of the Treasurer. This is a principle to which I have objected previously, and to which I again object. No money, except a very small amount necessary for working ports, should be expended by a public body without the expressed sanction of the Parliament

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New SouthWales · ALP

. - Paragraph b provides for the development ofport facilities, including the introduction of labour-saving devices similar to those that have been provided on the wharfs at Melbourne and Sydney. The Government considers that this provision is necessary to facilitate the speedy turn-round of ships. As I have said many times before in this chamber, until recently there had been no improvement in the stevedoring methods used in Australian ports for 70 years. During and since the war period, some mechanical appliances such as fork lift trucks have been introduced on the wharfs in Sydney and Melbourne, and, with a view to facilitating the speedier loading of sugar at Bowen last year, the Stevedoring Industry Commission requested that repairs be effected to the damaged capstan on the wharf there. I do not consider that the calling together of the Parliament to deal with such a matter would be warranted. Expenditure for such purposes is subject to the approval of the Treasurer. I consider that any effort by the board to speed up the turn-round of ships should receive the approbation of all honorable senators.

Senator O’sullivan:

– The Minister is trying to be facetious on the point of principle that I have raised’. I do not object to necessary money being expended on plant or facilities for making more economical or efficient the handling of cargo. Far be it for me to do so. It would be quite reasonable for the Treasurer to be able to approve of the expenditure of a limited amount, hut I should like the Minister to answer frankly whether there is to be any limit on the amount which may be expended pursuant to the provisions contained in paragraph b without reference to the Parliament

Senator ASHLEY:

– During recesses of the Parliament when expenditure of this nature is incurred, an appropriation is made and the matter eventually comes before the Parliament. I point out that the power of the board to make advances to port authorities is subject to the approval of the Treasurer.

Senator O’sullivan:

– Is there any limit on the amount that may be expended under this provision ?

Senator ASHLEY:

-I should say that there would be no limitation of the amount, because if it was a big work the matter would be referred to the responsible Minister. I think that Senator O’sullivan is well aware that considerable amounts would not be expended by a department unless the matter had previously been brought to the notice of the Minister. The provision contained in this paragraph is very desirable and necessary in order to facilitate the speedy turn-round of ships.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Do I understand that under this provision the board could build a new port altogether ?

Senator ASHLEY:

– That may be possible, and in the interests of this country, may be done.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Could it be done without reference to the Parliament?

Senator ASHLEY:

– The honorable senator is now going to the extreme. Where does he suggest that a new port would be built in Australia without the matter receiving the prior consideration of the Parliament?

Senator O’Sullivan:

– There is no telling what this Government will do. The Minister has said that the matter would eventually come before the Parliament. However, I point out that under sub-clause 1 of clause 42 the Parliament need never see it. That sub-clause reads -

The Board shall have power to borrow money on overdraft from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia upon the guarantee of the Treasurer.

The money that it may borrow from the Commonwealth Bank will not be appropriated money but money raised on overdraft on the guarantee of the Treasurer. I do not object to work being done and the ports being improved, but I consider that there should be a limit imposed on the amount that may be so expended without reference to the Parliament. This is a vicious and dangerous principle.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I would suggest that the honorable senator reserve his comment with relation to clause 42 until that clause is before the committee.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– That is a matter for the Chair to decide.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Aylett:
TASMANIA

Senator O’Sullivan will have an opportunity to debate the provisions of clause 42 after all preceding clauses have been dealt with.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– I submit that the provision contained in sub-clause 1 of clause 42 is related to the provision in paragraph b of this clause. If I cannot discuss how those advances are to he secured, or from where they are to come, I am wasting my time discussing the clause at all. The only provision whereby the new hoard will be able to obtain money is contained in clause 42. As the provisions in the respective clauses are inevitably related, T should like a ruling whether I may address my remarks to the provisions of both clauses.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN During the second:

-reading debate on a measure honorable senators may, in general terms, refer to the provisions contained in all of the clauses of the bill. In the committee stage, however, when the measure is being dealt with clause by clause, comment must be confined to the provisions of the clause before the committee.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 (Directions of the board).

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– The clause provides that in respect of an offence committed by a waterside worker, the penalty shall be £5 : in other cases, £100. I should like to know whether under this provision the penalty of £100 would apply to an employer. That penalty is prescribed in respect of “ any other case “. Could that penalty be inflicted on an employer or the Waterside Workers Federation ? The principal act prescribes a similar penalty. Has that penalty actually been inflicted in any instance; and, if so, could the Minister inform me of the nature and number of such instances?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– Offhand, I cannot supply the information that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) has sought. This clause contains merely a formal provision prescribing the manner in which the directions of the bill shall be given. The imposition of the penalty would depend upon the circumstances of each offence.

Senator COOPER (Queensland - Leader of the Opposition) ^4.38], - The penalty of £100 is not prescribed in respect of an offence that may be committed by a waterside worker, because the penalty prescribed in that instance is £5. The greater penalty is provided in respect of “ any other case “. Would it be applicable in the case of an offence committed by the Waterside Workers Federation or by an employer?

Senator Ashley:

– The honorable senator can take it that the greater penalty would apply in respect of an offence by an employer.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 (Registration to be in the discretion of board and limited to members of the federation).

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– When I referred to this clause in the course of my second-reading speech both the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) and Senator Katz challenged my interpretation of it. How.ver, the clause provides that the registration of an employer or waterside worker shall be in the discretion of the board and, clearly, the exception made is in respect of ports, not persons. Can the Minister cite any instance in which a person who was not already a waterside worker would be eligible for registration unless he first became a member of the Waterside Workers Federation? As I said earlier, I do not object to the principle of preference to unionists, but that principle could be preserved if a person who desired to become a waterside worker gave an undertaking that before he commenced work he would join the federation. However, under this provision he cannot be registered unless he is already a member of the federation, and without such registration he cannot engage in employment on the waterfront.

Senator Ashley:

– Both this clause and the preceding clause provide for the registration of employers and employees at every port. A similar provision is made in the principal act.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– -This provision is identical with section 27 of the principal act, but, notwithstanding that fact, a monopoly is given to the Waterside Workers Federation in deciding who shall be eligible for employment on the waterfront. A person must be a member of the federation before he can be registered for such employment. That means that only persons who are “ OK’d “ by the federation can qualify for registration. Thus a vicious monopoly is given to the federation in this respect. I should like to know in what circumstances a person could apply for registration provided he was agreeable to join the federation after he gained registration. Is there any means by which the board could register a person if at the time he applied for registration he was not a member of the Waterside Workers Federation?

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is in the negative. The reason for this provision is that without such supervision, the federation: - although I do not suggest that that body would do so - could build up its membership to any number it wished, and should its membership exceed the number of men adequate to perform the work offering, excessive amounts of appearance money would have to be paid. Therefore, provision must be made to control the number of employees who may be registered for employment on the waterfront. Whenever the hoard considers that insufficient numbers are available at any port, it advises the federation of that fact. The federation thereupon throws open its hooks and advertises vacancies in its membership to the number of additional men required to cope with the requirements of the industry. Members of the Opposition frequently complain about the slowturnround of ships. That is due to some degree to the lack of suitable labour. It must be remembered that many men now engaged in the industry are advanced in years whilst others who have worked on the waterfront for many years suffer physical disabilities. This provision, therefore, is essential for the protection and welfare of the industry.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– I ask the Minister whether the board has power to exercise control over the books of the Waterside Workers Federation and the number of men the federation may admit to membership. Can the board lay down rules which the federation must observe for the admission and expulsion of members?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– I do not know whether the board has power to exercise control over the books of the waterside federation as Senator O’Sullivan has suggested. At the same time, I do not believe that the board needs to exercise such power. I have already said that when the Board believes that insufficient employees are available to cope with the work offering at any port it advises the federation accordingly and, as has happened on several occasions within the last few years, the federation throws open its books and advertises vacancies in its membership to the number which the board deems adequate to meet the requirements of the industry. When admitting new members, the federation must give preference to exservicemen. I do not know whether Senator O’Sullivan has in mind a special class of persons that he wishes to get on to the wharfs. If that is in his mind, I shall do my best to meet his wishes. However, the admission of new members to the federation is open and above board. That is clear from the procedure which I have already described. I admit frankly and definitely that in order to gain employment on the waterfront a person must be a member of the Waterside Workers Federation. The board determines the number of members that are to be admitted from time to time because it has the responsibility of supervising the expenditure of appearance money. Without this provision the federation would be able to build up its membership to unlimited numbers and that would involve wasteful expenditure in the form of appearance money.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– I have been trying to emphasize the point which the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) has just made. Whilst the board actually pays appearance money it does not determine the number of persons who will be eligible for registration for employment on the waterfront. The board has no say in that matter, because under this clause it is forbidden to register any person who is not a member of the Waterside Workers Federation. That means that the number of men who will be engaged will be determined not by the board, which is the Government instrumentality in charge of. the industry, but by the Waterside Workers Federation. Such a system is a complete inversion of authority.

Senator Ashley:

– The honorable senator is misconstruing the purpose of the clause.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I again ask the Minister whether it is possible for a person other than a member of the Waterside Workers Federation to be registered as a waterside worker. Apparently, the Minister’s answer to that question is in the negative. Therefore, although more men were needed, additional men would not be forthcoming should the federation decide not to increase its membership.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– I think that Senator O’Sullivan is making a veiled attack upon the principle of preference of employment to unionists.

In the past, adequacy of man-power on the waterfront at any port has been determined by the Stevedoring Industry Commission. In future under this clause, the board will determine the number of men required to carry on the industry efficiently at any port. I have already described the process by which men are admitted into the industry. They have to go through the Waterside Workers Federation because they must be members of the federation before they can be registered as waterside workers. I say that frankly and definitely. However, in that respect the Waterside Workers Federation does not enjoy any privilege greater than that enjoyed by unions in any industry in which the Arbitration Court has prescribed preference of employment to unionists. If Senator O’Sullivan wants the Government to abolish preference of employment to unionists on the waterfront, the Government cannot accede to his wish.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– I am sorry that the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) has deliberately misquoted me. I have said that I am quite in. favour of unionists enjoying preference. Indeed, I have said that half a dozen times in the course of discussion on this measure,’ and it was no answer to the inquiry which I addressed to him to assert that I am seeking by subterfuge to destroy the principle of preference to unionists. I am sorry that he will not answer my question, although in the course of his reply heemphasized the matter which gave rise to my inquiry. In the final analysis apparently the Waterside Workers Federation, not the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, will determine the number of men who will be eligible for employment on the waterfront.

Senator Ashley:

– I rise to order. Thestatement made by Senator O’Sullivan is entirely incorrect. The proposed board, not the Waterside Workers Federation, will determine the number of persons to be employed in the industry. The procedure adopted by the board will be toinsert an advertisement in the press for men who desire to become waterside workers, and the only connexion which the Waterside Workers Federation will have with their employment will be that it must certify that they are members of the federation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I uphold the point of order. The differences between the Minister for Shipping and Fuel and Senator O’Sullivan appear to arise merely from the interpretation that Senator O’Sullivan has placed on the Minister’s remarks. I cannot permit this exchange between the Minister and Senator O’Sullivan to continue.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– As the clause stands, the Waterside Workers Federation will be able to determine who shall be employed on the waterfront.

Senator Ashley:

– The proposed board will determine that.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The board will determine the question of waterside” workers to be employed in a particular port, but it cannot register men for employment unless they are members of the Waterside Workers Federation. That is clear.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! There is no point in the honorable senator repeating that statement, because it has already been admitted by the Minister.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– It follows that if the federation refuses to open its books to admit new members, the board will not be able to prevail over the federation.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22 (Port quotas).

Senator COOPER:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– This clause must be read in conjunction with clause 21. It is clear that the board shall determine the quota of waterside workers for a port. I understand that approximately 1,000 waterside workers are employed in Melbourne, and 1,500 in Sydney. I can quite understand the doubt which Senator O’Sullivan entertains concerning the board’s effective power to obtain additional employees. For instance, if the proposed board decides that Melbourne requires an additional 200 workers, as has already been suggested, the board will have to communicate with the federation.

Senator Ashley:

– No. The board will advertise for additional workers.

Senator COOPER:

– That is precisely the information which Senator O’Sullivan unsuccessfully sought to obtain. The real point is that when the board has advertised for additional workers, will the federation grant the new workers membership?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– When the board has determined that, say, an additional 200 workers are required for the Port of Melbourne, it will advertise for them. In accordance with the principle of preference to unionists which has been recognized by the Arbitration Court, the board will engage men who have obtained membership of the Waterside Workers Federation. All that would happen is that the board would advertise for so many men. Those who applied for employment would be “ screened “, and from them the board would obtain its employees, who would be required to obtain membership of the Waterside Workers Federation, before presenting themselves for work. In that way, the principle of preference to unionists, which has been laid down by the Arbitration Court will be safeguarded.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– What power is proposed to be conferred on the board to compel the Waterside Workers Federation to open its membership to receive additional members ?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– I assume that the federation would be covered by the penalty provisions of the bill, which prescribe a penalty of £100 for a breach of the act.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– To what clause of the bill is the Minister referring?

Senator ASHLEY:

– I cannot refer the honorable senator offhand to the particular clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 (Cancellation or suspension of registration of waterside worker).

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– Sub-clause 1 provides that the board shall be able to inflict a penalty on waterside workers in certain circumstances. I assume that the suspension of a waterside worker’s registration would apply for a period of months, or, at least, weeks. Suppose, however, a waterside worker was suspended for only a few days. During the following week-end he could probably earn sufficient overtime to compensate him for the wages he lost during the few days that he was suspended. I should like the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) to inform me for what period it is contemplated that suspensions shall be imposed, and what rights a waterside worker whose registration is cancelled shall have?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– Clause 25 provides for a right of appeal in such cases.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 25 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 (Regulation of industrial matters in connexion with stevedoring operations).

Amendment (by Senator Ashley) agreed to -

That, after sub-clause (1.), the following sub-clause be inserted: - “ (1a.) The Court shall have power to determine the terms and conditions in accordance with which, including the rates at which, the Board shall pay attendance money to waterside workers.”.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 35 to 55 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Beading.

Motion (by Senator Ashley) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– It is rather distressing that the bill does not provide that the board which it proposes to establish to control this industry shall have power, in accordance with the long title of the measure, to provide for peace and harmony on the waterfront. The board is to be clothed with lots of powers yet, in the final analysis complete and absolute power will remain in the hands of the Waterside Workers Federation. No other interpretation can be placed upon clauses 22 to 28 of the bill. It is notorious that in Brisbane and Sydney, at least, the federation is controlled by Communists. This bill therefore, is really a further humiliating retreat, and a submission by the Government to Communist dictation.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

[5.7J. - in reply - .Senator O’Sullivan remarks are entirely inaccurate. While the measure was in the committee stage I endeavoured to explain to the honorable senator as clearly as I could that the determination of port quotas which has been the function of the Stevedoring Industry Commission, will now be the function of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board. The honorable senator’s argument would lead people to believe that quotas are determined by the waterside workers themselves. That is entirely incorrect. I admit that only members of the Waterside Workers Federation can be included in port quotas, but that is entirely in keeping with the principle of preference to unionists which is accepted by the Arbitration Court.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– What happens if membership is refused?

Senator ASHLEY:

– That does not happen. Obviously Senator O’Sullivan does not know much about union affairs. Unions are always glad to accept new members because their strength depends on their membership. The Waterside Workers Federation is no exception. It is anxious to increase its membership. However, the fund from which attendance money is paid must be protected. It would not be right to have more men at a port than are required. That is why the quota system has been adopted. The provision for the registration of waterside workers ensures the application of the principle of preference to unionists.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2137

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1949

Bill received from the House of Representatives

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McKenna) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaMinister for Health and Minister for Social Services · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Last year an act was passed to provide retirement benefits for members of the defence forces of the Commonwealth. That act was the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act, which came into operation on the 2nd July, 1948. In the secondreading speech on the bill, it was stated that there were certain deficiencies in the then existing retirement provisions of the three services and that, in view of the varied conditions of service in the Navy, Army and Air Force, many of which were of long standing, and the impracticability of covering in a bill every possible class of case, a general provision had been inserted enabling regulations to be made to deal with isolated and unusual cases and, incidentally, any minor changes or variations which may take place in the course- of the adjustment of the services to uniform conditions of service.

During the course of administration of the act certain anomalies have become apparent. In some instances, as the act now stands, these operate to the disadvantage of the member. As they cannot be corrected by regulations an amendment of the act is necessary to remove them. Experience has shown also that some minor additions are desirable. Members of the Permanent Military Forces and certain personnel of the Royal Australian Air Force were contributors to the Superannuation Fund. These members were compulsorily transferred to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund when the act was brought into operation last year. It was an inherent principle of the defence forces retirement benefits scheme that no contributor transferred from the Superannuation Fund should receive less favorable treatment under the new act than he would have received’ under the Superannuation Act.

That, however, is not specifically provided in the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act, and it is proposed under clause 17 of the bill to provide that the benefits payable to a member of the defence forces who was previously a contributor under the Superannuation Act, shall not be less than those he would have received under that act as at the date of his transfer. As the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act now stands, it is possible, through the unusual conditions under which certain members were enlisted that the benefits under that act would be less than they would have received had they been retired’ under the provisions of the Superannuation Act. The addition proposed to -section 81 of the act will remove that anomaly.

Clause 9 of the bill provides that, with certain exceptions, members who receive pension or benefits under the act shall not also receive deferred pay and vice versa. This amendment does not involve any new principle as it was a provision in the Superannuation Act under which personnel were previously contributing. This principle was to be maintained’ in the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act, and it was intended that deferred pay should cease to be credited when the new retirement benefits scheme came into operation. Due, however, to some administrative delay in effecting amendments to service regulations, it has become necessary to make the proposed1 additions to section 73 of the act to prevent the payment of double benefits.

The more important amendments to existing sections of the act are those affecting sections 23 and 77. The bill provides for amendment of section 23 to overcome an anomaly resulting from the present wording, under which a member may be required to pay 26 fortnightly contributions to the fund in respect of units from which he does not receive any increase of pension. The amendment will correct this anomaly, and1 will provide that 26 contributions shall be required of the member only in cases where the additional units increase his pension on retirement, or where units are taken up in the last year of a member’s service prior to reaching the age of 60, or on retirement from the forces after less than twelve months’ service as a contributor.

Clause 13 of the bill refers to an amendment of section 77 of the act to provide certain, concessions to serving members who, when under the Superannuation Act, were contributing for a smaller number of units than they were entitled to contribute for. In some cases the neglected units were not taken up because of the advanced age of the member and because of his financial circumstances. It is proposed to relax the provision which now requires such members to increase their contributions up to the number of units appropriate to their present rate of pay. The remaining amendments are of a minor nature and relate principally to corrections of terms for clearer interpretation of the provisions of the act. I mention for the information of honorable senators that the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act has been in operation for twelve months, and experience during that period has shown that the scheme generally is soundly based and is providing substantial benefits for personnel on retirement from the services. The amendments shown in the bill are the result of recommendations of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board, on which each of the three services is represented.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This measure is intended to correct certain anomalies that have arisen since the original act came into operation on the 2nd July last year. Clause 17 of the bill provides that benefits payable to members of the defence forces who were previously contributors to the Superannuation Fund shall not be less than they would have received under the Superannuation Act as at the date of their transfer. That is quite understandable and the amendment is well justified. Other clauses are designed to correct certain anomalies that have become apparent since the original legislation was enacted last year and the Opposition is entirely in accord with the proposals liberalizing the provisions of the act for the benefit of former members of the forces. No doubt honorable senators will recall the very interesting discussions that took place in this chamber on the second reading of the original act on the 16th June last year. On that occasion, I directed attention to the fact that the rate of pension applicable to a warrant-officer is only half of that applicable to a lieutenant. I explained that whereas warrant-officers are generally men of long service, lieutenants hold the lowest commissioned rank. I expressed the opinion that that discrepancy was worthy of some attention.

Clause 19 of this bill amends Table II. of the Third Schedule to the act by making provision for senior and commissioned officers of the naval forces. I should have liked this measure to amend the Fifth Schedule’ by providing better pensions for “ other ranks “. For instance, the pension of an able seaman in the Navy, or a private in the Army, is only £95 a year .after twenty years’ service. I know that the schedule provides for an additional payment of £6 per annum for every year of service beyond twenty years, but that does not remove my objection. The bill must commend itself to all honorable senators. The Opposition has no desire to impede its speedy passage.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

– In supporting the bill, I am glad to be able to state that it will rectify many of the anomalies that have .been revealed in the legislation that was enacted last year. Those anomalies were brought to my attention from time to time by members of the permanent forces, and I referred them to the Minister for Defence (Mr. Dedman) and the Minister for the Army (Mr. Chambers). They applied only to isolated and unusual cases, but nevertheless it is gratifying to note that the Government has taken action to eliminate them. I am very pleased to see that any contributor who is transferred from the Commonwealth superannuation scheme to the defence forces retirement benefits scheme will not receive less favorable treatment than he would have received had he remained under the superannuation scheme. When the defence forces retirement benefits scheme was established last year, it contained many defects that placed members transferred from the superannuation fund at a disadvantage. That circumstance arose from the unusual conditions under which certain members of the defence forces were enlisted. Those anomalies affected, amongst others, members of the Australian Instructional Corps. The duties of an instructor to-day are so technical and complicated as to require the services of highly skilled men. On behalf of instructors from all branches of the armed forces, it has been pointed out to me that, although this bill will considerably improve their prospects, it will leave much to be desired especially amongst members in the lower ranks. Clause 19 provides for an annual pension of £300 for warrant officers and commissioned warrant officers of the permanent naval forces and lieutenants and quartermasters of the permanent military forces. Considering the nature of the duties performed by members in those categories, the amount appears to be scarcely adequate. We must realize that, in order to assure a constant influx of recruits to the armed services, adequate provision must be made for their welfare and remuneration according to the standards that apply in civil life. If we are to encourage the enlistment of skilled tradesmen, we must offer them conditions that will provide, not only for their immediate wants, but also for their prospective future needs and those of their families. I am glad that the bill will go a long way towards achieving that desirable result, and I commend it to the Senate.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

in reply - I appreciate the support that the Opposition has given to this measure. I have noted the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) and Senator Murray, and I shall have them brought to the attention of the Minister for Defence (Dedman). I assure the Senate that the operation, of this legislation will be watched very carefully and that the suggestions that have been made in this debate will be given consideration when the next periodical review is made by the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2140

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL 1949

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Cameron) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a short bill to amend the rate of service pension for the first child of a service pensioner. The Government has decided to increase the rate of pension in respect of a child of an invalid pensioner from 10s. a fortnight to 18s. a fortnight, and to effect a similar increase in respect of the service pension of the first child of a service pensioner. Service pension in respect of children is payable in certain cases where the member is granted service pension on the ground of being permanently unemployable or of suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. The rates for children are expressed in the act as: One child, 10s. a fortnight; two children 15s.; three children, 20s.; four or more children, 25s. If the first child is to receive 8s. more, then all the rateswill need to be re-cast 8s. higher than those at present shown. The bill will effect this change. Of the number of children in receipt of service pension, about 100 are first children. The additional expenditure will therefore be alittle more than £1,000 a year.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– The Opposition supports this bill. As the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron) has said, its purpose is to increase the pension payable in respect of the first child of a service pensioner fom 10s. to 18s. a fortnight. The legislation is complementary to the social services measure recently passed by the Senate that provided for the increase of the allowance payable in respect of the first child of an invalid pensioner from 10s. to 18s. a fortnight. Service pensions are payable to ex-servicemen who are permanently unemployable or suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis and to their dependants. A qualification stipulated by the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act is that the ex-serviceman must have served in a theatre of war. Although the rate of service pension is increased from time to time in order to conform with civilian pension rates, it is definitely a repatriation allowance. The Opposition is fully in accord with the proposed increase because living costs have soared in recent years. Unfortunately, the increase of the cost of living has not been reflected in other pensions that are payable under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act. In 1941, the rate of pension payable in respect of the first child of a war pensioner suffering from 100 per cent, incapacity was 15s. a fortnight. That rate is now 18s. a fortnight, which is identical with the rate proposed in this measure for the first child of a service pensioner, although the pensioner in the first instance is totally incapacitated. Between 1941 and 1949, the rate of pension for the first child of a service pensioner has been increased from 5s. to 18s. a fortnight. Over the same period, the rate payable in respect of the first child of a totally incapacitated war pensioner has been increased from 15s. to 18s. a fortnight. In other words, the rate for a service pensioner’s child has been increased by 260 per cent., whilst that for a totally incapacitated war pensioner’s child has been increased by only 20 per cent. Earlier this year, I urged the Government to increase the war pension rate because of the great disparity between the basic wage and the pension. Statistics emphasize that disparity. In December, 1918, immediately after the end of “World “War I., the basic wage was £3 6s. 5d. a week and the pension payable to a totally incapacitated war pensioner was £2 2s. There was a difference of £1 4s. 5d. At that date, the basic wage was 57 per cent, higher than the full war pension. In December, 1943, the basic wage had increased to £4 17s. a week. In that year, the war pension was increased by 20 per cent, upon the recommendation of the all-party committee of ex-servicemen of this Parliament. That increase brought the full war pension rate to £2 10s. a week, which was £2 7s. a week less than the basic wage. Between 1943 and 1949, the basic wage rose further from £4 17s. to £5 19s. a week, an increase of £1 2s. a week or 22.6 per cent. Over the same period, the full war pension increased from £2 10s. to £2 15s. a week, an improvement of only 10 per cent. Prom 1918 to 1949 the basic wage increased from £3 6s. 5d. to £5 19s., an amount of £2 12s. 7d., or 80 per cent. In respect of 100 per cent, incapacity, the war pension payable in 1918 was 42s. a week. It has been increased to 55s. a week, which is an increase of 13s. a week, or 31 per cent., compared with an increase of 80 per cent, in the basic wage during the same period. I have cited these figures to show that over that period there has been a very considerable increase of the basic wage. “We all know that the basic wage is linked up with the cost of living, and- that during that period it has risen automatically because the cost of living has risen. I point out that the increased cost of living also applies to a person in receipt of a war pension for 100 per cent, incapacity because he has to pay the increased costs as do all other persons in the community. It is only reasonable that the cost of living figures should be taken into consideration when the amount of his pension is being assessed. Yet during that period, despite the fact that there has been an increase of 80 per cent, in the basic wage, the amount of the 100 per cent, incapacity war pension has been increased by only 31 per cent. This shows that war pensions have lagged far behind the basic wage and far behind the increased cost of living. As I have mentioned a number of times in this chamber the increases of age and invalid pensions have been more or less in conformity with the basic wage increases. The figures that I have cited show the necessity for the amounts of war pensions to be increased. As I have said before it would be an exceedingly difficult task to convince an incapacitated exserviceman that the rate of pension payable to him because of the loss of an arm, or other limb, assessed when wages were 12s. a day, should not be doubled if wages rose to 24s. a day. The argument in favour of such an increase is quite sound’. I make these comparisons in support of the contention that I have frequently made in this chamber that the

Government should consider increasing the existing rate of war pension. An allparty committee of ex-servicemen of the Parliament should be given an early opportunity to examine the whole position and submit a report to the Government. I trust that the Minister will take note of the comparisons that I have drawn and the reasons that I have advanced why such a committee should make a further investigation.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

in reply - I assure the Leader of the Oppositon (Senator Cooper) that I shall bring this matter to the notice of the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard) for his sympathetic consideration in the near future.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2142

CENSUS AND STATISTICS BILL 1949

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McKenna) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is designed to simplify procedure in the gazettal of forms for the collection of statistics and to make completely watertight the existing provisions requiring the observance of secrecy as to the contents of individual returns furnished to the Statistician for purposes of census and statistics. As the act stands at present, section 17 requires that all forms except those relating ito “ factories, mines and productive industries generally “ shall bo prescribed by regulation and such regulation notified in the Commonwealth Gazette. This procedure involves long delay and is proving so un wieldy as to render it very difficult to make changes in statistical forms necessary to meet changing circumstances. The Statistician, the Government Printer and the legal draftsmen all desire relief from a great deal of unnecessary work involved in this regard. Moreover, the effect of the present section is to require that the Minister personally sign each of numerous forms each year in order to indicate his approval of them. Successive Treasurers have found it almost impracticable to comply with this requirement on all occasions in the past. Under the tedious and difficult process of defining by regulation exactly what persons are required to complete each particular return, it is becoming well nigh impossible to arrive at specific verbal definition of persons coming within the scope of certain of the activities for which statistics are required.

The amendment proposed to section 17 does not change its substance. It will, however, eliminate the considerable volume of work involved in prescribing, signing by the Treasurer, printing and gazetting statistical forms every time any amendment, however small, is made to a prescribed form. The amendment will provide a more effective working arrangement by placing upon the Statistician the onus of compiling lists of persons required to complete returns and ensure that each relevant person will be individually made aware by the Statistician of his liability to furnish a return. This procedure is considered to be more effective than the mere publication of a notice in the Gazette. A firmer control by the Treasurer has been provided by an added sub-section that a prosecution without the consent of the Minister shall not be instituted for failure to supply returns under this section. The proposed amendment is urgent at this stage in order to facilitate arrangements whereby the Commonwealth may collect certain statistics for both State and Commonwealth purposes. One immediate result will be that in Victoria only one quarterly statistical return instead of two will be required from builders. The Victorian Builders and Allied Trades Association has asked for this and the Victorian Minister for Housing has agreed to one joint return being used for both Commonwealth and State purposes.

The amendment to section 24 is necessary to make it perfectly clear that the act gives an absolute guarantee that all information collected for statistical purposes will be used for those purposes only and1 will not be divulged for any other purpose. Previously this principle could have been impaired by regulation and possibly by direction of the Minister under section 20. The proposed amendment of section 20, which is complementary to that of section 24, means that the Statistician cannot be directed to publish statistics in such a way as to divulge particulars of individual returns. Taken together, these amendments have two effects. They ensure that the secrecy attaching to individual statistical returns cannot be violated by regulation or by administrative action and they enable the Statistician to obtain information voluntarily from individuals for statistical purposes under statutory guarantee that it will not be divulged. Hitherto the Statistician has relied upon administrative action to ensure that his promises would be honoured “when collecting confidential information.

These provisions will give the clearest statutory authority for what has always been regarded by successive Ministers and Statisticians alike as the unwritten and inviolable law concerning the privacy of information, about individual persons and individual businesses, obtained for statistical purposes by. the Statistician. With the proposed amendments, the act will be in conformity with the policy followed in practice by all governments in the past. This is considered to be fundamental to the collection of reliable and complete statistics. These amendments do not place any restriction or limitation upon the Statistician in compiling and publishing statistics for general information. His position in that respect remains as it always has been. Government policy is to facilitate the fullest possible publication of statistics.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– The object of this bill is to simplify procedure and facilitate the publication of statistics. I appreciate the clear manner in which the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) has explained the various provisions of the measure. The most important amendment appears to be to section 24 of the principal act to make abundantly clear to all people that the information collected’ for statistical purposes will not be divulged by the Government. It is very important that the community should be assured that confidential information furnished on census and statistical forms will be treated as such. The maintenance of such secrecy is an unwritten and inviolable law which should be observed by all members and government departments. Other amendments are designed to eliminate unnecessary work in connexion with the preparation of statistics. Hitherto, every time that an amendment to a statistical form was required, the authority of the Treasurer has had to be obtained. This measure provides for an easier and simpler method of effecting alterations of the forms. The additional sub-section to be added to section 17 of the principal act will ensure that prosecutions for failure to furnish returns cannot be instituted without the consent of the Minister. I welcome that provision, because it will enable prosecutions to be made uniformly and in the name of the Minister who is directly answerable to the Parliament. I am also pleased to note that provision is made to reduce to a minimum the number of forms required to be returned by individuals for statistical purposes. That will prove helpful to large business organizations, and, as I know from personal experience, to primary producers generally. Although it is necessary that statistical returns shall be supplied, their preparation is irksome. I note, for instance, that builders in Victoria will be required to supply only one return for both Commonwealth and State purposes. I am sure that all members of the Parliament fully appreciate the value of the official statistics which are made available to us from time to time. Such information is of great assistance to us in our consideration of the complex matters that come before the Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2144

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The fallowing bills were returned from the House of Representatives, without amendment : -

Cockatoo and Schnapper Islands Bill 1949.

Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1949.

Liquid Fuel (Defence Stocks) Bill 1949.

Post and Telegraph Bill 1949.

Lighthouses Bill 1949.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 11.6 p.m.

page 2144

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1949

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill.

page 2144

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1947-48

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Ashley) pro posed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– It is contemplated that very shortly the Parliament will go into recess for an indefinite period. It is hardly necessary for me to remind the Government that a very grave industrial crisis exists in this country at present. We do not yet know whether the crisis will worsen. I am sure that all honorable senators hope that prospects for a settlement of the dispute on the coal-fields will rapidly improve. In the light of the present situation, which is virtually a state of emergency, I suggest that it would be wise to keep the Parliament in session, and I particularly impress that suggestion upon the Leader of the Senate (Senator Ashley). It may be necessary to assemble the Parliament at short notice, but if members are permitted to return to their constituencies now it may be difficult to re-assemble quickly. The Opposition feels that the Parliament should be kept in session and that it should certainly not be adjourned for an indefinite period. However, if the Government insists in pressing its request for the adjournment of the Parliament, the Opposition considers that the adjournment should be for only a short period.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

in reply - In response to the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) concerning the crisis which is confronting the economic life of the nation, I point out that the Government has taken every possible step to remedy the situation. Whilst the Leader of the Opposition did not make it clear whether the Opposition suggests that the Parliament should not adjourn at all or whether it considers that it should adjourn only for a short period-

Senator Cooper:

– I suggest that the Parliament should be kept in session.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I can assure the honorable senator that the Government Ls fully aware of its responsibilities. I do not know whether it would be an advantage to the nation to keep the Parliament in session at the present critical time. If the Opposition did not attempt to make so much political capital out of situations such as the present, and circulated less political propaganda, we might be a lot better off. From what I heard to-day - and I remind honorable senators that a conference occurred between the leaders of the miners’ federation and the Australian Council of Trades Unions - I am hopeful that the present industrial dispute will be terminated soon. I know that the Leader of the Opposition will join me in that expression of hope, and I assure him that the Government will take whatever steps may be necessary to bring an end to the present industrial crisis.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

.- I move-

That the bill be now Tead a ‘second time.

This bill provides for a supplementary appropriation of £8,746,852 to cover additional expenditure on certain services during the financial year 1947-48. The amounts, as detailed, were spent from a general appropriation from revenue amounting to £10,000,000, which was provided to enable the Treasurer to make payments which could not be anticipated when the original appropriation was made. Parliamentary approval to cover the several items of excess expenditure is now necessary. Pull details of the expenditure for which approval is now sought were shown in the Estimates and budget papers for 1948-49. Those publications show .the amount voted for 1.948-49, together with the actual expenditure for the previous year, which is included for information purposes. Details of the items concerned are also included in the Treasurer’s finance statement for 1947-48, which has been tabled for the information of honorable senators.

The Supplementary Estimates detail the items under which the additional amounts were expended by the, various departments. Expenditure under the various “ Parts “ of the Estimates in round figures is as follows: -

Any further details of the various items of expenditure will be available at a later stage.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– I understand that the Government desires approval for the expenditure of certain sums of money which have already appeared in the budget for 1948-49. The Opposition has no desire to impede the passage of the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 2145

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1947-48

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The total appropriation passed by Parliament for works and services in 1947-48 was £29,967,000. The actual expenditure was approximately £22,469,000, that is, £7,498,000 less than the appropriation. However, due to requirements which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were prepared, certain items show an increase over the individual amounts appropriated, and it is now necessary to obtain parliamentary approval for these increases. The excess expenditure on the particular items concerned totals £1,246,723, which is spread over the various works items of the departments. Any details which may be required will be furnished at a later stage.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

.- The bill proposes to appropriate funds to finance new works and buildings during the current financial year. The works have already been approved, and since the Opposition does not desire to withhold the appropriation, it does not oppose the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2145

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (by Senator Ashley) - by leave - agreed’ to -

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the date on which the Senate next meets.

page 2146

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Ashley) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to a date and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 2146

ADJOURNMENT

Women’s Charter Movement

Motion (by Senator Ashley) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I regret the necessity to delay the Senate at this late hour, but I owe a duty to myself and to the Senate which I must fulfil before these sittings are concluded. Recently, certain criticisms were published in newspapers circulating in Western Australia, of a statement that I made in the Senate on the 18th June, 1948, about an organization known as the “ Women’s Charter Movement “. I have been accused of making untrue statements under the protection of parliamentary privilege, but I repeat now my statement that that organization is associated1 with the Communist party. To substantiate that assertion I quote the following paragraphs from the report of the fifteenth National Congress of the Central Committee of the Communist party : -

Successes were achieved in drawing housewives into activity in support of striking workers by the collection of relief, provision of meals to stay-in gas strikers, demonstrations against unnecessary rationing of gas and power and in other ways.

Increasing activity by housewives is shown by the development into a powerful organization of theNew Housewives Association of New South Wales and improved participation in the work of existing bodies in Victoria and Queensland.

An important development among middleclass women was the establishment of the Women’s Charter Movement, which has committees in all States but Queensland and Tasmania.Regular connexion is maintained with the Women’s Independent Democratic Federation, and its campaigns have received support by Australian women’s bodies.

The significance of those statements, which appear in an official report issued by the Communist party, is to be seen in the chaos that exists in the industrial life of this community as the result of Commu nist activity. I do not think that the people of the Commonwealth are as alert as they should be to the danger that confronts them in the infiltration into women’s organizations of Communist doctrines and Communist tactics. The Women’s Charter Movement seems quite innocuous. It has been established ostensibly to further the interests of women; but it. is being used to disseminate Communist propaganda, and to educate women on Communist lines. In a country such as Australia, in which the female population is in excess of the male population, the effect of such organizations is very important. The women of this country, because of their predominating numbers, may make or unmake governments. For that reason I direct the attention of the Senate to this organization. We should be alive to its dangers. Recently, the Women’s Charter Movement was banned by the Labour Government of New Zealand because it was deemed to be Communist inspired. When I was in New Zealand in 1947, after the president of the Australian branch of the movement had been lecturing in that dominion on the aims and objects of the organization, many new branches of the organization were being formed. To-day the Australian president disclaims any association with the New Zealand branch of the movement. However, the official report issued by the Communist party also states -

Contact has also been established with women’s committees in Viet-Nam, Singapore, New Zealand and Indonesia.

I am only doing what I consider to be my duty in making these remarks. 1 have been challenged to pay £50 into the funds of the Women’s Charter Movement if I cannot prove that that organization is Communist inspired. It is necessary only to refer to the official report of the Communist party to substantiate my claim. It is further substantiated by the fact that the president of the Women’s Charter Committee recently attended a stop-work meeting of members of the Federated Ironworkers Association which discussed the imprisonment of Mr. McPhillips. I do not know how many women ironworkers live at Darling Point, Sydney, but I should say that their number is very small. I object to the trade union movement being exploited for political purposes by the Communist party. Further evidence that the Women’s Charter Movement is Communist inspired is to be found in the list of organizations with which it is affiliated. They include the Australian Communist party, the Eureka Youth League, the Federated Ironworkers Association and theWomen’s Auxiliary of the Federated Ironworkers Association, the Seamen’s Union, and the Women’s Industrial Problems Committee. At least 70 per cent. of the organizations with which the Women’s Charter Movement is affiliated are Communist controlled and dominated. One of the organizations listed as an affiliate is a religious body which, I understand, sends delegates to meetings of the movement to put the opposing viewpoint. In Western Australia, women’s organizations have been working for many years for the betterment of women’s conditions. They resent the piracy indulged in by this organization. When it was established in 1942, requests were sent out to various women’s organizations for copies of their platforms and constitutions so that they could be embodied in a common charter of women’s rights. The real objectives of . the organization were not disclosed at the preliminary meetings. This subterfuge was adopted withthe object of getting reputable women’s organizations to affiliate with the Women’s Charter Movement. No indication was given that that organization had been founded to spread doctrines alien to the people of Australia. I think that what I have said fully substantiates the statements that I made in this Senate about the organization twelve months ago. I have never yet run away from charges directed against me, and I have never made a statement in this Senate which I have not been able to substantiate. I resent the fact that people are writing to the newspapers saying that I have been guilty of telling untruths in the Senate under the cover of parliamentary privilege. I make this explanation in fairness to myself and so that honorable senators will not think thatI am trying to avoid the charges which havebeen made against me. Since I originally referred to this organization twelve months ago, additional facts relating to it have come to my notice. I should not weary the Senate at this late hour” by reciting them, but we cannot ignore the infiltration of Communists into the women’s organizations throughout Australia. We can already see the harm that has been done to the industrial life of this community by the Communists. Industry has been almost brought to a standstill because of the Communist influence in . the trade’ union movement in Australia. We must not lose sight of the fact that, because women outnumber men in this country, women’s organizations possibly offer a fertile field for the growth of the Communist ideology. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that subversive organizations that preach philosophies alien to Australia, shallbe curbed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2147

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Social Services Consolidation Act - Seventh Report of the Director-General of Social Services, for year 1947-48.

Ordered tobe printed.

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1949 - No. 48 - Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service. No. 49 - Postal Telecommunication Technicians’ Association (Australia),

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments -

Postmaster-General’s Department - J. R. Dallinger, R. B. Dick, V. N. Fitze, E. J. Koop, D’A. J. Omond, R. A. Schntz, G. A. Wiffen. Treasury- L. W. B. Gibbons, J. N. Hutchinson.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Industrial Property) Regulations- Orders - Inventions and designs (6).

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquiredfor - Defence purposes -

Spencer’s Brook, Western Australia.

Zillmere, Queensland.

Postal purposes -

North Sydney, New South Wales.

West Tamworth, New South Wales.

Immigration purposes -Port Kembla, New South Wales.

Postal Purposes -

Kulpara, South Australia.

Liverpool. New South Wales.

Post and Telegraph Act - Regulations -

Statutory Rules 1949, Nos. 38, 39.

War Service Homes Act- Land acquiredat -

Bankstown, New South Wales.

Coburg, Victoria.

Senate adjourned at 11.29 p.m. to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 July 1949, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1949/19490707_senate_18_203/>.