19th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 829
– Will the Minister for Shipping and Fuel inform the Senate whether a press report that the Government intends to sell two 6,000 tons ships, Balook and Benarson, now under construction for the Australian Shipping
Board is correct ? If so, will the Minister explain to the Senate tha reason for that action and indicate whether it represents the first step towards a. sell-out to free enterprise of the Commonwealth shipping line and the disintegration of the ship-building industry in Australia ?.
– It is correct that wo are calling for tenders for the sale of the two ships mentioned by the honorable senator which are being built at Whyalla. There has been no mention, however, about a selling-out of the Commonwealth shipping line. That matter has been under consideration, and so far no decision has been made in connexion with it. My .personal view is that private owners will run those two ships more economically than Senator Ashley’s shipping board has proved to have done.
– Has the Minister yet reached a basis upon which the sale of SS. Balook and SS. Benarson will be carried out? Will the Minister give an undertaking to the Senate, that the Government will receive a reasonable return for the cost of building those ships ?
– The method of selling the two ships will he the established business custom of calling for open tenders, thu3 allowing for every interested firm in Australia to quote a.- price, the main stipulation of sale being that the ships are to be used on the Australian coast. The latter portion of the honorable senator’s question is a matter for decision by the Government when the tenders have been received.
– Is it not a fact that the Australian Shipping Board was established by the Menzies Government, and that it is not the shipping board referred to by him a few minutes ago as “Senator Ashley’s shipping board “ ?
– The Menzies Government chartered certain ships, and I am pleased to be able to report to the Senate that a profit of approximately £5,000,000 was made on those vessels. It was after the Menzies Government went out of office that the’ Australian Shipping Board, when it was under the control of the Leader of the Opposition who was then Minister for Shipping and Fuel, indulged in the business of taking over ships that were constructed in Australia and chartering overseas ships. The board was an entirely different organization from that which was set up by the Menzies Government.
– It was a continuation of the organization set up by the Menzies Government.
– If that be so, I hope to have an opportunity at a later date to explain to the Senate the relative merits of its administration under the Menzies Government and when it was under the ministerial control of the
Leader of the Opposition when he waa Minister for Shipping and Fuel.
– Is- the Minister for Shipping and Fuel aware that the proposed withdrawal of the Commonwealth ship Denman from the BrisbaneHobart service will deprive Tasmania of much-needed home-building materials, increase freight rates, cause delay, and add to the costs of homes because of the transhipment of cargoes at mainland ports ?
– I have been advised by the Director of Shipping that any ship that is removed from the Tasmanian trade will be replaced with a vessel of similar tonnage. The reason for the withdrawal of some vessels is that they require repairs. If the honorable senator has any reason to doubt this statement, I invite him to inform me of’ the details and I shall have them investigated.
– Representations have been made by the Chamber of Commerce about the proposed withdrawal of this ship.
– 1 wish those people would ascertain the facts before making wild statements. The Director of Shipping is reliable and has provided the information that I have given to the Senate.
– In view of the Government’s decision to sell the vessels Balook and Benarson, the former being still under construction at “Whyalla, will the Minister for Shipping and Fuel inform the Senate whether the Government has placed a reserve price on them? If not, will he say why it has not done so ?
– Apparently the honorable senator is not familiar with the practice adopted in connexion with the disposal of ships. I repeat what I said earlier, that the Government has called for tenders. It will make a decision in the matter after the date announced for the closing of tenders. As to a reserve price on these ships, the Senate can rest assured that when tenders are received, the Government will take particular care to ensure that the prices offered are . reasonable before they are accepted. That is tantamount to a reserve price.
– Tho Minister did not answer roy question. I do not want a repetition of the transaction by which the White Star Line bought the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. I understand that Balook and Benarson are to be sold. That is the determination of the Government. I want an undertaking from the Minister that before tenders are called, the Government and the Senate will be assured that a reserve price has been placed upon the ships in conformity with the cost of construction. Has the Government placed a reserve sale price on the ships or does it intend to sell them to the highest bidder?
– That is a matter of Government policy and I shall inform the honorable Senator when the matter has been considered. For his own information, the honorable senator might be interested to know that the Labour Government sold ships built in Australia at a loss of 25 per cent.
– That was a subsidy. Be fair.
– I respectfully suggest that there is not much difference between a subsidy of 25 per cent, and a loss caused by the sale of the ships at 25 per cent, below the cost pf construction.
– Will the Minister for Shipping and Fuel inform the Senate of the reason for the Government’s decision to sell the two vessels Balook and Benarson ?
– The reason why the Government contemplates the sale of the ships after tenders have been received is that- it believes that private enterprisecan run them more economically than a government organization can.
page 831
– In view of the increasing costs of commodities of all kinds since the Unemployment and Sickness Benefits Act was passed in 1944 and the hopeless inadequacy of the benefit of 25s. a week provided for a single man who is sick or unemployed, will the Minister for Social Services consider increasing the rate of that benefit to cover at least the present cost of 12 lb. of meat, 10 lb. of flour, 2 lb. of sugar, and i lb. of tea which was the weekly ration provided for boundary riders 50 years ago?
– I doubt whether the honorable senator, or I, can claim to be an authority upon the standard of living of boundary riders 50 years ago. That part of the honorable senator’s question that really matters, involves a question of policy which he would not expect me to answer offhand. However, taking his question beyond that stage, I should like to say that I propose to review thoroughly social services benefits of all classes and to make a recommendation to the Government on the subject. At this stage, I am not prepared to give any indication as to what that recommendation may be, or any promise or undertaking that those benefits will be increased. It is recognized on all sides that the cost of living is increasing and that rising costs bear very harshly upon those who are in the unfortunate position of being obliged to obtain these benefits.
– In view of the discrepancy between the war widows’ pension and the civilian widows’ pension, will the Government remove the means test which applies to civilian widows but no* to widows of servicemen ?
– I am not prepared to give any light-hearted assurance that the means test will be removed from any classification of pensioners. However, pending a decision upon the introduction of a national insurance scheme, we shall closely scrutinize the means test on all pensioners and see what we can do to remove some of the present anomalies. I cannot go further and say that we shall establish a closer relation between the pensions that are paid to civilian widows and those that are paid to the widows of ex-servicemen under the provisions of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act. The two pensions are in different categories.
– Civilian widows must live.
– Although we have the greatest sympathy with civilian widows, the nation has a greater obligation to the widows of ex-servicemen than it has to them. Therefore, a difference between the two rates of pension is completely justified.
page 831
– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General ascertain, and inform the Senate, what progress is being made with the establishment of the automatic telephone exchange at Launceston, and when that work is likely to be completed?
– The extension of telephonic services generally is being considerably hampered by a shortage of materials, but, when supplies are available, the installation of the Launceston automatic telephone exchange will proceed as quickly as possible. I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Postmaster-General. and obtain a reply at the earliest possible date.
– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General bring to the notice of his colleague that in the town of Devonport in Tasmania, which has a population of 10,000 persons, there are no public telephone booths available except at the post office itself? As the area covered by the town is large, will the Minister ask his colleague to confer with the postmaster at Devonport regarding the possibility of providing public telephone booths at suitable locations in the town for the convenience of the inhabitants?
– I am sure that the Postmaster-General will be pleased that the honorable senator has raised this matter. I realize that it is very important that there should be public telephone booths in a town of the size of Devonport. I shall bring the question immediately to the notice of the PostmasterGeneral and the honorable senator will be supplied with an answer to it as soon as possible.
page 832
– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the many different road traffic laws, by-laws, and rules of the road that are in operation in all States, the Government will give consideration to arranging a conference of representatives of State governments with a view to securing uniformity in this matter?
– I understand that some time ago the Australian Automobile Association raised this question with the Chifley Government. I am unable to say now how far the negotiations proceeded or what resulted from them. I shall cause inquiries to be made and shall inform the honorable senator of the result. I appreciate the value of the suggestion that he has made.
page 832
– I ask the Minisfer representing the Prime” Minister whether the company known as Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited has an issued capital of £850,000, whether the Australian Government, holds 425,001 £1 shares in the company, and whether the remaining 424,999 £1 shares are held by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company or its nominees? Is it a fact that although the latter company or its nominees hold a minority of the shares of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, the articles of association provide that it may nominate four directors to the board and that the Commonwealth, although it holds a majority of the shares, may nominate only three directors? If the answers to those questions are in the affirmative, will the Minister say what government entered into such an outrageous agreement? Will the Prime Minister take action to correct this anomalous position by securing that the articles of association of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited are mended to provide that the Commonwealth shall have the right to nominate » greater number of directors of the company than the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Limited ?
– It is proper to point out that the Prime Minister is a very busy man. The answers to the questions that the honorable senator has asked are public property. The information that he seeks can be obtained by making a search at the office in the State in which Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited is registered. Furthermore. I believe that the questions have not been asked for the purpose of eliciting information, because the honorable senator himself has supplied the answers to them. ‘ With regard to the action, if any, that the Government proposes to take to rectify what the honorable senator has ‘been pleased to call an outrageous state of affairs, it would be only fair to make inquiries first of Mr. Chifley to ascertain the reasons, which I am sure it will be agreed will be good ones, why he did not deal with this matter during the eight years that he was Prime Minister of Australia.
page 832
– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture by informing the Senate that blackbirds constitute a considerable pest menace in Tasmania. In addition to eating all* kinds of berry fruits they- are now attacking the apple crop. Will the Minister request his colleague to refer this matter to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization with a view to steps being taken to overcome this menace?
– I shall be pleased to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture.
page 832
– During the course of my address to the Senate yesterday I stressed the need for a uniform Commonwealth scheme of education. Will the Minister representing the Prime Minister bring my suggestions to the right honorable gentleman’s notice with a. view to their adoption ?
– I assure the honorable senator that my colleagues and I are deeply indebted to him for the very thoughtful contribution that he made to . the debate yesterday. It contained many matters well worthy of the Government’s consideration, and I am quite sure that his suggestions will be welcomed by the Prime Minister.
page 833
– Yesterday 1 directed a question without notice to the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture in connexion with the situation that has arisen in Tasmania whereby 60 per cent, of potatogrowers have to sell their produce at less than the cost of production. I asked the Minister whether the Government would consider the setting up of a production cost-finding committee to examine this important Tasmanian industry, and also whether consideration would be given to the necessity for granting either a shipping freight subsidy or a direct growers’ subsidy similar to those being paid to other branches of primary production. Although the Minister replied that he would bring the second part of my question to the notice of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, he did not answer the first part o? it. Will the Minister now do so, and inform me whether he had any particular reason for not answering it yesterday?
– I am very sorry if I omitted to answer the first portion of the honorable senator’s question. Unfortunately his questions are usually so lengthy that one experiences difficulty in following all of the points raised. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has already announced publicly that he will establish a production costfinding committee at an early date. It will inquire not only into the cost of production of potatoes, but also other items associated with rural production.
page 833
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
Will the Prime Minister state what steps arc ‘being taken by the Australian National University to encourage the writing of Australian national history and biography?
– The Prime Minister has supplied the following ..reply to the honorable senator’s question: -
As the matter is one .for the National University authorities the honorable senator might care to direct his inquiry to the ViceChancellor, who, I feel sure, will be glad to furnish any information available.
page 833
asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -
– The following are the answers to the honorable senator’s questions: - 1 and 2. Under section 38 of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act, membersof the Public Works Committee receive £1 5s. per diem on account of expenses incurred in the course of travelling. This is in addition to fees payable for attendance at summoned meetings of the committee, viz., £2 to the chairman and £1 10s. to other members. From December, .1913, when the Commonwealth Public Works Committee came into force, until 4th December, 1947, the travelling allowance payable was £1 per diem. On the latter date the allowance was increased to £1 5s. per diem. Quarter rates are payable - (a-) if the rail or steamer fare paid includes subsistence; (o) if the air fare paid includes meals and accommodation during an overnight stop. this is the only Standing Committee functioning at the present time where travelling allowances are regularly paid. There have been, however, isolated cases where the members of other standing committees have received travelling allowances. In such cases the allowance has been fixed by the presiding officers at £2 10s. per diem for the chairman and £2 2s. per day for other members.
page 833
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s questions : - 1 and 2. There is at the present time no lawexcluding a person from employment by the Commonwealth merely because he is a Communist. Legislation to deal with that matter has been forecast in the Governor-General’s Speed). Employees of the Commonwealth and of Commonwealth authorities who are in positions that give them access to secret defence information or defence establishments are subject to security check. It would not be ;n the interest of security to give details of action taken to meet security risks.
page 834
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
– The Prime. Minister has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’? question : -
page 834
Motion (by Senator Cooper) - by leave - agreed to -
That leave of absence for four weeks be granted to Senator Simmonds on the ground of ill health.
page 834
page 834
Debate resumed from the 15th March (vide page 777), on motion by Senator
McCallum -
That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: -
Mat it please YOUR Excellency :
We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.
– Yesterday evening, when the debate was adjourned, I was dealing with the basic wage and its effect upon wageearners because of the reduction of its present purchasing power, compared with that of the 7s. a day or £2 2s. a week basic wage fixed in 1907 by Judge Higgins. I pointed out that at that time Judge Higgins was in- two minds about whether he should fix the rate at 7s. 6d. a day or 7s. a day. He eventually fixed it at 7s., but later his conscience must have pricked him because he agitated for a review of the basic wage. In fact, the adequacy or otherwise of the “ Harvester “ standard was the subject of much discussion during the period of its operation, and, as I have said, the author of the judgment himself urged on several occasions the need for its review. He realized that the basic wage was not in keeping with the labour given by workers. There was much consternation and discussions went on until 1920. Prior to that year the Government had decided to establish a commission known as the Piddington Commission. That commission recommended that the basic wage be increased to £5 16s. a week. At that time, the September quarter of 1920, the “Harvester “ equivalent for Melbourne was £4 13s. a week, but rates of only between £3 18s. a week and £4 2s. a week were being paid on the basis of an annual index number. Therefore the wage being receivedby workers was below the equivalent of the “ Harvester “ award. However, as I have said, the Piddington Commission recommended a basic wage of £5 16s. a week. The recommendations of that commission in respect of the basic wage were not carried out, owing largely to the marked advance the amount suggested represented over ruling rates. So the court at that time took into consideration the amount that would be involved to adjust the basic wage to £5 16s. a week. It did not take into consideration justice to the employees. As I have pointed out in this chamber, £5 16s. a week at that time would be equivalent in purchasing power to £10 a week to-day. Indeed, since then prices have risen so considerably that £10 would not now purchase what £5 16s. would purchase then. My desire is to point out, in reply to Senator Wright, who stated that British laws were just and that consequently the arbitration system was a just one, and that we would be breaking it down if we fought it much longer, that most of the improvements in conditions in industry have been achieved by means of strikes. Although the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has been operating for more than 43 years, very little improvement has been given to the employees by the court unless the employees’ claims have been backed by industrial action. The court fixes the base rate for an unskilled man with family responsibilities. It also fixes a margin for those who bear responsibility and for skilled work. In 1907 the base rate was 7s. a day and the margin was 4s. above that for a skilled tradesman - that is to say, the margin was about 58 per cent. of the base rate. In 1921 Judge Higgins increased the margin to 6s. or about 45 per cent. of the base rate. In 1922 the margin reverted to 4s., which was 34 per cent. of the then base rate. In 1931 there was a 10 per cent. cut in wages. The judges of the court acted very quickly on that occasion, as I pointed out last night. When the employers asked for a reduction of the basic wage the judges did not keep them waiting twelve months, but concluded the matter within a few weeks. In 1935 Judge Beeby fixed the margin at 4s. 6d. and in 1937 Judge Drake-Brockman fixed it at 5s., or about 40 per cent. above the existing base rate. Honorable senators will recall that in 1947 the Amalgamated Engineering Union conducted a strike as a result of which the margin earned by members of the union was increased to 7s. 8d. In order to correspond to the purchasing power of the margin of 4s. a day provided in 1907, a margin of from 12s. to 13 a day should be provided at present. Thus, the Arbitration Court has failed to even maintain margins comparable with those provided in 1907. In that respect, it has not acted as fairly as some people would like us to believe. Unless something is done to alter the present method of fixing the basic wage that injustice will be perpetuated. Recently, the trade union movement in Tasmania discussed this problem and suggested that the basic wage should be fixed on a new formula to provide a wage that would not only be related to the cost of living but would also enable employees to participate to a greater degree in the benefits of their production and the general prosperity of the community. That recommendation has no connexion whatever with any system of incentive payments. If the court took cognizance of that suggestion, it would obviate much industrial unrest of the kind that is occurring to-day. At present stoppages are caused mainly because the workers believe that they are prevented from obtaining a fair share of the increased prosperity of the nation. The Governor-General’s Speech states -
My Government proposes to bring in a billto provide for an alteration tothe Constitution. The object of the bill will be to ensure that, in future, no measure giving to the Government or its instrumentalities, to the exclusion of others, monopolistic rights to engage in commerce or industry can become law unless it has first been submitted to and approved by the people at a referendum.
That is a retrograde proposal. Although it is generally admitted that the Constitution, which was framed in 1901, is completely out of date, the Government now proposes to hamstring the National Parliament to an even greater degree. If it does so, we shall practically revert to the mediaeval ages. Furthermore, that proposal is undemocratic. Why should any future government be hamstrung in that way?
– The essence of democracy is to allow the people tn decide such matters.
– The honorable senator is still living in the feudal ages. The Governor-General’s Speech also states that the Government recently announced the termination of petrol rationing. One can readily realize why the Government took that step. Immediately after the High Court delivered its judgment on the 6th June last declaring the petrol rationing regulations to be invalid, the right honorable member for. Macquarie (Mr. Chifley), who was then Prime Minister, conferred with the representatives of the oil companies in this country, and asked them if they would continue to regulate supplies of petrol as had been done under rationing. Those representatives promised that they would do so. However, immediately afterwards they released petrol for sale in 44-gallon drums. In fact, 22,000,000 gallons of petrol were sold to the public in that way and later it was discovered that much of it had been hidden in drains, dams and holes. Thus, the oil companies sabotaged the Chifley Government’s effort; and after releasing such a large quantity of petrol they decided to bring about a scarcity of petrol. The Chifley Government insisted upon curtailing sales of petrol in order to ensure that the needs of essential industry would be met. The petrol companies had no regard whatever for the interests of the nation, and Labour’s opponents were thus able to make capital out of the problem for party political purposes.
I come now to the subject of prices control. Not long ago Senator Guy asked the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) if he would discuss with the Minister in control of prices in New South Wales the price of potatoes supplied from Tasmania. The Minister knew quite well that he was powerless to take effective action in that matter, and his reply to that question was simply an attempt at party political window-dressing. Honorable senators opposite opposed the Chifley Government’s proposal, which was submitted to the people at a referendum, that power be given to this Parliament to continue to control prices on a nation-wide basis.
During that referendum, honorable senators opposite told the people that the States could control prices more effectively than the Australian Government could. To-day, however, Senator Guy and his colleagues are squealing about the rising prices of various commodities. The defeat of the Chifley Government’s proposal has affected Tasmania very seriously because the people of that State obtain 80 per cent, of their requirements from the mainland and the Tasmanian Government can deal with the prices of those commodities only after they have been landed at Tasmanian ports. The abolition of Commonwealth control of prices now prevents the National Government from giving justice to the primary producers in the sale of their products. In fact, it was not until the Chifley Government assumed office that the producers received just treatment. Up to that time they were always “ broke “ and had the greatest difficulty in meeting interest payments on their mortgages. Yet, when the Chifley Government helped the primary producers out of their financial difficulties our opponents decried its efforts by attacking the “ bureaucrats at Canberra “. Now, honorable senators opposite realize that they made a mistake and they are merely shedding crocodile tears. They are absolutely hypocritical.
Senator Mattner said that we should take off our coats and work harder. I do not see the honorable senator’s muscles standing out very prominently. Obviously, he does not know much about political economy when he talks in that strain. I point out to him that whilst the United States of America to-day produces 70 per cent, of the capitalist world’s requirements, there are 6,000,000 unemployed and 9,000,000 semi-employed persons in that country.
– That is not, correct.
– It is. I obtained those figures from statistics. To-day, the United States of America is giving away much of its production in an effort to keep its people in full employment. Let us have a look at the rates of wages paid in industry in that country. American coal-miners are paid £5 a day. The honorable senator said that if Australian workers produced more, prices in this country would decrease. But what is happening in the United States of America? That country is dumping foodstuffs of all kinds in an effort to maintain existing price levels. The American coal-miners have just returned to work after a long strike. They have been granted an increase of 10s. a day or £3 a week; yet, honorable senators opposite say that the production of more coal in this country would mean a reduction of prices! I shall tell them why prices will not come down. The truth is that the inflation that is so much in evidence in the community to-day, hae been caused by those who support the present Government parties and contribute so handsomely to their party funds. I can prove that by citing facts. Honorable senators opposite shed crocodile tears over the shortage of building materials, but what is the position? The Australian Government has no control over the production of goods in this country, but it has control over exports. One of the basic commodities of which there is a scarcity to-day is zinc. Most of the zinc produced in this country is being exported because, whereas the local price i9 £20 a ton, on overseas markets it is bringing £120 a ton. When the Labour Government said that it would _ restrict the export of zinc, the producers replied that if exports were restricted, zinc would not be produced. In J943, 75,756 tons of- zinc were produced in this country, and 43,904 tons were exported. In 1945, S3,773 tons were produced and 63,643 tons exported. That ratio of exports to production has been continued. Last year, the Lysaght organization, Australia’s greatest producer of galvanized iron products, had to close down repeatedly because of the shortage of zinc. Most of the zinc was being sent out of the country. Now we have to buy galvanized products from overseas at three times the Australian price. How can prices be reduced in this country when we are being forced to depend upon overseas supplies in this manner?
– Why could the Australian manufacturers not pay the world parity price for zinc?
– The honorable senator should be able to answer that question better than I can. The manufacturers are his supporters. I have nothing whatever to do with them. The Lysaght organization is, of course, a subsidiary of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, and makes large profits at the expense of the people. What I have said about zinc is true also of lead. In 1944, Australia produced 154,547 tons of lead, and sent 179,455 tons overseas.
– Under a Labour government.
– The Labour Government had no control.
– It had control over exports.
– The lead producers threatened to stop production if they were not permitted to send lead oversea.1). At that time, lead was bringing £111 a ton overseas, whereas the Australian price was only £27 15s. a ton. The producers were concerned only with profit-making while pretending to be solicitous for the welfare of the working people. Copper, too, is in short supply to-day and substantial quantities arp being imported, principally for telephonic work. The cost of imported copper is three times that of the local product. We are also importing iron and representations are being made for the abolition of the duty on imported iron. In other words, Australian producers are amassing huge profits by exporting their product, while honorable senators opposite are pretending to give something back to the Australian people by lifting the duty on imported iron. Our exports of bloom, bars, ingot, angle, and hoop iron and steel in 1938-39 totalled 122,389 tons. Exports of girders and beams totalled 9,653 tons, and of pig iron, 52,321 tons. Iron and steel are being exported from Australia and repurchased at three times the Australian price. In this way, the Australian people are being robbed.
Senator Mattner said that we should take off our coats and work harder. I say that no people work harder than do Australians. In fact, Australians are recognized as the hardest-worked people in the world, and the highest producers. Honorable senators opposite argue that production figures are down but what is the truth? The coal production figures that I gave last night were challenged. lt was stated that I was not giving the figures for hard coal. That is quite true. I was dealing with all kinds of coal. Coal production in this country in :i 048-49 totalled 22,102,000 tons, compared with about 18,000,000 tons in 1938 ; yet honorable senators opposite say that Australians will not work! Statistics show that the production of almost every commodity has improved. The cry that Australians must produce more has been taken up by the newspapers in their attempt to whip the workers of this country, but the truth is that they are already working hard. Catch cries will carry no weight because the people know the truth. Senator Robertson said that the 40-hour week had been introduced too soon.
– Very definitely.
– What authority have honorable senators for saying that? They have no authority at all. The Labour Government asked the people of this country to empower the Australian Parliament to fix working hours, wages, conditions, and terms of employment, but the people rejected the proposal. Consequently the Arbitration Court is the only authority that can deal with these matters. Whilst I do not approve of all that the Arbitration Court has done, I contend that in fixing a 40-hour working week it gave a fair decision in accordance with the weight of evidence placed before it.
– No. The McGirr and Hanlon Governments forced the issue.
– The decision was made entirely by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The Bench consisted of five judges who heard evidence from statisticians, dieticians, representatives of employers and employees and, in fact, any ona who wished to express his views either for or against the 40-hour week claimed by the Australian Council of Trades Unions. The hearing of that evidence took two years and, upon the completion of proceedings, the five learned judges considered the matter thoroughly and decided that the evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of a 40- hour week. They believed that the economy of this country could stand it. The Australian economy is constantly improving. If honorable senators opposite would spend a little more time reading in the library, they would realize how ridiculous and stupid their statement are. The 40-hour week was not introduced prematurely. I believe that there should be a 35-hour week because production to-day is carried out largely by machinery. Honorable senators opposite would like to see a revival of the conditions that existed in the past, when men were told, “ Take off your coats, get your picks and shovels and go to work “, but those days have gone.
Honorable senators opposite have talked of production. Last week threequarters of the space in one issue of the Sydney Daily Telegraph was occupied by advertisements that had been inserted in an attempt to encourage people to buy goods of which the advertisers obviously had a surplus. All kinds of inducements to buy goods are now being offered. Advertisers state, for instance, that prices have been reduced from, say, 30s. to 20s., that a lay-by system is in operation, and that articles can be purchased on time payment. During the war, when there was a scarcity of goods, inducements to buy were not offered. ‘Consumers were made to “ pay through the nose “ for the articles that they bought, and, in some instances, if they were not on friendly terms with shopkeepers they could not purchase what they wanted. To-day, the shops and stores of this country are bulging with goods. Every newspaper now contains many advertisements that are designed to encourage people to purchase goods. The advertisers are not spending thousands of pounds a year on advertisements for the purpose of throwing money away. They want to sell their goods and make a profit. There are ample stocks of consumer goods in Australia. Almost the only commodities. _ that are scarce are building materials, and the reason for that scarcity ‘- is that supporters of the Government have allowed building materials to be exported.
While the present system is in force, we must make the best possible use of it. We must get as much out of it as we can for the working people who produce the goods that the nation needs, and not for the people who sit back in armchairs after a sumptuous meal and say, “ The waterside workers are on strike again. What shall we do about them?” I have noticed that remarks of that kind ure usually made after the speaker has enjoyed a big, fat meal in the Millions Club or a similar place. They are then published by the newspapers under big head lines. Recently the Brisbane Courier-Mail published a report regarding alleged basher gang tactics in Brisbane. Any one who read the report might well, have believed that the waterside workers in Brisbane were engaged in a war amongst themselves, but the report was a fabrication. What happened was that a meeting of waterside workers was convened to receive the report of a deputation. One man in the hall interjected frequently and a man sitting behind him asked him to be quiet. The interjector then became annoyed and hit the man who had spoken to him. That man then silenced the interjector. That is the incident upon which the report was founded. Another man went to the microphone to address the meeting, but he was told that it was not his turn to speak and he was not allowed to do so. The Courier-Mail wrote that incident up. It is interesting to note that no representative of the newspaper was present in the hall during the meeting. Following 1 lie publication of the report, the Brisbane branch of the Waterside Workers Federation unanimously carried the following resolution : -
This general meeting of mem-burg nf the Waterside Workers Federation of Austrafia (tion Blanch) emphatically protests against what we consider to be calculated lying statements (published by the CourierMail regarding alleged basher tactics used at the special meeting of our union held Tuesday, March 7th), as reported in the editions of the Courier-Mail on March 8th. We declare that no such incidents as reported by the CourierMail took place nt the meeting. We condemn false statements of this character as being deliberately designed to incite disruption and violence with a view to dividing the organized workers as a prelude to proposed attacks against the trade unions in this country by the enemies of the working class, and that such lying statements are further designed in the hope of influencing and inflaming public opinion against our federation and the trade union movement generally.
We call upon the Courier-Mail to publish this resolution is full.
It is apparent that the Brisbane CourierMail misrepresented the position, but other newspapers did not wait to find out whether there was any justification for the report. They circulated it throughout Australia. We know, of course, that the Brisbane Courier-Mail is not fit even to be used as a wrapper for sausages. The newspapers are using .those tactics todestroy the unity of the workers. They believe that a continuous stream of lies and distortion will eventually have an effect upon the minds of the workers. As I have already said, most of the statements attacking the workers are made by persons who have just wined and dined very well.
Senator Wright said that he was very pleased to be a member of the party that is led by Mr. Menzies, because he has great faith in the right honorable gentleman’s leadership.
– He has the faith that will move mountains.
- Senator Wright used the following words: -
The disparaging remarks that had been made about the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) by certain honorable senators in this debate impel me to say that it is one of the proudest privileges that I could ever expect to enjoy to be ranked even a mere back bencher in the Parliament behind a government led by that right honorable gentleman. His magnificent leadership in a great democratic Commonwealth induced the people to make a decision which, undoubtedly, will react tremendously to their benefit lt is not very long since Mr. Menzies was removed from the office of Prime Minister by his own party because of his leadership. In fact, Mr. W. M. Hughes said that the right honorable gentleman could not lead even a flock of homing pigeons. If Senator Wright supports the leadership and the utterances of Mr. Menzies, then he supports fascism also, because when Mr. Menzies returned from overseas just before the war he made a statement which was reported as follows : -
Fairness demanded that, however one might detest a lot of the things done by the Nazis in
Germany, there was a credit side to Hitler’s account.
– So there was.
– Honorable senators opposite are now showing themselves in their true light.
– I rise to order. I consider that Senator Maher should be asked to withdraw that statement. It is repugnant to those of us who lost sons during the last war.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - There is no point of order involved.
– The remark is offensive to me, and I ask that it be withdrawn.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- I ask Senator Morrow to continue with his remarks.
– I shall have something to say about this matter on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. I know where the Fascists are now.
– The remark that was made by Senator Maher just now ana the statement by Mr. Menzies that I have just read prove that the present Government parties support fascism. I did not object to Senator Maher’s interjection because I_ prefer honorable senators opposite to come out in the open. In the course of the meeting that Mr. Menzies addressed, a woman in the audience asked, “What about Hitler’s concentration camps, the floggings and the persecution of the Jews in Germany ? “ A policeman then led her from the hall. Mr. Menzies, apologizing to Hitler, then said -
I am bound to say that this is a humiliating experience on the part of a sex I admire. Does anybody in the audience suggest that the responsible leader of the responsible government of this country ought to be using expressions against the leader of the government of any country?
While he was in Western Australia on that occasion, the right honorable gentleman is reported to have made another statement. The report reads as follows : -
Mr. Menzies described Mussolini as “a man of first-class ability . . . His efforts had restored order and no other Italian in the last (if) years had rendered his country more service “.
We all know the history of Mussolini and the part that he played. There is no ambiguity about the matter. A supporter of Mussolini’s principles cannot be a democrat or a great leader. That is the category in which I place Senator Maher.
– From what source has the honorable senator quoted?
– I have read extracts from the West Australian newspaper. Such press statements tend to bring this kind of people out of their shell.
– Would the honorable senator denounce communism as fiercely as he denounces facism?
– They are two entirely different ideologies. I thank the Senate for the attentive hearing that it has accorded to me, and I am very pleased that some honorable senators have revealed their attitude to this matter.
– The rejoicing that followed the result of the genera] election three months ago reminded me of the words of William Pitt, when the bells were rung in London on the declaration of war against Spain, in 1739. He said -
They may ring their bells now; before long they will be wringing their hands.
– Is not the honorable senator referring to Sir Robert Walpole’s famous words?
– I thank the honorable senator for correcting me on this matter. Those were the words of Walpole. I am glad that at last I have learned something from a supporter of the Government, because day after day the Opposition has sought information from Ministers in this chamber, with negative results. The Opposition is not willing to be treated contemptuously any longer. If the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator McLeay) and the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) are unable to supply the information that we seek at question time we have other ways of getting it. The Minister for Shipping and Fuel has continually refrained from supplying the Senate with information about the petrol position. The anti-Labour parties committed a great political fraud when they stated that they could get non-dollar petrol. I must say, in fairness to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) that when that election cry went up it was an illustration of the tail wagging the dog. The right honorable gentleman knew that it would not be possible to get non-dollar petrol because there is no such “ animal “ in existence. Petrol is perhaps the most important commodity in the world to-day. We are all aware of the terrific struggle that is taking place in various parts of the world in connexion with petrol. To use the vernacular, “If Britain can get her nose in front in relation to petrol she will have gone a long way towards rehabilitating herself “. Let us consider what is happening. The older members of this chamber will remember that the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Attlee, and the former Prime Minister of this country, Mr. Chifley, entered into a gentleman’s agreement. That agreement has been broken. Mr. Attlee objected to the proposed breaking of the agreement because it was designed to save a large percentage of Britain’s dollar expenditure. Even the present Prime Minister was honest enough to admit that more dollars would be involved if petrol was derationed. When I asked the Minister for Shipping and Fuel recently how many more dollars had been expended he evaded answering my question. However the former Minister for Food in Great Britain, Mr. Strachey, has announced that the repudiation of the agreement cost the British Government an increased expenditure of 5,000,000 dollars, and that the British people would have to tighten their belts still further in consequence. We cannot escape from the fact that the British. Labour Government could not possibly enter into any agreement with this Government with confidence. I remind the Senate that the price of tobacco is rising. Is that because we have no dollars available to purchase tobacco from dollar areas? Is the increased price of agricultural machinery also duo to out shortage of dollars ? Lifesaving medicine cannot be procured from the United States of America. Is it for the reason that so many dollars are being used to buy petrol? The proposition was put to the public that petrol had to be obtained at any cost, while at the same time the Prime Minister, who sports his tartan tie on every historical occasion, claimed that the people of Great Britain were bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.
I have been astonished at the obvious lack of knowledge of the trade union movement in this country by some of the intelligentsia opposite - some of the young fellows, the Oxonians and Cantabs - although they have a good knowledge of Latin and the classics. Doubtless the Government intends to bring forward bills aimed at controlling the activities of the trade union movement. When that is done honorable senators opposite will find that they are hitting their heads against a difficult proposition. As an illustration of what might happen I remind the Senate of what occurred in New South Wales some years ago. No doubt the Minister for Social Services and Senator McCallum, remember the time when the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate in New South Wales, Mr. McFarlane was appointed Comptroller-General of Prisons. The personnel of the Prisons Department resented the appointment and claimed that the position should not have been filled by an outside appointment. That resentment was evident in all ranks, from the governors of the gaols to the warders. However, Mr. McFarlane, who was a very able man, accepted the appointment and got on with the job. Almost without exception the officers of the department raised passive resistance, and within a few months it almost drove him crazy. Ultimately he relinquished the post. No government has since appointed to the higher positions in the Prisons Department people who knew nothing about the workings of that department.
I shall refer briefly to foreign affairs, a subject in which I am exceedingly interested. During the present sittings of the Senate I have tried very hard to ascertain the policy of the new Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Spender), who has committed a complete volte face in regard to Indonesia. I do not know whether the Minister is in favour of a white Australia policy, a black Australia policy, or a brindle Australia policy. In fact, I do not think that he knows himself.
Recently a newcomer to the back benches of the House of Representatives made the discovery - even more startling th an the discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton and Professor Einstein - that if there were a double dissolution of. the Parliament, the probabilities were that the parties would be evenly divided upon reassembly. The press, seized on the opportunity to publicize his revelations. No less than a whole page of one newspaper was devoted to’ the implications contained in his speech, whilst two columns of another newspaper were devoted to it. But what has been done in foreign affairs? No publicity is given to the subject. An honorable member can speak in this chamber or anywhere else and nothing is heard of it. On the other hand wide publicity was given to the Siamese twins who were born in Tasmania recently and although I do not like to speak in derogatory fashion of them, they are like the Liberal party and the Australian Country party - they cannot stand up and they cannot sit down.
– But they can win elections.
– Yes, and that is about all they can do, but after the sunshine comes the storm. Just wait a little while. Just bide a wee. I should like to give the honorable senator credit for one thing, and that is that he is trying to do something about the occupation of J apan. I remember that some of my colleagues and some honorable members from the other side went to Japan. When they returned they said that General Douglas MacArthur was doing a wonderful job and everything in the garden was lovely. Colonel Hodgson said he did not believe such was the case at all, but that surreptitiously the Zaibatsu faction in Japan was as strong as ever. Unfortunately it is too late now. I regret that Mr. Macmahon Ball did not carry on. It is time this country knew what is the Government’s policy in respect of Japan. Are our forces to be an army’ of occupation or are the Japanese to be regarded as allies, or both? Seemingly, with General MacArthur, everything is possible.
Economically Australia is up against it. I have heard some wonderful rhetoric in. the speeches of honorable members opposite, but they tell us nothing. Government speakers tell the House that the most important thing is to put purchasing power into the £1. I agree with that, but I say that everything the Government has done since it has been in office has tended to take purchasing power out of the £1. The country is faced with momentous questions. An honorable senator spoke not long ago about producing move and dealing with the Communist party. He did not tell the Senate anything about retail prices or the rate of exchange. I say that the rate of exchange is a racket for the people engaged in agriculture. They have bled this country ever since prices became relatively high. One of the causes of inflation is that the primary producers are getting so much money that they are buying all kinds of luxuries. They are reducing the purchasing power of the age and widow pensioners, the public servants and the people with money in war loans. In 1932 when wheat was 2s. a bushel the farmers did not foresee in their wildest dreams that they would be in the position they are in to-day. See how the centre of gravity has shifted. Look at the newspapers and it will be seen that the farmers and their families fill the social columns. They are the nouveau riche. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is not even mentioned. See any boat off to London and it will be found that the daughter of this squatter and of that squatter are setting off for overseas. The nightclubs are filled with these people. It has gone on long enough. The Prime Minister talks about luxury industries. Who makes them? Who causes the demand for them? The answer is: the people who have so much money they do not know what to do with it. In 1946, when the Australian £1 was supposed to be worth 25 per cent, less than £1 sterling, it was actually stronger than the British £1 on the world market. Since then the cost of living has increased because it is impossible to get commodities into the country as we should. How can the Prime Minister stop luxuries being produced if he is opposed to regulated labour? He has “ squibbed “ on every issue relating to the dollar, the £1, and the rate of profit. I invite honorable senators to study the Sydney Morning Herald, the Melbourne Argus, and the Age and the returns of the retail trade. See the rise, in retail trade shares over the last three or four months.
– Produce some coal in New South “Wales.
– .Since the honorable senator raises that question I recall that whenever Senator Ashley, speaking for the Labour Government, made a statement on coal in reply to questions and said that this was a difficult problem and the Labour Government wai doing its best to solve it, Senator McLeay would interject, “ Put us in “. I tell the Government that the only way that it will get coal is the way the British Labour party got it. The miners have been neglected for the last 100 years. I have never been a miner, but I know something about mining history. I know that children were put into the mines and that John Bright said that if they were over eight years of age they were fit to work in the mines. We are not in the age of Queen Victoria now, as some of the honorable senators interjecting would like people to think. We are not in the age when a miner’s wife had to scrub his back in a tub.
– They still do that in Wales.
– In Great Britain four and a half years ago there was an election. The miners were discontented. The mine-owners were taking coal from seams 18 inches high, as long as it was profitable. They could not rehabilitate the mines and the machines were obsolete. At tremendous expense the Labour Government nationalized the mines when it assumed power. There was much talk about Communists on the coal-field four and a half years ago. The secretary of the Communist party in Britain, Mr. Harry Pollitt, contested the- seat from Rhondda Valley, the centre of Communist agitation before the Labour party was returned. He received 16,000 votes then. At the last election he received 3,500 votes because the Labour party had taken away the cause of discontent.
I remember reading a reply given by Lord .Salisbury to the Scottish Presbyterian Church on the occasion of a plague in Scotland. The Presbyterian Synod wrote to Lord Salisbury suggesting that he should set aside a day for prayer to ask Almighty God to do away with the plague. Although he was conservative politically, Lord Salisbury replied that it would be far more efficacious if they set aside a day to clean out the sewers. Instead of blindly attacking the Communist party in Australia, it would be better to get to work and rid the country of the conditions that breed communism. The parties opposite tried to use us to beat the Communist party, and now they want to use the Communist party to beat us. I tell them that we are out to fight both them and the Communist party to the death. The present Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) said that the Labour party was the twin brother of the Communist party and that if we were returned to office there would never be another election in this country. He said that he would send Australian Communists to Moscow. Honorable senators know that he cannot send Australians to Moscow against their will. But anything is good enough for use by the parties opposite in order to win an election. Now the Ministers of the Government are wringing their hands. They do not know what to do.
– The honorable senator’s party was going to tell us how to get coal from New South Wales.
– The parties opposite, not we on this side, form the Government. Now the Government’s supporters are up against it because they know that, just as we told them before the election, they can do nothing about the trade unions. In Victoria, which has a Liberal party Government, there is a babe-in-the-wood Premier, Mr. Hollway, who does not know whether he is coming or going. He does not know what party he is in. That city now has a big tram strike on its hands. Why does the Liberal Government in Victoria not end that strike ? The parties opposite attained power by misleading the people.
However, “ mony a mickle. maks a muckle”. Some electors were in favour of this, and some were in favour of that, and when honorable senators opposite told them that they would put value back into the pound, the people really believed them.
– That is an unfair reflection upon the public.
– Honorable senators opposite did not tell the people that they would carry out their policy with our help. They did not say to us, “Will you help us if we get into office ? “. The Government has been in power three months and it does not know where to start. Like the man from Macedonia who said to St. Paul, “ Come over and help us “, it is now appealing for assistance from the Labour party. The Government, like the Irishman with the wheelbarrow, has a big job in front of it. But it knows that it cannot do anything about the matter whilst everything that has been said by its leaders will make things worse instead of better. If the Government can solve its problems I will be the first to congratulate it. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) said that the rise in prices was not- due to any action of his Government but that it started in 1946. That is quite true. I remember speaking with a Catholic divine who was on the same ship when I was returning from the United States in 1946. He said to me that before he left Australia he was against prices control, but after what he had seen in America he thought that prices control in Australia was the wonder of the world. I returned Here and said exactly the same thing. Prices control was the wonder of the world in 1946. In 1947 a referendum was held. Out of their own mouths honorable senators opposite shall ‘be condemned. They said - and they can not deny it - that the States could control prices better than we could. The Minister for Defence, Mr. Eric J. Harrison, the gentleman who would not go to dinner, and is of such boorish disposition that he does not know the difference between the position and the man who occupies it, said to the people, “If you put the State governments in charge of prices control not only can they control prices but. they can. control them better than the Federal Government”. I ask honorable senators if they are willing to rise- and say that when that statement was made they honestly believed it,, and, if they did believe it then, whether they still believe it now. Of course, nobody believed it. It was purely political expediency. Nobody outside a lunatic asylum could have believed that the States could do a better job than the Federal Government had been doing. However, honorable senators opposite told the people that they could, the referendum proposals were defeated as a result, and up went prices. Another of the promises made by the present Prime Minister was that he. would reduce taxation. It is impossible to put more value into the fi by reducing taxation. If there is any man who counters Karl Marx, it is Professor Keynes. Instead of the proposition of Karl Marx that under capitalism we shall have one- crisis following on with ever greater intensity until a revolutionary situation exists, Keynes says that when things are good is the time to save up for a rainy day. That is what the Chifley Government did. Now the present Government is about to squander the savings by trying to obtain coal from India and other places. At the present moment, there is a great shortage of labour, power and commodities. If the Government reduces taxation, what will be done with the extra money that will go back to the community, when it is already impossible to get labour for industries? It is all right reducing taxation when conditions are beginning to become bad, but if all that money is thrown back onto the market, how will it put purchasing power back into the £1? This racket has gone much too far, and’ I say now that it is up to the Government to get down to earth and tell us how it is going to get coal,, how it is going to put purchasing power back into the £1 and whether it is going to reduce the rate of exchange between sterling and the Australian £1. Prices in New Zealand have not risen since that country pegged its rate of exchange with sterling. But the Government cannot alter our rate of exchange because it is afraid of the Australian Country party. Honorable senators opposite know that to be true. As a matter of fact the English £1 is on a toboggan all along the line. I. have had the best of information that 100 yards from the Bank of England it is possible to buy dollars by paying 20 per cent. more sterling for them than the correct rate. Are we going to keep on following the £1?
– The honorable senator agrees, then, that following the dollar down was wrong?
– I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that as a believer in economic laws and having studied AdamSmith’s writings, I believe that it is right to subsidize primary industry over a certain period, but I do not believe in carrying that policy to such a degree that it means greasing the fat pig at the expense of the rest of the community. I will admit that when we gave the farmers the benefit of the 25 per cent. difference in the rate of exchange with sterling, it was beneficial for a time hut to-day the price of wheat is based on the Canadian dollar and is subject to long-term agreements, and it is time that the farmers gave the rest of the community a break. Prices have risen considerably since we followed the pound down. Now I put this question to honorable senators opposite : How do they intend to put purchasing power into the £1 by keeping the rate of exchange as it is, doing nothing about the rate of profit and nothing about getting sufficient coal locally?
– We are getting a little more production than the previous Government did.
– If the £1 was not at such a disadvantageous rate we could get more machinery from America to produce coal. Do honorable senators opposite think that the workers are going to stand for wages going down as soon as prices go down? Do they not think that the workers know what they are doing? I shall read to the Senate an account of something that happened in the United States of America. The same thing is happening on a smaller scale in Australia.
I shall quote from a report published in a newspaper recently, which reads -
page 845
Fashions for dogs were displayed before 250 society women to-day. The dog models included a Welsh terrier wearing a coat from Paris with a tiny white handkerchief in its pocket. A Boxer sported a red raincoat. . .
I suppose the Communists were responsible for that. The report continues -
and an Afghan wearing an emerald green coat with a deep fringe and green peaked hat with acomple bird on it. A Pinscher appeared in a white angora sweater on a silver leash and with a genuine collar of diamonds.
Do honorable senators opposite think the working class cannot read or write. Do they think that the workers do not notice that French mannequins are being brought out here every day to show clothes for purchase by the rich ? Do they think that the workers do not know that if prices are reduced a reduction in wages will follow? Do they think that the miners do not know that if there is plenty of coal at grass the parties represented by honorable senators opposite will starve the mine workers as they did before ? Give the workers a “ go “ and they will give you a “ go “. But the Government cannot give them a go without the help of the Labour party and the trade union movement. If everything that Mr. Menzies suggested that hia Government would do had been put into operation the result would not be to put more purchasing power into the £1 but to take it out of the £1.
– If I continue to associate with honorable senators opposite I may he in such a condition that I will be likely to do anything in 1952. I ask honorable senators opposite whether they think that it is fair that people who have saved up money over a long period for a trip to Britain, perhaps to see their relatives there, should have 25 per cent. taken from the value of it. What right have they to do that? Is it to grease the fatted pigs who are too rich now? The Government cannot justify such a policy. I agree with the point of view that was expressed by honorable senators opposite about the encouragement of industries. Our heavy industries already enjoy a great measure of protection, and any claim that they may submit for increased protection can be referred to the Tariff Board. But under capitalism all that a government can do is to help some one here, or some one there, with a view to helping the people as a whole. Such a method of dealing with our economic and social problems is farcical. Although the present salary of a member of the Parliament - £1,500 a year - appears to be comparatively high, it is not worth more than £1,000 in terms of the purchasing power of the £1 at the time that it was fixed. I mention parliamentary salaries in order to emphasize how badly off public servants on low salaries and pensioners of all classes must be. Does any one believe that those sections of the community can afford to invest money in government loans at 2 per cent., when, to-day, the purchasing power of £2 is equivalent to that of only £1 a few years ago ? The Australian Country party has run non-Labour administrations for too long. The supporters of that party have been given everything. The children of primary producers are attending the best schools and going through to the universities. The producers themselves have more money than they know what to do with.
– Would the honorable senator deny prosperity to any section of the community?
– No; but that is not my point. In New South Wales alone the acreage of land under cultivation has increased by only 10 per cent, during the last two decades, but expressed in terms of money the income of those who control that land has increased by over 300 per cent, during the same period. Can any one justify that state of affairs?
– The honorable senator and his colleagues are responsible for that.
– Who ever may be responsible for it, the Government must say what it is going to do about that state of affairs. Our income from the sale of wool has risen by 700 per cent, during the last two decades. Prices of primary products cannot keep on rising indefinitely. In any event, the higher the rise the greater will be the crash.
– 1 admit that.
– Well, I hope that the honorable senator will place that point of view before his colleagues at their party meetings. To-day, women’s winter garments contain hardly any wool. Obviously, the way is being paved for substitutes, and to the degree that people buy substitutes they will purchase correspondingly fewer woollen goods. 1 have expressed my view with respect to the Government’s proposal to put value back into the £1, the need to deal with the rate of exchange, and to increase the production of coal. If the Government wishes to solve the coal problem I advise it to get to work with the miners, and it can best do so by studying their conditions and the history of the industry. The Government should bring those conditions more into conformity with the age in which we live. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley), when he was Minister for Shipping and Fuel, did a wonderful job in respect of coal production. However. he was confronted with the problem that men were leaving the mines. They are continuing to do so. The Government must recognize that we cannot win coal if we have not sufficient coal-miners. All the anti-Communist legislation in the world will not increase the production of coal ; only miners can win coal. When Senator Morrow was speaking, I heard some rumblings about his being a Communist. Apparently, any one who does not agree with Government supporters is a Communist. I have no time for Stalinism. I believe that it is the greatest peril that the world has ever known. It is imperialist bureaucracy of the worst kind. We are told that the tramwaymen of Melbourne are Communists because at present they are on strike. All I can say is that if Communists are responsible for that strike, they must be miracle workers. If the Government wishes to solve the problem of communism in this country it should follow the example of the Labour Government in Great Britain, and eliminate the coal-mine owners who, having regard to modern methods of production, are absolutely useless. I recall how the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt), when he was in opposition, used invariably to point to the position of the industry in Great Britain in order to discredit the administration of the Chifley Government. But what has happened in the Mother Country? Even the superimperialist Churchill was not game to say in the House of Commons that his party, if returned to office, would restore control of the coal mines to private ownership. The Government will not be able to do anything worthwhile until it nationalizes the coal mines.
Reverting to the subject of the exchange rate, “squattocracy” has had the biggest say in this matter in the past. It has had a great “ go “. Now, the rest of the community looks for support from that section to deal effectively with this problem. 1 hope that members of the Liberal party who, Senator Morrow said, represented the great industrialists, will not allow the new aristocracy to which I previously referred to bleed the rest of the community. I believe that I have stated my case fairly, and I trust that within the next 24 hours we shall hear some reply from the ministerial bench to what I have said. I am positive that the £1 sterling is slipping and that the time has come when we must make up our minds what we are going to do about it. The longer we wait the more difficult will the problem become. It is a difficult problem, but since the beginning of the world every question of importance has presented difficulties. We must tackle this problem sooner or later. The Government cannot afford to run away from it. If it does so its action will be bad for the country, but good for us from a party political point of view. I know that the two parties to the present coalition Government are already fighting like cats and dogs about it. However, the community in general, particularly the industrial section, has suffered far too long. After all, any margin in the rate of exchange that is adverse to us must be made good by taxation. In his speech on Tuesday evening, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) tickled the ears of emotional morons, but he failed to face up to present economic facts. Those problems must be tackled if the Government wants to put value back into the £1. The Opposition says to the Government that in facing these problems it must do the job itself. If it wants to deal with the Communist party it must do so itself ; and if it wants to deal with the trade unions in a certain way, let it do so itself. We shall not ally ourselves with the Communist party against the Government, or allow the Government to ally itself with the Communists against us. We shall not allow the Communists to use the Labour Movement for their political ends. But in this matter the Government proposes to deal not with causes but with effects. It can get rid of communism only by getting rid of the conditions that produce Communists. That fact has been demonstrated in the international sphere. In China hundreds of thousands of troops were employed to back up Chiang Kai-shek, who is merely a playboy of the west, and has no real support in China except that which he can gain under a nepotistical regime. I have emphasized that fact on many previous occasions in this chamber. I have pointed out that Chiang Kai-shek had no real support among the Chinese people, and that in helping him the western powers were backing the wrong horse. If the Government believes that it can solve the problem of communism, by dealing with effects while, at the same time, ignoring causes it will find that its last position will be worse than the first. The only solution of the coal problem is to nationalize the coal mines, and to give the coalminers a better “ go “. The miners must be given better houses and recreational facilities. To-day, many miners are obliged to live in novels. If the Government adopts that policy, the coal-miners will realize that they are, in fact, citizens of this country. I thank honorable senators for the attentive way in which they have listened to my remarks, and I trust that some of the suggestions that I have made are worthy of consideration. I hope that the Government will really do something to restore purchasing power to the £1, because the great mass of the people are suffering severely under rising costs. The Government, from its own point of view, must tackle this problem effectively. Therefore, I say to honorable senators opposite in the words of the biblical injunction -
Choose you this day whom ye will serve.
– I congratulate His Excellency upon the manner in which he delivered his Speech at the opening of the Nineteenth Parliament. His reading of it was an improvement upon what we have heard on similar occasions in the past. I trust that when His Excellency’s present term of office expires he will be reappointed. He has shown that he is a capable occupant of his high position, and we are not likely to find a better man to succeed him. Some people have an idea that only persons from England should be appointed to vice-regal office in this country, but our last experience of an importation should be sufficient to make us prefer a local appointee. The majority of Australians prefer to have as Governor-General an Australian who has a knowledge of our way of life and is imbued with Australian sentiments.
The Governor-General’s Speech was very much like the proverbial curate’s egg. When a curate was being entertained at breakfast, his host, noticing that he was ill at ease, asked him, “Is your egg all right ? “, and the curate replied, “It is good in parts”. None of us would appreciate an egg of that kind; but I have about as much regard for the Governor-General’s Speech as I should have for that egg. The Opposition will support any sound proposal that the Government brings before ‘the Parliament, but we shall reject any proposal that we consider to be unsound. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), when speaking in this debate, said that if the Opposition, which has a majority in the Senate, rejects any measure that the Government introduces, the Government will have no alternative but to seek a double dissolution. The Opposition will not mind in the least if the Government takes that action, because we believe that if another general election were held we should win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. Many people who voted for Government candidates at the last election are now sorry that they did so. In addition, I should think that the Government would not desire to bring about a double dissolu tion because under the proportional representation system of election of honorable senators, we could be almost certain that at such an election, an equal number of Government and Opposition senators would be returned. In those circumstances, the Government, after one of its supporters had been chosen as President, would be in a minority in this chamber. I do not think that the Government would take such a risk. Prior to the recent general election I was absolutely certain that the Chifley Government would be returned with a substantial majority. That appeared to me to be more certain than any race-course certainty that I have ever heard of, and had there been any offers I would have been quite willing to have a few bets on the outcome. The record of the Chifley Government should have been sufficient to convince the people of the desirability of voting Labour. Similarly, the bad record of the previous Administration led by Mr. Menzies should have been sufficient to make the people determine never again to vote for a party of which that right honorable gentleman was the leader. A former South African journalist, writing in this country, said that the Chifley Government certainly deserved to win the election. He made a similar statement about the Smuts, Government in South Africa. I ascribe the victory of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party at the general election to their bribery of the Australian people through the press. Their- offer to provide unlimited supplies of petrol and to introduce child endowment payments for the first child of each family, gained them large numbers of votes. Labour of course had the press against it every day. There is a need for legislation to compel the press of this country to be fair politically, and to give both sides of polities an equal opportunity to state their views. We know, however, that Australian newspapers are controlled largely .b3 wealthy companies, the directors of which are big businessmen. Editors and journalists, regardless of their own political convictions, must write according to the instructions of the directors. I have quoted in this chamber before Lord Baldwin’s description of the press - “ the harlot of the world “. Since then,
I have come across a definition given by Pitt, another British Prime Minister. He said -
The press is like the air - a chartered libertine.
All good democrats have every reason to believe that that is quite true. Members of the Liberal party should call themselves “ conservatives “, because in no sense are they liberal. Labour stands for the interest of the workers and producers ; in my opinion, the Liberal party and the Australian Country party stand for the interests of big business. After all, it is big business that provides their party funds, particularly at election time. The expenditure of this money on propaganda can considerably influence an election. The parties forming the Government obtain contributions to their funds by methods that even Ned Kelly would envy. They blackmail big business houses into making “ donations “. I once heard two business partners talking about this matter. They had received a letter from the LiberalCountry League in Adelaide stating that their contributions to the league’s funds had been fixed at £100. One partner who had slight Labour leanings was opposed to donating the money, but the other said that, although he did not like the proposal, unless the money was paid they would lose considerable trade from the big business houses. The contribution was made. Surely that is nothing less than blackmail. Of course, contributions made to party funds by big businesses are amply repaid when antiLabour governments are in office. The banks will certainly get their money back very quickly. I understand that, in the House of Representatives later to-day, legislation to amend the Commonwealth Bank Act of 1945 by reconstituting the Bank Board, will be introduced. The passage of that measure by this Parliament would mean that the banks would receive a refund of their election contributions, with interest; but the measure is doomed. It is certain that every Labour man will vote against it. “ There is no chance of the bill being passed.
We are informed that the Government intends to take action against the Communist party. In my opinion, the Liberal party and the Australian Country paTty are a much greater menace to Australia than is the Communist party. They have substantial funds at their disposal and they do not hesitate to use them. The Communists of to-day, of course, are by no means true Communists within the strict meaning of the word. Similarly, members of the Liberal and Australian Country parties could better be described as atheists. I do not mean that they are professed atheists, but everything that they do is against the teachings of Jesus Christ, Who was the greatest socialist that the world has ever known. True communism would be a perfect state of society, in which everybody would work for the common good and share the wealth of the community. That system was practised in the early days of Christianity, but the present-day Communists are not people of that type. They have done great evil in the community by fomenting strikes, although, admittedly, social conditions under anti-Labour governments have been such that men and women have been forced to strike for their rights. During the election campaign a Liberal party advertisement that appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser, stated that Liberalism insisted upon individual liberty. If that is so, the Government can hardly justify its proposal to suppress the Communist party.
No mention was made in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech of action to control monopolies, trusts, combines, and other similar associations, yet there is a much greater need to curb the activities of these organizations than to suppress the Communist party. . The definition of a cartel contained in Webster’s dictionary is -
A combination of separate firms to maintain prices above a competitive figure.
There are many such bodies in the community to-day. I have a particular knowledge of the timber industry, with which I have been associated all my life. There is in Adelaide an association of timber merchants. One timber merchant by whom I was employed for some years left that association, but was forced out of business because of his action. It was easy to force a competitor out of the timber business at that time. In Adelaide, the importing of timber was carried out by one indenter on behalf of six or seven firms. That meant that timber could be imported every three or four months instead of perhaps once a year by individual timber merchants, thus saving a considerable outlay. At that time I was employed by Malcolm Reid and Company. When Mr. Reid resigned from the association the other merchants went to the indenter and told him that if he sold timber to Malcolm Reid and Company he would lose their business. The indenter had no option but to refuse to deal with that company. I understand also, that members of the association brought some pressure to bear on Reid’s banker to force him out of business. Malcolm Reid’s resignation from the association followed his decision to fix his prices independently. Honorable senators opposite tell us that they believe in private enterprise. Surely that is not the private enterprise of which they speak? Shortly after the incident to which I have referred, a free lance timber merchant, Fred Tietzel, was also forced out of business because of pressure brought to bear upon his banker by the other merchants. In more recent years, the Lion Timber Mills was forced to close down. That was another example of the power of the press. The Adelaide Advertiser wanted the block of land on which the mills were situated. The property was valued at £12,000 by a couple of Adelaide land valuers, but the Advertiser, because of its influence, was able to force the sale at £6,000. To-day, an independent firm is importing timber and selling it much cheaper than are the associated merchants. In fact, its price is sometimes as much as 40s. a hundred super, feet cheaper. It is selling Oregon at 20s. a hundred super, feet less than its competitors. The firm has branches in all States. These timber cartels probably have counterparts in many other industries. At one time, when members of the association tendered for government contracts, they all quoted the same prices, and of course those prices were by no means low. That simply meant that all the merchants shared in the contracts. Later they resorted to the device of quoting different prices for different kinds of timber. Naturally the lowest tenderer received the contract, but in the end the business was always split up amongst all members of the association. Surely it will not be argued that was legitimate business. Government action should be taken to prevent cartels from forcing independent traders out of business and so eliminating competition.
A dictionary definition of “ liberal “ is -
Inclined to democratic or republican ideas, as opposed to monarchist or aristocratic as in politics - one who is opposed to conservatism.
That certainly does not describe our Liberals. They are absolutely conservatives, and should be known by that name. I regard socialism as a sound policy.
– Then the honorable senator should describe himself as a socialist.
– I should be content to call myself a socialist if Government supporters would call themselves conservatives.
– -We are not conservatives.
– Honorable senators opposite are certainly not Liberals according to the dictionary definition of the word, or in the light of our knowledge of them. Some years ago when a Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain introduced a measure into the House of Commons a member of the Labour party told him that what the measure envisaged was socialism, and he replied, “ We are all socialists now “. That is, to some degree, true. Liberal party and Country party governments often undertake socialistic activities. I refer, for example, to the nationalized electricity undertakings and the Leigh Creek coalfield in South Australia. Almost every municipal and district council in Australia is controlled by members of the anti-Labour parties, but those bodies have undertaken much work that can be described as socialistic. Further examples of socialistic enterprises are railways, tramways, water supply, sewerage, schools, post offices, telegraph and telephone services, hospitals, courts of law, police, customs, wharfs, taxation, and the Commonwealth Bank. No honorable senator opposite desires that such enterprises, with the exception of the Commonwealth Bank, should be controlled by private enterprise. The Commonwealth
Bank lias been an outstanding success. It has made profits and has been of great value to the Austraiian people. If it were again controlled by a board and economic conditions became difficult, many farmers and other persons would become insolvent, just as they did in the past when the conduct of its affairs was in the hands of a board. Some years ago I met a man as he was coming out of a private bank in Adelaide, ite had £500 on fixed deposit at that bank, and he wanted an overdraft of £200 so that he could finish the construction of a house. Although he was a highly reputable builder, the bank refused to give him the overdraft that he required. I took him to the Commonwealth Bank, and he had no difficulty at all in obtaining an overdraft there, although the Commonwealth Bank did not have the security of £500 on fixed deposit. I do not know whether the bank was influenced by the good testimonial that I gave him. We all like socials and sociability, and socialism comes from the same source. If the Government engages in industrial enterprises, it can obtain the services of better men than private enterprise can get, even if it has to pay them more money than private enterprise is prepared to pay. It is very likely that a government would pay its employees higher rates than private enterprise would pay, because private organizations will not give their employees a single penny more than they are forced to give them.
The following extract from a newspaper may be of interest to .the Senate : -
page 851
Toby Manifesto Silent on Nationalized Coal, Railways, and Bank of England.
Notwithstanding all the poppycock about the anti-Sosh manifesto of the British Conservative party in reply to Labour’s election manifesto, Mr. Churchill has endorsed Mr. Attlee’s socialistic policy on public control of the Bank of England, the railways, the coalminers and the free doctors, free nurses, and free chemists scheme sanctioned by the British Medical Association (the parent body) in England.
If the Government takes action against the Communists, it must, to be consistent, also take action against the British
Medical Association for having refused to comply with a law passed by the Commonwealth Parliament.
– I do not know to what degree the law was declared to be invalid.
– Only one section of the act was declared to be invalid.
– The people of Great Britain have accepted the health scheme of the Attlee Government. I have gathered from reports that I have received from time to time that neither the doctors nor the chemists nor any other body of practitioners desires that the scheme should be abandoned.
The Government has threatened to take action against the trade unions of this country. If it does so, the legislation will be opposed violently. There is, of course, no chance that the legislation will be passed, but it may have a beneficial effect in that it will cause the workers to take a greater interest in the Labour party and ensure that those of them who voted for Liberal party and Australian Country party candidates at the last general election will not do so again.
It is extraordinary that the Australian Country party has associated with the Liberal party. All the big merchants of this country support the Liberal party and contribute to its funds. The merchants have always bought from the primary producers at the lowest possible prices and have always charged producers high prices for machinery and levied a high rate of interest in respect of time payments. The interests of the merchants are entirely opposed to those’ of the primary producers. In those circumstances, it is extraordinary that the primary producers should ever have associated themselves with the Liberal party. It was probably due to the fact that some primary producers, or persons associated with them, discovered that they had no chance of being elected to the Parliament as Liberal party candidates and, therefore, they established the Australian Country party. Later there was a fusion which gave them a chance of election. The primary producers should support the Labour party and not the Liberal party.
The Labour party has always endeavoured to help them and deserves their support.
– I join with other honorable senators in complimenting the GovernorGeneral on the very dignified and efficient manner in which he presented to the Parliament the Speech in which the policy of this Government was outlined. It is good, as an Australian, to know that we have within our ranks men who are fitted to occupy the high office of Governor-General of this country. While we have men like His Excellency, I see no reason why we should ever go outside Australia to find loyal and competent men to represent His Majesty here, although it has been very pleasant to have members of the Royal Family and men of high social standing from Great Britain acting as GovernorGeneral of Australia.
I do not propose to lament the verdict that the people delivered on the 10th December of last year. The political parties submitted their cases, and the people made their choice. They must accept tho responsibility for the Government that they now have. Of course, I regret that .much of the work that we proposed to do for the benefit of Australia will probably have to remain in abeyance until the people decide that we have paid the penalty for our sins and again call upon us to govern. It is well to recall the circumstances in which Labour governments have been in office. Since federation, the Labour party has not had much opportunity to implement its policy in times of peace, but whenever the country has been in danger the party that has been called upon to direct its affairs has been the Labour party. Only twice in the history of the Commonwealth has the Labour party had a majority in both Houses of the Parliament. During those two periods the country was passing through major crises. I refer to World War I. and World War II. The circumstances in which the Labour party was called upon to accept the responsibility for the government of this country in World War II. are well-known. We were called upon to govern not because we had a majority in both Houses of Parliament or because of any policy that we had enunciated, but because the members of the Government that the people had elected had failed to work together in the interests of the nation. Labour Governments were in office for eight of the most strenuous years in the history of Australia. They marshalled the forces of this country in a way that no other government had done before and ensured a total war effort. The magnificent work of the Labour party in organizing our resources to prosecute a total war and eventually to bring peace to the world will occupy a prominent place in the pages of history. We were called upon not only to prosecute a total war effort, but also to attempt to give effect to two of the freedoms of the Atlantic Charter - freedom from fear and freedom from want. No other government in the world did so much in so little time to give effect to those two freedoms as did the Chifley Labour Government. Despite what happened on the 10th December last the legislation enacted by the Chifley Labour Government will reflect credit on the people of this country as long as we are a nation.
It was with deep regret that I heard an honorable senator on the Government side of the chamber declare that the United Kingdom Government, which we have always admired and looked up to, was a “ fellow traveller “ government. It is a crying shame that such a remark should have been made in this chamber. I have carefully perused a printed copy of His Excellency’s Speech, in the first portion of which reference is made to two major problems that call for the utmost cooperation between the British Government and the Australian Government Could we repose our destinies in the hands of a government that we honestly believed to be a “ fellow traveller “ government, accepting that term to mean a government that is in direct sympathy with the Communist party or the Stalin Government? As long as my association with the Senate continues I hope that I shall not again hear an utterance in this chamber that reflects so discreditably upon the British Government. Just as the Australian Government has been elected by the people of Australia, and should, therefore, command their greatest respect and esteem, so Australia should extend similar courtesy to the elected Government of Great Britain. In common with the people of Great Britain we have done a magnificent job to ensure that democracy, as we know it, shall survive. As honorable senators know the British people are still struggling to recover from the horrors of World War II. When Labour was in office it did everything possible to assist the British Government to surmount its post-war difficulties. It co-operated fully in matters of food supply and finance, in order to assist the British people in their hours of need. I sincerely trust that the present Government will follow the excellent lead of its predecessor by co-operating whole-heartedly with Great Britain, irrespective of whether a Labour or Conservative government is in power in that country. We must remember at all times that we are a component of the British Commonwealth of Nations. As such we should extend every assistance to the United Kingdom Government, irrespective of who may be Prime Minister of Great Britain for the time being.
After carefully perusing a printed copy of His Excellency’s Speech, I take this opportunity to say that my sympathies go out to the present Government, because I am convinced that it will have some severe headaches long before its three-year term expires. At this stage nobody knows whether the Government will remain in office for that length of time. The anti-Labour parties made many promises to the people during the election campaign, which the people expect them to fulfil. It is completely dishonest for any political party to make promises that it cannot honour.
During the regime of the Labour Government, huge financial reserves were set aside, to be used not wastefully, but for the purpose of carrying the people of this country through periods of recession. We must realize that the high prices that we are at present receiving abroad for our primary produce will not last indefinitely. However, whatever may happen in this or any other country, we cannot shelve our responsibility in the matter of rehabilitation. I emphasize that Labour built up colossal financial reserves for the purpose of financing important national works during any recessional periods, in order to provide employment for our people and so cushion the blow. I therefore hope that the new Government will not use those reserves merely for the purpose of handing out doles here and there and that it will continue to improve the condition of the fund already in existence. I assure honorable senators opposite that I shall wholeheartedly support its efforts in that direction, but that if it becomes apparent to me that the Government’s power is not being used in the best interests of the great masses of the people of this country, I shall oppose it with all the force at my command.
I was very sorry to hear the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) say that the matter of ex-servicemen’s pensions had been referred to a Cabinet subcommittee. Long .before the recent general election, meetings were convened by the Returned Servicemen’s League in South Australia, and representatives of both sides of the Australian Parliament were invited to address them about exservicemen’s pensions. Pre-selected candidates, also, were invited. That was the first time during my long association with the Returned Servicemen’s League that it has convened public meetings for the purpose of ventilating grievances about war pensions. At every such meeting that I attended, representatives of both Liberal and Country parties strongly advocated the reference of the matter of war pensions to an all-party committee. The present scale of pensions was adopted following a recommendation by an allparty committee during the regime of the Curtin Labour Government. Therefore, I consider that this matter should not become the football of party politics. It should be referred to an all-party committee, and there should be no quarrel about the scale of pensions for exservicemen. Although no increase of the rates of war pensions occurred between the termination of World War I. and 1940, I cannot recall any public protest by any section of the Returned Servicemen’s League about pension rates during that period. No increase of pension rates was received until the all-party committee to which I have referred reviewed the scale of war pensions and established the present basis. Since then adjustments have been made to the rates of exservicemen’s pensions every time that other pensions have been increased.
– Although the rates in certain sections have been increased, the general rate has not been increased.
– I do not know what the Minister for Repatriation means, because the pensions scale is divided into sections. A man does not have to be 100 per cent, incapacitated in order to receive the maximum pension. No doubt if the Minister were to refer to some of the files in his department he would learn that 90 per cent, of persons in receipt of pensions for 100 per cent, incapacity are also receiving full weekly wages.
– The average is 35 per cent, in the case of 100 per cent, incapacity pensions.
Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.
-When the Curtin Government was in power, soldier pensions were referred to an all-party committee. To my mind that was a proper thing to do, because all parties shared in the consideration of a fair and adequate pension to pay the soldiers for the services they had rendered during the war, and when the bill came before the Parliament all parties were in agreement on it. In recent years there has been a strong agitation for a substantial increase of the 100 per cent, base pensions. Since the recommendation of the all-party committee, that base pension has been increased from £2 2s. to £2 15s. a week, with consequent increases to the dependants of the soldier on the base pension. But that base pension did not apply to a permanently or a temporarily totally incapacitated soldier. Immediately a soldier under the permanent incapacity base pension of £2 15s. became so incapacitated that he was unable to work, he was placed on the temporarily totally incapacitated pension, which provided £5 12s. a week for him, with subsequent increases for his wife and children. This brought his actual pension to £7, £8 or £9 a week, according to the number of children he had. I should have been happy to see this subject referred back to an all-party committee, because 1, for one, do not know what measuringrod the all-party committee used when it arrived at its original recommendation to the Curtin Government. I still do not know, and I think that honorable senators should be informed, by what measuringrod the original committee arrived at the pension rate that was finally adopted. I had hoped that if any further review was to be made in this direction, it would be made by an all-party committee. The Minister for Repatriation was a strong advocate of that procedure when he was in opposition. I am rather surprised that he did not insist that this matter should be kept free from party politics and referred back to an all-party committee now that he is the Minister controlling that department.
The question of war gratuities also was referred to an all-party committee, and recommendations were made for gratuitous payments to be made” to servicemen who served in the. second world war. I trust that these questions of pensions in future will be referred to committees of that description, so that honorable members in both the Houses of Parliament will be united in their efforts to do something tangible for the servicemen. It might be asked why the Labour Government did not refer this question back to an all-party committee. The base pension at the time had been increased from £2 2s. to £2 15s. a week in proportion to other pensions. The Labour party considered that the time was not opportune for the question to be referred back to an all-party committee. It might have been wrong in that judgment and honorable members now on the Government bench might have been right. It might have been high time the whole question of soldier pensions should be reviewed. 1 believe that it is most regrettable that questions of that kind were not referred to the committee which originally made the recommendation for the scale of pensions. Throughout the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, and in my State particularly, the soldiers complain that their pensions are not in line with the basic wage. I honestly do not believe that the all-party committee ever took the basic wage into consideration when making the recommendation on soldier pensions, because the two things are not in line. The incapacitated pension is given because of some permanent injury that the soldier lias received, but not necessarily an injury that will leave him permanently incapacitated. In the greatest number of cases the soldier is still able to earn the full weekly wage at his usual occupation. Of course, the basic wage is designed to take carp of the normal needs of a man, his wife and children. It has to provide for the education of the children and for their general maintenance and upkeep, whereas in respect of soldier pensions other provision is most generously made under the repatriation scheme for the welfare of the soldier pensioners. I hope that the Government will make a recommendation in respect of soldier pensions that will be satisfactory to all parties.
I shall now refer to the subject of compulsory military training which was mentioned in the Governor-General’s Speech. When one honorable senator on this side of the House referred to the proposal as compulsory military training Hip Minister for Repatriation interjected, “ No, not compulsory military training; universal military training “. I ask the Minister to tell the Senate just what is the difference between compulsory military training and universal military training. I understand that the object of this proposal is to strengthen the armed forces of this country by putting the youth of the nation through some form of military training whether they want it or not. If they do not want it, I am inclined to think they will be compelled under this measure to undergo training, except perhaps if their occupations preclude their release. If that is not compulsory training I ask the Minister for Repatriation to explain what is meant by universal military training.
The Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator McLeay), said that since the Government had abolished petrol rationing he wa9 in the happy position of being able to inform the Senate that the Governin ent had been able to dispense with many hundreds of employees of the Liquid Fuel Control Board. The perm a nen t employees of the Government in the employ of the board were placed in other employment, but 500 temporary employees were thrown on the labour market to seek employment wherever they could find it. Quite a number of those engaged by the Liquid Fuel Control Board as temporary employees were returned soldiers who had given years of service in the defence of this country. Because of certain war disabilities they had sought employment of a lighter nature than that which they followed before tha war, and were given employment with the. Liquid Fuel Control Board, the Social Services Department and other government departments. According to the Minister those 500 nien are to be thrown back on the labour market to fend for themselves as best they can in whatever occupations may be available in industry. I venture to say that quite a number of those men would not be fit for employment in industry. It is rather ironical that after so much has been spent on the education of Australian youths to train them to university stage and so fit them for occupations in the employ of the Government away from the humdrum tasks of industry, they are thrown on their own resources to seek employment where they can find it. It is not much encouragement for returned soldiers to receive such treatment and I am surprised that the Minister for Shipping and Fuel should be so proud of the fact that he was able to throw 500 men out of work. I do not think that it is to the credit of the Government.
– The Minister did not say they were thrown out of work.
– -Wl at did he say? He said they had been released to find employment in other industries.
– There is plenty of employment.
– There is plenty of a kind which disabled soldiers cannot follow.
– There is plenty of clerical employment.
– If there is all the employment that the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) says there is, why did not the Government attempt to place those men in employment before throwing them on the scrap heap? That would have been a more graceful act on the Government’s part than displaying pride in the fact that it had released 500 men to fend for themselves. I am sorry that the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) is not here because I wanted to say something in regard to a statement he made. He said he was seeking the co-operation of the Labour party in respect of the measures announced in the Speech of the Governor-General. However, if that co-operation was not forthcoming there was_ the bogy cry, “ Look out - or else. Something is going to happen. We will go to the country and will tell the people you were not prepared to co-operate in these measures “. My reply is that although the Government has been able to bluff the people with bogies and to convince them that right was wrong, it will never be able to convince members on this side of the House that right is wrong. We shall use our own discretion about supporting or rejecting any measure that comes before this chamber. There is not one honorable senator on this side of the chamber who is not prepared to go to the country at any moment on a question of vital principle affecting the policy of the Australian Labour party.
– Many will go and few will return.
– The honorable senator who has just interjected is a new member of this chamber and has a lot to learn as well as a lot to fear. We on this side of the chamber do not intend to be frightened by any threat of a double dissolution. Honorable senators on the Government side can put that idea entirely out of their minds because the Opposition will call the tune and decide when that double dissolution will occur, and upon what issue.
– That is what the honorable senator thinks.
– We shall approve of measures that suit us and we shall not approve of measures that do not suit us. Because of the present state of party representation in this chamber we shall lose most in numbers at an election. However, under the system of proportional representation used for elections to this chamber the most that the Government parties can hope for is to be returned with the numbers on each side of the chamber equally divided. So we on this side of the chamber have no fear of what may happen if we reject any of the Government’s measures.
The Minister for Social Services made a most ironical statement. He said that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) was one of the greatest leaders he had ever had the pleasure of working with. Had that statement come from a senator from Victoria I could have understood its being made, but as the honorable senator who made it comes from New South Wales, I was astonished, because only a few months ago the Liberal party in that State refused the assistance of Mr. Menzies during a State by-election because he was “ a bad odour about the place “. I am also astonished at the Minister’s statement in view of the fact that that same great leader of whom he spoke had to relinquish the leadership of this country at a time when leadership was most needed, and made no secret of the fact that he was unable to carry on because his party no longer supported him. Yet, because he happened to lead honorable senators opposite back to take control of the treasury bench, it is a case of “ Good old Bob Menzies. We always said you had it in you “. And now to-day “ Bob “ Menzies is a greater leader than ever. There is no doubt that nothing succeeds like success. Twelve months ago honorable senators opposite would have thrown “ Bob “ Menzies to the wolves. As I have said, the Liberal party in New South Wales did not want his assistance during a by-election campaign because he would have helped them to lose it. We on this side of the House find it funny to watch the moves that are made in the game. To-day “ Bob “ Menzies is idolized. He has around him a coterie of young people who have a certain amount of ability, and “Bob” feels fairly safe for a while in spite of the fact that his party in New South Wales would have scrapped him and sent him about his business as the leader of the Liberal party. So when honorable senators opposite try to convince the people of this country what a great statesman-
– We convinced them at the last general election.
– Nothing of the kind. The people remember only too well what a great statesman he waa when he came back from Europe and eulogized the Germans for their great war machine! Shortly after that we had to fight that great war machine. They also remember that when he was placed in a position to organize this country for a 100 per cent, war effort his own party told him that it had no further use for him and he had to admit to the country that that was so. That is the man whom the Liberals are setting up to-day-
– At least he took his medicine without squealing about it.
– I am not squealing either. I find it rather humorous that a man can be thrown into the gutter, politically, and then picked out of it and idolized. It is very nice to know that now that he has succeeded in putting the anti-Labour parties back on to the Government benches and- has given their supporters a job in the Australian Parliament, they can now say, “Bob, you are not a bad fellow after all, and as long as you do not say too much we shall continue to support you “.
I turn now to some aspects of the Governor-General’s Speech. His Excellency made a reference to coal. Here again I shall show how great a leader “ Bob “ Menzies is, what a good chap he has been and how he has brought us out of our difficulties in the past. We are looking to him in the next three years to get us out of difficulties again. Why is this country short of coal reserves to-day, and why are we agreeing to pay millions of pounds in subsidies in respect of coal coming from other countries? In 1940, “ Bob “ Menzies was Prime Minister of this country, and like all Prime Ministers before and since, he had quite a lot of trouble with the coal-mining industry. “ Bob “ Menzies decided then, as George McLeay has decided now, to fight the coal-miners to the death. We had huge coal reserves in Australia in 1940, so “ Bob “ went out to fight the coal-miners.. True enough ! He fought them. He fought them to the ground. He fought them for ten weeks and the miners finally had to capitulate. But Australia’s coal roserves had disappeared. It was not long before we found that we had placed in the hands of the coal-miners of this country the strongest industrial weapon they had ever had. They made up their minds that never again would enough coal be placed at grass to enable any government to starve them back to employment after ten weeks of idleness. We have never recovered the coal reserves that we lost in 1940 at such a cost. To-day we have to import coal from other parts of the world at a cost of millions of pounds in subsidies because of the scrap “ Bob “ Menzies chose to have with the coal-miners in 1940. What have honorable senators- opposite to say about that?
– Honorable senators opposite had eight years in office in which to fix that up.
– We did not have much more success than anti-Labour governments previously had with the coal-miners, but we shall see just how far the Government can go towards correcting the position. But if the coal reserves that the Government intends to develop are for the purpose of putting up another fight to the death with the coal-miners then we think that the Government still has another fight coming. When I hear honorable senators opposite speak about the present Prime Minister being such a great leader I cannot help remembering the things that he has done and comparing them with the eulogies of honorable senators opposite.
– At least we do not say that he is an Abe Lincoln.
– I turn now to the Government’s proposed bill to deal with subversive organizations - that is, the Communists. Until that bill is presented to the Senate it is impossible for me to say exactly what the Government intends to do, but I sound a note of warning. Any person not associated with the industrial movement is only too apt to class anybody who shows any militancy in the industrial movement to-day as a Communist. The whole system of wages and conditions in Australia to-day has been built up by the agitation of militants within the industrial movement. First of all anti-Labour governments branded thom as I.W.W.’s and with other names*
Nevertheless, they were the fighters within the industrial movement of this country who strove for the betterment of the wages and conditions of the wage slaves. There are thousands of men in the industrial movement to-day who are just as strong militants -as their forefathers were, but they are not Communists. I am very much afraid that it is going to be very hard for those militants, if brought before a tribunal, to prove that they are not members of the Communist party. Under the legislation that the Government proposes to introduce to deal with subversive organizations these men would be subjected to inclusion among the people with whom the legislation was designed to deal. In a reply to an interjection on this very matter made by Senator Sheehan only recently, the Minister for .Shipping and Fuel (Senator McLeay) said, “ Tes, you look out, or we will have you, too “. It is all very fine for the Minister to laugh, but thousands of industrial workers fear that if they dare to display militancy, or agitate for a strike for the purpose of achieving their objectives, they will be branded as Communists and will be dealt with by this Government under the proposed legislation.
The one redeeming feature in the Governor-General’s Speech is the announcement that the Government intends to review the sales tax. That is a very fine intention, and legislation introduced to give effect to it will have some effect in reducing the cost of living in this country. As a reduction of the sales tax will mean lower prices for products purchased by householders anything that we can do to reduce indirect taxes must mean a reduction in the cost of living and will help the Government to put value back into the £1. I hope the reduction of the sales tax will not have the results that it had before, in one instance that I recall. Under the sales tax legislation at one time pies, pasties, buns ‘and cookies, which are usually bought by workmen in factories and by schoolboys for their lunch were subject to id. tax. At that time a measure for the reduction of sales tax was before the Parliament, but the pie and the pasty were not included among the articles on which it was to be reduced. I advocated strongly that when a review of the sales tax was made it should be removed from pies and pasties, and finally I succeeded in getting the Government to agree to remove it. So I went back and told the workers in my electorate that they would in future be able to get a pie or pasty for 3d. But immediately the sales tax of id. was removed the prices control authorities allowed the manufacturers to increase the price by id., and so the workmen did not receive any benefit at all. However, I believe that a reduction of the sales tax, particularly on items that are used in every household, will be very effective in making the articles cheaper in cases in which nobody can say with any justification that the prices of these articles should be increased. Unfortunately, however, under the old vicious system that still operates in this country, immediately an increase of the basic wage is granted to the workers the cost of production is automatically increased, and the community is obliged to pay correspondingly high prices for commodities. The result is that the worker is deprived of most, if not all, of the advantage of any increase of the basic wage. had intended to say something about the provision of endowment for the first child under sixteen in a family, but, as a bill dealing with that proposal has already been introduced, I shall postpone my remarks on that subject until that measure comes under our consideration.
I say to the Government that the Opposition will not oppose any measure that it believes to be sound and of benefit to the people. We shall examine the Government’s motives in respect of all measures that it introduces, and make our decision in the light of their effect upon the welfare of the masses. Should any measure he at variance with the principles of tin’ Labour party we shall use our best endeavours to have it amended in accordance with our platform. T trust that the Government will do its best to legislate in the interest of all sections of the community. However, in view of falling prices for our primary products, including wheat, and, perhaps wool, the Government will have a hard row to hoe if it is to fulfil all the promises that its candidates made at the recent general election. They promised to reduce taxes and, at the same time, increase social service benefits.
The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot reduce taxes and, at the same time, increase its expenditure, because, sooner or later, we would reach the stage when our small population of S,000,000 people could no longer carry the burden. I am certain that if the Government honours its election promise to provide millions of pounds in the form of price stabilization subsidies it will have no alternative but to increase taxes. I repeat that the Opposition will scrutinize every measure that the Government introduces and then determine its attitude towards such legislation. At the same time, we shall not be intimidated by any threat that the Government may make about the possibility of a double dissolution.
– With other honorable senators, I express regret that Their Majesties the King and Queen and the Princess Margaret were not able to visit Australia during 1949. I happened to be in London in October, 1948, as a member of the Empire parliamentary delegation when the Royal Family gave a. reception to that delegation. That happened to be the last public appearance of His Majesty before his illness. At that time he was showing signs of his affliction and I formed the opinion that5 it was most improbable that he would be able to visit Australia during the following year. All of us are now pleased to learn from the Governor-General’s Speech that Their Majesties hope to visit this country in 1952. I have no doubt that if they do so, they will be warmly welcomed by the Australian people.
The Governor-General’s Speech sets out the various proposals to which the Government intends to give legislative effect during the next three years. It is a most comprehensive document, and the many matters to which it refers include proposals in respect of national development, the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme, increased production of coal and iron and basic commodities, communism, our overseas funds, dollar deficits, petrol, banking and repatriation. At this juncture, I shall reply to certain remarks that were made by Senator Finlay regarding repatriation. He asked why the Government had declined to refer ita proposed legislation to an all-party committee of ex-servicemen. The Government was convinced of the necessity to deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible. In accordance with the promise that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) made in his policy speech at the recent general election it appointed a Cabinet subcommittee consisting of ex-servicemen to deal with the subject. That action was taken at the first meeting of the new Cabinet, and the sub-committee has already made considerable progress. In following that course the Government was also influenced by the fact that the various exservicemen’s organizations had already submitted to the Repatriation Commission and to members of the Parliament their recommendations regarding amendments that should be made relating to pensions and allowances generally. .Thus, the sub-committee had available to it considerable material on which to proceed with its investigation.
Senator Finlay has always evinced a keen interest in repatriation matters, and, indeed, in all matters affecting the welfare of ex-service personnel. .He and I were members of the all-party committee that was set up to advise the Curtin Government with respect to the gratuity to be paid to ex-service personnel of the recent war and to review our repatriation legislation generally. I admit that on many occasions when I was in Opposition I advocated that that committee should be reconstituted to review that legislation. However, at that time I had not the knowledge that has since been made available to the Government on these matters. I repeat that the Cabinet sub-committee has its work well in hand; and I hope in the near future to bring in a bill that will embody its recommendations.
– What measuring Tod does the Government propose to use to adjust repatriation pensions to presentday costs?
– We shall be obliged to rely upon the cost of living figures and the basic wage at the relevant periods. I agree that it has never been the desire of ex-servicemen’s organizations to relate repatriation benefits and allowances directly to the basic wage. However, we must have some measuring rod as a means of adjusting those benefits and allowances to the cost of living. I have given considerable thought to this matter. My advisers have not been able to evolve any basis of adjustment except the cost of living figures and the basic wage at the relevant periods. Although I hope that repatriation benefits and pensions will never be related arbitrarily to the cost of living and the basic wage, at the same time it will be admitted that those two factors must be taken into account in assessing the money value of the compensation provided in the form of such benefits and allowances. If the cost of living has increased since the present rates of repatriation benefits and allowances were fixed, those rates must be increased accordingly. Virtually, that was the measuring rod used by the all-party committee that was set up in 1943, and to some degree it is’ being used by the cabinet sub-committee that has just been appointed to deal with this subject.
Of all our primary products wool is our greatest income earner. The Government realizes that present prices for wool are abnormally high. Indeed, I should say that they are fantastic. They are certainly far higher than anybody ever expected would be recorded in the history of this country. However, the Government realizes that periods of depressed prices occur as well as periods of high prices. If possible, some scheme will be introduced which, although perhaps not stabilizing the industry entirely, will cushion any sudden fall in overseas prices. The Government believes that, by introducing such a scheme, it would be rendering a service not only to the wool-growers but also to the people of Australia generally, by adding to the stability of our economy. Discussions are already taking place in London between representatives of the wool producing dominions, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, and the United Kingdom with a view to carrying on the work of the existing joint organization so that the organized marketing of wool may be continued.
The composition of the ‘Senate has altered considerably since the Eighteenth Parliament ended. First the membership of the Senate has been increased from 36 to 60. Secondly, the political parties that now form the Government are much more adequately represented than they were previously. As most honorable senators are aware, until the recent general election, the Liberal and Australian Country parties had only three members in this chamber. Our representation has increased by approximately 800 per cent. This debate has shown that new senators on both sides of the chamber include many able speakers whose presence here will be a definite asset to their parties. I look forward to many interesting debates in the future. Labour was indeed fortunate to retain its majority in the Senate. That was accomplished of course by the abandonment of the preferential system of voting in favour of proportional representation. Had the old system been continued, the Government parties would have gained probably seven seats in each of five States making their total strength in this chamber 3§. If we had won in only four States, we should still have had a majority of 31 to 29, When the legislation altering the Senate voting system was under consideration in this chamber, I stated that its sole purpose was to ensure that the Labour party, even though unsuccessful in the House of Representatives at the ensuing election, would have a majority in the Senate. I accused the Government of having introduced the newsystem for that purpose, and I adhere to that charge. Clearly, at that time, honorable senators opposite knew in their hearts that they were facing certain defeat. However, Labour’s Senate majority will not influence the Government to alter its legislative programme in any way.
Although only three months have elapsed since the 10th December, the Government has not been letting the grass grow under its feet. It has already started upon its legislative programme. Last night legislation was introduced in this chamber to extend child endowment to the first child in each family. I understand that other most important legislation is now being introduced in the House of Representatives ; but probably I should be called to order if I were to mention the character of that measure. I ask you, Mr. President, whether that is so?
– No. Speaking to the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, honorable senators may traverse a wide field. They may travel to Dan to Beersheba.
– A bill to amend the Commonwealth Bank Act of 1945 is now before the House of Representatives. That measure, and the child endowment measure, are important parts of the Government’s legislative programme. I have already stated that a special sub.committee of Cabinet has been appointed to review repatriation pensions and allowances. That committee is now at work and legislation based upon its recommendations will be introduced at an early date.
During the election campaign, the antiLabour paries promised to end petrol rationing. That was done five or six weeks ago and, as far as I am aware, everything is proceeding smoothly. The fears expressed by honorable senators opposite have failed to materialize. Clearly the lifting of petrol rationing has not caused the tremendous upheaval that they forecast. Some Opposition speakers have said that the Chifley Government could have ended petrol rationing many months ago, but that such action would have prejudiced the economy of the United Kingdom. I firmly believe that rationing could have been ended six months ago without any serious repercussions. When the High Court declared petrol rationing to be invalid in June of last year, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) and the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) stated repeatedly that there would be no petrol in the bowsers by Christmas time. Those statements stampeded motorists into heavy buying of petrol which many of them still have in store.
– With the assistance of the oil companies.
– Including Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, which is a Government company. I pointed out at the time that the manager of that company had sent to all its branches throughout Australia a telegram urging an intensive selling campaign. However, had the then Prime Minister and the Minister for Shipping and Fuel not continued their gloomy predictions, there would not have been any need for the re-introduction of petrol rationing. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber are as much concerned as are Opposition members about the welfare of the British people. Tb” claim that the abolition of petrol rationing would harm the British economy was wrong and misleading. The methods by which we propose to assist the United Kingdom may prove to be more effective than the action of the Chifley Government in forcing petrol rationing upon this country, with a problematical saving of dollars to the United Kingdom. This country depends largely upon motor transport, and our primary producers must be able to secure adequate supplies of petrol. Modern methods of farming and transport entail the use of large quantities of petrol. Australia is a country of great distances, and most of our primary products have to be transported at least a part of the way from the farms to their destinations by motor transport. We are endeavouring to supply, not only Great Britain, but also, other countries of the world with food, and it is essential that we should have adequate supplies of petrol so that we may achieve the greatest possible production of food. Our primary industries must not be hampered by a shortage of petrol. . This Government, in its wisdom, decided to honour its election promise to abolish petrol rationing. Petrol has been unrationed for approximately six weeks, but there is no evidence that transport or industry has been dislocated by a lack of petrol. I understand that our reserve stocks have increased and not decreased since then.
– At the expense of the United Kingdom.
– I should like Senator Large to produce evidence in support of his statement, if he can do so. I do not know whether he was present in the chamber when I said that the members of this Government are as anxious to assist in maintaining the stability of the economy of the
United Kingdom as are honorable senators opposite. We think that it would be better to assist the United Kingdom by purchasing more of the goods that it produces and by supplying it with more of the food that we produce. If we are to produce more food, we must have adequate supplies of petrol. We are purchasing from Britain large unmbers of motor lorries, motor cars, tractors and petrol engines.
– And expending dollars upon petrol.
– It has been said that all petrol has a dollar content, but neither Mr. Chifley nor the officers of the Bank of England have been able to assess the dollar content of sterling petrol. However, I am prepared to admit that sterling petrol has some dollar content. We are helping Great Britain by purchasing from it the motor vehicles and tractors that we need, but it would be useless to purchase them if we did not have the petrol with which to operate them.
– From where is the Government getting the petrol?
– If the honorable senator has read the newspapers, he will know that at the present time a tanker is discharging a cargo of French petrol.
– How much is the Government paying for it?
– That question should be addressed to the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Mcleay).
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - It would be better if the Minister did not reply to interjections.
– I know that honorable senators opposite are displeased because the Government has abolished petrol rationing. They had the wool pulled over their eyes in regard to petrol. This Government has proved that petrol rationing can be abolished, and that its abolition will be to the benefit of Australia and of the United Kingdom. We are as anxious to assist the United Kingdom as are honorable senators opposite, but we believe that we can do that country a greater service by taking its goods, thus keeping its people employed, than we could by making a gift to it of a sum of money and then saying, “ We have made you a gift of money and now you must battle on as best you can “. We believe that it is better to increase our exports of food to Great Britain and at the same time to purchase more of the goods that it manufactures.
Although it is probable that petrol rationing played a major part in the last general election campaign, it was not the only factor that caused the defeat of the Chifley Government. Many factors contributed to that defeat.
– The honorable senator should not forget the press.
– I direct the attention of Senator Large to the fact that during the life of the last Parliament the Opposition in the Senate, although small in number, repeatedly warned the members of the Government that after the election they would be on the other side of the chamber. Honorable senators opposite did not believe us, but the forecast was proved to be correct. One of the factors that contributed to the defeat of the Chifley Government was that it consistently followed a policy of appeasement in connexion with industrial disturbances. Those industrial disturbances culminated in the great coal strike of last year when that Government was forced to deal with the miners firmly. Until then it had refused to take firm steps to prevent industrial disturbances. On many occasions members of the Opposition in the House of Representatives warned the Chifley Government that it would involve itself in trouble if it continued to allow the individuals who were fomenting industrial disputes to escape scot free or with only a warning.
– There are some industrial disputes in progress now, are there not?
– That is so. We have inherited a legacy from the Chifley Government. We have been in office for only three months, and it is impossible to solve the industrial problems that we have inherited in so short a time as that. The Government has already introduced two measures into the Parliament. A measure designed to prevent industrial upheavals will be presented in the near future, and honorable senators opposite vill have an opportunity to discuss it. If they are sincere in their statements that they desire industrial peace in this country they will help the Government to pass that legislation through the Parliament.
A new strike technique has been evolved. There is no doubt that the persons who are responsible for the industrial up heavals from which we have suffered and are still suffering are playing a very clever game. They have introduced to the waterfront what they have termed the rolling strike.
– What is a rolling strike? I do not know anything about it. Will the Minister explain what it is?
– Senator Large has been a trade unionist and a member of the Labour party for a very long time. If he does not know the technique of strikes and the different methods of organizing strikes, I am afraid I cannot enlighten him.
– Then the Minister does not understand it?
– -I do understand it. The rolling strike is now in progress on the Queensland waterfront. It rolls along day by day. The waterside workers work for a day and stop for two days. The rolling strike starts at Brisbane and then goes to Mackay, to Bowen and on to Townsville. It rolls up the coast and it rolls back again. As a result of the rolling strike, thousands of tons of cargo are waiting to be unloaded from the holds of ships or are lying on the wharfs waiting to be sent from this country to other countries. The position that has arisen must be rectified -very quickly, because the Queensland waterfront is now stagnating.
– What does the Minister suggest should be done?
– Senator Cameron could assist the Government by helping it to pass through the Senate the legislation that it proposes to introduce. The Prime Minister stated in his policy speech that if the Liberal party and the Australian Country party were returned to office they would introduce legislation to provide that strikes should not be called by trade unions before the members of the unions had expressed their opinion upon them at secret ballots, and that the election of the officers of trade unions should also be by secret ballot. Honorable senators opposite have said that such ballots would not be democratic, but I cannot understand why they have said that. In my opinion, it would be far better to decide by a secret ballot whether a strike should be called than to have the basher gang tactics that are now being indulged in. I remember when a secret ballot was held to decide which honorable senators should be appointed to the positions of President of the Senate and of Chairman of Committees. The Labour party was successful in each instance. On that occasion honorable senators opposite approved of a secret ballot. If it is proper to have a secret ballot for the election of the President and the Chairman of Committees in this august chamber, surely a similar system could well be applied to the election of officers of trade unions and to the taking of strike decisions.
– If a secret ballot had been conducted by the members of this Government, the Minister might well have been the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
– Would the Minister oppose a strike by a trade union if the members of the union decided to stop work after holding a secret ballot?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - I suggested to the Minister just now that it would be better if he did not reply to interjections but made his speech in his own way. There are too many interjections.
– Honorable senators opposite have declared during this debate that the present prosperity of this country is not likely to continue indefinitely. Only this afternoon a New South Wales senator claimed persistently that the prices being obtained abroad for our wool and wheat would not always remain at their present high level. That is precisely what honorable senators on the Government side of the chamber contended repeatedly when sitting in Opposition last year. Australia’s present prosperity is built upon money value rather than upon production value. The money value is an inflated value because of the high prices being received for our exports of primary produce. It is apparent that honorable senators opposite have now seen the bight. They apparently realize that the present prosperity has not resulted from Labour’s administration during the last eight years, but because the high prices being received for our exports have automatically increased the national income. However, I emphasize that the rate of production of goods is the real measure of wealth. Unless production can be materially increased we cannot hope to restore the value of the Australian £1. A shortage of supplies naturally increases competition, which, in turn, tends to increase prices. Although a condition of full employment exists in Australia to-day, there is not full production of basic goods such as coal, iron, and steel.
– What about wharf labourers?
– I include wharf labourers, because every time they strike the cost to industry must be borne by other members of the community.
The shortage of houses is probably the greatest problem facing this country to-day, because it has a demoralizing effect on the masses, particularly young newly married people who, in many instances, are compelled to live in shared accommodation or in tents. This problem has been rated No. 1 priority for attention. The Government has already made some progress in this matter by arranging for the importation of prefabricated houses from the United Kingdom free of duty. When I was in England in 194S I saw many thousands of prefabricated units being erected in various parts of that country. I inspected some completed units and found that they were we’ll built and incorporated many labour-saving devices.
– But there is a bousing shortage in Great Britain also.
– We are importing prefabricated houses from Great Britain. It is to the credit of the British people that they are now in a position to export those units when it is remembered that hundreds of thousands of their houses were either completely destroyed or badly damaged during the war period. Those units are available for purchase by Australia.
– That is only because they are on the world export market.
– The honorable senator has advanced one of the most stupid propositions that I have ever heard in this chamber. In effect he suggests that we should not purchase prefabricated houses in Great Britain because the people of that country may want them. I point out that if Australia does not purchase them other countries will readily do so. Manufacturers in Norway, Sweden and Belgium are also prepared to supply prefabricated housing units to Australia. As a result of the Government arranging to purchase a number of these units from Great Britain, the people of this country will be supplied with homes within a reasonable time, and at reasonable cost. The Government is also permitting the importation of household fittings, such as baths, tubs, and pipes, free of duty.
– The Labour Government did that a year ago.
– Those articles are now coming forward much more quickly than formerly. Australia has a large sterling credit in Great Britain, and it is advantageous to that country, from a business point of view, that our purchases of these commodities should be paid for out of that credit because, in turn, that reduces Great Britain’s indebtedness to us. Gradually we shall regain an equality trade balance.
Secondary industry is expanding rapidly in this country due, in part, .to overseas firms transferring their plants to Australia. The firm of Courtaulds (“Australia) Limited has already invested £10.000.000 in factory buildings and plant in this country, and other large firms, also, are transferring their enterprises to this country. I point out that coal is an essential commodity for our secondary industries. If we cannot get it from our own coal mines the only alternative is for a to. import it. That is what the Government is doing. It is not lying down on the job and saying, in effect, “ As we cannot get coal here, we will have to abide by the, miners’ decision. Our industrial development .must be halted “. The Government has decided to import coal and steel to enable secondary industries to get on with the job, because already a great amount of work has. banked up. Bailways and tramways are in- need of repair, and many other public utilities urgently need supplies of those commodities in order to restore their undertakings to an efficient standard.
– Does .the Minister know that gas will he rationed in Sydney from to-morrow?
– 1 am aware of that fact. That is another reason why we should import coal. It is about time that honorable senators opposite realized that it is possible for us to import coal if we cannot get it from the coal mines in this country. Admittedly that is a very grave position, because millions of tons of coal exist in the mines of this country., The Government fully realizes its obligation in this matter. If adequate supplies of coal were available the production of steel in Australia could be increased by 30 per cent. Only recently an executive of Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, which is one of the largest undertakings in the southern hemisphere, stated that the company’s works are producing at a rate of only 70 per cent, of their capacity. A 30 per cent, increase of the production of steel would result in greater supplies of roofing iron and other building requirements being available to industry. Furthermore, the cost of locallyproduced galvanized iron is much lower than the price, of the imported article. As honorable senators are aware, also, galvanized iron sold on the black market is realizing prices much higher than the list-price of corrugated iron manufactured at Newcastle.
Reference has been made by honorable senators opposite to the big developmental projects that this Government ia planning. One contention of the Opposition is that if the Government were to construct a water conservation scheme that would be evidence of the fact that it favours nationalization. Of course, it is obvious that that is not a serious contention; because there is a vast difference between the provision of a public utility and the nationalization of. the banks or insurance, companies. In my opinion contentions such as this are made merely for the purpose of endeavouring to discredit the present Government. Any intelligent person knows that a big national scheme must be undertaken by the. Government and financed by public money. Although the Government is prepared to expend £250,000,000 on big developmental works during the next ten years, it does not intend to commence them immediately. To do so it would have to draw on the already overburdened labour market. But these schemes will be prepared and proceeded with as opportunity offers.
– They are .prepared now.
– Some are prepared. One that the honorable senator should know of that has not been prepared i? the Burdekin scheme.
– We were doing our best.
– But it is not prepared and the Snowy Mountains project is far from complete. Certain elevations have been taken but no complete plans have been prepared yet The previous Government made quite a good move ,by going there and putting the first charge on the dam site. It waa a very good show. I was very .pleased to see where the Snowy Mountains project is to .be. But simply blowing up a piece of earth does not make plans for a project complete and ready to be proceeded with. The Government is prepared to go on with the proposal as opportunity occurs. It believes that the programme of works is so important that it has created a Ministry of National Development with one Minister in charge of all national developmental projects. In the opinion of the Government, it is very necessary that one Minister should be in charge because so many of these developmental projects must be correlated in conjunction with the States to avoid overlapping, and to ensure that each project is the- subject of thorough investigation by the most qualified men available. In every country many public activities ‘ are in operation. It does not follow that other countries are nationalizing the general business and trade of the community simply because they have big water conservation schemes, telephone systems, railways or other undertakings that are run as. public untilities. That is the difference between the parties on this side of the chamber and honorable senators on the other aide. The Government is prepared to use public money the public works, where the socialist Opposition would use public money for socializing and nationalizing private enterprise and trade.
Speaking last night Senator Courtice stated that no non-Labour government had ever provided legislation to- better the lot of the lower income earners. I have not had a great, deal of opportunity to refresh my memory, but a few points come to my mind. I think I did interject last night that child endowment was one of the things that had been introduced by a non-Labour government. Age and invalid pensions were others. The Main Roads Agreement was introduced by a government of the kind in power at present. That agreement was one of the most beneficial to the people of the country districts that was ever introduced. I believe that. Senator Courtice will agree that it gave people in the outback areas access to towns and to their homes by roads that never would have been possible if they had had to depend on the money paid by rates into their local shire councils for their construction. Millions of pounds have been spent on country roads since the agreement came into operation. I remind honorable senators that the Paterson butter scheme which gave a stabilized price to the dairy-farmers was introduced in 1924 many years before the Labour Government came into power. I wish to refer- also to the Rural Bank Department of the Commonwealth Bank. That was a great asset to .the small farmers, because it allowed them to get money on overdraft. The Financial Agreement gave financial stability to this country and did away with the competition between the different States of the Commonwealth for loan money. It was one of the most stabilizing agreements ever approved in this Commonwealth because it ensured that every loan would be paid back in a certain number of years. The agreement has placed the nuances of the country on a stable basis. These are only a few of the helpful measures that I have been able to jot down in the short time at my disposal. By its legislative programme as announced in the Governor-General’s Speech, this Government is providing for all members of the community and not only for one class. I have not the slightest doubt that it will receive the approval of the electors of Australia.
Debate (on motion by Senator Critchley) adjourned.
page 866
Motion (by Senator Osullivan) agreed to-
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to Wednesday next, at 3 p.m.
page 866
The following paper waa presented : -
Commonwealth Public Service Act- Appointment - Department of Works and Housing - R. G. C. Agnew.
Senate adjourned at 8.38 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 March 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19500316_senate_19_206/>.