19th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator theHon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 1501
– My question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister arises from a statement that was made by the Prime Minister to the effect that in certain circumstances he would favorably consider the sending of Australian troops to Malaya. In view of the very serious repercussions that would inevitably follow in Asia, will the Parliament have an opportunity to discuss all aspects of the matter before a decision is reached ?
– Although I presume that the honorable senator’s question is based on a newspaper report, he did not indicate whether he was prepared to vouch for the accuracy of the report. However, in any matter affecting the welfare of this country and the Australian people, I am quite sure that the Prime Minister will take the Parliament into his confidence, and will act according to the best traditions of the office that he occupies.
– Do I understand that the Minister’s answer is that the Prime Minister will take Parliament into his confidence before a decision about sending Australian troops to Malaya is made? Will the Parliament be afforded a prior opportunity to discuss the advisability of adopting that course?
– The honorable senator is reading into my reply something that I did not say. He is asking an entirely hypothetical question. My answer is that, in broad principles, the Prime Minister will take the Parliament into his confidence in any matters affecting the welfare of this country, in accordance with the traditions of his office.
– In view of the public interest that has been aroused by reports that the Government is prepared to consider sending Australian troops to Malaya, will the Minister for Trade and Customs give an assurance that before such consideration is translated into action the Government will hold a referendum in order to ascertain the views of the people on the subject?
– The honorable senator’s question involves a matter of Government policy, and it is not the practice to deal with such matters in answer to questions.
page 1501
– I preface my question to the Minister for Trade and Customs by pointing out that during the present election campaign in Tasmania the Leader of the Opposition in the Tasmanian Parliament, Mr. Townley, is reported to have stated that, in the event of the Liberal party being elected to power in that State, steps would be taken to abolish butter rationing in Tasmania. He also stated that butter rationing was not necessary in Tasmania. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether the Commonwealth contemplates lifting butter rationing in Australia in the near future and, if so, the Leader of the Opposition in the Tasmanian Parliament has been informed accordingly? In that event, why have not the Premier and the Minister in charge of prices in Tasmania been acquainted with the decision?
– As was announced during the campaign prior to the general election in December last, it is the desire of the Australian Government to remove as many controls as can be conveniently and properly dispensed with. I have not seen the report to which the honorable senator has referred and I have not discussed the matter with Mr. Townley. Therefore, I do not know precisely what Mr. Townley has in mind, and consequently I am unable to give my version of his thoughts.
– The Minister’s answer to my previous question was vague and evasive. In view of the statement that was made in December last that butter rationing was not necessary, will the Minister give a straight-out answer whether the rationing of that commodity could be lifted in the near future?
– Matters such as this involve Government policy and require a lot of research. I assure the honorable senator that this and other cognate matters will continue to receive the close attention of the Government.
page 1502
– Is the Minister for
Social Services aware that great hardship and even some injustice is being experienced by many people throughout Australia who have paid for social services benefits through the social services contribution and are not entitled to participate in such benefits because they receive superannuation payments from private superannuation schemes? In view of the fact that they have paid for both the Government social services and the private superannuation benefits, will he, pending the proposal to liberalize conditions governing social services and the proposed removal of the means test, urge the Treasurer to give favorable consideration to exempting superannuation benefits from income tax?
– I am aware of the difficulties that surround superannuation benefits in their relation to the Social Services Consolidation Act and I admit that injustices arise from time to time in respect of certain categories of those pensions. I doubt very much whether the suggestion that superannuation payments should be paid free of income tax would provide a satisfactory solution of the problem because, by and large, superannuation payments are not at a high level. I think the problem goes deeper than that.We have to find some solution which will make even more popular than they now are, those private superannuation retiring allowance schemes as well as the Government schemes. I am at present devoting a good deal of time and thought to that problem and I have hopes that I can find a solution to it.
– Can the Minister for Repatriation say whether the announcement in the press to the effect that war pensions are to be increased by approximately £6,000,000 a year is correct? Can he also advise the Senate what increase the Government proposes to make in the pensions of ex-servicemen, including “100 per cent.” pensions and intermediate pensions?
– The estimate mentioned of the cost of the proposed increases is incorrect, inasmuch as the Treasury has not yet indicated what the cost of the proposed increases will be. Concerning the second question asked by the honorable senator, naturally I cannot furnish to the Senate information which is at present confidential, because a decision has not yet been made by Cabinet in this matter.
page 1502
Motion (by Senator Ashley) put -
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Critchley from making a statement in regard to a question he proposes to ask with reference to petrol.
– There being an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.
– The statement that I desire to make to the Senate is as follows: - It has been reported that an attempt by an Australian importing firm to obtain dollar-free petrol from Chinese Nationalist stocks in Formosa has failed after protracted negotiations. It was hoped that Formosa would be able to supply almost unlimited quantities of petrol enabling the Australian Government to be independent of dollar or partly dollar supplies. Negotiations which began several months ago foundered for two reasons - first, Australia’s inability to obtain tankers to carry the petrol, and the Nationalist Government’s unwillingness to allow its tankers to carry out the job because of fears of desertion to the Communists by the crews; and secondly, doubts whether the sterling paid for the petrol would ultimately be converted into dollars or other hard currencies.
– I rise to order. I am not quite clear whether the honorable senator is making a statement of his own knowledge or whether it is based on a newspaper report.
– What is the honorable senator’s point of order?
– That is my point of order, sir, because much will depend on whether the honorable senator is quoting from a newspaper report or is speaking of his own knowledge.
The PEE SIDENT.- When an honorable senator is given permission .to make a statement, I can see no reason why he should not quote from a newspaper or any article if he so desires. The word “ statement “ covers a wide range.
– I am not challenging the right of the honorable senator to make any statement he desires but in order that I may know what he is talking about, I should like to know whether he is making a statement of his own knowledge or whether it is taken from a newspaper report or a magazine.
– That is not a point of order.
– The statement has been compiled from three sources of information.
– What are they?
– The Australian firm wanted payment to be made in sterling in Hong Kong, but the Chinese authorities, after having at first agreed to this, asked whether it could be paid in sterling in New York, which aroused some doubts in Australia. There were other minor difficulties, including the fact that the petrol offered was of low octane quality, but they would not have affected greatly any ultimate agreement. During the negotiations, Australian officials in London and representatives of the British Treasury examined fully the financial implications of the sterling-dollar questions involved.
I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether these statements are true. I should like to know also what quantity of petrol has been imported into this country, or awaits importation, excluding the 9,000,000 gallons for which licences were issued by the Labour Government.
– As Senator Critchley has refused to disclose the source of the information that he has given to the Senate, naturally, I am not in a position to deal with it adequately at this stage. However, if he will place his questions on the notice-paper I shall provide him with a full reply to them.
– I rise to order. I did not refuse to answer the Minister’s inquiry about the source of my statement. I said that there were three sources. One of them was a pre3s extract.
– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs say whether the Government intends to implement the policy outlined by the Prime Minister at a press conference in Sydney last Monday of seeking American loans to ease dollar shortages? If so, will the Government give an undertaking that borrowed dollars will not be used to pay for petrol? If the Government will not give such a guarantee, will the Parliament be afforded an opportunity, before the transaction is completed, to determine whether Australia should be placed in pawn to America for the purchase of consumer commodities? If dollars are to be borrowed, will the Government assure the Parliament that this policy will not curtail the supply of foodstuffs to the people of Great Britain?
– I have not seen the detailed report to which the honorable senator has referred, but I can give him an assurance that the Government does not propose to seek a dollar loan to pay for petrol. The Government’s policy, however, is to encourage the investment of American capital in this country to the advantage of the Australian economy, and for the development of Australian industry.
– I ask the Minister for Fuel. Shipping and Transport whether petrol licences have been issued to importing firms to enable them to bring in sufficient petrol to meet this country’s total requirements to the 30th June, 1950?
– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is “ Yes “.
asked the Minister for Fuel. Shipping and Transport -
What quantities of petrol - both sterling and dollar - arrived from overseas during October, November, and December, 1949, and January and February, 1950?
– The following information is given in reply to the honorable senator: -
The quantities of petrol which arrived in Australia during the months of October, November, December, 1949, and January and February, 1950, are as follows: - 1949 - October, 31,390,200 gallons; November, 31,000,500 gallons; December, 2(i.534,100 gallons. 1950 - January, 43,329,300 gallons; February, 22.707,000 gallons.
Practically all remittances in payment for petrol and other petroleum products imported into Australia are, in the first instance, made in sterling to the London accounts of oil companies, into which are also paid amounts in respect of imports into other sterling area countries. As and when necessary, provision of dollars against the balances standing to the credit of these aggregate accounts is approved by the United Kingdom exchange control. The country of origin of shipments of petroleum products imported into Australia, therefore, does not necessarily indicate the extent to which payment for the cargoes is ultimately made in dollars, and accordingly it is not practicable to sub-divide the foregoing import figures into sterling and dollar cargoes.
page 1504
– In view of the fact that collieries in Western Australia enjoy almost continuous peace, whereas those in the eastern States of Australia are subject to constant stoppages, will the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport consider the following suggestions: - (1) Giving to the Senate a complete report of the discussions that took place during hia recent visit to Western Australia, when he met the coal lumpers’ union at Bunbury and the executive of the coal miners’ union at Collie; (2) increasing coal production at Collie with a view to reducing the importation of coal from overseas?
– The representatives of the colliery employees at Collie and at Bunbury formed a deputation and waited upon the party which visited the area during the Easter vacation. I was particularly impressed by the spirit of co-operation displayed, and in response to requests made to me I undertook to ask the Joint Coal Board to supply technical information and, if possible, mechanical equipment for certain mines in Western Australia. The supply of mechanical equipment was requested by both the employers and the employees. Concerning the second part of the honorable senator’5 question, I shall be pleased to make a statement, perhaps next week, on the result of the negotiations with the Joint Coal Board.
– What sort of coal is produced in Western Australia?
– It is better than none. Furthermore, in reply to the interjection, which is quite disorderly-
– Order ! The Minister’s response to the interjection is also disorderly.
– When the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport is making a statement concerning the production of coal in Western Australia, will he also enlighten the Senate concerning the trip that he made recently to the coal-fields in northern New South Wales when he had a good deal to say about his ten-point programme? Will the Minister indicate why he was dismissed from his position of adviser to the employers in the coal-mining industry as soon as he announced his ten-point programme?
– Senator Ashley was not correct when he said that I was dismissed. Certain disorderly arrangements were made orderly. I did meet the representatives of the miners in northern New South Wales, and so long as I continue to occupy my portfolio I will meet the employees wherever I go to discuss means of bringing about a better understanding and peace, co-operation and goodwill in the industry, which, in my opinion, is a good substitute for communism, chaos and disorder.
page 1504
– All of us are aware that some Australian newspapers contain supplements which feature all sorts of so-called comic strips dealing with murder, robbery and other degrading themes. So prevalent is this practice that many people in Tasmania have taken strong exception to it. On their behalf I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether the Government allocates dollars for the purchase of American comic strips? If so, what is the amount of that allocation? If these transactions do not involve the expenditure of dollars, can the Minister inform the Senate of the method of entry of such material into this country?
– I trust that the honorable senator’s interest in the matter which he has raised is not newlyborn. Comic strips of the kind to which he has referred have been coming into Australia for many years, including the whole of the period of office of the Chifley Labour Government and before that G>vernment, assumed office. This matter is causing the Department of Trade and Customs great concern. If the honorable senator can suggest ways and means to stop the importation of these comic strips. I shall be happy to co-operate with him in that direction. No dollars are allocated in respect of the purchase of these strips which come in by mail, or by hand. Such purchases do not involve any dollar expenditure. In this matter the Government is experiencing the same difficulties as confronted the Chifley Government and preceding governments.
– In accordance with the request of the Minister for Trade and Customs, when answering my previous question, that I should make a specific suggestion in connexion with American comic strips, I shall now do so. Since the Government has no control over the entry into this country of such material, and the reproduction thereof, and many people consider the reproduction of .these comic strips in our newspapers is harmful to the minds of children, will the Minister take action to establish a censorship board with authority to prevent the publication in Australian newspapers and periodicals of any American comic strips that the members of the board consider would be harmful to the minds of children?
– Subject to correction by my learned friend, the Attorney-General, I understand that this is essentially a State matter, in which the Commonwealth could not lawfully legislate.
page 1505
Dr. Hewlett Johnson - Passports
– I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether the Dean . of Canterbury, Dr. Hewlett Johnson, who is known as the “ Red Dean “, is the same individual who sugested that we should give away the northern portion of Australia to the Japanese and allow 250,000 Japanese to settle in those parts of the Commonwealth? If so, will the Government consider deporting this sanctimonious hypocrite before he is given a further opportunity to preach his Communist and traitorous doctrine in this country?
– I understand that the reverend gentleman whom the honorable senator has mentioned made the remark that the honorable senator has indicated. I understand that the Dean of Canterbury is visiting Australia on a valid British passport. The nature of the meetings that he is attending in this country indicates clearly the sponsorship of his visit. I do not think that at the moment the Government intends to take action in the matter.
– I preface my question to the Minister for Trade and Customs by reminding him of the troubles that the Australian Council of Trades Unions has encountered trying to get rid of the Communist menace in Australia. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether it is true that the Communist secretary of the Ironworkers Union, Mr. Ernest Thornton, and the Communist federal secretary of the Seamen’s Union, Mr. E. V. Elliott, have been granted permits to go overseas to attend the World Federation of Trade Unions, a declared Communist organization ? If the Government carries out one of its election promises to ban the Communist party, will the Minister undertake to see that these two Communist agitators - neither of whom is an Australian - are not allowed to return to this country?
– I am not aware whether the. two alleged Communists mentioned by the honorable senator were granted permits to leave Australia. If so, I can only presume that the unfortunate habit of the previous Government has been followed in this instance. I do not know the constitutional position in connexion with restraining them from going abroad. However, I am delighted to have the assurance of the honorable senator that he looks so unkindly on communism. I hope that he will keep that in mind when the Government introduces legislation to deal with subversive activities.
– As numerous church officials and dignitaries are sponsoring the World Peace Movement, at which the Dean of Canterbury is the guest speaker, will the Minister for Trade and Customs furnish the Sen&te with answers to the following questions: - (a) Is the Dean a member of the Communist party? (b) Following the anticipated ban on Communists, would these church officials he driven from their churches because they sponsor Communistic ideas, and (c) Will the Government stop all socialistic enterprises, or only those that interfere with capitalistic profit, such as the selling of the Australian Government line of steamers?
– I have no idea whether the reverend gentleman is a Communist or not. Secondly, I do not know what provision will be contained in legislation that was projected in the Governor-General’s Speech, and what effect it will have on gentlemen such as the reverend Dean. In relation to the third question, I am not aware that there has been any projected legislation in regard to socialism. It is disrupters and wreckers of our country that we intend to legislate against. I hope that that legislation will have many champions amongst honorable senators opposite.
page 1506
– As shortages of refined sugar still exist in many country towns in South Australia whilst the refinery at Glanville is now operating at its full capacity, I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether the Government will arrange to send a shipment of refined sugar from Townsville to Adelaide in order to relieve the position in South Australia.
– I regret to hear that there is a shortage of refined sugar in South Australia. However, I am unable to give the honorable senator any information concerning the practicability of sending a shipment of refined sugar from Queensland to South Australia. If the honorable senator will place his question upon the notice-paper, I shall see what relief, if any, can be given to South Australia.
page 1506
– I have not seen the newspaper report to which the honorable senator has referred, but I assure all honorable senators and the people of Australia that the Government has not abandoned any of its election promises, and that in due course it will implement them.
– I preface my question to the Minister for Trade and Customs by referring to the latest basic wage declaration, whereby that wage will be increased by up to 3s. a week, thereby further depreciating the value of the £1. Will the Minister inform the Senate what progress the Government has made in restoring value to the £1, as it promised to do during the general election campaign ?
– I am happy to say that considerable progress has been made in restoring the purchasing value of the £1. There has been more industrial peace since this Government assumed office than formerly, and the relationship between employer and employee, so vital in the production of consumer goods, is being maintained very satisfactorily.
– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs inform the Senate how the view expressed by Senator Nash that an increase of the basic wage necessarily depreciates further the value of the £1 can be reconciled with the view of the Leader of the Opposition?
– It has not been my privilege to discuss this matter with the Leader of the Opposition. As the honorable senator has pointed out, it is extraordinary the conflicting views that are held by honorable senators opposite. I do not know how they are reconciled.
page 1507
– I direct the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for the Army to the following report that was published in the Sydney Daily Mirror on the 17th March -
The Commonwealth Government has decided to pay a subsistence allowance of 3s. a day to Australian prisoners of war, to operate from the day the servicemen were taken prisoner.
I hare received numerous requests regarding the accuracy of the report. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether it is an accurate one?
– The press report to which the honorable senator has referred does not state the position correctly. The Prime Minister intimated in his policy speech that an impartial investigating authority would be established to examine the facta surrounding the claim that has been made for the payment of 3s. a day subsistence allowance to ex-prisoners of war. The right honorable gentleman stated that all aspects of the claim would be investigated.
– I rise to order. Is the Minister reading his reply?
– That is not a point of order. A Minister may read a reply to a question if he wishes to do so.
– This matter is of considerable importance, and I have some notes with me to ensure that I shall, state the position correctly. The Prime Minister announced last month that the Government intended to appoint a committee of three members, including one to be selected from a panel of names submitted by representatives of returned servicemen’s organizations. The terms of reference of the committee, which are at present under consideration, will be of such a nature as to give the committee adequate latitude to make its investigation and, at the conclusion thereof, to furnish a report for the consideration of the Government. Immediately the report has been received, the Government will make its decision.
page 1507
– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Repatria tion, concerns the unsatisfactory system of medical examination that is adopted by the Repatriation Department when the grant of a pension or the increase of a pension is sought. Does the Minister consider that one medical officer who is a complete stranger to the applicant is in a position to make a fair judgment of an ex-serviceman who is claiming an increase of his pension, particularly when the medical officer was on a tour lasting several weeks,’ during which time he would interview a great many applicants? Would it not be better for the local repatriation doctors to be responsible for the examination? If so, will the Minister see that such examinations are carried out by local repatriation doctors, not by doctors who have been “ browned-off “ by numerous interviews, and who, in mancases, look upon applicants as “leadswingers “ ?
– I should be obliged if the honorable senator would refer me to a specific instance where this has occurred, so that I can investigate the matter. The honorable senator’s question i.« a reflection upon the manner in which the Repatriation Commission handles applications by ex-servicemen. When an ex-servicemen applies for an increase of pension he goes before the State Board, from which appeal lies to the Repatriation Commission, and thence, if he is still not satisfied, to the appropriate appeals tribunal. I point out that the appeals tribunals were established at the request of returned servicemen’s organizations. Since I have been Minister for Repatriation I have not received any complaints from the organizations that requested their establishment. They are doing a very good job.
page 1507
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -
With reference to the following opinion expressed by the Commonwealth Housing Commission in paragraph 308 of its final report presented to the Chifley Government on the 25th August, 1944, viz. - that the problem of land use and land values was for land to be nationalized and held thereafter as leasehold and that the lease should be one in perpetuity with periodic re-appraisements of the capital value - will the Minister investigate the extent to which the recommendation for complete land nationalization influenced the perpetual leasehold basis of the War Service Land Settlement Scheme; and also, the extent of the Chifley Government’s adoption of it in other respects.
– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following information : -
Under the War Service Land Settlement Agreements between the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, the form and conditions of tenure in those States are determined by the State. The Agreements between the Commonwealth and the States of South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania provide for the holdings to be allotted on perpetual leasehold tenure.
From an examination of the records of the discussions which took place between Commonwealth and State Ministers when these conditions of tenure were being considered, I am unable to form any opinion as to what influence the report of the Commonwealth Housing Commission had on the decisions reached by these Ministers.
page 1508
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -
In the improved scale of allowances, announced by the Commonwealth Government, to patients undergoing treatment for tuberculosis, has any provision been made to include sufferers from tubercular infection other than pulmonary?
– The Minister for Health has supplied the following information : - “ Tuberculosis “ for the purpose of the Tuberculosis Act 1948 and of the proposed scheme of allowances under that act means tuberculous disease, in whatever form, which has not been arrested. The answer to the honorable senator’s question, therefore, is “Yes”.
page 1508
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health -
– The Minister for Health has supplied the following information : -
Apart from hospital benefits of 8s. per patient per day, subsidies by the Commonwealth to State governments for hospital services comprise -
not exceeding £50,000 per annum towards maintenance of after-care facilities;
The Commonwealth is subsidizing the erection of hospitals by governments in the States to the following extent: -
Reimbursement of any State which caters or has entered into an agreement under the Tuberculosis Act 1948 in respect of capital expenditure by the State on or after the 1st July, 1948, in the provision by the State of land and buildings for use in the diagnosis, treatment and control of tuberculosis and in the erection and improvement of buildings and the provision of furnishings, equipment and plant for such use.
In addition, under the terms of the Hospital Benefits Agreements, States may use for capital expenditure on public hospitals as approved by the Commonwealth, amounts set aside for this purpose out of the payments made by the Commonwealth in respect of beds occupied by qualified persons in public wards in public hospitals prior to the 1st July, 1948.
page 1508
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing, upon notice -
Service Homes scheme are already showing signs of deterioration through defective building?
– The Minister for Works and Housing has supplied the following answer: -
There is no record of War Service Homes which have been completed showing signs of deterioration through defective building. Complaints have been received in respect of one group which is still under maintenance and it has been pointed out to the occupiers that they were given occupation as a concession before the homes were completed on the definite understanding that any incompleted or unsatisfactory work which had been listed by the supervising officer would be completed during the maintenance period.
To avoid such complaints the alternative would be to refuse applicants occupancy of the homes until various items noted by the supervising officer had been adjusted. It is not considered that this attitude is desirable in the present acute housing position, but applicants who are given a concession must co-operate with the contractor and the War Service Homes Division to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
page 1509
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply, upon notice -
– The Minister for Supply has supplied the following answers : -
The cars will replace obsolete and obsolescent vehicles under the control of the central transport authority which are -
Deliveries will be spread over fifteen months to 30th June, 1951, and the actual allocation between Commonwealth departments will be determined on priorities established as deliveries are made. However, all States will share in the distribution.
page 1509
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -
page 1509
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
In view of the large financial losses incurred by business people and householders in tropical regions of northern Australia during the cyclone season, will the Treasurer consider the establishment of a contributory fund, similar to that controlled and financed by the War Damage Commission, so that losses against such “ acts of God “ may he recouped without the payment of the” very large insurance premiums at present required by the few insurance companies willing to undertake such business.
– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer : -
The War Damage Scheme insured against a risk shared by a large proportion of the people of Australia and by reason of that large number it was practicable for the Commonwealth Government to institute such a scheme and to minimize the amount of contributionby each person to the War Damage Fund. Any government scheme to insure against the risk of damage from cyclones would have to be confined to the comparatively small number of persons holding property in the areas subject to the risk. As the basic principle of insurance is that the insured must pay a premium corresponding to the risk undertaken, the limited number of contributors to such a scheme, even if its establishment were considered desirable, must necessarily cause the premiums to be substantial. The proposal would appear to be a matter for consideration by the States, most of whom have their own insurance offices.
page 1510
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -
page 1510
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
Has the Young Report on Broome yet been considered by the Government in relation to war damage assessment of that town; if so, when can a decision on the matter be expected ?
– The Treasurer has informed me that he is not aware of any document entitled the Young Report on Broome. However, in November last Mr. N. S. Young of Adelaide wrote to the then Minister for the Interior regarding a claim by the Broome Road Board for compensation for depreciation of the board’s assets, and also for losses incurred by its electricity undertaking during the war period. As the property in question was not abandoned during the war period, any depreciation of its value in that period was not “ war damage “ as prescribed in the National Security (War
Damage to Property) Regulations, and the board’s claim for compensation could not be admitted by the War Damage Commission. The previous Government fully considered the board’s claim that the Commonwealth should meet losses incurred by its electricity undertaking during the war period, and decided that the rehabilitation of the Road Board’s finances was a matter within the administration of the State government. No new issues warranting a variation of the decisions given by the previous Government in this matter were raised in Mr. Young’s letter,
page 1510
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice-
In view of the recommendation of the Auditor-General in his annual reports, th.it the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts should hu re-established, will the Prime Minister give favorable consideration to the removal of the (suspension imposed bv Act No. 58 of 10:12, and re-establish the committee?
– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer : -
The question of thi: re-establishment of thu Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts will receive the consideration of the Government, and its derision will be announced in due course.
page 1510
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -
– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following answer : -
page 1511
Debate resumed from the 30th March (vide page 1404), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the hill be now read a second time.
– The measure now before the Senate, which proposes to amend the .Social Services Consolidation Act, arises out of the promise made by the Government parties during the recent election campaign to provide endowment of 5s. a week for the first child of every family. The speech made by the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) when introducing the measure drew attention to the need for providing child endowment for the first child of a family, and I agree entirely that the payment of endowment for the first child is necessary. However, the measure now before us contains certain implications that are not obvious on the face of it. Apart altogether from the apparent purpose of the measure, which is to provide for payment of endowment in respect of the first child, two vital principles are involved in the proposals now before us. In the first place, as Senator McKenna pointed out in the course of his speech, when he foreshadowed that honorable senators on this side of the chamber would press the Government to direct the members of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court in a certain way, there is very grave danger that the payment of child endowment for the first child may be taken into account when the basic wage is fixed. Of course, in reply to that, the Government claims that the Parliament has no power to issue any such direction to the Arbitration Court. Let me remind honorable senators opposite that when the last Labour- Administration appealed to the people by way of referendum for power to legislate to control the terms and conditions of employment in industry, the anti-Labour parties, which are sponsoring the present measure, vigorously opposed our appeal, just as they have always opposed any proposals to improve the standards of living. In the second place, Senator McKenna pointed out that in order to endow properly the first child of a family it would be necessary to pay much more than 5s. a week. Those are the two vital considerations associated with this measure. Of course, the Minister for Social Services and his supporter, Senator Wright, have tried to make it appear that in seeking to amend the Government’s proposals Labour is merely endeavouring to obtain some unwarranted increase of the basic wage. However, it is clear that our real objective is to protect the basic wage by impressing upon the judges of the Arbitration Court that child endowment payments must not be taken into consideration when computing the basic wage.
Concerning Labour’s second objection to the Government’s proposals, which is that 5s. a week is totally inadequate, 1 point out that 5s. would purchase only seven eggs and seven pints of milk a week, which, obviously, would not provide a proper daily breakfast for any child. In the course of his second-reading speech the Minister said that it was necessary to provide some regular payment for all children in a family so that the children would not be denied proper sustenance because of the incidence of seasonal or variable employment on their father’s income. We agree with that statement, but we go farther and say that although a direct contribution should be made from the social services fund to assist those with young families, the payment of that assistance should not prejudice the income of the general body of wage-earners. The Minister informed us that there are approximately 640,000 families with more than one child under the age of sixteen years, and approximately 400,000 families with one child under that age. However, the total working population of this country amounts to more than 2,450,000, of whom 1,400,000 are wage and salary earners who have- no dependent children. Included in that number are the single men and women of this country. I point out here that women’s wages bear a direct relation to men’s wages, because in most industries women receive a fixed proportion of the male living wage. Those without dependent children also include childless married couples, widows and widowers, and parents whose children are over sixteen years of age. The crucial point at issue in this debate is not the provision of child endowment, which all of us agree is, in itself, a good thing, but the provision of child endowment without any guarantee that it will not be taken into consideration in the computation of the basic wage. The Australian Labour party and industrial organizations have fought for the recognition of that principle since the Arbitration Court first computed the basic wage, and the Opposition is now fighting for recognition of that principle in this legislation. The Minister in his second-reading speech said -
Quite outside the basis on which the basic wage is assessed at present, the Government is justified in recognizing these factors and paying the child endowment.
But the Minister was inconsistent when he added -
The Government will take no step which is likely to influence the Arbitration Court in reaching its conclusion upon what should be the basic wage in this country.
I emphasize that the promise that the anti-Labour candidates made during the recent general election campaign that if returned to office they would provide endowment for the first child in the family had a definite influence upon the Arbitration Court which at that time was hearing a claim for an increase of the basic wage to £10 a week. Senator “Wright advanced a very weak argument when he said that the judges of the court would expect the subject of child endowment to be raised as a matter of political controversy. Of course, such a subject is a matter of political argument; and, obviously, advocates representing industrial organizations would raise that subject before the court itself because, unquestionably, child endowment is involved in the computation of the basic wage.
On this point several very relevant observations were made by the Royal Commission on Child Endowment or Family Allowances, which presented its report in 1928. That commission consisted of Mr. T. S. O’Halloran, the late Mr. John Curtin, Mr. Ivor Evans, Mrs. F. M. Muscio and Mr. Stephen Mills. Under the heading “Interrelation of Wage Fixation and Child Endowment “ it stated in its report -
We are required to consider systems of child endowment in relation to wage fixation; we have felt compelled to consider systems of wage fixation in relation to child endowment. This has meant examination of industrial statutes of the Commonwealth and of the States. It also involved a study of industrial judgments. Some of these judgments enunciate principles; some describe methods; some set in high relief defects of practice, difficulties of interpretation, conflicts of jurisdiction.
That passage illustrates the background of legislation of the very kind that we are now considering. The commission’s report continued -
The imprecision and nebulousness of parliamentary directions to industrial tribunals leave industrial judges moving continually through areas of cloud and low visibility.
Having regard to the promise that was made by the anti-Labour parties during the recent general election campaign to provide endowment for the first child of the family, the judges of the Arbitration Court were again steered into “ areas of cloud and low visibility “. That is the point at issue in this debate. Since the court first fixed the basic wage it has considered family units of varying numbers in fixing the basic wage. The court has never given any specific indication to this, or any other, Government, that the provision of child endowment for the first child will not affect the basis upon which the basic wage is computed. I repeat that that is the real point at issue in this debate. Child endowment in itself is a good thing, but we are concerned whether its provision will have the effect of reducing wages of that section of the workers who will not benefit in any way whatever under this legislation. The royal commission in its report also stated -
The general impression is one of vagueness. Even skilled interpreters are often in doubt.
Even Senator Wright is in doubt on that point; he is moving “through areas of cloud and low visibility “. The commission’s report continued -
The indications are faint, like the shadows in a skiagram.
The quotations that I have read represent the views of clever and able adjudicators who came to the conclusion that in respect of the inter-relation of child endowment and wage fixation the material to hand is faint and shadowy. They stated further -
Bare the sharp outline, product of micrometric focussing and crystal clarity of thought.
Those observations are indicative of the state of mind of not only the Arbitration Court itself but also trade union advocates. No line of demarcation has yet been drawn between child endowment and wage fixation, whilst no Australian government has ever given any clear direction on the matter to the court because under the Constitution this Parliament has not the power to fix the terms and conditions of employment in industry. Consequently, since the Harvester wage was fixed in 1907, the court has simply gone from one point to another. We have never had any really clear basis for the computation of the basic wage, but there has always been an element of child endowment in the basic wage. We now urge the Government to clear up this point once and for all. The royal commission to which I have referred also stated in its report -
In our systems of wage regulation (apart from recent New South Wales legislation) the two have been blended into one, every basic wage containing elements of endowment, though these elements have not been separately and accurately evaluated.
The commission proved clearly the existence of doubt as to where the line could be drawn between child endowment and the basic wage.
– That was in 1928.
– The same conditions exist to-day as existed when that commission made its report. That fact is made clear in the most recent judgments of the court itself which show that the court is in doubt concerning the exact basis on which the basic wage is computed.
– Why did not a Labour government direct it?
– I remind Senator Robertson that, at a referendum, a Labour government sought the alteration of the Constitution to provide that the Commonwealth should have power to legislate in respect of social services, organized marketing and terms and conditions of employment.
– The people said that they did not wish those powers to be conferred upon the Commonwealth.
– The AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) was one of the persons who objected to the Commonwealth being given powers to legislate in respect of terms and conditions of employment. I am certain that he opposed the proposal entirely for political reasons and not because he considered that it would not help to secure industrial peace or improve the standard of living of all sections of the community. If the Commonwealth had power to legislate in respect of terms and conditions of employment the task of this Government would be much more simple than it is. I venture to suggest that, within the next few years, owing to the nebulous position of the Commonwealth in regard to industrial legislation, the political chickens of the Minister will come home to roost.
I shall quote another passage from the majority report to which I have already referred. Most of the points that were made in the majority report were disagreed with by the late Mr. John Curtin, whose vast knowledge of industrial matters, great wisdom and sympathy are reflected in many of the legislative acts of Labour governments since the outbreak of war. The majority report contains the following passage: -
If child endowment be set up as the discharge of a “ social obligation “ of the Commonwealth, wages should be stripped of endowment elements, and well-considered safeguards be devised to keep separate the factors which so many people are interested in bringing together.
If child ‘ endowment is taken into consideration in the computation of the basic wage, then the wages and salaries of 1,400,000 persons may be affected. I do not say that they will be affected, but there is an element of doubt about it. We are asking that the matter should be clarified. We want the Government to move in the direction that I have indicated. The present Government parties would not help the Labour party to do so because, for political reasons, they did not want us to do it. They thought that we might gain added prestige from it, and they were opposed to anything that might have that effect. Honorable senators opposite have on their side the press, radio and other instruments for the dissemination of propaganda. We are asking the Government to write this provision into the Constitution of the Commonwealth. We are asking honorable senators opposite to use the instruments that are at their disposal for the conditioning of the minds of the people to inform the nation of the necessity to draw the line of demarcation that has been recommended by the Commissioners who have investigated the inter-relationship of child endowment and the basic wage.
The observations upon this matter that have been made by some learned judges and economists are contained in the report. Mr. Justice Higgins made the following comment: -
What the Commissioners have reported on is not a “ basic wage “ at all. . . . There is no meaning in “ basic “ except in relation to something higher. . . . Yet, though for a basic wage one had to find the wage adequate for the humblest class of worker, the Commissioners expressly say that their duty was not to discriminate between the standard reasonable for one type of employee and that which is reasonable for another type.
Mr. Justice Powers said that, notwithstanding a widespread belief to the contrary, the 1920 commission did not find what the basic wage should be, did not report to the Government what the basic wage should be, and did not recommend that its findings should be adopted by the government or by the courts as a basic wage. Professor Douglas Copland, who was at one time Professor of Commerce at the University of Melbourne, considered that a scheme of endowment goin£ rather beyond the scale of Professor Brigden’s proposal, which involved £2,000,000 from taxation, might be adopted. He said -
If you are going to have a child endowment system based on taxation, there should be some redistribution of wages for single men.
Throughout the report there is an intimation that child endowment should mean a redistribution of wages for those persons who are not in receipt of child endowment. We on this side of the chamber do not oppose child endowment as a principle. It costs 5s. 3d. a week to buy one egg and one pint of milk daily for a child. In those circumstances, how could we oppose the payment of 5s. a week to a mother in respect of her first child? We hope that the payment will be 10s. a week. But the vital point of principle that is involved is whether the payment of child endowment in respect of a first child will affect the wages of all classes of wage earners throughout the country.
I have shown that there is no doubt that child endowment has been a factor affecting the determination of the basic wage. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) has claimed that the basic wage is a matter for determination by the Arbitration Court. One of the reasons why the Labour party did not legislate to provide for the payment of child endowment to the first child in a family was that it had no assurance from the Arbitration Court that the payment would not have an effect upon the basic wage, and it had no power to give directions to the court in relation to the matter. This legislation has been introduced and is being debated at a time when the Arbitration Court is deliberating upon the basic wage. We cannot say whether the basic wage will in future be assessed upon a new basis, because we do not know what is in the minds of the judges of the court. The point that I wish to make is that the debate upon this measure could influence the court. The judges may read the report of it in Hansard, and it is almost certain that they have read the Minister’s second-reading speech. I hope that they will allow many of the observations that were made by the Minister to influence them in their decision.
The prosperity of this nation lies in the hands of its industrial workers and wage and salary earners. All the wealth of the country stems from their efforts. The full production that we require can be achieved only by them. Their labour is their only real asset. They maintain, and I agree with them, that they have the right to sell it if the terms offered to them are just and to withhold it if the terms offered are unjust. If it becomes clear later that this legislation has had an effect upon the computation of the basic wage and that the wages and salaries of some persons have been reduced in consequence of it, it is possible that those persons will consider seriously whether they will agree to that deduction without a fight. Senator McKenna has already pointed out the grave industrial complications that could follow the introduction of the proposed legislation.
– I rise to order. Do I understand Senator O’Byrne’s assertion to be that a worker has the right to withhold his labour and-
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - Order! Senator Robertson has no right to interrupt the honorable senator. There is no point of order.
– Although the Opposition has a majority in this chamber we consider that it is our responsibility to protect the rights of the minority. Temporarily, at least, in the electorates throughout Australia, the Government has a very small majority - less than 1 per cent, of persons who voted for its election. Labour is still carrying out its traditional function of representing the minority, whose only asset for sale is their labour. ‘ “We all know that if a shopkeeper places a certain price on an article a person cannot procure it unless he pays that price. Consequently eggs now cost 4d. each and chops 7d. each. So the stage has been set for the present vortex of spiralling prices and lower real incomes. If a man has an important commodity to sell, his labour, he should be able to sell it at a just price.
– But Government senators keep telling us that prices are coming down and that value is being restored to the £1 !
– The responsibility for the present high prices of commodities rests with the present Government. When honorable senators who now sit on the Government side of the chamber were in Opposition they strove, for political purposes, to defeat the rents and prices referendum, which, if carried, would have given the Commonwealth the necessary power to continue to control prices. I am sure that now, however, all
Government senators, if they are Christian people at all, would like to be able to check rising prices. They would like to have the power to reduce prices and relate them to wages. Why should inflation be inflicted on this country? I am endeavouring to relate my remarks to the cost of keeping a child. Now, as in the past, the basic wage and child endowment have been closely linked, and they will remain inseparable until the court decides on a line of demarcation. So far no evidence has been advanced to show that they can bc clearly separated. Irrespective of any existing legislation, the amendment should be adopted, in order to protect the rights of the 1,400,000 people who will not benefit directly under it. Labour is anxious that “hole in corner” tactics shall not be employed. The Government should make it clear that the basic wage will not be affected as a result of this legislation. What is there to prevent the Government from doing so? During his speech the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) stated that the Opposition wanted to kill this measure. That is not so. Senator Wright said that we were humbugging. The position is that a vital principle is involved. It is the duty of honorable senators on this side of the chamber to defend that principle.
– Why did not honorable senators opposite adopt that policy when they were supporters of the Government that increased child endowment payments ?
– The decision that was given at the time did not affect the other children.
– That is not correct. I made the position clear in my secondreading speech.
– The AttorneyGeneral’s suggestion that the amendment that was foreshadowed by Senator McKenna would kill the bill was typical kite-flying.
– Then why does not the Opposition support the bill?
– Although I support the principle of child endowment
I do not agree that this matter should be treated lightly. We must take into consideration the implications involved in the proposed legislation.
– Not many people outside of the Parliament would agree with that contention.
– The Australian Council of Trades Unions is very strongly in favour of child endowment.
– That body has been in favour of an improvement of the position for the last eight years.
– Labour could have effected an improvement if it had the power to legislate concerning terms and conditions. I remind the honorable senator who has just interjected that he once supported the Labour movement-
– I was not a socialist.
– The then Opposition did not understand the implications behind the powers that Labour sought in that referendum. We tried to act constitutionally. In fact Labour never tried to do anything unconstitutional. When we found that we had overstepped the mark we had to withdraw. Any progressive government would test its position to the limit. Any government worthy of being called a democratic government would go forward to the limit of its capacity. I disagree with the Constitution in many ways, because it is restricted, although its framers were wonderful men, their minds were not so elastic that they could look 50 years into the future and provide for conditions that would then arise. I consider that the field of the constitutional power of the Commonwealth should be increased considerably.
– What is the use of bringing down legislation that is unconstitutional from the start?
– The legislation that the Minister has referred to was upset on a very fine point of law. The Chief Justice of the High Court of Aus.tralia considered that that legislation wai constitutional. However, there was only the very slender majority of one in favour of the court’s decision and that judge has since retired because he was considered to be beyond the age of active participation and understanding of those matters. I do not consider that Labour can be accused of trying to introduce unconstitutional matters into the Parliament. We did not have the power to legislate for terms and conditions of employment, which would have separated child endowment from the basic wage.
– Neither has the present Government.
– But the present Government has a majority in the lower House, and in addition has the press, the radio, and other instruments of propaganda behind it. Unless the Government were attempting to do something dishonest it could count on the unanimous support of the Opposition for any measure designed to ensure that all people in Australia would share the blessings of this wonderful country. We never oppose anything that is designed to help the ordinary people.
– The Senate has had a good example of that to-day !
– We are fighting for a principle. The confusion that exists about the relationship of child endowment to the basic wage must be clarified. Unless an indication is given that child endowment will not affect the basic wage we shall have to continue the struggle that has been associated with basic wage determinations since 1907, to see that that wage is improved, not depreciated.’ It has been quite clearly implied by previous judgments that the proposed legislation might affect 1,400,000 wage and salary earners in this country who will not benefit under this legislation. I consider that the Government should make some move immediately in this matter, even to the extent of adjourning the debate until the Arbitration Court has finalized its present deliberations. Alternatively, the Government could instruct its advocates attending the hearing of the basic wage application to direct the attention of the court to rising prices and their effect on the needs of the first or only child in a family. Those advocates could be instructed to inform the court of the Government’s policy in this matter.
– I desire to express my wholehearted support of this bill to extend child endowment payments to the first child of each family, and also my appreciation of the able and sympathetic manner in which the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) presented this bill to the Senate. The Minister has been honoured in a way that comes to few men in that he became a member of the Cabinet before he ever attended a meeting of this chamber or in any Parliament. This is a recognition of the honorable Minister’s ability and capacity. I congratulate him on his second-reading speech and his excellent presentation of this measure.
I support the bill for a number of reasons. The first is because it is yet another progressive and liberal measure designed for the welfare of the whole community to be placed on the statute-books of Australia by a Liberal Government. This bill is designed to protect and strengthen the family unit. The whole structure of civilization as we know it here to-day - the civilization that is based upon democracy, and equality before the law, the civilization that has given us our culture, our learning, our advancing science, and our standard of living - is built up from the family unit. It is not customary to talk a great deal about home but love of home is deep in the consciousness of all. Is home merely a place where one eats, sleeps and meets with friends? Is it merely a house and garden surrounded by a fence ? I would say that it is very much more. Home is .the place where the family unit is located and the father, mother and children are united in affection, tolerance and understanding. On the family unit, the community’s standards and hopes are based, and it is the recognition of this fact that is the guiding principle behind this bill. That thought was expressed in mundane words by the Minister for Social Services when he said that the bill would provide “ assistance to meet the increased cost of living with the arrival of the first child “ and “ the additional economic security through making a portion of the family income certain and unfailing despite lean times or seasonal fluctuations Underlying those everyday words is a great and ennobling thought. The principles underlying this bill can be summed up in the following words : “ Build up the family, and you build up the home. Build up the home and you have a better and a happier people, with higher standards of behaviour and of endeavour, altogether a greater nation.”
I know that I am speaking for all the women of Australia when I say that a measure such as this, based on the ideal of promoting family life, assisting towards economic security and helping to meet the ever increasing cost of giving a child the things to which it is entitled, is not only welcome but is also a real contribution towards solving the problems of Australian mothers. It will help to give the extra nutrition to build the foundation of good health among children and through them a better and stronger nation. The payment proposed in this measure will contribute towards those extras which are inevitably required in the education of a child. Thus the children will be assisted to meet the problems they may have to face in later life. This measure means so much to the mothers of Australia that it will be applauded by all the women throughout the length and breadth of the nation. No greater disservice has ever been done to the people of Australia than that resulting from the Labour party’s continual harping upon the bogy of the depression of twenty years ago. Members of the Labour party have harped upon the depression ever since the country emerged from it, but they have forgotten to say that it took place while a Labour government was in power. If some of the honorable senators opposite had been prevented from speaking of the depression in their speeches many of them would not have had much to say. The Labour party has done much in the last twenty years to build up a fear complex in that direction and this bill means a very valuable contribution towards the restoration of confidence in the future. Whatever may happen in lean or prosperous times, in periods of low or high prices, there will be that extra weekly endowment of 5s. for the child when there is only one, and for the first child when there is more than one. It will give confidence to the women of Australia and help them to face the problems which are inevitable in rearing children. Mothers will face the trials of childbirth and hospitalization with more confidence in the knowledge that their children will have this small income from the day of their birth until they reach the age of sixteen years, no matter whether the years are prosperous or lean. That is a considerable period of time. I am pleased that the amount provided in the bill will be paid to the mother, for the mother knows best what is necessary for her child. She nows the value of a balanced diet and how important it is that children should have the nutriment necessary for health. The extra amount provided for in the bill will mean more milk, eggs, fruit, vegetables and vitamins. Mothers will accept the extra money with relief because it will help in the provision of warm clothing in the winter and cool clothing in the summer and will assist in permitting participation in health-giving sport and youth-community groups. It will mean extra school books and over the long period for which it will be available it will be a valuable contribution to the family budget. I know of a family of seven children, including three sets of twins. Child endowment for that family is now £12 a month, but under this measure the amount will be increased to £13. That is very welcome assistance to a family. Moreover it is an assured income no matter what conditions may prevail.
I know honorable senators opposite will find occasion to oppose this bill and that brings me to my second reason for advocating its acceptance. This bill gives the lie direct to the oft repeated Labour claim that the tories - as honorable senators opposite insist upon calling members of the present Government parties - have never done anything for the working people. Tt is proof of the Government’s solicitude for the working people. Honorable senators opposite do not like to be reminded that, in the Commonwealth sphere, child endowment was first introduced by a Liberal administration. To-day, this important improvement of the original legislation is sponsored by a government of the same political complexion and under the same leader. Child endowment is not subject to a means test. All families are eligible for it. Just as all members of the community are equal in the eyes of the law, so all mothers are regarded as equal under our child endowment legislation. The absence of a means test ensures that there shall be no discrimination against the thrifty or the prudent. Perhaps members of the Labour party do not like that because they believe that privileges such as this should be reserved for the so-called working man. So far as I am aware, the term “ working man “ has never been adequately defined. I ask the women of Australia, through this chamber, whether their husbands are working men. Of course they are working men. Throughout the Commonwealth there are few, if any, men who do not work. Indeed, the entire community is made up of workers of various grades because practically every man- in Australia works for his living. Wives and mothers of working men, rearing sons and daughters who, in their turn, will some day go to work will recognize in this legislation a liberal and modern approach to the problem of safeguarding the family unit and maintaining the sanctity of family life. The bill provides for the children of this country assistance that they would not otherwise receive. It will assist to inspire confidence in the future. Again I remind the Senate that this legislation is being placed upon ihe statute-book by the political parties which originally, and under the same leadership as they have to-day, introduced child endowment in the Commonwealth sphere. This bill recognizes the needs of the community as a whole, and observes the principle of equality for all. It is not designed to benefit only one section. It will benefit the entire community.
In the course of this debate, two main arguments against the measure have been advanced by Opposition critics. One is that the endowment of the first child will mean a reduction of the basic wage, and the second is that the proposed payment should be 10s. instead of os. Surely those views indicate confusion of thought amongst honorable senators opposite. If a payment of 5s. a week would result in a reduction of the basic wage, surely a payment of 10s. a week would mean an even greater reduction. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. There is no need for me to reply to the argument .that the passage of this legislation will lead to a reduction of the basic wage. That matter has already been adequately dealt with by the Minister for Social Services and the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) ; but surely, for the Opposition .to urge a higher payment is hypocrisy and party politics at their worst. Labour governed this country for many years, but made no move to extend endowment to the first child in each family. In fact, the Labour Government turned a deaf ear and a blank face to all representations for such a move. Now there is in power in this Parliament a Liberal Government which is concerned with the welfare of the people as a whole, not of one section only. The Government is introducing advanced social legislation designed to help the mothers of Australia to care adequately for their children. Obviously, honorable senators opposite are urging a higher payment than is provided for in this measure in the hope that the public will overlook or forget that whilst the Labour Administration was in office it made no attempt to do what this bill envisages. Members of the Labour party should welcome this bill, because it remedies one of the greatest deficiencies of their own legislative programme. In supporting the bill, and congratulating the Minister for Social Services upon its introduction, I say that the women of Australia will welcome and applaud it, because they know, as all honorable senators must know, that the measure will benefit all sections of the community and give promise of a better and happier future for the children of this country.
– I congratulate Senator Annabelle Rankin upon her well-delivered speech. I am in perfect agreement with much that she has said, but on other points I have certain reservations. Some of the honorable senator’s arguments could only be supported by one of the honorable senator’s purity of heart and sincerity. Those who believe in the principle of child endowment could not fail to be moved by the sentiments that the honorable senator has expressed, and one could perhaps become quite rhetorical on the subject if one really believed, as I am sure Senator Rankin does, that this measure will be of substantial benefit to the people of Australia. However, as one becomes older and more experienced in the ways of politics, one is inclined to become somewhat cautious about accepting proposals such as this in the easy manner of the last speaker, who, I am afraid, showed a willingness to gloss over some of the obvious faults of the measure. I regard this bill with mixed feeling. If I were convinced that it would be of advantage to the whole of the Australian people I should support it unreservedly. The Labour party is wholeheartedly in favour of any legislation that will improve the lot of the Australian people generally, but we have very grave doubts about this bill. Government supporters have argued that in Labour’s eight years of office nothing was done on the lines of this measure. I take honorable senators minds back a little farther than that. About nine years ago, one member of this chamber was the late Senator J. W. Leckie. He was a Minister in a Liberal party government. I think it was called the United Australia party in those days. Introducing the original child endowment legislation, that honorable senator said that the then government felt that to extend endowment to the first child of each family would be unwarranted. That view was echoed by other Ministers of that day. Now, apparently, honorable senators opposite have undergone a change of heart. They tell us that endowment for the first child is most desirable. What has changed their attitude? The promise to extend child endowment to the first child of each family has been described as an election bribe. Some honorable senators on this side of the chamber believe that the Government parties made that promise, not with the interests of the Australian people in mind, but merely to win votes. Whether or not that is true is for the people to determine.
– They determined it on the 10th December.
– It is true thai they voted for the present Government parties on the 10th December. In any case, whether or not the present Government’s pre-election promise to extend child endowment was a bribe is beside the point. The fact remains that the promise was made at a most opportune time for the Liberal and Australian Country parties, and at a most inopportune time for the bulk of the Australian people because, immediately the present Prime Minister made his announcement, the basic wage hearing, which had then been in progress for fifteen months, was adjourned, with the result that at a time when living costs are spiralling, the workers of this country have been denied for an unnecessarily long period the benefits of an increased remuneration. Their action was most inopportune. What inference should we draw from the court’s action? I suggest that the only reason why the court adjourned at that time was that it wanted to ascertain what the results of the general election would be so that if the anti-Labour parties were returned to office it could take into consideration when fixing the basic wage the undertaking given by those parties to increase the payment of child endowment. Now we are debating whether we should pay to the first child of a family an allowance of 5s. a week, and the fear which besets honorable senators on this side of the chamber is that if we approve the Government’s proposals the court will take into consideration the extra payment of 5s. a week child endowment when it fixes the basic wage. We regret very much that the Government’s proposal has been brought forward at this particular time when the Arbitration Court is about to determine the basic wage, because we fear that the court will delay its decision until the Government’s present proposal has been disposed of in the Parliament. Because the court did not hesitate to adjourn the hearing of the basicwage inquiry during the recent Commonwealth election we have no doubt that it will feel justified in deferring its decision on the basic wage until the Parliament has disposed of this matter. Another difficulty that besets us in considering the determination of the basic wage by the Arbitration Court is that we cannot ascertain with any exactitude on what basis the court will fix the living wage. We do not know what matters the court will take into consideration. We know that in the early days of the Arbitration Court it based its findings on the needs of the people, but the “ needs “ basis adopted by the court and by State arbitration courts varied considerably. Some tri bunals regarded the family unit as consisting of three people, whilst others regarded it as consisting of four people. There has been no consistency in the approach of the courts to this matter. In 1931 the basis of calculation was somewhat amended. Instead of adopting the “ needs “ basis the Commonwealth Arbitration Court decided to take into account the capacity of an industry to pay a proper living wage.
– That was simply a restoration wage.
– As Senator O’Flaherty has said, that was merely a restoration wage. Although during the recent election campaign the anti-Labour parties contended that Labour’s assertion that an increase of child endowment would reduce the basic wage was quite unsound, the fact is that the anti-Labour parties, which are now in office, are quite uncertain of the position. Otherwise they would not commit themselves to increasing the payment for the first child to 10s. a week should the Arbitration Court decide to take the proposed payment of 5s. a week into consideration. Obviously they cannot be convinced of the validity of their own argument.
– That is not correct.
– Honorable senators opposite say that the proposed payment of 5s. a week child endowment cannot be taken into consideration by the court, but in the next breath they say, in effect, “ If the proposed payment is taken into consideration, we will defeat the consequences by increasing the payment by 5s. a week “.
– That is so.
– It is obvious, therefore, that anti-Labour parties were misleading the people during the election campaign when they emphatically declared that the payment of 5s. a week child endowment could not affect the basic wage. As I have already said no one knows whether or not the Arbitration Court will take the proposed child endowment payment into consideration when fixing the basic wage, but Labour senators, because of their long experience of the Arbitration Court, believe that there is every reason to fear that the court will do so. We have already pointed out the very grave injustice that such action would entail for millions of people in this country, particularly for single men who are trying to save sufficient money to acquire a home and embark upon married life, and to married men with no children who are seeking to improve their homes. Because we desire to protect the people of this country from such an injustice we shall ask the Government to include in the bill a specific direction to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court that the amount of the proposed child endowment payment must not be taken into consideration in fixing the basic wage.
– Has the Opposition already foreshadowed an amendment to that effect?
– Senator McKenna has already done so on behalf of the Opposition. If the Government is sincere in its desire to benefit the people it should have no difficulty in accepting our proposed amendment, and the acceptance of that amendment would adequately safeguard the interests of the workers because the court would have to pay regard to the expressed wish of the legislature.
The other important matter about which we are concerned is the amount of the proposed payment. I do not think that any honorable senator will dispute that the first child of a family entails the heaviest expenditure for a family and is, in effect, thebiggest capital investment. It is obvious that the provision of food for only one child in a family costs proportionately more than the supply of food for a number of children. How, therefore, can the Government justify its proposal to pay only 5s. in respect of the first child, whilst for each succeeding child an allowance at the rate of 10s. a week is paid ? Reverting for a moment to the constitutional difficulties which the Government alleges prevent it from instructing the Arbitration Court not to take child endowment into consideration in determining the basic wage, I cannot help regretting that the political parties at present in power saw fit to oppose Labour’s proposal that the people should confer on the legislature the right to determine these matters free of interference from the court. After all, such matters as child endowment vitally affect the welfare of the people, and the Parliament should at least have the power to determine them. If the anti-Labour parties had not opposed Labour’s referendum proposals some years ago, and if those proposals had been accepted by the people, the constitutional position now would have been quite clear in respect of child endowment and the basic wage and we should not be confronted with any of the difficulties that now beset us. I appeal to the Government to accept the amendments that will be moved by the Opposition, the purpose of which will be, as I have already said, to instruct the court not to take into consideration child endowment payments in determining the basic wage, and to increase the proposed payment to 10s. a week.
.- The case for the bill was explained fully by the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) and the answers to all the arguments that have been advanced by members of the Opposition were put quite clearly by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer). I regret that I have to speak on the measure because I feel that this tedious repetition does not do the reputation and standing of the Parliament any credit. I amreminded of the observation made by Macbeth on the appearance of the ghost of Banquo, when he said -
That when the brains were out the man would die,
And there an end: but now, they rise again,
With twenty mortal murthers on their crowns.
And push us from our stools: . . .
So I have the unenviable task of killing these arguments which have already been disposed of, because apparently that must be done. This tedious repetition about the effect on the basic wage can only cover a complete inability to oppose the bill on any rational ground. The Government has given the Opposition evidence, and I shall repeat some of it, that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court no longer takes the family unit as thebasis of the basic wage. The family unit was the original basis of determination. But we know that a new basis has since been adopted. Since 1934 the court has stated definitely that it doesnot take the number of children in a family into account in computing the basic “wage. In that year the court definitely adopted the basis of what national production can afford to pay. In 1934, 1937, 1941 and again in 1944, the court in its judgments clearly set forth the fact that it computes the basic wage on the basis of national productivity and not on a family unit. In 1939 the court in a judgment announced that the adoption of the family as the basic unit for the fixing of the basic wage was unnecessary, whilst in a judgment in 1937 it stated that it could not differentiate between wage-earners with dependants and wage-earners without dependants. I quote the following from the court reports published in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 20th May last, which may be regarded as almost a current source -
Melbourne, Thursday. - The full Arbitration Court decided to-day to proceed with the application by the Australian Council of Trade Unions for an interim basic wage increase of £2 a week. However, the Acting Chief Judge, Mr. Justice Kelly, announced that the court would be hearing the claim on two grounds only - the alleged inappropriateness of the “ C “ series index and the capacity of industry to pay. Other grounds claimed would be considered irrelevant, he said. The parties announced later that they accepted the court’s decision.
Leaving that line of argument, let us look at another aspect. If it is true that this benefit will have the effect of decreasing the basic wage the same must be true of every payment that is made from the Treasury to an individual, or tj the family. It must be true of endowment in respect of the second or third child, or all other children in a family. Likewise, it must be true in respect of the maternity allowance, and so forth. However, thu fact that honorable senators opposite advance their contention merely in order to cast odium on this particular measure is conclusive proof that the provision of endowment in respect of the first child in a family will not affect the basic wage. This amount will be a clear addition .to every family budget. Nobody doubts that, and I do not believe that honorable senators opposite, in their hearts, doubt it.
– Over 1,400,000 employees will not derive any benefit from this legislation.
– What I am saying is that this allowance will be an additional payment to every family budget; and, normally, a family is considered as a man, his wife and their children. Therefore, it is the duty of honorable senators opposite to support this legislation. The opposition they have expressed to it is merely factious and designed to waste time and create suspicion of the Government and its intention in the minds of the public. Such opposition is not advanced in the public interest.
Another matter which should be cleared up, as it has been evidenced in the remarks of every honorable senator opposite who has participated in this debate, is the careful fostering of the belief that no social legislation was ever brought forward except by the socialist party or, to give it its official title, the Labour party. That contention is completely untrue. Since 1885 social legislation has been part of the programme of every important party in the British Empire. It was a very small stream to begin with, naturally, but it grew in volume and I shall give specific instances to show that a large mass of the social legislation in this country exactly analagous to this measure has been enacted by Liberal governments. At the same time, I do not wish to be ungenerous, or to put up the absurd contention that the Labour party has not contributed to that legislation. A party which feels obliged to misrepresent its opponents has a very bad case, but there has been nothing but a continual stream of misrepresentation from honorable senators opposite regarding this measure. I admit frankly that social legislation in general, and legislation of this kind in particular, has gained from the efforts of the Labour party. In that respect I give credit to a man whom many honorable senators opposite used to honour but whom they no longer honour. I refer to Mr. J. T. Lang, who was responsible for quite a considerable amount of social legislation in this country. But honorable senators opposite are prepared to claim all the credit for the legislation for which Mr. Lang was responsible, as well as the legislation that has been enacted by Liberal governments, in addition to the legislation for which they are properly entitled to claim credit.
– The honorable senator should know that, because he has been a member of all parties.
– I do know; and that is the relevant point. I have never denied that at one time I was a member of the Labour party. I have put that fact on record in Hansard, where any one who is interested may look it up. Should it save honorable senators opposite any trouble, I am prepared to satisfy them by adding to every paragraph of my speeches, “ Amen. Yes, I was once in the Labour party “. I am reminded that Lord Melbourne, when attending a cabinet meeting, once said to various unruly people who kept interrupting, “ Let’s admit once and for all that every one has been damned so that we can get down to business “. Let us admit the sort of thing that honorable senators opposite continually throw up in debate in this chamber, and let us get down to business. Whilst the Labour party has enacted a considerable proportion of social legislation in this country, it has not been the originator, the creator or the chief inspirer of it, and it has not been responsible for the greater part of that legislation. In Great Britain from 1905 until the middle of World War I. there was a Liberal government in office in that country, the greatest Liberal government that Great Britain has ever had, and one of the greatest governments of all time. That Liberal government was responsible for the initiation of the greater part of the valuable social service legislation that has been enacted in the United Kingdom.
– Come to Australia.
Other Opposition senators also interjecting,
– I am a comparatively new member of the Senate, Mr. President, but I am at a loss to know whether I am making this speech or merely interjecting.
– Order! The honorable senator must address the Chair, and he must confine his remarks to the bill.
– The Liberal government that was in office in Great Britain from 190S till 1016 was responsible for the greater part of the social services legislation that now stands on the statute-book of the United Kingdom.
– What were the conditions of the workers in 1916?
– They were immeasurably better than the conditions that existed in 1816, and much better than those that existed at the time that that Government assumed office. It is absurd to play off bad conditions against a Utopia, against some idea that one may have in one’s mind. The only rational basis on which to judge the worth of any social measure is whether it represents an improvement on what existed previously and not whether it conforms to some fixed pattern that one may have firmly in one’s mind. Conditions for the average person in Great Britain had been bad for over 150 years, but they have been steadily improved, and the greater part of that improvement has taken place under Liberal governments. An old-age pensions act was introduced in Great Britain by Mr. Asquith, who was the leader of that great Liberal government to which I have referred. That government also established medical services. The great mass of the social services which the Attlee Government is implementing, and which in some ways it has improved was introduced by the Asquith Government. However, whenever it is claimed that a Liberal government established certain social services our opponents invariably retort that such governments were forced to do so as the result of pressure from the Labour party. I am astonished at the complete faith that honorable senators opposite have in the power of mere assertion. The only one I know who had greater faith in that respect was the late unlamented Hitler, who asserted in his famous book that if you only keep on repeating something people will come to believe that it is truth; if a lie is told often enough, people eventually will believe it to be the truth. In answer to the Government’s case honorable senators opposite indulge in mere assertion and continual assertion of something that has never been proved. Among the statesmen who were responsible for so much of the social legislation in Great Britain was David Lloyd George, whose work as a. social reformer has not been equalled by Attlee, Aneurin Bevan or any other member of any Labour party in Great Britain or elsewhere. Churchill, who has been depicted by honorable senators opposite as a hard-hearted conservative, was the greatest driving force behind the enactment of social services legislation in Great Britain up to the time that he assumed control of the Admiralty in 1910. Senator Katz just interjected, “ Come to Australia “. Australia is my native country and after I have been away from it for a while I like to return to it. Social services in Australia were originated by Liberal governments. The old-age pension was very largely the work of Mr. John Cash Neild who afterwards became one of the most distinguished members of the Senate. He prepared the material for Sir George Reid. The Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act was put into force by Sir William Lyne who followed Sir George Reid. Both of those gentlemen can be described as Liberals. Previously, social services had been introduced in New Zealand which was a model social services state long before the Labour party came into existence in this country. Two men, Balance and Seddon, were mainly responsible for the establishment of social services in New Zealand. I recall that when Seddon died every one applauded him as the great humanitarian of the age. He was not a socialist but a Liberal. It is very unwise for honorable senators opposite to ask what the tories have done in the provision of social services. I am not a tory, but a Liberal. The contribution of the tories to social- services in Great Britain has been great. One of the greatest statesmen of the Nineteenth Century was Disraeli, a tory. He was responsible for the institution of some magnificent social services that were far in advance of the age and, in fact, in advance of a good deal of working-class opinion. He was a humanitarian and a man of genius. Those social services were instituted by the tory party, but I am speaking now only of what can genuinely be called liberal reforms. I have dealt with Great Britain, New South Wales and Victoria. The inspirer of all the social services in South Australia was Kingston, one of our great Australian statesmen. He was not in any sense a socialist.
– He expressed his good wishes for the success of the Labour party at every election.
– There was a time when the Labour party was genuinely liberal, but now it has ceased to be liberal.
– Order ! The honorable senator is now referring to a matter that has no relevance to the bill.
– The speech of Senator McKenna was at least coherent and relevant to the bill. The honorable senator based almost the whole of his argument on the supposition, which has been shown to be unsound, that the payment of child endowment in respect of the first child in a family would cause a reduction of the basic wage. He foreshadowed an amendment designed to increase the payment from 5s. to 10s. a’ week. That stultified the whole of his argument. If the payment of child endowment for the first child will lead to a reduction of the basic wage and if honorable senators opposite think it is a bad thing, they should reject it entirely.
Opposition senators interjecting,
– Some honorable senators opposite seem to be determined not only to speak at great length themselves but also to speak during the greater part of the time when honorable senators on this side of the chamber are speaking. It cannot consistently be argued on the one hand, that the payment of child endowment in respect of the first child is bad and that it ought to be rejected because it will cause a general reduction of incomes and, on the other hand, that the proposed payment should be doubled. The fact that it is the intention of honorable senators opposite to try to double it is proof that they know that the proposal is a good one, that it will not affect the basic wage adversely, and that it ought to be supported.
Every one who has studied the history of social services knows that the immediate rate of payment does not matter particularly, and that what is important is to secure the acceptance of the principle. If the principle is accepted and the amount that is paid is found to be inadequate, that amount can be increased when further inquiry is made. If the
Senate accepts the bill as it is, it will have accepted the principle of endowing the first child. We do not pretend that we are satisfied with 5s. a week. We would prefer it to be 10s. a week.
– Then why not increase it?
– I am prepared to reply to all interjections, but they tend to cause me to make remarks that are not relevant to the bill. The reason why the Government has proposed that the payment shall be 5s. a week has been stated clearly by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) and it ought not to be necessary to ask every honorable senator on this side who speaks on the bill to say why it has been proposed. The present Prime Minister stated in his policy speech that the payment would be 5s. a week, and that was accepted by the people. That is our mandate. Therefore, the bill provides for the payment of 5s. a week. If we had desired merely to make loose promises and to obtain credit for doing something for the people, we could have specified a much larger weekly payment, but almost everybody knows that the effect of swelling government expenditure and increasing the purchasing power of the people without first obtaining a corresponding increase of production is to cause inflation and rising prices, with the result that the persons to whom the benefit has been given derive no advantage from it. It has been calculated that the Treasury can afford to pay 5s. a week, and, therefore, that is the amount for which the bill provides. We believe that we can safely pay an additional 5s. a week to every family unit without causing increases of prices or other inflationary factors. We believe that that is the right and proper course to follow. That being so, I can see no reason why there should be any opposition to this measure. I cannot understand why all this talk cannot be deferred until the amendments that’ have been foreshadowed have been moved, when honorable senators opposite can argue that the weekly payment of 5s. should be increased to 10s., ?1, or whatever amount they wish to suggest.
– Would the honorable senator vote in favour of amendments of that kind?
– I have already given my reasons why I should not do so. Why waste time now and drag out this debate to an interminable length?
Senator McKenna congratulated the Government ; whether sincerely or ironically does not matter ; upon having introduced a socialist measure. If he meant to convey that this is a measure that socialists may consistently support, I have no objection to that description. This is a socialist measure in the sense that every socialist should support it. If the honorable senator meant that this was only a socialist measure and that it cannot consistently be supported by anti-socialists, he was quite wrong. I shall not weary the House with a long definition of socialism. It is clearly contained in the Labour party’s platform, which refers to the nationalization or the public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. If a person does not wish the Government to take over the means of production, distribution and exchange, and if he does not want land and capital to be nationalized, he is not a socialist.
– I rise to order. Is Senator McCallum in order in discussing on the motion for the second reading of this bill the nationalization of the means of production, distribution and exchange?
– I have never been a martinet in this chair. I have allowed honorable senators considerable latitude. I spoke to Senator McCallum about leaving the bill and wandering into the past history of liberalism and social services, and the honorable senator returned to the bill. Now he has again wandered from it. It is common in debate for a speaker, in order to illustrate a point, occasionally to leave for a moment the point that is under consideration. I would not prevent any honorable senator from digressing, provided he did not roam too far from the point. I ask Senator McCallum to keep his remarks as closely to the bill as he can. If he can prove to me that the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange has anything to do with the payment of child endowment in respect of the first child, then I shall allow him to continue his remarks on that subject.
– My only reason for mentioning that matter was that we could be accused of hypocrisy if we adopted a socialist measure that was contrary to our principles. I am endeavouring to show that this is not necessarily a socialist measure but a measure of a kind that liberals, conservatives and socialists can support without violating their fundamental principles.
– It is a good votecatcher.
– That is true, but it is absurd for the Opposition to accuse us of having introduced it only to catch votes. Unless a political party regards the people as being incapable of making sound decisions, it puts forward a policy that it believes will catch the votes of intelligent persons who approve of measures that will benefit the whole of the community.
I do not intend to detain the Senate much longer, because I believe it to be our duty to pass this bill as quickly as possible. I appeal to honorable senators opposite to assist us in doing that. Even if they believe that the measure can be improved, in its present form it will give tangible benefit to a large number of families. I do not think that the father who receives an additional 5s. a week will believe that that payment will harm him. It will not result in any reduction of the basic wage or of the general incomes of the ordinary persons in the community. This measure is a non-party measure. It merits the support of every person who wishes to build up the family unit. It is one that should be acceptable to socialists, liberals, and even conservatives. I hope that it will be passed unanimously and without amendment.
Sitting suspended from 5.56 to 8 p.m.
– This afternoon a very interesting debate took place on this bill. First, I should like to make it clear that every member of the Australian Labour party wholeheartedly supports the principle of child endowment. The facts belie what Government senators have claimed to be the attitude of the Opposition in this chamber towards child endowment. We are not opposed to it, but we are opposed to this bill mainly because we say that endowment of 5s. a week only for the first child in every family is ridiculous. The amount of endowment for the first child should, if anything, be more than that for the subsequent children. Labour is opposed to this measure also because the Government will not guarantee that this endowment will not be the forerunner of a reduction of wages. After listening carefully to the comments of Government senators on this matter, I shall go out by the same door as I entered. Some extraordinary statements have been made about child endowment in particular, and social services in general. Time and again it has been stated that the Liberal party first introduced measures of this kind in Australia. That is not so. The first endowment measure was introduced in the New South Wales Parliament in 1927 by the Australian Labour party, despite the opposition of the tories in New South Wales. From 1919 to 1927- speaking from memory - the basic wage in New South Wales was determined on the basis of the needs of a man, his wife, and two children. In 1927 the Labour Government in the State appointed a commissioner to determine the cost of keeping a man and his wife alone in a decent state of comfort. That commissioner was Mr. Piddington, who was a very fine gentleman, but was before his time. He determined that an appropriate amount would be £4 4s. a week, and that a scheme for mother endowment should be introduced. That was thirteen years before the present Prime Minister (Mi. Menzies) or any other tory in this country spoke about endowment. Rut what happened in the Upper House in New South Wales? The measure was opposed in the Upper House, and there was a deadlock for the time being. Subsequently, however, there was a compromise. Not long afterwards the Lang Government in New South Wales was defeated and the Bavin Government was returned to power. That government established another commission to determine a fitting basis for a man and his wife. It subsequently recommended that the basic wage for a man and his wife should be £3 12s. 6d. a week. However, the amount was so low that even Mr. Bavin, a tory, was afraid to implement it. The bill was allowed to lay on the table of the House for months. The government then asked the commission to determine an appropriate amount for a man, his wife, and one child. The basic wage recommended at that time was £4 2s. 6d. a week. I shall not weary the Senate by quoting at length from the records but if honorable senators care to study them they will find that the commission regarded £4 2s. 6d. a week as the amount necessary to keep a man, his wife, and one child, and that, as the amount required to keep the child was included in the basic wage figure, endowment could not also be paid for the first child in every family. The commission also stated that unless there were irresistible reasons in the future that could not then be foreseen, the first child could not be endowed. Later in my address I shall refer to what the Liberals did in Great Britain about endowment. For the present, however, I shall confine my remarks to what happened in New South Wales. As I have already pointed out £3 12s. 6d. was the amount determined for a man and his wife, and £4/ 2s. 6d. a week was the amount determined for a man, his wife and one child. The net result was that a single man received 10s. a week less. The married man with no children received 10s. a week less than the married man with one child. Therefore endowment really started with the third child. In other words, the sum total that was taken off the single man and the man without children and the man with one child was £6,000,000 greater than the total amount of mother endowment.
– They must have been wealthy men.
– I understand the psychological effect of such an arrangement. Elections are won by psychology rather than by logic. Women invariably do not study the intricacies of these situations and would say “’’ We got 5s. a week more endowment from the Liberal party than the Labour party gave us “. They would not take into account that wages were reduced by 12s. 6d. a week or 15s. a week.
Senator Annabelle Rankin this afternoon delivered a very fine sentimental speech. She is a nice kindly lady. Men like sentimental women. This is not only a question of psychology but also of sex appeal. The honorable senator is in precisely the same position as 99 women of every 100 in Australia to-day. But the dismal science of hard economics does not allow of any sentimentality. It was very nice to hear the honorable senator say that the women would receive tha endowment. I do not know what they could do with such a small amount; as. a week would buy only about one and a quarter chops. As Robert Burns said “ facts are chiels “. That cannot be disputed. In dealing with this matter we must forget about sentiment and consider what reduction of wages will be involved. Of course, the present Prime Minister knew about this aspect of the matter when he raised it during the election campaign. The people who elected him to power must be given a quid pro quo.
– But the honorable senator wanted “ two “ quid pro quo.
– Yes, but the Minister who has just interjected would be the last person that I would ask for it. It is obvious that a reduction of wages is contemplated. The Prime Minister himself has stated that if the 5s. a week endowment for the first child in every family were taken into consideration by the court he would increase the amount to 10s. a week. He was either talking about something or talking about nothing. If it has nothing to do with the basic wage why did he say “ if “ the court took it into consideration he would adopt a certain course? If it were to be an ex gratia payment he would not have qualified his statement in that way. Even if the amount of endowment were increased to 10s._, when the case again came before the court that amount would be taken into consideration. The real question is: If child endowment has .no bearing on the basic wage, why did the court hearing the present application adjourn? I should like the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) to answer that question when replying. Honorable senators on the Government side of the chamber are noticeably quiet now. Although the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator
O’sullivan) interrupts continuously, lie is refraining from doing so now.
– honorable senator’s interpreter is not present.
– I know that the Minister cannot understand Scotch, but I believe that he can do other things with it. I recall that the late Senator Leckie interjected on one occasion when I was addressing the chamber, “ Don’t be offensive. I am half Scotch myself “, to which I replied, “ What is the other half? Soda, I suppose.” Despite the fact that the late senator was somewhat irascible he was a groat humorist. I assure the Government that if this endowment is intended to be an ex gratia payment every member of the Opposition will support the bill. But let us consider what 5s. a week would buy for the first child in a family. He must have new clothes. On the other hand I believe that economical mothers can adapt the clothes that have been outgrown by the first children for use by the second and perhaps the third child. School books, also, are expensive. Why should not the endowment for the first child be 10s. a week? I cannot understand Senator Annabelle Rankin being so sentimental about this matter and yet not voting to increase the amount payable to 10s. a week. She would probably reply, “ Because Mr. Menzies said so “. But since the right honorable gentleman said that, 10s. has decreased in value to 5s.
– When the Prime Minister said that, the former Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) said that he approved of it.
– Now, as the man from Macedonia said to Paul, the Prime Minister says to the right honorable member for Macquarie, “ Come over and help us “. For honorable senators opposite ro suggest that the reason that they are not in favour of increasing the amount to 10s. a week is because the Prime Minister said so, is mere subterfuge. They did not intend to do it in the first place. If it is done it will result in a reduction of wages amounting to millions of pounds “a year. A reduction of the purchasing power of the people would bring about a depression. Of course, I know that honorable senators opposite will say, as
Senator McCallum has already said, “Most of the advanced legislation has been introduced by Liberals “. The honorable senator said in reply to a suggestion from this side of the chamber that honorable senators opposite were tories. When he wished to refer to what had been done in England by the Liberals the President courteously permitted him to do so. I probably know more about Great Britain than do most honorable senators in this chamber. I realize, of course, that some Scotch honorable senators will object to that statement, particularly those who have never seen Scotland. The Labour Government in Great Britain has done more for the people of that country by the provision of social services in the last four and a half years than the tories did in the preceding 200 years. When I was a boy, if we had a toothache, most people could not afford to get a tooth extracted. If we could, a blacksmith euphemistically called a dentist was summoned and he “yanked” out the tooth without an anaesthetic. To-day 8,000,000 children are being treated for dental troubles but not under the Liberal party. When a child of the poor was sick in Scotland, as the President knows, if the parents sent for a doctor the neighbours would say, “I think the child will die. They have sent for the doctor “. In those days a child had to be that sick before a doctor was called. The parents were so poor that they were afraid to send for a doctor because they did not have the money to pay him. When people became old and could not see to read, they got the children to read to them. They could not afford glasses. That is not the position to-day. I ask Senator McCallum if the liberals or the tories ever did anything like that. If honorable senators opposite say that the wealthy people got these things I agree with them.
– They paid through taxation.
– If the honorable senator was paid on his merits he would not be here at all. I do not object to inter jjections
– The honorable senator cannot stand a sensible interjection.
– Unfortunately Senator Cooper appoints himself the judge of sense. In this instance I am the judge. Honorable senators opposite say the authorities are well paid, but who pays?
– The community.
– The community ha? always paid. The people of Great Britain paid but did not get anything. In England according to the Liberal, Campbell Bannerman, there were always 13,000,000 on the verge of starvation. No children go to school now without food. Almost everything is done for them. The Labour party was the first in Australia to introduce child endowment and it agrees with the principle wholeheartedly. Members of the Labour party are not going to be put into the position where the people will say that Labour members are against child endowment. They are in favour of it. I ask the Government why it objects to the amendment foreshadowed by the Opposition. I know the judges need not necessarily take any notice of it. Why does the Government object to an expression of opinion that the amount of 5s. should be increased?
– Because the judges have common sense.
– If the judges are not going to take child endowment into consideration, why did they adjourn? Members of the Government cannot answer that.
– Because the Labour party was trying to make political capital out of it.
– I thought the honorable senator was asleep. I am glad he is waking up. Judge after judge has said that the basic wage now should be determined on what industry can pay. I leave that question to Senator O’Flaherty who is an authority on the subject. I say definitely that I am sure Senator McCallum only partly quoted what the learned judge said. Judges again and again have said they cannot determine the basic wage without taking into consideration the family unit. The nation is told what the basic wage should be and not what industry can pay. That is what was said in the depression.
If the basic wage were determined on what industry can pay the agricultural labourer should be getting a rise of 5 per cent, every two or three days because of the continual rise in the price of wool. The rouseabouts in the shearing sheds should be getting £30 a week. Senator Annabelle Rankin will remember, as every woman knows, that during the war, although the prices of hats were fixed at say, £5 or £10, the addition of a little piece of ribbon allowed the price of the hat to be increased well beyond the fixed price. Does anybody suggest that the wages of the girls working in hat shops were detrmined by what the industry could pay? It is not suggested that the wages of girls working in shops where mink coats are sold are fixed on the capacity of the industry.
– What about child endowment? We are not talking about hats.
– The honorable senator would not know what I am discussing anyhow. It has been suggested by speaker after speaker on the Government side that wages are determined by what industry can pay. One has only to look at the stock exchange to see the price of shares, but the workers have been trying for fifteen months to get the basic wage proposition determined. By the time a decision is made prices will be so high that even £10 per week will be much too low for the basic wage. Members of the Government have made statement after statement but have not given any facts at all. I remember how rural wages were set aside in the depression on the ground that the industry could not pay them. Are the people who are working in those industries now getting wages in accordance with the price of wheat and what industry can pay? I accept it as a fact under capitalism that labour power is a commodity which is bought and sold on the market like any other commodity. It i3 subject to economic laws like any other commodity and the price of it is determined by the amount required to reproduce it. A family unit is taken as a man with a wife with one child or with two children as the case may be. A man is given sufficient to reproduce his kind and give his children a standard of education. Having done that he has nothing left for his old age. That is an economic law and no one can dispute it. The energy that a man applies to his task is a commodity under capitalism and the price paid for it is determined by the cost of reproducing it. It is not determined by what industry can pay or any other factor. That was said 70 to 80 years ago and it is as true now as it was then. When there are so many who desire to speak it is not fitting, that I should speak at great length, but I wish to make one further remark and then I will finish because Senator 0’Flaherty has something worthwhile to say.
– That will be a nice change.
– I am talking to the butcher, not to the block. I finish by asking if honorable senators opposite oan give a guarantee that the judges will not take any notice of this legislation in fixing the basic wage? I know that they cannot give a guarantee. Sensible men can only deduce that the court is going to take endowment into consideration.
– Where does the honorable senator get that from ?
– The only facts honorable senators have are that as soon as Mr. Menzies made his statement that 5s. was to be allowed for the first child, the court adjourned until after the election.
– That was when the Labour party made an issue of it.
– Whether the Labour party made it an issue or not is begging the question.
– Why is the court not still adjourned?
– It has not adjourned on the assumption that this bill will be passed. I have at least attempted to answer the honorable senator’s question, but he has made no effort to answer mine. So far there is no other evidence. The major part of that evidence is on our side. By no possible stretch of imagination can it be deduced that the court adjourned because the basic wage had nothing to do with child endowment.
Therefore, the only deduction is that it had some connexion.
– Why not talk sensibly? The court adjourned so that it would not be dealing with the subject in the middle of a political campaign.
– The honorable senator says why not take a reasonable assumption that the court merely adjourned because there was an election. It is not a reasonable assumption at all, any more than an assumption that the court would adjourn because of the eclipse of the sun would be reasonable. That has no bearing on it. If the basic wage and child endowment have no connexion why should the court adjourn because of an election? The Labour party has been in power before. Senator O’Byrne ably pointed out to-day that the Labour Government submitted a referendum to allow it to do certain things. The Labour Government advocated control of industry and prices and the Liberal party told the people to vote “no”. Now the Liberal party has been hoisted on its own petard on both issues. The Labour party increased endowment from 5s. to 7s. 6d. and later to 10s.
– That did not hurt the basic wage.
– No, because the first child was already taken into account in the basic wage. The honorable senator cannot have it both ways.
– We do not want it both ways.
– Order ! I think that Ministers would be doing the right thing if they refrained from interjecting. Ministers should set an example to the Senate. I ask them to keep quiet while the honorable senator is speaking.
– Senator McKenna or Senator Ashley or any of the former Ministers on this side of the chamber, as well as men like myself who have been in the Labour movement for many years, can emphasize that the Labour party is in favour of child endowment in principle. Honorable senators on this side have put up propositions which supporters of the Government have not answered. Their answers to both proposals are pure subterfuge. The evidence is that child endowment will be taken into consideration by the court in fixing the basic wage. The Government has not produced a tittle of evidence to disprove that view. Labour senators have had experience in the past and have learned from it. The Leader of the Opposition (‘Senator Ashley), Senator Large and myself can tell honorable senators what took place in New South “Wales. This cry for the endowment of the first child is sentimental and psychological, but certainly not logical. The women of New South “Wales thought that child endowment was a good idea because they did not understand the intricacies which brought about a reduction of £6,000,000 a year in wages. If the Government were prepared to incorporate in this measure an expression of its wish that the Arbitration Court should not take the endowment of the first child into consideration in determining the basic wage, we should support the bill. However, we should still maintain that, for the Government to offer to women of this country only 5s. a week for the first child of their families, was an insult. Nobody can offer any valid reason why endowment for the first child should be only 5s. a week, whereas endowment for subsequent children is 10s. a week.
We have stated our case against this measure, and, so far, that case has remained unassailable. The two points that I wish to make are, first, that we should vote for the bill if we could get an assurance that the Arbitration Court would not take endowment for the first child into consideration in fixing the basic wage, and secondly, that if even such an assurance were given, we believe that the Government should do the decent thing and not insult Australian mothers by offering them 5s. a week for the first child. I hope that Senator Annabelle Rankin, who appears to he so much concerned about the welfare of Australian women, will demonstrate that concern in a practical way by voting with the Opposition when it moves to increase the payment from 5s. to 10s. a week. By doing that, the honorable senator would show that she was concerned first with the welfare of mothers and their families, and secondly with the interests of the Liberal party. I have stated my opinions, and they are opinions which, I am sure, are shared by my colleagues. Labour’s case was adequately put ‘by Senator McKenna, and has been expanded by other honorable senators on this side of the chamber. Further elaboration will be given by Senator O’Flaherty shortly.
.- In spite of the efforts that have been made by honorable senators opposite, I do not believe that the question now before the Senate warrants the lengthy debate that we have had upon it, and I hope that we shall be able shortly to end this discussion. Otherwise I fear that the Government may not be able to begin endowment payments on the date that it has in mind. It is the desire not only of the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Spooner), but also of every other honorable senator on this side of the chamber that endowment in respect of the first child of every family should become payable as soon as that is humanly possible. The questions that we have to decide are simple. The first is: Will the Opposition accept the Government’s proposal to pay £13 a year to every Australian mother, or will it use its numbers in this chamber to defeat the measure and deny the benefit? The second question is : Are there any reasons that could possibly justify the Opposition in defeating this measure?
– Plenty.
– I hope at a later stage to answer the interjection from the honorable senator whom I congratulate upon his return to this chamber as a lion refreshed after a happy, and, no doubt, somnolent Easter. I wish to make it quite clear at the outset that, if this bill be defeated, and this desirable extension of child endowment is withheld from Australian families, the responsibility will rest solely upon the Labour opposition in this chamber. Admittedly, we have heard here and there utterances to the effect that the Opposition is not opposed to this bill, but it is also true that until to-day the general tone and content of every speech made from the other side of the chamber has indicated bitter hostility to the measure. Almost every Opposition speaker has mentioned two proposed amendments upon which honorable senators opposite threaten to insist. The Opposition knows, for it has been told clearly and unequivocally that if it does insist upon those amendments, it will succeed only in destroying the entire bill. Therefore, if, the Opposition does persist in its amendments, it must be prepared to accept complete responsibility for the denial to the community of the benefit that the bill envisages. Honorable senators opposite may seek, and perhaps may be able, to justify acceptance of that responsibility, but they cannot avoid its acceptance. To make that point clear, let us examine the first amendment that the Opposition has foreshadowed. I refer to the proposal to increase the child endowment payment provided for in this measure from 5s. to 10s. a week. No question of principle is involved in that amendment. No honorable senator opposite has claimed that acceptance of the amendment would improve the working of the bill or eliminate any anomaly that the bill might produce. The Opposition’s attitude is purely “ We want to give more money “. I should be very glad indeed to see 10s. a week paid in respect of each child of every family, and I have no doubt that view is shared by all honorable senators on this side of the chamber, but we realize that the Government, in its administration of social services, is confronted with a number of anomalies and difficulties that were bequeathed to it by the Chifley Government. When the Labour Government withdrew price stabilization subsidies, it reduced the value of fixed incomes including pensions. The means test operates unjustly against those who live on superannuation payments and small savings. Those matters require the attention of the Government, and until the Government knows just what its commitments in those directions will be, it is fully justified in confining itself to the fulfilment of its election pledge to introduce a child endowment payment of 5s. a week in respect of the Er:t child in each family. That is exactly what this bill proposes to do. The Opposition knows that no government could possibly accept from an Opposition an amendment of this kind. The Government, and the Government alone, is responsible for the expenditure of public money, and therefore it must be in full control of that expenditure. The Opposition is seeking to control expenditure without accepting any responsibility for it. If that principle were admitted, it could be applied to every item of budget expenditure and stable government would be impossible. If, knowing that, the Opposition insists upon its amendment, it will be wilfully destroying the bill and must accept full responsibility for that action.
I come now to the second foreshadowed amendment, and here honorable senators opposite have made some attempt to prove that it is essential in the interests of the people. They want a new clause inserted directing the Arbitration Court to disregard endowment for the first child in fixing the basic wage. At least that is what we have been told. Whether the Easter recess has enabled more moderate counsels in outside unions to be brought to bear, I do not know, but, so far as we are aware officially, honorable senators opposite will insist upon the insertion of a clause of the type that I have mentioned. They claim that unless this is done, the Court, having in view the endowment of the first child, will not fix as high a basic wage as it would otherwise do. In support of that contention, certain very carefully selected extracts from Arbitration Court judgments have been quoted and a number of subsidiary corroborative arguments, none of which will bear examination, have been used. Before I proceed to an examination of those arguments, there is one point that I should like to make quite clear: Any amendment on the lines suggested would be absolutely pointless and useless. The Government cannot tell the Arbitration Court what it must or must not do. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the Government could alter the functions of the Arbitration Court only by amending the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and not by scattering casual provisions throughout other legislation. Certainly the Government cannot direct the court by means of such provisions. Therefore, a clause such as that foreshadowed by the Opposition would be invalid and valueless as the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) has already pointed out. Moreover, its inclusion might render the whole scheme invalid.
In short, the proposed amendment could do no good, but might do a great deal of harm. Therefore, it cannot be accepted by the Government. However, I believe that the arguments that have been advanced by honorable senators opposite in support of their contention that such an instruction should be inserted in the bill, should be critically examined, because it is upon those arguments that the Opposition will rely to justify its decision to deprive the people of the benefits of this measure. I shall deal first with what I consider to be the four subsidiary corroborative arguments. Most of them were mentioned first by Senator McKenna and have been mentioned since by every Opposition speaker. One is that, as the Menzies Government did not endow the first child in 1941, it should not do so now. The inference is, of course, that the reasons that restrained the Government in 1941 ought to restrain or at least embarrass it now. That argument rests upon two assumptions, both of which are completely false. One is that the Government did not wish to endow the first child in 1941. It did. The Government gave great consideration to that matter in 1941. The then Minister for Labour and National Service in his second-reading speech on the child endowment measure, said that the Government had given full and sympathetic consideration to the endowing of the first child of each family. Unfortunately, at that time we were engaged in a war, the end of which no n;an could then foresee, and the financial commitments of which were immeasurable. Because of that the Government decided that it would not be justified in doubling the amount needed for endowment by providing for the endowment of the first child. Repugnant as that decision was to the Government, it was supported by the fact that the then Thief Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration had said that, in his opinion, the basic wage, although not fixed on any family unit, whatever was in fact sufficient to meet the needs of man, wife and one child. Because we were at war and because the Chief J udge said that the wage was sufficient at that time the then government did not do what it would have liked to do.
However, conditions have now changed completely. We are no longer at war, and the present Administration is now able to do what the former non-Labour Government hoped to achieve. It is clear, therefore, that there has been no change of front, and that there is nothing to embarass the Government. All that is involved in the introduction of this bill is an acknowledgement that changed conditions make it possible to do now what a former non-Labour administration would have liked to do then.
The second subsidiary argument advanced by honorable senators opposite, and one which Senator Grant laboured at some length, is the statement made by the present Prime Minister during the recent election campaign that if the Commonwealth Arbitration Court took the payment of 5s. into account the Government would increase the payment to 10s. a week. The words that I have just used are those which the Opposition have quoted and with which they have attempted to make great play. In the first place let me point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) did not at any time use these words, attributed to him by Senator Grant and other members of the Opposition. At no time did the right honorable gentleman say that if the Arbitration Court took the payment of 5s. a week into consideration he would increase the payment to 10s. What he said, in his policy speech was -
We have noticed that suggestions have been made to the court that it should alter the basis of the basic wage.
Those suggestions, I point out, had been made long before the right honorable gentleman made his policy speech. He went on to say -
We do not know whether the court will accept these suggestions or not, and therefore, we cannot say for sure what we believe the endowment for the first child shall be. Therefore, we put our proposals before you in the alternative. If the Arbitration Court accepts suggestions which have been made before this policy speech then we shall pay 10s. a week; if it does not but continues as at present we shall pay 5s.
There was no suggestion of attempting to circumvent the court in any way.
– I did not say that there was.
– Then, Senator McKenna did. I repeat that all the Prime Minister said was that if the court altered its method of fixing the basic wage the Government would increase the proposed payment to 10s. a week.
The next criticism made by honorable senators opposite was that the Arbitration Court adjourned the hearing because its members wanted to know what the result of the election would be - that is, whether or not the first child was to be endowed - before they proceeded to fix the basic wage. However, the Attorney-General disposed of that criticism by pointing out that the Arbitration Court does not know even now whether additional child endowment will be paid. Another answer to that contention which comes immediately to mind is that if the reason for the adjournment of the court was that it would know these facts before it gave judgment, the court must have contemplated that the case would be completed in the 30 days between the time of the adjournment and the date of the election. Since the case had been going on for fifteen months, and the employers had not then even had an opportunity to put their case, it is obvious that the judges must have realized that the case would not be completed before the election. However, assuming for the sake of argument that the judges had imagined that the case would he completed before the election, and that they had adjourned when they did so that they would know the result of the election before they gave judgment, we completely overlook the fact that the judges were not likely, in the normal course of procedure, to deliver their judgment immediately at the conclusion of the evidence but could reserve judgment until they knew all the facts they wished to consider. I suggest that the reason why the court adjourned was the reason given by its members, which was that, since they were engaged in considering matters relevant to the distribution of, and the amount of, national income, and the capacity of the economy to bear that distribution - and those aTe matters that lie at the basis of fixing the basic wage - it was not right for them to continue to looking into those matters while they were the subject of election controversy. And
I remind members of the Opposition that immediately we made our proposals the Australian Labour party dragged in the question of the basic wage.
The next, and the last, of the subsidiary arguments advanced by the Opposition relies heavily upon the report of a royal commission in 1929. Senator McKenna and another honorable senator from Tasmania referred at some length to that document. I consider that Senator McKenna would have treated the Senate and the electors more fairly if, after he had quoted extensively from the report, he had told the Senate that that report was based on data which ceased to be true in 1931, and is, therefore, irrelevant to any discussion on the matter to-day. From 1927 to 1929, the period during which the royal commission functioned, the basic wage was still assessed on the lines laid down by Mr. Justice Higgins in the Harvester judgment, which was concerned with the needs of a family of five, or about five. However, in 1931 the court completely departed from that method of assessment and has never since returned to it; so that any quotations from the report of a royal commission which is based on data that have long since ceased to apply has not much value to-day. Later in my speech I shall quote from some eminent people who ought to know and who held the view that the findings of the 1929 royal commission were completely out of date years ago.
– To what royal commission is the honorable senator referring?
– The royal commission which inquired into child endowment and from whose reports Senator McKenna read a number of extracts. Oddly enough, the extracts which the honorable senator read were quoted from the majority report of the commission and not from the minority report that was prepared by the late Mr. John Curtin and Mrs. Muscio. I shall quote the words uttered by the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) at the time when child endowment was being considered in 1941. Like Senator McKenna the right honorable gentleman is a lawyer and is, therefore, if we accept Senator
Hendrickson’s charming description of lawyers, a barnacle on the ship of progress. However, this particular “ barnacle “ can lay claim to some legal knowledge . This is what he said -
I rise merely to correct the impression which the Attorney-General has created, that the Arbitration Court now has regard to the family unit in fixing the basic wage. It is true that in 1907 the late Mr. Justice Higgins in his original Harvester judgment did speak of a family of five, i:r about live, and that from 1907-1931 the needs of the family were taken into account by the Court. In 1931 the standard was lowered by 10 per cent, and the Court departed from tile fixation of the basic wage by reference to the needs of the basic wage earner and his family. The Court said - “ There is only one way of looking at it, and that is, what is the national income? What can industry alford?” And what was done in 1931 was repeated in 1934, 1935, 1937, and now in 1941. To-day the judges disclaim’ any reference to the needs of the family of the basic wage earner. They say that they are irrelevant. The AttorneyGeneral must not suppose that the needs of workers have had any connexion with the fixation of the basic standard wage since 1931. To say that there is a connexion is only to complicate the matter. The Court does not fix the basic wage on the basis of a man, wife and one child; the wage is fixed according to the national income and nothing else.
Opposition senators interjecting,
It is curious that when one makes a true statement which hurts the Opposition there is an immediate outcry ; in fact, the greater the truth the greater the babble.
Those are tue four supporting arguments that have been advanced by the Opposition. Because they realize that those arguments will not stand up to thorough examination some members of the Opposition have resorted to misrepresentation, innocent or otherwise, of the remarks made by other people. I mention that, not because the misrepresentation offends my moral sense particularly, but because I feel that when a party has to resort to twisting the words of its opponents in order to attack its opponents’ case, its own case must be very weak indeed. As an instance of the misrepresentation to which I have just referred, I draw attention to a statement made by Senator Nash in the course of his speech. The honorable senator quoted from a speech made by the present Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) when, as a member of a former Administration, he was intro ducing the bill to provide child endowment in 1941. According to Senator Nash on that occasion the Minister said -
The fear has been expressed that the introduction of child endowment at the present time may lead to a reduction of some basic wage rates, whilst criticism has been coming from other quarters that we propose to endow children who are already provided for in the basic wage…..
Using those words as a basis for his criticism Senator Nash said, in effect, “ There you are ; there is a statement from a Minister of the present Government which is directly contrary to the statements that you are making to-day “. Let me point out now that after using the words quoted the present Minister for Labour and National Service on that occasion devoted a considerable amount of time, and filled two or three columns of Hansard in the process, in order to prove that the fears expressed were not justified and should not be taken into account at all. I can only conclude that Senator Nash either deliberately refrained from continuing the quotation because he thought that it would destroy the effect of his contention, or that he had not troubled to read the full report. I find all sorts of misrepresentation occurring in speeches of honorable senators opposite, including even that of Senator McKenna, who devoted some time to rejecting and refuting a statement which he attributed to the Minister for Social Services, but which the Minister did not make. Honorable senators may remember that Senator McKenna, after advancing a reasonable amount of argument, said -
This refutes entirely the statement made by the Minister for Social Services that the court does not take any account at all of the needs of the family in fixing the basic wage.
I draw the attention of the Senate to the actual words that the Minister did use. They were -
It would be a mistake therefore to suppose that the basic wage has been computed on the formula of ascertaining the wage necessary to meet the reasonable needs of the average family unit. Indeed, the court has expressly and specifically departed from that principle.
And, indeed, it has. The Minister continued -
But it would be equally a mistake to suppose that the court since 1934 has taken no account at all of the needs of the average family unit.
As the Minister used those last words I can see no reason why Senator McKenna shoul’d spend a great part of his speech in attacking him for not having said something which, in principle, he did say. I could give further examples of that kind of argument, but I sh-ll mention only one more instance because it has a bearing upon the belief which, judging by the way they expressed themselves, I believe some honorable senators opposite hold sincerely. That is that the basic wage is fixed on the basis of the needs of a man, wife and one child. Senator McKenna, after quoting from the 1941 judgment of Judge 0’Mara and Judge Piper said that the quotation he read showed that those two judges did not uphold the Chief Judge when he defined the family unit in the way that he did. I believe it should be strongly pointed out that the Chief Judge at no time defined the family unit. What the Chief Judge said was -
We can see that the needs of an average family should be kept in mind. But we have never’ said what an average family is, what it costs to keep an average family in comfort, nor that a basic wage should give effect to such a finding if it had been made.
Those words cannot be interpreted as a definition of a family unit-
– Bead the final paragraph.
– The Chief Judge continued -
In order to approximate, which is all we can do, one of the methods we use is to find out the actual wage on which well-situated labourers are maintaining an average family
The main contention of honorable senators opposite is that the provision of endowment for the first child will affect the basic wage because the Arbitration Court will take the endowment into account when it is fixing the basic wage. I do not know how one can more specifically point to the fact that the court has departed from the principle of fixing the basic wage on the basis of the needs of a family than by quoting from the court’s own judgments. Time and time again since 1931 the court has specifically stated that it does not fix the basic wage on any such basis at all. The passage I have just quoted from the 1941 judgment of Chief Judge Beeby proves that fact. Further, the judgment of the Full Arbitration Court in 1937 reads -
On the 17th April, 1934, the Court made general variations . . . whereby the 10 per cent, reduction was removed from marginal rates, and the basic wage put upon a new footing. It was no longer related to the Harvester Wage of 1907 with or without the Powers 3s. but was assessed at the highest amount which the Court thought could be safely prescribed at the time.
I quote the following from the 1940 judgment of Judge Piper and Judge 0’Mara :-
The result is that the dominant factor in fixing the basic wage by this Court is the economic or productivity factor, and that the basic wage must be the highest that industry as a whole can pay. The needs of a family are only a guide in determining that wage - and are not an absolute guide - and the Court has not enumerated its own standards either as to the needs or the size of the family to be provided for.
One could quote from all of the court’s judgments since 1931 which iterate and re-iterate that the basic wage is not fixed on the needs of a family unit of any size, whether it be a nian, wife and one child, or a family including two or three children. The fact is that in attempting to assess the highest wage that industry can possibly pay one of the methods, and only one, that the court uses is not to find the needs of a family, but to ascertain what wage the average man receives to maintain the average family which, however, the court does not define.
Honorable senators opposite, on the querulous and weak arguments that they have advanced, are prepared to insist upon the destruction of a benefit which should be described briefly so that everyone will know what is being endangered by their action. This benefit will go not only to workers on the basic wage, but also to the many other sections of the community which are as deserving of justice as are the workers on the basic wage or those in receipt of wages based upon the basic wage. It will go to the families of self-employed persons in small shops and businesses throughout Australia, to the families of farmers and of young professional men who are facing the lean years which always dog the professional man during the opening years of his career. It will go towards increasing the pension payable to widows.
In such instances it may make all the difference in bridging the horrible gap between what is just not sufficient and what is enough.
– One would be led to believe that the endowment amounted to £5 a week.
– This endowment will amount to £13 a year, and if honorable senators opposite adopt the attitude that they will make it £26 a year, or nothing, let them say so straight out so that the people will know exactly where they stand in this matter. This benefit will go to all the varying sections of the community. Senator Grant said that it was an insult to offer endowment at the rate of 5s. a week, but I believe that it is an insult that the mothers of Australian families will be glad to receive, particularly if the alternative is nothing at all. Honorable senators opposite say that the proposed endowment is small, but it represents a steady income which will be available in spite of sickness, or death, and in spite of losses caused by strikes. In that way it will help to take wives and children out of the industrial firing line. There can be no quarrel with the amount that is proposed except that it is not enough, and we say-
Opposition senators interjecting,
– If honorable senators opposite pursue their line of reasoning and say that they will agree to the payment of 10s. a week or nothing, their attitude is incomprehensible. The Opposition in this chamber will decide whether this measure will be passed or not. That is their responsibility and I hope that before they push their argument to its final point and defeat the measure they will consider the weakness of the argument they have advanced against it and the benefits that will flow to the people from this proposal. But whether honorable senators opposite do that or not I am sure of one thing: Either now, through their inaction, or later having smashed their opposition, the Government will provide endowment for the first child in the family. The Opposition may delay the passage of this measure, but it cannot defeat the Government in that purpose. If honorable senators opposite have the welfare of Australian families at heart they will not delay this measure.
– The speech just made by Senator Gorton is one of the most remarkable that I have heard in this chamber for many years. First, he complained that members of the Opposition quoted certain statements completely out of their context. Yet, he himself did the same thing in quoting certain passages from judgments of the Arbitration Court in support of his mournful case, will not be a case of the Opposition refusing to provide endowment at the rate of 5s. for the first child, but a case of supporters of the Government denying adequate endowment for the first child. The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), after abusing certain members of the Opposition, petulantly said that if the Opposition did not agree to the provision of endowment at the rate of 5s. no benefit at all would be provided. Therefore, the responsibility for the passage of this measure rests upon the Government. Does it intend to doom it because the Opposition will insist upon endowment at the rate of 10s., a week?
– The honorable senator and his colleagues when in government did not think of providing this benefit.
– New times demand new measures. I have no doubt that throughout his lifetime Senator Scott has found it to be wise to change his opinions in certain respects. I am ashamed that some honorable senators, including some of my own colleagues, are prone to challenge the sincerity of other honorable senators in debate. It is shameful for any honorable senator to challenge the sincerity of another honorable senator who advocates a different point of view. That practice is one of the lowest phases of politics, and it should be stopped. No honorable senator is justified in challenging the sincerity of another honorable senator who makes statements which clearly indicate that he hai changed his mind on a certain matter because in the rapidly changing circumstances of the economy of this country and, indeed, of the world, one may be fully justified in changing one’s opinion and advocating something different from what he advocated only a short time previously. An honorable senator may bie justified in challenging the methods adopted by another honorable senator, but he could not be justified in challenging another honorable senator’s sincerity. The methods advocated by an honorable senator may appear to border upon insanity.
– The Opposition’s whole case against this measure is that the Government is insincere.
– I have never challenged the Government’s sincerity, and I am not challenging it now. I want honorable senators opposite to believe that I am sincere when I say that, in my opinion, there is a risk that the arbitration court Will regard the payment of child endowment for the first child as a reason why the basic wage should not be increased. Honorable senators may say, if they like, that the methods that are advocated by other honorable senators for the achievement of an objective, border on insanity, and indeed, I believe that the methods that Liberal organizations sometimes adopt are worse than insane, but I do not think that they should challenge the sincerity of any member of the Senate.
The Attorney-General has questioned the sincerity of honorable senators on this side of the chamber in relation to this measure because we have foreshadowed an amendment designed to increase the endowment from os. to 10s. a week. Sometimes a mother gives her son a bat. The boy then plays cricket with his friends, and for as long as the other boys will bowl the ball for him to hit he will continue to play, but if another boy wants to bat he ceases to play and takes his bat home. The Attorney-General has adopted a somewhat similar attitude. He has said that if we persist with our amendment there will be no endowment paid in respect of the first child. Senator Gorton has said the same thing in rather a different way. He has said that if we defeat the bill, which provides for a weekly payment of os., we must take the blame for it. The bill will not be rejected. It will be amended and will be passed by the Senate in its amended form. The onus will then be thrown upon the Government.
I propose now to explain why honorable senators on this side of the chamber desire the payment to be increased to 10s. a week. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), speaking of first children in families and outlining the case for the payment of child endowment in respect of them, said -
These children are usually the first children of young parents who are already beset with many financial obligations. They have to meet the initial expenses associated with the advent of the new child, such as the provision of a pram, the full layette - clothing and so on - without the advantage of being able to use anything which was purchased for a previous child.
That in itself is a good reason for making the endowment 10s. a week. The Minister has said that parents are involved in greater expenses in respect of their first child than they are in respect of subsequent children.
– That reason has existed during the last eight years.,
– I admit that. I am giving my reasons for suggesting that the payment should be 10s. a week. I have pointed out that the Minister has said that the first child involves its parents in more expense than do the second and subsequent children. Hence the necessity to make the endowment 10s. a week.
– The honorable senator’s powers of persuasion with the last Goverment were evidently not great.
– Senator Guy is one of those persons who tries to make political capital out of every little thing.
– The honorable senator is trying to do that now.
– I am giving my reasons for suggesting that the endowment should be 10s. not 5s. a week. I am supporting my argument by reminding the Senate of what the Minister said in his second-reading speech, that is, that a first child involves its parents in more expense than do second and subsequent children. If that be so, why should not the Government pay an endowment of 10s. a week in respect of first children ? Even then, it would not bt as much as should be paid, because the other children are cheaper to maintain
We listened this afternoon to Senator Annabelle Rankin giving what I suppose may be termed an intimate disquisition on the troubles of a mother. I am a father and not a mother. I have not the knowledge of a mother’s troubles that is possessed by a lady senator, but I know from experience that the first child costs at least as much to maintain as do subsequent children. Therefore, the endowment for that child should be at least the same as the endowment for subsequent children.
The Government has said that it is its responsibility to find the money to pay for the endowment. The money is available. The Labour party formed the government of this country for the last S years. Now the people have returned to power the parties that promised to pay child endowment in respect of the first child, but the money for .the payment of the endowment will come from the huge reserve that the Labour party accumulated. The money is available, and the Government cannot quarrel with us on that score.
I turn now to the second amendment that was foreshadowed by Senator McKenna. It is an amendment that is designed to insert in the bill a clause that will prevent the arbitration court from taking this endowment into consideration in determining the basic wage. Some honorable senators opposite, including the Attorney-General, have said that the Government has no power over the arbitration court and that if a clause of that kind were inserted in the bill it would be declared to be invalid. There has been some dodging of the issue, but the fact is that there is not a court in this land that does not take into consideration any Act of Parliament that has. relation to its jurisdiction. In my opinion it would not be wrong to insert in this bill a provision asking the arbitration court not to take this endowment into consideration. There may be some difference of opinion about whether we should say that the court should not take it into consideration or must not take it into consideration, but I am prepared to leave that argument to the lawyers. I consider that it is possible to do what has been suggested. The Attorney-General has said that if a provision of that kind Were inserted in the bill, it might invalidate the whole of the measure. In recent times some of the legislation for which Ls bour governments have been responsible has been challenged in the High Court, but I do not know of any act that has been declared to be wholly invalid because one section has been declared to be invalid. I am sure that neither the mothers nor the industrial organizations of Austral]?, would challenge a provision of the kind that we shall seek to have inserted in the bill. It would be challenged only by some employers or somebody connected with the Government. The AttorneyGeneral knows as well as I do that if the issue were not raised, the provision could be operated.
Senator Gorton said that child endowment was introduced in 1941 by a Government of which the present Prime Minister was the leader. Nobody disputes that. Nobody questions the sincerity of the Government that introduced child endowment or of those who supported it at that time. I give them due credit for their actions. Whenever I have spoken on a public platform upon this matter, I have said that the Menzies Government introduced child endowment but I have also told my audiences of the reason why it was introduced, which was that it would save the industry of this country millions of pounds by preventing the basic wage from being increased to a proper level. Honorable senators opposite know that that is correct. When the introduction of child endowment was first announced, a basic wage inquiry was in progress, and immediately the court adjourned the inquiry. The Minister for Social Services and the Attorney-General have said that .the court gave its judgment in 1.941, but it did not. It gave its reasons for adjourning the case. The case was adjourned and it has not been finalized from that day to this. Men who are in a position to know the position should state the true facts. There is no necessity for mis-statements. The second-reading speech of .the Minister on this bill was full of inaccuracies, and I shall deal with some of them later on. A basic wage inquiry was in progress in 1941, and when the announcement of the introduction of child endowment was made it was adjourned. At that time child endowment for second and subsequent children was paid at the rate of 5s. a week.
– And the Labour party supported it.
– I am not quarrelling with that. Everybody supported it. The point I make is not that the basic wage was increased or reduced but that the statement by the Chief Judge, as Senator Gorton has already mentioned, wat that the amount was sufficient only for a man, his wife and one child - not two children - and that it involved hardship for a man with a wife and three or more children. The statements of the Minister for Social Services and the Attorney-General that the family unit is not taken into consideration in the fixation of the basic wage has been reiterated by other honorable senators. Whilst it is true that that is not the sole basis of the fixation of the basic wage, up to 1946 there was a unit needs basis of assessing the basic wage. Senator McCallum stated that there was a basic wage fixation determination in 1944. There was no such thing. There was an application by The Arms Explosives and Munition Workers Federation of Australia for a wage for women workers in that industry. In that instance Judge O’Mara gave an effective and full survey of the whole of the basic wage proceedings from 1907. In fact he went further back than that. In 1943, as reported in Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, volume 50, at page 201, Judge O’Mara quoted the following words of Mr. Justice Higgins in 1907: -
His assessment of what it would cost to meet such needs was made with reference to “ the necessary average weekly expenditure . . on rent, food, fuel “ and a nun ber of other items (the heads of which he subsequently stated) “in a labourer’s home of about five persons “.
In 1907 Mr. Justice Higgins used the reasonable family basis of five units in connexion with the Harvester judgment. Judge 0’Mara also quoted the following words of his predecessor, Mr Justice* O’Connor, in the Merchant Service Guild of Australia v. the Commonwealth Steamship Ownei’3 Association: -
It has been repeatedly said that the court did not take into consideration the needs basis of a man, his wife and three children. That is entirely wrong. In 1931 we were in the throes of an economic depression and legislation was enacted for certain reductions to be taken into consideration in connexion with social services and wages, and a number of other items such as interest payments. Some were applied by Act of Parliament and others by regulation. The court took them into consideration because of the report made at that time, but did not take into consideration the unit basis because it was stated then that there could be taken into consideration only what industry could afford to pay. Therefore the wage was reduced by 10 pei’ cent, a week. But that did not alter the basis.
The Minister said that in 1934 an entirely different arrangement was made for the purpose of striking the basic wage from then on. If he were to read the minutes of the 1934 proceedings he would find that that was called a restoration wage. Repeatedly the court said that it was not taking into consideration all of the other factors that had been taken into consideration before, but only those that reduced the wage in 1931. In the final minutes the Judge said : - “ This shall be called the restoration wage”.
In 1937 there was a 6s. loading, but not an alteration of the assessment of the basic wage. That was because it was desired to bring the matter into line with the Harvester judgment, in accordance with the increases that had taken place up to that time. The Harvester judgment was made one of the factors and the needs wage was assessed on the five-unit basis of a man, his wife and three children. In 1937 the loading was added to the basic wage to provide the equivalent of the Harvester judgment in 1907. There was still an assessment of the unit basis as one of the factors in 1937.
In 1941 child endowment was introduced by the Menzies Government. I shall quote from the official records, which are available to honorable senators. Official Year Book Ho. 37 for 1946-47 contains a resume of the application, based on the requirements of a man, his wife and three children. In 1922 there was a general loading under the Powers Award, which still took into consideration the five-unit basis. That year book also contains tables showing the unit basis that was adopted by the various States. Now some of the States have made provision for an automatic adjustment in accordance with rises and falls in the federal basic wage. The federal basis was adopted where previously the five-unit basis was taken into account.
In 1941 an alteration was effected in connexion with the unit basis. It is still a needs basic wage. In 1941 Chief Judge Piper said that the court had always taken into consideration the family unit. He said that various averages had been given, some 1.7 and others 1.8, to show that the average family was under two. That carried on until 1941. In that year the Chief Judge said there was sufficient for a man, his wife and one child, but insufficient for the second child, and a real hardship for the third child. The result was that the basic wage application was adjourned. No decision was given at that time. Up to 1941 there had been a five-unit basis, and it had been repeatedly stated in the official year book that that was one of the factors for assessing the basic wage. The five units basis was the needs of the time. In 1941, because of the fact that child endowment was introduced, it was left as the provision for a man, his wife and one child. This afternoon Senator Gorton referred to the fact that the Minister who introduced a bill providing for child endowment in 1940 made a statement that the court had provided for the first child. Consequently it was not believed that the time was opportune to endow the first child. I accept that. The court did say that the basis was a man, a. wife and one child but the others had been eliminated so that instead of the basic wage being considerably higher, it was left where it was. Exactly the same position applies to-day. The court is inquiring into the basic wage. It was half way through its deliberations when an announcement was made by the Leader of the Government now in power. I am not doubting the sincerity of the Government in any way but I think that the Government’s objective is different from that desired by the Opposition. Because of that, honorable members on this side of the chamber ask the Government to put some safeguard into the act. The objective has been the same over a period of years. In the first place Mr. Justice Higgins said the legislature should set down in principle or formula what it would like done. I have distinct recollections of Judge Dethridge making a similar statement. Judge Beeby also criticized the Parliament for not laying down some principle on which the court could work, and the last to make a* statement on this question so far as I recollect was Judge Piper. Bight through the piece, direction has been sought from the Parliament so that the court would know definitely what it should take into consideration. Nothing has been done formally up to the present, hut it is done insidiously.
I do not blame any particular individual. This afternoon Senator McCallum quoted from Macbeth. I think he should have quoted from Othello. Because of machinations of the people around Othello, he became obsessed and as a result he killed his wife and finally himself. That is the position with the people who are assisting the Liberal and Country Leagues to-day and are advising the Government. I am not questioning the sincerity of the Government or its supporters but their objectives are questioned by the Labour party because of what has happened previously. In 1941 two units were taken away from the basic wage and it was left on a threeunit basic. I am familiar with the arbitration laws of South Australia and the activities of the Arbitration Court in that State. A five-unit basis was employed there but as soon as the Federal wage got somewhere near the State wage, an automatic adjustment was made so that the five-unit basis in South Australia went by the board and the wage is now fixed under the “ C “ series in accordance with the Federal basic wage. One of the assessing points is a man, wife and one child, or three units instead of five. South Australia has lost under the automatic adjustments and that could apply to some other States as well. It is because of that, and what has actually happened, that the Labour party wants some security. It asks the court not to take endowment of the first child into consideration when applying all the things that it takes into consideration in assessing the basic wage. It is a very small thing to ask. The Government believes in it in principle. Its supporters have said so. The Minister for Social Services said as much in introducing the bill. It is not necesary for me to read his exact words but he said that if the court took endowment into consideration, it would raise the payment for the first child to 10s. One honorable senator has pointed 0111 that obviously there is some doubt in the mind of the Minister who introduced the bill.
– In the mind of Mr. Menzies too.
– Tes, there is some doubt. There are just as sensible men handling the affairs of the. Government as there ave on the Opposition side of the chamber and among those who are criticizing this measure. Because of that doubt the Government has made a suggestion that endowment be left at 5s. and if the court takes it into consideration the payment will be increased to 10s. The difference of opinion there is that honorable senators on this side of the chamber insist that there must be somebody who has to prove that the court takes endowment into consideration. I have heard statements on both sides that the court does not consider the units basis but every report of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court tells somewhere or other that it does. Those reports do not say that it is the sole method of assessing the basic wage but that the needs of a family are taken into consideration all the time. Up to 1941 the basis was always five units. The Commonwealth Year Book will tell honorable senators that and it is available to every member in the Parliamentary Library. There should be no need for the inaccuracies that have been made, particularly by the Minister for Social Services in his statements when introducing this bill.
There is no necessity for panic, either. The Government does not need to say continually that the Labour party is responsible for this or that. There is no doubt that the responsibility is on the Government. There is no need for the Government to take umbrage at suggestions made by honorable senators on this side of the chamber as was indicated by some petulant statement of the Attorney-General. I have made out a case, and the words of the Minister who introduced the bill that it costs more to have the first child indicate that there should bc some uniformity in the payment for all children who como under child endowment. There should be no panic or attempted bluff as to what the Government is going to do if the Labour party does not agree to accept the Government’s proposals. It should be possible to insert in the bill the small clause suggested by Senator McKenna which will tell the court just what the Parliament wants, that is that the court shall not take this endowment payment into consideration in assessing the basic wage. It would thus be following the expressed will of the people as conveyed by the elected members of the Parliament. There is nothing wrong with the Government agreeing with that. Then the court could give its judgment and still retain the threeunit basis. It has been said that the Labour party is trying to run a fear campaign against the Government because of the Arbitration Court proceedings. Honorable senators have the facts that I have put before them. There are records in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court’s report and in the Official Year Booh showing that in fact there was no increase in the basic wage in 1941. The court did say, the Chief Judge particularly, that the wage at that period was sufficient for a man, his wife and one child. It was left at that and that statement was supported by the Minister introducing the bill in the House of Representatives when he said that the court provided for the first child and that therefore the Government would not pay endowment on the first child. I agree with him. Now Labour party members suggest that the Government should make sure of that provision because the Minister for Social Services says it costs more to have the first child. It is suggested by honorable senators on this side that the 10s. should be paid and a clause inserted so that there will be no reduction or deviation from the unit basis. In 1931 when the reduction of wages took place, the employers went to the Arbitration Court. They were supported by various conservative governments and, I must say, by some Labour governments also because the position was very bad. They told the court that it had to take into consideration the economic position of Australia and the ability of industry to pay. They suggested a reduction in wages. A 10 per cent, cut was granted. Then in 1934 because of the actions of the judges and the court itself, no extraneous matter could be introduced and the wage was increased because industry could afford to pay. Then because of the action of the court and because it stood to the principle that had been laid down, the employers waited until 1940-41 when the inquiry was going on. They said there should be a reduction in the unit basis on which the basic wage was assessed. The employers said the same as they are saying now. The judges said that they did not take into consideration the unit basis altogether but only used it as part of the method of assessing the reasonable family needs. Then they said the basis was a man, wife and one child for whom sufficient money was provided in the basic wage. Child endowment was introduced and there was no reduction of the unit basis. The basic wage is on a three unit basis. If honorable senators opposite want a single unit basis, let them say so. It is said that employers do not gain any benefit from the basic wage, but every man who has had any experience of business knows that that is not so. Every employer makes a little bit of profit out of what he pays to his employees. Te insert in this measure a clause such as that foreshadowed in the Opposition’s amendment would be quite simple. Wc are simply asking that the Government should give to the arbitration court the direction that it has been seeking since 1907. That would remove all the doubt from the minds of honorable senators on both sides of this chamber., It would certainly remove the doubt from the minds of members of the Opposition. No harm could come from the acceptance of the Opposition’s amendment. Every member of both houses is in favour of the principle of child endowment. I trust that there will be no more talk of the Opposition having to accept responsibility for withholding the extension of child endowment to the first child in each family. We are seeking only to remove the doubts that exist in the minds of many people.
– I support this bill no.t merely because I am a Government supporter, but because I believe it to be a good bill. It is immaterial which party originally introduced child endowment, in 1941, which party increased child endowment payments to meet the rising cost of living or which party is introducing this measure to-day. In democratic countries, a government does not undo what its predecessor has done. It carries on with the reforms that were started by its predecessor, and preserves the continuity of constitutional development which is a British institution, and which is something that should be a source of pride to honorable senators on both sides of the chamber. As one with very little parliamentary experience, I must admit that I was amazed at the tirade of abuse with which this bill was received by earlier Opposition speakers. One could almost imagine that the Government was sponsoring a bill to abolish child endowment for the first child, rather than one providing for that desirable reform. However, as the debate has progressed, Opposition speakers have adopted a more conciliatory tone. In fact Senator O’Flaherty spoke extremely well from any point of view. However, I still cannot understand the attitude of his colleagues who spoke earlier in the debate.
I have been more than a casual observer of the progress of this discussion. I have listened very carefully to the various speeches, and have made some notes of what has been said. Whilst I do not doubt the sincerity of the Opposition, I believe that many members of it have not taken the .trouble to inform themselves adequately on the subject. Perhaps this may come very badly from a newcomer to this chamber but I have done some research into child endowment, and I have arrived at many of the conclusions which Senator Gorton arrived at. Apparently we have been working on similar lines. Of the two projected amendments, the more important of course is that relating to the exclusion of child endowment from the fixing of the basic wage. The Opposition’s proposal is that in this measure the arbitration court should be instructed not to consider the proposed payment of 5s. a week in respect to the first child of each family, when determining the basic wage. Honorable senators on both sides of the chamber are well aware that the court, since its inception, has not been guided by the units to which Senator 0’Flaherty referred. I should like to read to the Senate portion of a quotation that has already been made by Senator Gorton. Senator 0’Flaherty claimed that Senator Gorton had merely read from typewritten notes, and had not given chapter and verse for his quotation. That quotation, incidentally, was one which I too discovered in the course of my research. It is to be found on page 159 of volume 166 of Hansard. Speaking in the House of Representatives on the 25th March, 1941, the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) said : -
In 1931, the court, under the presidency of the late Chief Judge Dethridge, departed entirely from the fixation of the basic wage by reference to the needs of the basic wage workers and his family. The court said: “ There is only one way of looking at it, and that is: What is the national income? What can industry afford? “ What was done in 1931, was repeated in 1934, 1935 and 1938, and now in 1941. Today the Judges disclaim any reference to the needs of the family of the basic wage worker. They say that they are irrelevant.
On page 418 of volume 166, the then Prime Minister, the late Mr, John Curtin is reported as having said -
There is no relevant relationship between the wages fixed by arbitral authorities in Aus- tralia and a system of family allowances and gains.
It is difficult for me as a junior in politics to believe that whereas both those eminent men arrived wrongly at the same conclusion, Senator O’Flaherty has reached the right one. The Government has no reason to believe that the arbitration court will suddenly change ito method of determining the basic wage. Honorable senators opposite have argued that the court must be changing its methods, because it adjourned the hearing of the basic wage case immediately child endowment was made an election issue. Honorable senators will recall that after the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) made his policy speech in which be promised a child endowment payment of 5s. in respect of the first child in each family, the Australian Labour party immediately sought to create a. fear complex amongst electors by saying that if the proposal of the anti-labour parties were given effect, the basic wage would be reduced. The matter then became the centre of a political argument, and the arbitration court - very rightly in my opinion and in the opinion of better men than I - adjourned the basic wage hearing. Something very similar happened in 1941 when the arbitration court adjourned a basic wage hearing during an election period. Although the Labour government on two occasions increased child endowment payments to meet the steadily rising cost of living, no attempt was made by the court to alter the basic wage to offset those increases.
Honorable senators opposite have suggested that the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) himself considers that the basic wage may be affected by this legislation because he stated in his second-reading speech that should the court consider child endowment for thu first child in determining the basic wage, the Government would increase the payment to 10s. a week. Surely it is only prudent that, in legal enactments such as this, provision should be made to meet any eventuality. I am quite certain from discussions that I have had with my colleagues that the passage of this measure would not have any effect on the basic wage.
There is another point which I believe has been overlooked almost entirely by honorable senators opposite. However much they may dislike the Prime Minister, they will all admit that he is a brilliant legal man, and is not without political acumen. It is nonsense, therefore, to suggest that the right honorable gentleman would deliberately risk not only loss of faith on the part of a substantial body of the voters who elected him to office, but also to the condemnation of members of his own party. Although we are told by honorable senators opposite that the Liberal party is regimented, I assure them that members of that party have a greater degree of freedom than the Opposition would believe possible. I have sufficient faith in my leader and in Cabinet to go further and say that should the passage of this hill result in the reduction of the basic wage, I should be only one of many Government supporters who would vote for any legislation that was introduced to rectify that anomaly, regardless of what Government was in office.
I turn now to the suggestion that child endowment for the first child should be increased from 5s. to 10s. a week, regardless of the decision of the Arbitration Court. In that connexion, I can see several points which must have been overlooked by the Opposition. The first is that the Government pledged itself at the elections to introduce a measure providing for a payment of 5s. a week in respect of the first child in each family. Secondly, it is rather curious that the Opposition has suddenly become so keen on paying 10s. a week although, during the Labour Government’s eight years of office, it made no move whatsoever in that direction. Some honorable senators opposite, have referred to the proposed endowment payment as a “miserable” 5s. Senator Cameron called it a “paltry” sum. Surely those statements are somewhat inconsistent with the remarks that we so frequently hear about honorable senators on this side of the chamber being millionaires and the representatives of big business. Or is it that honorable senators opposite have forgotten their earlier struggles? The passage of this legislation would not make any difference to me personally, because my children are grown up, but I can remember the days in the early 1930’s when an additional 5s. a week would have made a considerable difference to me.
Opposing this bill, Senator Katz made the extraordinary statement that employers wanted a reduction of 5s. in the basic wage. That was a most unfair statement because the matter is completely outside the jurisdiction of the employers. Clearly, the honorable senator’s intention was to frighten the people into believing that the Government was doing something that was detrimental to the Australian workers as a whole. I can see no other reason for the statement. The honorable senator also suggested that this matter could be settled by a double dissolution. “Was that suggestion made to prove the sincerity of the Opposition, or was it just another bogy to frighten the Government? Surely the honorable senator realizes that under the proportional representation system, when a new Senate was elected, six honorable senators opposite would be with us no longer. There is no reason for the Government to fear a double dissolution. It is true that I myself would probably not be returned, but that would not worry me if the interests of this country were served. I have managed to get along so far, and I am sure that I could manage again.
Senator Katz said that Labour’s foreshadowed amendment would have the complete backing of the workers. Those are his exact words. In order to get first-hand information on this matter during the Easter recess I visited nearly 200 mothers in Brisbane and discussed this matter with them. In spite of what several honorable senators opposite have said about women knowing nothing about economics and looking at these matters only from the sentimental side I can assure them that the average mother in my constituency knows a great deal about the economics of raising a family. So, also, does my wife. I carried out a sort of miniature Gallup poll which indicated that the majority of them were keen to receive the proposed 5s. a week. One of them pointed out that 5s. would pay for a week’s milk for one child, while several said that it would pay for a week’s butter. Another pointed out that by saving up the weekly payment for one month she would be able to buy a pair of children’s shoes for £1. Another said that it would pay the household newspaper account. On the whole the proposal was very well received, and of nearly 200 mothers to whom I spoke only fourteen were really keen that the amount should be increased to 10s., and only three were definite in their view that the payment of the proposed child endowment might adversely affect the basic wage.
A point that has not been raised so far by honorable senators on either side of the chamber is that if the Government is wrong in its view that the Arbitration Court will not take into account payment of 5s. endowment for the first child, and is called upon to implement its promise to increase the payment to 10s. a week for the first child, an extra £15,000,000 will have to be found from revenue. The reductions which the Goverment has promised to effect in sales tax, income tax, and other fields of revenue, will be effected because that old adage that we cannot have our cake and eat it too applies now as much as ever.
Before concluding I should like to point out the inconsistency of honorable senators opposite who, in one breath, blame us for not making the proposed payment retrospective, but in the next breath proceed to delay the passage of the measure by speaking for lengthy periods. I realize that in doing so they are merely exercising their parliamentary rights, but as a newcomer to this chamber it seems to me that the delay that has taken place in the passage of this measure, which is a very simple one, is quite inexcusable. The measure should not require to be debated from the 15th March until now ; and the way things are going it looks as though the bill will not be passed before the 15th May. Senator Amour suggested that the Government desires to drop the bill. I consider that that suggestion is not only ridiculous hut is also grotesque. Why should it wish to drop the bill? Surely honorable senators opposite must realize that the proposal to pay endowment of 5s. was included in the election policy of the non-Labour parties only because we thought that it was a much-needed reform. Surely honorable senators do not think that the election was won or lost on that promise.
– What did win the election for the anti-Labour parties?
– The election was won on the moral issue, socialization or not. Finally, whilst I believe that the arguments put forward by the Opposition in support of its proposal that the child endowment payment for the first child should be increased from 5s. to 10s. are too frivolous to be considered, I believe that at least some honorable senators opposite are really concerned about the effect the payment of child endowment for the first child may have on the basic wage. After listening to some of their speeches I was in doubt about the matter but I am now quite convinced, even if I am unable to convince the Opposition, that the basic wage is in no danger from the increase of child endowment. I believe that a little quiet consideration and study of the matter by honorable senators opposite will bring them around to my way of thinking. Senator Nash remarked that all the Labour party wanted to ensure was that the people should get the best treatment. I congratulate him on the expression of those sentiments, with which, I am sure, all members of the Government heartily agree. I support the bill.
– Along with other members of the Opposition I support the payment of child endowment for the first child and for each succeeding child. It has been a surprise to me that the Government should take such umbrage at the suggestion made by the Opposition that the bill should be amended in order to improve its operation. The Opposition proposes that a provision should be included in the bill to direct the Commonwealth Arbitration Court that the payment of child endowment should not be taken into consideration when computing the basic wage. The only argument that the Government has used to counter our proposal is that it believes that the Arbitration Court would not, in any event, take into consideration the payment of endowment for the first child. However, when we analyse the position, we find that even the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) who introduced the bill, has a sincere doubt about this matter. I agree at once that the Minister could not say with any certainty that the basic wage is determined by the court according to any particular formula, because the court has never on any occasion given specific details of the exact manner in which it computes the basic wage. Since Senator Gorton complained in the course of his remarks that members of the Opposition have in some instances misquoted the utterances of members and supporters of the Government I shall now read the exact words used by the Minister in this connexion. They are as follows : -
As pointed out by the present Prime Minister in his pre-election speech, the problems of child endowment are closely associated with the amount and structure of the basic wage. That wage is at present under complete reexamination by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration whose decision the Government cannot anticipate and has no desire whatever to influence. In this regard, however, the Government will carry out its pre-election promise that, if the foundation of the basic wage is altered and its amount calculated by reference to the needs of a married couple without children, then provision will be made for raising the endowment for the first or only child under sixteen years from 5s. to 10s. a week.
The suggestion has been made in this chamber that the Government should intervene in the basic wage inquiry by instructing a representative to inform the court officially that it does not desire that payments made by way of child endowment should be taken into consideration by the court in determining the basic wage. However, the Government is not prepared to do that, and members >if the Opposition have, therefore, a very real fear that the court can, and will, take into consideration payments by way of child endowment unless a specific provision is included in the bill to instruct the court that it is not to include child endowment payments in its assessment of the living wage; I think that it is only right and proper that members of the Opposition should make their position clear. AVe favour endowment of all children. As far back as 1941 the Australian Council of Trades Unions and the Australian Labour party declared that social services payments should stand complete and separate from any determination of the Arbitra.tration Court on wages, and we have consistently advocated that endowment should be paid in respect of each child. [ point out to honorable senators that when this measure was originally introduced it was drafted in such a manner as to make it reasonable and equitable by providing that at no time should the wages of workers be affected by payments in the nature of child endowment and other social services. If this measure is to be permitted to affect the fixation of the basic wage it can only be described as vicious legislation, because it is quite clear that the workers, in addition to the rest of the community, have paid and will continue to pay for social services benefits of this kind. Speaking on the introduction of the Child Endowment Bill on the 27th March, 1941, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt), who also held that portfolio at that time, said -
The saving which would be effected by imposing an income limit is not nearly so considerable as most honorable members would imagine and, as it is proposed in view of the universal grant, of child endowment, to abolish the prevailing income tax deductions in respect of each child after the first, those taxpayers on the larger incomes will be called upon to make a direct contribution to the financing of the scheme.
Later, in the course of the same debate, the Minister for Labour and National Service said -
Something mme than f2,000,000 will come from the abolition of the income tax deductions for each child after the first, and it is proposed that the balance will be financed from general revenue.
There had been a change of policy at that time. Prior to the provision of social services benefits the family man enjoyed considerable concessional deductions in respect of all his dependent children for purposes of income tax, whereas after child endowment was provided that concession was removed in respect of each child except the first child in the family. Child endowment was not financed from general revenue in the ordinary way but by means of the pay-roll tax. Nevertheless, as every one who is familiar with cost accounting realizes, profits of business undertakings remained practically undiminished, and, consequently, the cost of that provision was thrown upon the community as a whole. The money required to finance child endowment was set aside in a special fund and was not drawn from general revenue. In view of that fact the Parliament has every right to intimate to the Arbitration Court that, when fixing the basic wage, it should regard child endowment as something in the nature of insurance for which the people of this country have paid and that this benefit should not influence the court to reduce the wage that the worker earns in industry.
It is clear that considerable doubt exists whether the provision of child endowment affects the fixation of the basic wage. In 1941 I was prominent in industrial circles in Western Australia, and I know from my experience at that time that a real fear existed among employees that the provision of child endowment would affect the basic wage. At that time, the court, in order to inform its mind on that aspect, consulted the people who were prominent in the political and industrial spheres. The court made it clear that it endeavoured to fix a social economic wage that would provide for the needs of a family and, at the same time, it paid regard to the capacity of industry to pay. The court pointed out that its 1931 determination, which was a completely economic wage, had been proved to be a mistake. The repercussions resulting from that approach had been bad, and the court believed that the basic wage, in part, should be fixed having regard to social considerations. Consequently, it was fairly generally recognized by people who were familiar with the facts at that time that the Parliament should provide si.i..t> form of social relief to the employee with a large family or, alternatively, the court would have to determine a wage that would be a social as well as an economic wace. When the government of the day made clear its intention to endow each child after the first child in a family, the court abandoned the family unit of a man, wife and three children which it had used as a basis up to that time, and adopted a family unit of man, wife and one child. Honorable senators opposite have said that at no stage of the debate upon the Child Endowment Bill that was introduced in 1941 was any indication given that the provision of the endowment would affect the basic wage. In the course of that debate the late Mr. Blackburn, who was then member for Bourke, dealing with the financing of child endowment, declared that to resort to the pay-roll tax for that purpose was an imposition upon the State governments ; and to his arguments the Minister for Labour and National Service replied -
It is true as the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) pointed out, that the States will be contributors to the cost of the scheme through the pay-roll tax, but that obligation devolves upon them because they are employers. They would have had to carry the burden if there had been an increase of the basic wage rate.
There can be no doubt about what the Minister meant by those words. It was clear that the States would have had to carry the burden, and that the provision of child endowment relieved the Arbitration Court of a serious worry because at that time it had decided to continue to fix a social-economic basic wage which embodied the principle of the capacity of industry to pay and also the provision of reasonable comfort for a family unit. Honorable senators opposite have contended that the financing of this benefit will affect the national income. I point out that the benefit will be financed from the National Welfare Fund, which at present shows a healthy balance. Being aware of that fact, the anti-Labour parties at the recent general election were able to promise that if returned to office they would provide endowment for the first child in a family. Speaking in the House of Representatives on the 2Sth August, 1941, the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) said -
The same provisions were taken into account by the Treasury officials in working out a group scheme of instalment deductions for 11)41-42: but in making the deduction for children, the Treasury officials, after having obtained my approval, limited such deductions to the first dependent child only.
The Treasurer made it clear to the Parliament that the concessional deduction for income tax purposes would be retained only in respect of the first dependent child and the taxpayers’ deductions would be considerably reduced by loss of the deduction in respect of other children in a family. Thus, the government of the day deprived the family man of a concession that he previously enjoyed in respect of income tax. Supporters of the Government have contended that members of the Opposition are opposed to the provision of endowment of the first child. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The representatives of the Labour party on the Royal Commission on Child Endowment or Family Allowances made it clear that the Labour party supported the provision of endowment in respect of all children in a family. However, the Minister for Labour and National Service, when introducing the Child Endowment Bill in the House of Representatives in 1941, said -
The essential provision is that endowment at the rate of 5s. a week should be paid for all children under the age of sixteen years in excess of one child in each family. The Government has given a great deal of consideration to the provision of endowment in respect of the first child. While it approached the question sympathetically, it has decided that payment in respect of the first child is not warranted. On the Commonwealth court’s own recent finding, the present basic wage is adequate for a man, wife and one child.
Honorable senators opposite have argued that the Arbitration Court does not take into account at all the needs of a family unit in fixing the basic wage. Speaking on the Child Endowment Bill in March, 1941, the present PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Anthony) said -
The fact is that of the £13,000,000 that it is estimated will be required for the purposes of the child endowment scheme, the State Governments will provide approximately £2,217,000 through their payroll tax. Every penny of that amount will probably be raised through taxes on incomes. That is the class (if tax which certain honorable gentlemen arc suggesting should be applied in order to raise Hie whole of the money needed. The sum of £2.500,000 will accrue to Commonwealth revenue by reason of the discontinuance of !lie exemption of £50 for income tax in respect of children. This is a direct tax on the section of the community who previously had the advantage of this exemption, and it is not entirely composed of employers.
That statement provides very cogent reasons why the Parliament should now make it clear that any payment from the National “Welfare Fund to which the worker has contributed should not be taken into account by the Arbitration Court in fixing the basic wage. However, as I have pointed out, the Minister for Labour and National Service definitely stated that the provision of child endowment affected the basic wage. Quite a lot has been said in this debate concerning the attitude that was adopted by the late Mr. John Curtin- with respect to child endowment. Honorable senators opposite have glibly stated that he thought endowment should not be paid in respect of the first child. That is not correct. The late Mr. John Curtin, in his minority report of the Royal Commission on Child Endowment and Family Allowances, and also on various occasions when he was Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, made it clear that the argument that I have just developed was predominantly in his mind. His minority report as a member of the commission convinced the government of the day that something should be done to provide endowment for all children; and speaking in the House of Representatives on the Child Endowment Bill on the 1st April, 1941, he said -
It is necessary to deal with the problem of family allowances, regardless of the wage determined by any arbitral authority. Whether the authority should fix the basic wage high or low, so long as it took into account the family which is accepted as the standard…..
He wanted to preserve that - . . or determined upon some special unit of its own selection, so long would it happen that families whose members were larger than the standard or the average would suffer some disadvantage in their own households. Therefore, what we are faced with is not the problem of the minimum wage, or what is the degree of disparity between the family life of this country as we find it in many instances, and that of the standard or average family in receipt of the wage which the courts or other authorities declare to be the minimum. So there is no relevant connexion between wagefixing as such and a system of family allowances.
Thus the late Mr. John Curtin fought to preserve the principle for which the Opposition in this chamber is now fighting. We insist that the Arbitration Court in determining the basic -wage should not be used as a pressure gauge to offset social services benefits that any government may provide for the people, and which are financed by taxes paid by all sections of the community, including employees in industry. Let us try to visualize what may happen should the Parliament provide a family allowance from the National Welfare Fund in respect of the children of a worker and should the Arbitration Court, as the result of the provision of that benefit, decide to relieve industry of an equal or, perhaps, slightly lower amount. We should reach a stage at which, as both the majority and minority reports of the 1929 commission were very careful to state, a most vicious form of socialism would be instituted. I refer to a socializing of the individual and the family. I propose now to quote a passage from the majority report of the 1929 commission regarding the results that would flow from the Government paying an endowment or subsidy to family men and the taking away from bread-winners of the right to a wage that is sufficient to. enable them to maintain their dignity as the supporters of their homes. The passage reads as follows : -
On the social side the main objection is, that if the State relieves parents of all financial responsibility for every dependent child in the family, the sense of parental responsibility and the incentive of parents to do their best to prepare their children for the full life of citizens in a free State would lie seriously weakened. That incentive is so invaluable, and if removed, so irreplaceable, that any course likely to have the effect of destroying it, in whole or to a material degree, would be a sacrifice of one of the best elements in the character of the people.
On the economic side, the effect on the father would be much more apparent in a probable slackening of energy than in the case of the mother. It would be dangerously easy for many fathers to slacken off in their own efforts, and to pass into a condition of careless acquiescence in a system which made their children, at least from the financial point of view, wards of State. The price of this easy acquiescence would be the loss of much of that virile and strenuous independence nf character, and ready acceptance nf the whole responsibility for his children, which -ire among the most admirable characteristics a nian can possess.
If the Government does not permit the Labour party to protect the right of a man to a wage that i? sufficient to enable him to provide adequately for the support of his family and thus maintain his dignity as a human being, it will be encouraging a vicious and repugnant form of socialism. We believe that a man should work and that in return for his labour he should receive a wage that will enable him to meet his obligations as the head of his family. It has always been the objective of the Labour party to treat as sacrosanct the right of a man to earn a reasonable wage and thus maintain his independence and dignity and, in addition, to pay child endowment from a fund to which he has contributed by direct or indirect taxes. The taxation concessions in respect of children that the family man enjoyed before the establishement of the fund were cut after the fund was established.
– Who cut the allowances?
– I have already explained that. When the child endowment scheme was implemented, it was financed in the way in which the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) had explained. The necessary legislation was enacted. No honorable senator on this side of the House will deny that the procedure laid down by the Menzies-Fadden government was given effect to by the Labour party. When uniform taxation was introduced, provision was made for taxation deductions in respect of children to the degree to which the financial capacity of the country would permit of them being granted, but if child endowment had not then been in operation, those deductions would have been more generous.
I turn now to the question of whether the Arbitration Court would agree to act upon a provision such as that which we have suggested should be inserted in the bill. Although members of the Government suggest that it may not be constitutionally sound, I believe that we should make our intention quite clear, and I think that the court should take notice of it, having regard to the manner in which the money to finance the payments has been raised.
It has been said by supporters of the Government that the Opposition has been, to some degree, irresponsible in suggesting that the endowment for the first child should be increased from 5s. to 10s. a week, yet the Minister, in moving the second reading of the bill, referred to the possibility of that increase being made. I believe that the Minister desires that the maximum payment shall be made. I infer from his speech that there are reactionaries in his party who are trying to pull him back. He said -
All these great national reforms need to be approached with courage. Each time that progress is suggested there are to be found some reactionaries who express the view that the nation cannot afford the expense involved. There are always some who, perhaps timid, weak and apprehensive, fear that social reforms will weaken standards of living in some direction. I emphasize that this Goverment holds firmly to the view that the peace, contentment and happiness of the Australian nation depends upon all sections nf the community making their just contribution to higher standards of living.
Those are good words, and we appreciate thorn. We believe that this problem should be approached with courage and our amendments mean progress. The Minister must not allow the reactionaries in the Government parties to lead him to believe that Labour will seek to impede progress in this direction. It has been indicated clearly by the Minister that it is possible to pay from the National Welfare Fund an endowment of 10s. a week in respect of .the first child, because the Minister said -
That wage is at present under complete reexamination by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration whose decision the Government cannot anticipate and has no desire whatever to influence. In this regard, however, the Government will carry out its pre-election promise that, if the foundation of the basic wage is altered and its amount calculated by reference to the needs of a married couple without children, then provision will bc made for raising the endowment of the first or only child under 1C years from 5s. to 10s. a week.
The endowment will be drawn from the National Welfare Fund, which is sufficiently large to enable a payment of 10s. a week to be paid.
If we agree that the payment shall be 5s. a week, and promise that it will be increased to 10s. a week and the court takes the payment into consideration in the determination of the basic wage, we shall be practising a cruel deception. It is impossible to dissect the basic wage and say what factors the Arbitration Court took into consideration in determining it, but let us consider what would happen if the court were to make a declaration and as a result it became clear that child endowment in respect of the first child had been taken into consideration. Wages continually follow prices. The effect of increased prices is felt by the workers at least three months before they are given any relief by an increase of the basic wage. The Government’s proposal is that workers shall be told that the endowment will be 5s. at first and that if the effect of the payment is to cause a reduction of the basic wage, it will be increased to 10s. If the basic wage were reduced, a further bill would have to be introduced into the Parliament and debated while the workers waited. During that period the workers would be robbed. A man with a family would be receiving no more money than he is getting now, and single men, single girls, widows and a host of workers would be losing money. That would be very wrong. I suggest that the Government could well accept the amendments that have been foreshadowed.
Despite all the arguments that have been used by .the Minister and other honorable senators opposite to convince, I do not know whom - honorable senators on this side of the House are well aware of it - that the first child is more expensive than subsequent children, the Government is not prepared to pay an endowment of 10s. a week in respect of that child. It cannot be challenged that the money to finance child endowment is obtained largely from the people to whom it is paid back. I can assume only that the lack of courage to which the Minister referred in his second reading speech is a lack of courage on the part of some members of his party. I assure him that the Opposition would support him in any endeavour to increase the payment to a level that we consider to be just and proper. We say that the payment of child endowment in respect of the first child should not affect the Arbitration Court in its determination of the basic wage. We should not be afraid to put such a provision into the bill, because if it is not effective it can do no damage. The Government has frequently appealed to the Opposition to act constructively and not to impede legislation that will bring contentment to the workers of Australia. We have foreshadowed two amendments of this measure. With regard to the insertion of a clause providing that the Arbitration Court shall not take this payment into consideration, the Government can have not objection to that in principle. With regard to the amendment to increase the endowment from 5s. to 10s. a week, the Government well knows that, having regard to rising costs, 10s. a week is insufficient. On the Government’s own admission, 10s. a week could be paid in certain circumstances. Therefore, it is not financial embarrassment that prevents it from acceding to our suggestion. I appeal to the Government to take a reasonable view of the matter and to realize that the amendments that we have foreshadowed are designed to protect the rights of the people and to raise the endowment to a level that we consider to be the minimum that should be paid in respect of any child.
It is now 11 o’clock, and I ask for leave to continue my remarks on the next sitting day.
– No.
Leave not granted.
– We come to the point that there is some argument by honorable senators opposite that Labour is flouting arbitration by moving these amendments. The Labour party accepts the principle of arbitration as the best system yet evolved to deal with the complex problems of issuing awards, providing general standards, conditions, and certain essential amenities together with the rate of remuneration or wages to be received by persons employed in a specific industry, to deal with industrial disputes in certain circumstances, and to issue, from time to time, interpretations of their own awards when they come to point of dispute. Yet the court has another function which, in my opinion, is one of its most important duties, that is, to set a basic standard below which no worker should be paid. Up to the present time, it is abundantly clear to any person who has taken a real interest, that the court has vacillated in its approach to this most important duty. I say emphatically that the court has vacillated and taken into consideration varying component units in assessing the basic wage. It has at all times had in mind setting up a social and economic basic wage. As was stated by the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) in his second-reading speech, the court has an almost unrestricted power to call for such opinion as it requires either by evidence or documents to arrive at a figure which is to constitute this basic standard wage. He also stated that the court did not have to explain its judgment. When dealing with the question of the basic wage in 1931 the court made it clear that it departed from all its previous standards and fixed an economic basic wage with no regard to the social repercussions of the determination. Many learned judges have made statements which tend to show this total disregard of the social effect of the determination, the court holding in view only the economic demands made by industry and the government of the day on the advice of certain financiers who come to this country to represent the views of international bankers in relation to the world’s sorry international economic position. In effect the 1931 determination was brought about when there was a general cutting of wages. It was not a normal economic determination, but one resulting from the world depression. It could be easily forced upon us again as the result of business interfering with the economic standard of the country, causing our children to be left out of basic wage considerations, and forcing men to go on to sustenance without consideration for their children. Anybody approaching the question honestly knows that the 1931 determination cannot be taken as a standard of the genera] application of the court to the fixation of a basic wage standard. Having regard to the economic situation as seen in the decision of the court in January, 1931 to reduce its own basic wage, a step which clearly indicated a few of the exigencies of the economic situation and the general industrial outlook, the judgment of theFull Court delivered at that time in the Munitions
Workers case stated “ The court adopted as a measure for its basic wage, not the amount required to maintain a family of man, wife and three children at the standard accepted as normal and reasonable by Mr. Justice Higgins, but the amount which the productive capacity of industry would, in the opinion of the court, allow to be paid to adult male wage-earners as a minimum, bearing in mind always the marginal structure, which should be super-imposed upon that foundational amount, for ‘skill, experience and other necessary qualification ‘ and the consequent appropriate levels of wages for women and minors “. That was the only time that the court has announced that it thoroughly disregarded the social side of the basic wage and determined it on an economic basis.
It can be seen what factors the court had in mind when after reflection it accepted the principle that a social economic basic wage should be made available to the workers of Australia. It had, prior to 1931, endeavoured by a rough method to provide the amount required to maintain a family of man, wife and three children at a standard determined as normal and reasonable, without laying down any principles or accepted standard by which the basic wage should be computed. Until 1942, the court followed the practice of endeavouring to maintain both a social and an economic approach when fixing a standard. In the interim between 1931 and the hearing of the case I am about to quote - the Metal Workers case, 1942 - an advance had been made in relation to social services provided as a result of the Australian Government’s legislation, namely, the provision of child endowment for each child after the first in each family. Judge 0’Mara, employing the language used by Chief Judge Dethridge in the Road Construction Workers case, as reported in Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, volume 50, at page S64, described the basic wage in these words -
A wage which is adopted as a minimum not as a measure of the relative value of different sorts of unskilled work but for reasons of general social welfare.
It is incorrect to say that after 1941 the judges did not consider the social aspect in connexion with the basic wage. As reported in Commonwealth Arbitration Reports 1947, at page 245, the court said -
Although the basic wage of this court may not be assessed on a strictly needs basis, it has been fixed and adjusted to variations in the purchasing power of money so as to enable an employee with family responsibilities to meet certain obligations.
About the same period, in the Munitions Workers case, the Full Court, in effect, said, “ We do not think it can be denied to-day that the adult male worker has a right, as a matter of justice, to a family living wage. It is plain that the court has not held that its basic wage has been fixed at too low a figure to meet the normal and reasonable needs of a family of husband, wife and at least one child. Nor has its adequacy to that extent been questioned in the sense that it can still be regarded as a family wage, inasmuch as it has been accepted as sufficient at all events to provide ‘frugal comfort’ for a man, his wife, and at least one dependent child “. There is the straight swing down to one child against previous endeavours to provide for three children. Yet honorable senators opposite say that there was never a family unit in the fixation of the basic wage. It is therefore apparent that as a result of child endowment the court no longer endeavoured to provide a social economic basic wage for the frugal existence of a man, wife and three children. Instead it decided on a social economic wage to provide for the frugal existence of a man, wife and one child. There is no evidence to show that the court did, or did not, take into account the fact that the Government had established a social payment in respect of all children in a family in excess of one child. Yet by the utterances of those learned judges it can easily be seen that prior to 1931 their awards endeavoured to provide for a man, wife and three children, and in 1941 they took into account the responsibilities associated with only one child. It is reasonable, to assume that in that period of time the court’s decision was influenced by social payments made under the Child Endowment Act. As I have previously stated. Labour holds strongly the opinion that payments made as a social addition to the equivalent of the living standards given to workers in the form of a basic wage should be disregarded when the basic wage is assessed by the court. It does not matter whether they apply social services for any purpose, whether to give children a better outlook mentally, or to raise their standard of sport. The National Welfare Fund, which is virtually an insurance fund, was established by a Labour Government. It should not be abused by being used as a pressure gauge in regard to the fixation of wages that will affect workers. We ask that the position should be made clear for all time, that social services payments should not in any way lower a man’s right to earn his “just wages in industry.
Senator McCallum spoke at length about the great work that Liberal Governments had done in relation to the advancement of social legislation. However, we are fearful that this legislation is introduced for the purpose of providing a social payment from the State to relieve private industry of its commitments to the people of this country. A keen student of theology has written -
The Liberals, while upholding in theory their doctrine (which, as explained by them, is false and exaggerated) of liberty and equality for every individual, disregard in practice the dignity and rights of human personality; and have in fact reduced the vast majority of the people to a state of misery and dependence, which Pope Leo XIII. describes as “ little better than slavery “. For in the capitalist system of economy, which is the natural outcome of Liberal philosophy, most of the activities of the State are made subservient to the production of wealth. The worker, bereft of productive property, and thus left without an opportunity of labouring for his support except with the consent of the capitalist proprietor, is handed over to the almost unchecked control of men, often unscrupulous and un-Christian, whose only interest in him is as a producer of wealth.
– That was written by a “ com “.
– It was written by Pope Leo XIII. and is a part of an analysis of his encyclical Bemm Novarum. The principle still applies. It continues -
According to the capitalist ideal, the State is accounted most prosperous and most civilized which can show the greatest amount of production, the. mightiest hoard of accumulated millions, the largest fleet, and the strongest army. But what of the human individuals that compose the State? Do they,, each and all, enjoy the peace and prosperity to which they have a natural claim, or are they, through no fault of theirs, debarred from a fair opportunity of happiness and selfdevelopment? Such questions do not troublethe financial magnates or the bureaucratic rulers, too often the mere creatures of the financiers, in a system in which economics and government are divorced from Christian teaching, and the claims of God and the dignity of the human person ignored.
– The writer died 46 years ago.
– The wisdom of his utterances still prevails. When a start is made to destroy the human dignity of the worker in industry, who is responsible for the support of his family, there is induced a storm of socialism which is more vicious than any socialism applied to property. I refer to socialism of the individual, and the lowering of the dignity of the family. Hence, generally speaking, the functions of the civil power are concerned directly and immediately with the family and not with individuals as such. The State cannot interfere in any way with the unity and integrity of the family nor override any of the essential obligations of domestic life.
– Mr. President, I draw attention to the fact that the honorable senator is reading his speech.
– Order! Senator Cooke may continue.
– Nor should it usurp the functions which the natural law has assigned to the parents. Any action of the governing power in violation of these principles would be tyrannical and invalid; and laws tending, even directly or remotely, to the prejudice of domestic interest are opposed to the primary duty of the civic power. On this subject Pope Leo XIII. wrote -
The contention that the civil government should, at its option, intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family is a great and pernicious error. True, if the family finds itself in exceeding distress . . . it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the Commonwealth. In like manner, if, within the precincts of the household, there should occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yieldto the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights but to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the State must go no further: here nature bids them stop.
On that basis, the Parliament should intervene to safeguard and strengthen the human civic rights of the worker in industry who supports his family without any prejudice by payments from the State. The State, having made that which is unjust so that it is impossible for the worker to meet economic exigencies, must draw from industry the amount of money which will permit him to support his family. I have quoted from a report, drawn from the evidence of church people of all denominations and of social workers of all strata. They warned of the grave effect of bringing about a system whereby a man worked as an individual in industry but received only that amount which would support him. It rightly quotes, and the inference is correctly drawn, that ifa man goes into industry and earns only that amount, it breaks down the family structure of the nation. It speaks for the man who right through British history has been able to go into his own home as the breadwinner, if he is an honest man, and maintain those dependent upon him even though it may be in frugal comfort. He has the right to go to his children and say, “ I have worked honorably in industry and I am affording you frugal comfort. I am working for you “.
If the State has a function to perform it should, as Pope Leo XIII. said, provide for that man, with the extras over and above that frugal living. That is what the Labour Governmenthas worked for. That is why the Opposition is, it believes, justly afraid that unless the Government is very careful it will, through this legislation, break down that human dignity and bring the wage standards of this country to the point where they will be assessed on the unit value only and the rest will become a charge on that dull charity of State payments which existed in 1931. In conclusion. I say that any departure from this principle of allowing a worker to earn, by his own endeavours, sufficient to permit him to assume the responsibility to maintain and support his family would inevitably lead to the institution of one of the most regrettable forms of socialization wherein a man who takes on the responsibilities of married life and raising a family is deprived of human dignity and the knowledge that as a result of his labours, he has netted sufficient earnings to maintain his family in reasonable comfort apart from any social payments that may be afforded him and his family by the Government. I am sure that every honorable senator will concede the desire of the great majority of men to maintain that dignity.
– What did Gladstone say in ‘66?
– Gladstone did not write that. I wrote it myself this afternoon. If the honorable senator read that from Gladstone he has a strange copy. The Opposition desires to be constructive. It desires to stop this socialization of family life if possible. No objection should be raised by the Government to the Labour party’s proposition to allow provision to be made in this bill to protect the worker in the Arbitration Court. The amount should be made 10s. a week because on the Government’s own arguments it is a reasonable and equitable amount to be paid in relation to the endowment of any child.
Motion (by Senator Finlay) put -
That the debate be now adjourned.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)
AYES: 28
NOES: 20
Majority . . . .8
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
page 1556
Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 10.30 a.m.
page 1556
Business of the Senate.
Senator O’SULLIVAN (Queensland-
Minister for Trade and Customs) [11.29] . - I move -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Before asking the President to put the motion, I must express my great disappointment that the courtesy that hitherto has been extended by the Opposition to this side of the chamber has not been continued. After all, it is the function of honorable senators on this side to carry out on the business of government. “With all due respect I submit that it is the duty of His Majesty’s Opposition to assist us.
– Standing Order 415 provides that no honorable senator shall reflect on any vote of the Senate.
– It is not my intention to do so, Mr. President. I was referring not to a vote but to the conduct of honorable senators opposite or rather their lack of consideration.
– I rise to order. I ask whether the Minister for Trade and Customs is in order in speaking before the motion for the adjournment of the Senate has been moved?
– I understood the Minister to say that he proposed to make certain remarks before moving for the adjournment of the Senate. Is that so?
– No. I moved that the Senate do now adjourn, and then stated that I wished to say something before the motion was put. I was afraid that you might put the motion before I had an opportunity to speak.
– As the Minister has moved for the adjournment of the Senate, he is entitled to speak to the motion.
– Thank you, Mr. President. I was hoping that this Parliament would make history, but apparently some honorable senators have been embittered by what has happened in the past. I am fully conscious of the fact that, for the time being, honorable senators opposite have a majority in this chamber, but I remind them that they secured their majority at the 1946 general election and not at the 1949 general election. If the Opposition, in spite of the wishes of the people, intends to frustrate the work of the Government, it will be embarking upon a policy for which, in due course, it willbe answerable to the people. The Government has an important legislative programme.
– I rise to order. Standing Order 415 states -
No Senator shall reflect upon any Vote of the Senate, except for the purpose of moving that such Vote be rescinded.
I take it that the Minister for Trade and Customs is not moving for the rescinding of the vote.
– I have already ruled on that matter. I have informed the Minister that he may not reflect upon any vote of the Senate. However, it is quite in order for him to discuss in a general way the situation that exists in the Senate. He has assured me that he is not criticizing a vote of the Senate. If he proceeds to do so, I shall call him to order.
– The Minister said that the Opposition was using its majority. That meant that he was questioning a vote of the Senate.
– I rise to order. Standing Order 413 states -
No Senator shall allude to any Debate of the same Session upon a Question or Bill not being then under discussion, nor to any speech made in Committee, except by the indulgence of the Senate for personal explanations.
I submit that the Minister is alluding to a debate that took place in this chamber earlier to-day.
– I am not aware that the Minister is referring to a debate that occurred earlier to-day. I propose to permit him to continue.
– Again I assure you, Mr. President - if a further assurance be necessary - that I am not criticizing any vote of the Senate, nor am I referring to any debate that has taken place in this chamber. What I am doing, and I submit that in this respect I am in order, is reminding the Opposition of its duty and obligation in a general sense. The Government has work to do. It has been elected by a majority of the people.
– I rise to order. Again I refer you, Mr. President, to Standing Order 415. I maintain that the Minister is referring to the result of a vote of the Senate.
– It does not matter what the honorable senator maintains. I am in the Chair, and, so far as I am aware, Senator O’Sullivan is speaking in a general way on the position of the parties in the Senate at present. If he alludes to a debate that has already taken place, or reflects on a vote of the Senate I shall restrain him. So far, his remarks have been quite in order.
– It is most difficult in these circumstances to maintain a connected line of thought, but I remind honorable senators opposite that we are all colleagues in this chamber. We have been sent here to do a specific job. Every day when we first meet we ask for God’s guidance in our deliberations, for the advancement of His glory and for the true welfare of the people of Australia. I commend that thought to honorable senators opposite. Apparently some of them are rather sensitive about the votes that they cast earlier to-night, but I am not referring to that matter. I am referring to their general attitude towards the Government. I repeat that we all have a duty and a responsibility to the people of this country. The Govern ment looks to the Opposition for assistance in discharging that duty and responsibility.
– Is the Government not getting that assistance?
– I did not notice it to-night, but I hope that the honorable senator will refrain from seeking details of that matter, because I may be tempted to infringe the Standing Orders, and I do not wish to do that. I am speaking in a general way, and, in all humility, I appeal to members of the Opposition to assist the Government in carrying out what they must recognize to be the mandate of an overwhelming majority of the electors of Australia. Any practical suggestions that the Opposition may make for the improvement of legislation will receive full and courteous appreciation. After all, the Labour party has great prestige and great traditions and history behind it of which, apparently, we on this side are more mindful than are some honorable senators opposite.
– The Minister does not need to crawl.
– That is a typical suggestion which is completely unworthy of the tradition of the Labour movement. It is very unfortunate that some of our people are represented by an honorable senator who is capable of making a cheap sneer of that kind. I do not think that the members of his party can be very .proud of him. There is much work to be done, and to-night we were not seeking to impose any great strain upon the patience, strength or virility of honorable senators opposite. We did not want to continue for very long. There may be other occasions when we shall wish to sit until a much later hour than this. If it is the wish of the Senate that we should now adjourn I must submit, to that wish. If, on other occasions, it is thought that in the interests of the people the sittings of the Senate should be extended beyond the normal hour, I trust that honorable senators opposite will show a little more cooperation than they have shown to-night. If there are special reasons why the Senate should adjourn at the normal hour honorable senators opposite should make them known. They will find that we will co-operate with them as far as it is practicable for us to do so.
– The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) appears to be somewhat perturbed about our desire to adjourn the Senate at a reasonable hour. Arrangements of that kind should be regarded as by no means being in the nature of one-way traffic. Such consideration as has been extended in the past by the Opposition to the Government in the conduct of the business of this chamber will be continued in the future. I remind the Minister, however, that when we were in office and a ma jority of honorable senators was sitting in opposition, we were compelled to adjourn the Senate at 11 p.m. It was not then the custom to prolong the proceedings in this chamber beyond that hour. To-night, for some reason unknown to us, the Government decided that the Senate should continue to sit after 11 p.m. The honorable senator should be fair in this matter. Earlier in the evening I told him that we wanted to end to-day’s proceedings at approximately 11 p.m., particularly as the Senate is to assemble to-morrow morning. He was given due warning of our views. Therefore he has no ground for complaint because of the action taken by honorable senators on this side of the chamber. No one doubts that the Government has a mandate to proceed with its legislation. The Opposition will extend to it every possible assistance in the consideration of its legislative programme, but the attitude of Opposition senators towards the conduct of the business of the Senate will in future be based on the consideration which is extended to them by the Government.
– I am surprised at the attitude which has been taken by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) in regard to this matter. As my leader has said, during the most critical years of the war, when the Opposition of the day had a majority in the Senate, the business of the Government was held up, not on one occasion, but on many occasions.
– us were at the war then.
– Many honorable senators on this side of the chamber were also at the war then. The honorable senator was not the only member of this chamber who took part in the war, and won it - if we did win it. I remind the Senate of the attitude taken by the Opposition in this chamber in 1930 when the electors of Australia elected a Labour government which was led by Mr. James Scullin who was elected to the office with the greatest majority that has ever been known in the history of federal politics in this country.
– I was not here in those days.
– The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who was present at that time, assisted in holding up the business of the Senate.
– That is so, and he did so at a time when the workless people of this country were starving and the government of the day sought to pass legislation to alleviate the distress that existed among them. We did not then squeal as honorable senators opposite have squealed on this occasion. Why the Minister should be so vehement in his objection to our attitude to-night I do not know. The Leader of the Opposition bas said that by arrangement with the Minister, it was agreed that the Senate should adjourn at 11 p.m.
– That is not correct.
– The Minister apparently thought that some honorable senators on this side of the chamber had retired for the night for he was prepared to call for a division on the motion. I assure the Senate that when there is work to be done-
– Labour senators do not believe that it should be done.
– When there is work to be done members of the Labour party will always be ready to do it. If legislation is brought before the Senate which we think should be expedited we shall do our utmost to expedite it. We have other ideas about the legislation now before us and we decided that the Senate should be adjourned to-night at 11 p.m. We shall continue to use our majority in this chamber in the interests of the electors of Australia, just as in the upper house of the legislature of Victoria, which is not elected democratically the Opposition majority uses the weight of its numbers to hold up the business of the Government. We represent almost one-half of the people of Australia and we have been elected to do a job. We shall do it. If we believe that legislation introduced by the Government is not in the interests of the people, we have a perfect right to act as we think best in regard to it.
– I thought that honorable senators opposite were tired.
– I am never too tired to work. The electors of Australia were given no specious promises by the Labour party during the general election campaign. We did not dangle a carrot in front of the nose of the electors. We simply said that we would carry out our policy if we were elected. I venture to say that if Mr. Menzies, in his wildest dreams, had thought that he would be returned to office as Prime Minister of this country he would not have made the extravagant promises that he made to the people during the election campaign. I am surprised that the Minister should object so strongly to the exercise of the Opposition’s undoubted rights in this chamber. If honorable senators on this side of the Senate were unanimously of the opinion that the Senate should adjourn at the hour agreed upon by the Leader of the Opposition that decision must have been right. If I think-
– The honorable senator has nothing to think with.
– I am not so sure. If I had the monkey mind of the Minister I certainly would not have anything to think with.
– Order !
– The way in which the Leader of the Government in the Senate manoeuvred other people out of the leadership and duck-shoved himself into it is nobody’s business. However, I con gratulate him on his success; but now that he is in a big job I warn him that he does not want to be too thin-skinned. What members of the Opposition do in this chamber they do in the interests of the electors. If we believed that we should be doing right by voting for the Government’s proposal we should vote for it; but when our duty is to oppose a proposal of the Government we shall always oppose it.
– I desire to refer to a subject that was mentioned previously by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’sullivan), and that is the management of the business of the Senate, in circumstances such as those which now exist. The Government is in a minority in this chamber because the remnants of an election that was held three and a half years ago still exist despite the verdict of the electors expressed at an election held so recently as last December. Furthermore, I point out that the Opposition has a majority in this chamber because of the operation of a statute which Labour introduced and had passed through the Parliament two years ago when it had a majority in both chambers. That measure ensured Labour of a majority in this chamber at least during this Parliament. Whilst neither I nor any of my colleagues would suggest that any member of the Opposition should be denied a full and free opportunity to state his case in support of principles on which he was elected, whether at the last election or at some previous election, that has been superseded by the decision of the people expressed at the last election. Members of the Opposition who are sensible of their responsibility should realize that they are not entitled to take the conduct of the business of this chamber out of the hands of the Government. Any party in Opposition in this chamber must realize that it is only one participating unit of the Parliament, and that it is the responsibility of the Government to decide when the pitch is open for play.
– What about the way in which the anti-Labour forces use their majorities in the Upper Houses of the States ?
SenatorWRIGHT. - That interjection is as futile as the remarks of the honorable senator are vacuous. He knows quite well that the basis of representation in this chamber is markedly different from that of the Upper Houses of the State Parliaments.
Opposition members interjecting,
All this barrage of interjection and comment on the few remarks that I have made illustrates the obstructive tactics which the Opposition is adopting and which have led the Leader of the Government in the Senate to explain his position to-night. As I have said, we do not attempt to deny to any member of the Opposition the right to state a substantive case. However, the Opposition, irrespective of its numerical strength, is not entitled to arrogate to itself the right to say at what hours this chamber shall sit or in what manner matters shall be debated. The hours at which the pitch shall be open and the matters that will be submitted for discussion as part of the Government’s programme of business are essentially matters to be determined by the Government.
– That is not so. Those matters are to be determined by the Parliament.
– And precisely for the reason that the Parliament consists of three units, of which the predominant one is the House of Representatives, Senator Katz and his colleagues should recognize the right of the Government which has a majority in the House of Representatives to determine the programme of business in this chamber. I urge those members of the Opposition who are disposed to view the matter soberly and impartially to recognize the Government’s right to order the conduct of business in this chamber. The Government must provide for a proper reciprocation of business between the two Houses, and if it is desirable to pass a particular measure through this chamber by, say, 11 o’clock to-morrow morning for consideration in the House of Representatives, then members of the Opposition should not lightly or irresponsibly upset that programme. When a mere matter of the continuance of a debate arises, a sound appreciation of the need to conduct the business of the Parliament properly requires certain concessions by the Opposition.
Having stated my principle, I propose to be brief in referring to one or two discreditable observations which fell from Senator Hendrickson, who preceded me in this debate. The honorable senator suggested that the Leader of the Senate had deliberately called for a continuance of the debate in breach of an arrangement that had been made with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley). The honorable senator must have spoken completely through this hat. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition arranged for all his supporters to be present for the deliberate purpose of providing a majority when he pressed for a division. He knew when he called for his division that it would be opposed by the Leader of the Government. How then is it possible for Senator Hendrickson to suggest that the Leader of the Government is arguing about a proposition that was really the subject of an understanding?
– Is the honorable senator dealing with the division that took place to-night?
– I come back to the subject, at the suggestion of the Chair. The remarks of Senator Hendrickson in that regard were completely without foundation. If the Opposition is in the position of knowing that the Government’s programme of business requires the despatch of a particular bill by a particular time then unless the substance of the case requires longer time I submit that for a proper despatch of business it should recognize its responsibilities. If we would all recognize that principle and argue only upon substantial differences which divide us and upon matters of substance it would greatly conduce to the proper despatch of business. I am almost tempted to go on and refer-
Honorable senators interjecting,
– I knew that the quiet calm that we were enjoying was only being maintained until a unanimous Opposition storm could be brought against me. I assurehonorable senators who have interjected-
– We have six more speakers yet.
– I assure honorable senators who have interjected - the whole 24 of them - that it is no intention of mine to continue longer than a minute or two. I shall be very patient while Honorable senators opposite do their talking.
Some interjections tempt me to refer to the important problem of a double dissolution. But, seeing the pale countenances of the Opposition at the mere mention of the term “ double dissolution” I do not intend now to discuss the matter.
– We shall be happy about it.
- Senator Sandford turns white at the suggestion of it.
Honorable senators interjecting,
– I hearken to the interjections with great respect in the hope that honorable senators opposite will hearken to my supplications as a member of the minority in this chamber and in the hope that they will realize that we are entitled to some rights for our good conduct and good business.
Thursday2O, April 1950.
– I think that we ought to clear up this whole matter so that the same sort of situation will not arise in the months that are coming. The Leader of the Government has said that he felt that the Opposition was discourteous. He resented the fact that the Opposition determined to end this sitting of the Senate at 11 o’clock and took the necessary action to do so and he and Senator Wright have attempted to keep the Senate here until a much later hour. For some years there has been a feeling in this chamber that when honorable senators travel many hundreds of miles to this city is it fair that business should be adjourned at a reasonable hour to give them an opportunity to get the rest that is necessary to them if they are to come back the next morning and do their work ina proper manner. After all, honorable senators of the Opposition have just as much regard for the business as have the honorable gentlemen who support the Government, but while I am on the side that has the majority in this chamber, I am not prepared to see business forced through by sheer exhaustion. We have seen examples of that kind of procedure time after time in this Parliament and nobody can be pleased at the spectacle of honorable senators having to remain in the chamber all night to force business through when proper discussion cannot take place. I believe that my leader has shown the greatest courtesy to the Leader of the Government. This is the first time that there has been any disagreement. I feel that even on this occasion,’ the disagreement could have been ironed out during the next day. Apparently the Government is determined to try to force its views on the Opposition and if that process is attempted I shall take the proper procedure under the Standing Orders to see that such action as we have witnessed to-night does not occur on any future night.
– The honorable senator is surely not threatening the Government?
– I am telling honorable senators opposite exactly what I am prepared to do and if Minister takes that as a threat he is entitled to do so. I am prepared to answer to the electors of Australia on whether I carry out my duties in a proper manner, and I believe that if I attend this Parliament until 11 o’clock at night, come back the next morning, attend meetings before the Senate sits and then take my seat in the chamber again at 10.30 a.m. and stay there until 11 o’clock at night I consider that I shall be carrying out a fair share of the work that the people sent me here to carry out. I resent the remark made by the. Leader of the Government that we have been discourteous to him.
– Had the honorable senator been agreeable we should have been home an hour ago.
– If this is the sort of agreement the Leader of the Government and his party want I shall suggest to my own party that we go ahead and do what we believe to be right. In other words we shall see to it that the Senate terminates its sitting at 11 o’clock at night and co-operate with the Government until that hour, but we should not consent to the Senate sitting until a later hour. I move now -
That the question be now put.
Question so resolved in the affirmative, there being at least thirteen senators voting in favour of the motion.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
page 1562
The following papers were presented : -
Australian Broadcasting Act - Australian Broadcasting Control Board - First Annual Report, for period ended 30th June, 1949.
Commonwealth Bank Act - Appointment - G.R. Brown.
Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department -
Defence- G. Barrett, J. Hepburn.
Interior - T. A. Miller.
Labour and National Service- J. N.G. Gartside.
Social Services - K. H. Corvan.
Works and Housing - C. F. Bode, J.E.
Carney, A. Green.
Customs Act- Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 17.
Daily Produce Export Control Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 13.
Defence Act and Naval Defence Act - RegulationsStatutory Rules 1950, No. 12.
Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules1950, No. 14.
Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules1950, No. 15.
Excise Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 16.
Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired for -
Defence purposes -
Banyo, Queensland.
Mount Gambier, South Australia.
Richmond, New South Wales.
Wollongong, New South Wales.
Department of Civil Aviation purposes -
Bendigo, Victoria.
Ceduna, South Australia.
Department of Works and Mousing pur poses - Wagga Wagga, New South Wales.
Postal purposes -
Albany, Western Australia.
Jerilderie, New South Wales.
Loomberah, New South Wales.
Loxton, South Australia.
McLeod, Victoria.
Rydal, New South Wales.
The Entrance, New South Wales.
Thomastown, Victoria.
Toukley, New South Wales.
Waikerie, South Australia.
Whyalla, South Australia.
Northern Territory (Administration) Act - Regulations - 1950 -
No. 2 (Alice Springs Administration Ordinance).
No. 3 (Licensing Ordinance).
No. 4 (Licensing Ordinance).
War Service Homes Act - Land acquiredat Bankstown, New South Wales.
Senate adjourned at 12.10 a.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 April 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19500419_senate_19_207/>.