Senate
20 April 1950

19th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1631

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY PRODUCE BOARD

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I lay on the table the following paper : -

Dairy Produce Export Control Act - Twentyfourth Annual Report of the Australian Dairy Produce Board, for year 1948-49.

I should like to point out that under the sponsorship of the Australian Dairy Produce Board, Dr. W. E. Petersen, Professor of Dairy Cattle Husbandry, Minnesota University, United States of America, visited Australia in December, 194S. Public addresses delivered by that noted world authority on dairy cattle husbandry in the chief dairying districts of the three eastern .States were considered to be the most educational yet heard on the subject of “ Milking Management “.

page 1631

QUESTION

JUTE

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

– In view of the importance of jute to Australia’s economy in the manufacture of cornsacks, wool packs, floor coverings and many other articles, and also as a means of conserving exchange if produced locally, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture whether any attempt has been made to produce jute in Australia? If so, where have such attempts been made, and with what result? If not, will the Minister arrange for agricultural officers of the Commonwealth Scientific .and Industrial Research Organization to investigate the possibilities of producing jute in this country?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I understand that certain investigations have been made into the possibilities of growing jute in Australia, particularly with respect to methods of production, but that the matter is only at the experimental stage. If the honorable senator will place his question on the notice-paper I shall obtain the latest information on the subject and supply it to him.

page 1631

QUESTION

SEARCH FOR OIL

Senator FINLAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I have been asked by interested parties whether any legislative provision exists for the payment of rewards or for the provision of financial assistance in the form of bonuses to assist in the discovery of oil in Australia. If so, I ask the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport to outline the procedure that applicants for such assistance from the Government should follow?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– For some years the Government has made funds available for this purpose. In addition, I understand that some private companies have expended large sums of money upon searches for oil. I am not familiar with the latest details of the position, but I shall obtain them and supply the honorable senator with an answer to his question as soon as possible.

page 1631

QUESTION

BUSH FIRES

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Trade and Customs, relates to the devastating bush fires in Western Australia which have caused great losses to be suffered by settlers in the areas concerned. Will the Minister say whether the Western Australian Government has made an approach to the Commonwealth in an attempt to obtain financial assistance from Commonwealth sources to ameliorate the losses that have been suffered by settlers?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am not aware that any such approach has been made. If the honorable senator will place his question upon the notice-paper, it will be referred to the appropriate authority and a complete answer will be supplied later.

page 1631

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

Is the following press report correct, viz.: - That runaway wool prices are boomeranging by enormously stimulating competition from synthetic fibre; that manufacturers are turning to substitutes wherever possible; and thatwoollen products are four times as costly as rayon or synthetic?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has furnished the following answer: -

I have not seen the .particular press report referred to by the honorable senator. The levels which wool prices have reached clearly indicate that there is to-day a world shortage of wool which is responsible for keen competition among manufacturers for available supplies. Even the release to the market of moat of 10,000,000 bales of J.O. wool over a period of four years has not satisfied the demand, notwithstanding competition from substitute fibres. lt is a matter of opinion whether the price levels which have been reached are in fact stimulating competition from synthetic fibres to any considerable extent, but it might reasonably be expected that manufacturers of synthetic fibres which compete with wool would attempt to exploit the gap created by the shortage of wool.

With regard to the price relationship between wool and synthetics, the information available to me is that woollen products are not four times as costly as rayon or synthetic. In order to arrive at a definite comparison, however, it would be necessary to conduct extensive inquiries as to the relative current prices of competitive and comparable articles.

page 1632

SOCIAL SERVICES CONSOLIDATION BILL 1950

Second Beading.

Debate resumed from the 19th April (vide page 1556), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator FINLAY:
South Australia

– Much has ‘been said in the course of this debate about the sincerity of honorable senators on this side of the chamber in seeking to amend this measure, which provides for the endowment of the first child of every family. If we make a close analysis of the fears that the Labour party has entertained in regard to the endowment of the first child since 1941, it will be seen that we have good grounds for believing that the endowment of the first child must of necessity have a distinct bearing upon the incomes of all persons whose wages are related to the basic wage. The Government has expressed the view that the Arbitration Court would not regard the endowment of the first child as a reason for reducing the basic wage. The genesis of the endowment of children by Commonwealth legislation leads one to believe that there is a distinct affinity between the basic wage of this country and child endowment. Therefore we have good grounds for being very much afraid that the procedure that was followed in 1941 and subsequent years will be adopted in 1950, unless an appropriate direction is given to the court or an assurance is given to the people that endowment of the first child in every family will be a gratuitous payment additional to the wage assessed by the court on the basis of the needs of a man, his wife and one child. In 1941, endowment of children was the accepted policy of the anti-Labour government then in office. Nobody seeks to take from that government all honour due to it for the endowment or introduction of child endowment. But I regret the circumstances under which child endowment was born. There was a very strong agitation at that time, by people whose wages were adjusted by the court, for an increase of the standard wage. Of course the wages of many thousands of people who are in receipt of child endowment are not in any way influenced by the basic wage. But the very large section of people who do have their wages controlled by what is considered by the court to be a fair standard wage suffered a distinct loss in 1941 when the court adjourned the hearing of the application by the trade unions of that time for a review of the basic wage, because the government of the day announced that it would introduce endowment for the second and subsequent children in every family. No decision was given by the court, and child endowment was introduced. That meant that all married persons, other than those who had two or more children, received no increase whatever, although the cost of living was spiralling. It meant also that instead of industry having to carry the burden of the expected increased basic wage the responsibility was placed on the taxpayers. Although industry provided a portion of the money, by virtue of the application of the payroll tax, the greater portion was supplied by the taxpayers. The vast army of people that had sought the increase of the standard wage at that time and did not receive it because of the introduction of endowment for children, were then obliged to pay taxes to provide funds for child endowment payments. I think that we can he excused for believing that what happened in 1941 could happen again in 1950, because a similar set of circumstances to those that had arisen in 1941 has now arisen. Honorable senators on this side were very much afraid that the announcement of the endowment of the first child would have the direct effect of influencing the mind of the Arbitration Court in its findings on the basic wage. I hope that that fear is baseless. I hope that the court will not, under any consideration, allow itself to be influenced by thi3 proposal to endow the first child in determining what is a reasonable wage. However, I cannot see any reason why the Government should object to the Opposition’s proposed amendment providing a clause that the Arbitration Court shall not take into consideration child endowment in assessing the living wage for Australia. I accept the -assurance of the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) in his second-reading speech that the Government does not seek by this legislation to influence the court in its decision on the basic wage. Having accepted the Minister’s assurance, I see no reason why he, in turn, should not be prepared to accept the Opposition’s amendment. The court would then know what is in the mind of the legislature in respect of child endowment. I agree with Senator 0’Flaherty that while an amendment of that kind would not he an instruction to the court, it certainly would have some influence on the judges when they realized that this Government intended to give something additional to what the court decided in respect of those workers whose incomes are governed by the Arbitration Court’s decisions. Having accepted that to be the position, I cannot understand why the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) should adopt the attitude that he has taken that if the Government is obliged to pay a penny more in child endowment than is proposed in the bill, then there will be no child endowment for the first child. That savours very much of saying to the people of this country, “We have spoken. We have offered you 5s. and if anybody dares to increase that amount we will not endow the first child “. I have never heard such petulance. It seems to me that honorable senators on this side who have the largest party in this chamber simply have to accept what the Government puts to us or the people will get nothing at all. I agree with the Minister who introduced this bill when he said that by far the greatest expense incurred by parents is with the first child. Honorable senators who have reared a family know that with the first child the parents have to incur the expenditure of providing a cot, a perambulator and many other thing3 necessary for children. These things are utilized in the ordinary working man’s family for the second, third, and any subsequent children. Much of the initial expenditure on the first child is not repeated when other children arrive. As this fact has been recognized by the Minister for Social Services, I ask him why there should be any differentiation in child endowment payments. The Treasury is in a position to make the payment in respect of the first child equal to that for subsequent children, and we on this side of the chamber cannot see any reason why that should not be done. The attitude of the Government is “ 5s. or nothing “.

Senator Spicer:

– Labour’s attitude is “ 10s. or nothing “.

Senator FINLAY:

– No. Our attitude is “ 109. or more “. Honorable senators opposite are fixing both a minimum and a maximum payment. We are only advocating a minimum payment of 10s. The estimated cost of this measure is only £15,000,000. That is merely as a drop in the ocean of social services expenditure. The Labour party intends to use whatever influence it can bring to bear to ensure the people of this country shall have adequate provision made for their children. Allegations of insincerity on the part of Labour supporters in their attitude to this bill are unfounded. Throughout the history of this country, Labour has shown the utmost consideration for the social welfare of the people. No government ever did more to improve our social services legislation than did the Labour Administration that was defeated on the 10th December last. I assure the Government that the Opposition is prepared to do everything in its power to ensure that this legislation endowing the first child of each family shall be passed. If the Government is sincere in its professed desire to augment family incomes in this country, it will not hesitate to accept the amendments to this measure that have been foreshadowed.

Senator WEDGWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise to support the hill, and I must confess that I have been amazed at the confused and contradictory statements made by members of the Opposition. At the outset let me say that I am not one who believes that a monopoly of virtue resides either in a particular political party or in the persons connected with that party. Therefore, I say that the bill is not a bribe, but is merely a prompt, first instalment of the programme submitted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to the people of Australia on the 10th December last and accepted by them. During the debate I have been amazed, and also somewhat amused, to hear honorable senators refer to such matters as capital issues, criminology, and the “ ego of the legal mind “. Like many other honorable senators I have not had any legal training, and I confess that I do not possess the ego of the legal mind, but as a member of the sex which .Senator Grant says knows nothing whatever about economics I confess that I cannot understand what such matters as capital issues and criminology have to do with the payment of child endowment, and I am sure that any woman who listened to the broadcast of the proceedings must also have wondered what possible connexion the ego of the legal mind could have with child endowment. The principle of child endowment is that it provides for a redistribution of income from people without children to support for the benefit of those who have dependent children. Through child endowment we ensure that the members of large families obtain a greater share of the necessities of life. Therefore, we propose to distribute an additional sum of £15,000,000 annually between 1,100,000 families, 450,000 of which are at present not receiving child endowment at all, whilst the remainder receive endowment only for the second and subsequent children.

It is important to remember that child endowment is paid to the mother of a family, a fact which has been mentioned by honorable senators on both sides of the chamber. Although Senator Grant complained that women have no economic knowledge whatever, and whilst the budgetary skill of the average woman may never have been tested in terms of handling millions of pounds, the fact remains that the average woman has the capacity to extract the last halfpenny out of the devalued £1 ; and that is well nigh financial genius. The payment of child endowment in respect of the second and subsequent children has proved of very real help since it was introduced in 1941. By proposing now to endow the first child we are seeking merely to extend that assistance so as to include each child of a family. Furthermore, child endowment should not be considered merely as an assistance to parents but also as an acceptance by the community of its responsibility to the family unit. Much eloquence has been spilled by honorable senators opposite over what is due to mothers and children, but it is interesting to recall that although the Australian Council of Trades Unions pressed the previous Labour administration to provide endowment for the first child that administration refused to do so. If the passage of this bill is further delayed so that payment of the. benefit cannot commence on the 20th June next, or if the bill is destroyed by the tactics that have been pursued by the Opposition - and its members have been warned by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) that if they press their proposed amendments they will destroy the bill - it will be interesting to observe the reaction of the 1,100,000 families that will be denied payment of the benefit promised to them by the Government. Those people will know that the Opposition, and no one else, has been responsible for withholding the benefit from them.

Honorable senators opposite have made several contradictory statements with respect to the basis of computation of the basic wage. I shall quote from shorthand notes that I took when several honorable senators opposite were speaking in this debate. They made some most illuminating statements. For instance, Senator Nash said -

I understand that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act does not contain any formula to guide the court.

Senator Nash:

– That is correct.

Senator WEDGWOOD:

– The honorable senator was followed almost immediately by one of his colleagues who, as my notes show, said that the court had a formula. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), in his secondreading speech, clearly explained that since 1934 the basic wage has been computed on the formula of determining the highest wage that industry can afford to pay. Every sensible Australian agrees with the principle that if family life is to be maintained at the highest level wages must be the very highest that the country can afford to pay consistent always with its competitive position in world economy. Therefore, I suggest that the arguments advanced by honorable senators opposite have been hypothetical and, in many instances, hypocritical. Several of them said that the Government should give a direction to the court that it should not take child endowment into account in determining the basic wage.. Disregarding altogether the propriety of a government giving such a direction to the court, every honorable senator knows that the court is not in any way, morally or legally, bound to observe such a direction. Senator McKenna made the following remarkable statement: -

Something may be said in the course of this debate regarding the attitude of the Australian Council of Trades Unions to child endowment. If an honorable senator opposite says that the Australian Council of Trades Unions has favoured endowment for the first child, he will be telling only half of the story. It is true that that body supported endowment for the first child, but simultaneously it advocated the imposition of a tax on industry to finance the payments. It also advocated the fixation of prices so that industry itself would bear the major part of the charge and in order that the ordinary workers and taxpayers of Australia would not be called upon individually to finance the scheme.

The honorable senator very meticulously avoided making any reference to the fact that the Australian Council of Trades Unions had not at that time made any suggestion relating to the fixation of the basic wage. I say without hesitation that any honorable senator who was asked to mention the two factors that contributed most to want would reply “ large families and the interruption or loss of earning power .”

Child endowment is designed to assist the family. It is not suggested for one moment that it will induce people who do not desire to raise families to do so, but, as I said earlier, it will provide for large families a far greater proportion of the necessities of life. This measure is evidence of the fact that the Government regards the family as the basic social unit. As I have mentioned interruption or loss of earning power, I should like to deal briefly with a remark which I considered was senseless, untrue and mischievous. One honorable senator said that efficiency does not play a very big part in industrial relations and that employers are not concerned about efficiency. It is high time that the Parliament told both the employer and the employee that they are jointly concerned about efficiency. No sound economy can be established in this country if we preach doctrines of that kind. The employer has a responsibility for the social and material welfare of the worker; but, at the same time, the worker has an equal responsibility. He should show regard for discipline and for properly constituted authority whether it be the Arbitration Court itself or any tribunal operating under the control of the court. Therefore, the employer and the employee have an equal responsibility in this matter.

I hope that this measure will be passed. I believe that family life, with all its cares, responsibilities and joys, is the keystone of human happiness. Charles Darwin was right when he said -

Human happiness is summed up by work and domestic affections.

It is the responsibility of the Parliament to ensure that the people of Australia shall enjoy both of those advantages. Senator Mattner, in his maiden speech, made what I consider to be one of the most profound statements that I have yet heard in the Senate. He said -

Men desire immortality; they achieve it through their children.

That is true ; but it goes even deeper than that. The world achieves immortality through its youth, and we who seek to serve its youth project ourselves into its future. I support the bill.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Although I realize the importance of this measure I do not propose to make a lengthy speech, because the various issues involved have been thoroughly discussed in this debate. I shall not repeat what has been said concerning the basis of computation of the basic wage. With all respect to honorable senators opposite, I believe that it is generally realized that members of the Labour party have a more intimate knowledge of the set-up of the Arbitration Court and of the fixation of the basic wage than have the majority of Government supporters. Members of the Labour party are the representatives of the wage-earners.

Senator Spooner:

– Why did the wageearners not vote for return of a Labour government ?

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I shall deal with that point later. Honorable senators opposite have said that we are opposed to the provision of endowment for the first child. In 1941, when child endowment was introduced by a Liberal government, before any member of the Labour party had had an opportunity to discuss the pros and eons of the matter in the Parliament, the then Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) indicated clearly in his speech when moving the second reading of the measure the reasons why the Government of that day was not prepared to pay child endowment in respect of the first child of a family. The members of the Labour party, led by the late Mr. John Curtin, fully agreed with the Minister and did not oppose the measure.

We believe that this proposal to endow the first child will, if it be implemented, eventually have a detrimental effect upon the wages of all workers in this country who are paid in accordance with a basic wage determined by either the Commonwealth or a State arbitration court. We know that when the judges of Commonwealth or State arbitration courts are determining a basic wage, they take into consideration, among other things, the needs of a family unit of a certain size. The Commonwealth Arbitration Court has proceeded on the basis of the bare needs, with no luxuries, of a man, wife and one child. In those circumstances, is not it logical to assume that, if the Commonwealth were to pay an endowment of 5s. or 10s. a week in respect of the first child, the payment would have an adverse effect upon the basic wage? I am certain that the employers would argue that the court should take that payment into consideration. I have attended basic wage inquiries in State arbitration courts and I have heard employers’ representatives ask the judges of those courts to take into consideration amenities and privileges such as long-service leave. It would be quite wrong for the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to take into consideration whatever endowment may be paid in respect of the first child. It will be a grant by the Government and it should not affect the amount of the basic wage, but we are afraid that it will do so. If we could be certain that the Arbitration Court would not take endowment in respect of the first child into consideration, we should be quite happy, because we should then know that the people of Australia would not be robbed by a decrease of their wages.

The point that I .am discussing was considered by a Liberal government in 1941 before legislation providing for child endowment was introduced into the Parliament. On the 27th March, 1941, the Minister for Labour and National Service, in his second-reading speech on the bill, made the following statement : -

In the course of inquiry into child endowment in Australia, the question of the number of children for which the basic wage rates prescribed by Commonwealth and State industrial tribunals are deemed to provide, has been gone into very fully.

Dealing with the fear that honorable members on this side of the chamber have expressed, 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. Some discussion of this question may, therefore, be useful.

Later in his speech the Minister said -

I now turn to a consideration of the salient features of the bill itself. 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 has 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.

I do not think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) was sincere when he promised in his policy speech that child endowment at the rate of 5s. a week would be paid in respect of the first child of a family. I believe that it was only a vote-catching device or a political trick. Consider the purchasing power of 5 s. at the present time. A few years ago, when child endowment in respect of second and subsequent children was paid at the rate of 5s. a week, a Labour goverment, believing that that amount was insufficient, increased it to 10s. a week. If this Government is sincere, why does it not agree that the endowment for the first child should be 10s. ?

Senator Robertson:

– It is to be paid on a sliding scale, in the same way as the maternity allowance is paid.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am astonished that Senator Robertson is not in favour of the amendment that we have foreshadowed. Probably she must follow her leader, but, as a mother, she should know the difficulties with which mothers are beset. She must realize what a godsend child endowment has been to the women of this country, particularly to those who have four, five or six children. We ask the Government to accept the amendments because we consider that if it is determined to introduce endowment of 5s. a week for the first child in every family irrespective of whether that affects the basic wage or not, the amount payable for the first child should be 10s. a week. It cannot be claimed that money is not available to meet the suggested increase because a large fund was accumulated by the previous Government. There is over £120,000,000 in reserve in the National Welfare Fund to provide social services. Therefore, I stress that the Government will have no difficulty in finding the money to endow the first child in every family by 10s. a week.

I have studied the history of child endowment in this country. In 1941 the Menzies Government then in office did not have 2s. in the bank. But outside pressure was brought to hear on it to introduce a measure of this kind. However, that government was crippled by its inability to find the £15,000,000, £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 that would be required to finance child endowment. I consider, after reading the reported speeches of government members of that day, that the then antiLabour Government was fortunate to have the honour to introduce child endowment. Only the solidarity of the Labour members of the Parliament at that time made it possible. Then the government conceived the pay-roll tax, the appropriate measure being introduced by the present Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony) on the 27th March, 1941. He stated then that only employers with a wages bill in excess of £20 a week would would be required to pay pay-roll tax. A perusal of the Hansard reports of proceedings in the Parliament at that time shows that the intention was .that small business men, farmers, and graziers with a wages bill of less than £20 a week would not have to pay tax. I repeat, after having studied the history of child endowment from an impartial point of view, that had it not been for the solidarity of Labour at that time the measure would not have been born. The present Government should be fair in this matter. When the former Menzies government introduced the child endowment measure in 1941 it knew that its remaining term of office would be short. In fact that government did not even pay the first instalment of child endowment. The late John Curtin had to carry the baby when he took over the administration of this country.

Senator Wright:

– Did Labour establish its arrangement with Coles and Wilson at that time?

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not understand what the honorable senator who has just interjected means. The payroll tax did not yield anything like the expenditure that child endowment involved. The Government should not object to the amount of the proposed endowment of the first child in every family being increased to 10s. a week, particularly if it is determined to endow first children irrespective of whether that will affect the basic wage. Although honorable senators sitting in Opposition have asked the Government why Chief Judge Kelly adjourned the basic wage inquiry immediately after the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) had indicated in his policy speech that it was his intention, if elected to office, to endow the first children no satisfactory answer has been given. It is obvious that the Chief Judge had a good reason for not wishing to continue the hearing until after the general election. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) stressed yesterday that the Chief Judge is now continuing the hearing of the basic wage application. The explanation is that eighteen months elapsed before the presentation of the case on behalf of the workers was completed, owing to adjournments and other delays. Probably a further twelve months will elapse before the court announces its decision. The employers have done, and are doing, everything possible to delay the hearing. Even last week they objected to the Metal Trades Union participating in the basic wage inquiry because of its ban on overtime work by its members in Sydney. They are obstructing the proceedings. It will take the court at least another twelve months to deal with the case. This bill will be either passed or rejected within a few weeks and there should be no fear of what will happen, because the Court will give a decision months after this bill has gone through Parliament.

Senator Wright:

– What is the significance of the adjournment?

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The court adjourned immediately the present Prime Minister delivered his policy speech in Melbourne and promised that he would introduce endowment for the first child if returned. Chief Judge Kelly could not give his reasons openly, hut anybody who has had any industrial experience in the Arbitration Court knows very well that the adjournment was for the purpose of seeing the result of the election and that if the Liberal party was returned, the Chief Judge would know how to make an adjustment of the basic wage. I ask the Government to accept the amendment foreshadowed by the Opposition. There is no excuse why 10s. endowment should not be paid for the first child. The Government cannot say that the money is not available. If 10s. is paid for the second, third and fourth children there is no reason why the first child should not be on the same basis. I ask the Government to consider the foreshadowed amendment and not to be stubborn and insist that it will kill the bill if the Opposition presses for a payment of 10s. It seems that the Government, in taking that stand, is< not sincere. It must have known what the Labour party members would do, for the question already had been discussed by the Minister for Labour and National Service in 1.941. before any Labour member had anything to say regarding the basic wage. In 1941 it was known that if endowment for the first child had been introduced the basic wage would have been affected. In Western Australia under the State basic wage the amount for the first child is approximately 18s. a week. In 1942 it was 13s. 9d. If the Arbitration Court judges take into consideration the endowment payment of 5s. or 10s., will they allow that amount and leave the balance of the 18s.? If they take it into consideration at all they will take the full issue of 18s. away from the basic wage. That is what the Labour party is afraid of. It has no assurance from the Government that that will not be so.

Senator Wright:

– Why do not honorable senators opposite accept the bill in its present form?

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Government supporters say that they are determined to push this legislation through. If so the Opposition is prepared to get whatever it can for the people. The Government can afford to pay because no government has come into office in better circumstances.

Senator Wright:

– Why could not the previous Government afford to pay it?

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Labour Government knew the dangers. Labour does not interfere with the Arbitration Court nor does it stack the court. The Government now in office has more strings to pull than the Opposition has. The Labour party has not rigged the basic wage or the State Arbitration Court. lt forced the issue of the Arbitration Court in this country in the first place and stands hy the court without any interference. The Labour party would not introduce child endowment for the first child for the same reasons as those given by Mr. Holt in 1941. Times have not changed. There is no difference in the set-up of the basic wage. I shall support the amendments that have been foreshadowed. I hope that the Government will give honest consideration to the Opposition’s proposals, for they are sincere.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– I wish to state briefly my attitude to this bill. I have always strongly supported the principle of child endowment and I can truthfully say that the Labour party and those associated with it over the years have done so also. Personally I hope that this measure, possibly with some improvements, will come into operation at least at the time mentioned by the Government. If the Government can make it retrospective that will be all right with me. Honorable senators opposite have not been quite fair to those who think that this hill may adversely affect the basic wage. I am sure that honorable senators opposite realize that if there is an increase in endowment it may possibly affect the basic wage. Many people will not participate in the benefits of this measure “which may contribute towards a reduction in the basic wage. That opinion is held by many people who, despite the limitations of this measure, are prepared to support it because they believe in the principle of child endowment. It is common knowledge that, at the time of the introduction of the original child endowment legislation in 1941, there was a strong belief abroad that the Arbitration Court would grant a substantial increase of the basic wage. That increase did not eventuate. That was a great disappointment to men who were genuinely interested in improving the conditions of working men, and there was a strong feeling in Labour and trade union circles that the then Government led by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) had introduced child endowment to circumvent an increase of the basic wage. I do not suggest that anything dishonest was done, but undoubtedly industry in this country benefited by the substitution of child endowment for an increase of the basic wage. It is futile for “honorable senators opposite to insinuate that the Labour party is opposed to child endowment. Senator Wright has asked why the Labour Government did not extend child endowment to the first child. I remind him that, during Labour’s term of office, the social services bill of this country was increased from £1S,000,000 to more than £100,000,000, including an increase of 100 per cent, in child endowment payments.

Senator Wright:

– Were the wagepegging regulations not in force when child endowment was doubled?

Senator COURTICE:

– They were, and I remind honorable senators opposite that, by accepting wage-pegging during the war, the working people of this country made a valuable contribution to the stability of our economy. Eventually, wage-pegging had to be removed, mainly because the cost of imported goods had risen by 200 per cent. That meant that much of the raw material used in industry was costing considerably more, and manufacturers could not continue to produce goods at the old prices. Wagepegging had to be abandoned. If other countries of the world had instituted the rigid system of wage-pegging that existed in this country, much of the postwar inflation would have been avoided. Our high cost of living to-day is due not only to increased labour costs in this country but also to the much higher prices that have to be paid for imported raw materials. Expenditure on raw materials amounts to hundreds of millions of pounds annually. Incidentally - I admit that this has no relation to- the measure now under discussion - I am worried at the Government’s disposition to permit the duty-free importation of many goods, regardless of their price. This is bound to have an inflationary effect upon our economy. While the Labour Government was in office, the importation of urgently required commodities was permitted but to-day, for instance, prefabricated houses and many other things are being imported duty-free, and at a very high cost. This reckless policy, I contend, indicates that the Government has not a full appreciation of the effect that its action will have upon the economy of this country.

I resent very much the suggestion that the Labour party is opposed to -this measure and is doing its best to prevent the extension of child endowment to the first child in each family. That is a diabolical charge. While the Labour Government was in office, the present Minister for Trade and Customs O’Sullivan 0’Sullivan). the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) and the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) repeatedly objected to caucus rule. They said that they did not want legislation to be brought into this chamber already determined. They claimed that the Senate should be permitted to amend legislation in the interests of the country. But what is their view now? Although the Attorney-General is not in charge of the bill, immediately Senator McKenna foreshadowed two amendments, he announced that if the Opposition insisted upon them, the measure would be killed. Is that the way honorable senators opposite beHere proceedings of this national Parliament should be conducted? I resent strongly the charge that, just because we do not see eye to eye with the Government on all aspects of this measure, we must accept responsibility for its abandonment.

Senator Nash:

– If anybody kills the bill, the Government will do it.

Senator COURTICE:

– There can be no question about that. I am sure that the Minister .for Repatriation is well aware of my attitude to this measure. The Government’s contention that its cut and dried child endowment proposals must he accepted by the Senate is unjustifiable. Opposition members and Government members alike have been sent here to do their duty. I recall that when I was first elected to this chamber, I was one of three Labour senators representing 49 per cent, of the electors. The other 33 were the representatives of big business. We did not have much opportunity to amend legislation in those days.

I do not suggest that the present Government parties are the only ones that have refused to accept Opposition amendments, but I remind honorable senators opposite that this is a national Parliament. When a measure is brought before the Senate, it should be considered on its merits, and if any honorable senator has a worthwhile suggestion to offer for the improvement of the legislation, Ministers are in duty bound to give some consideration to that suggestion.

The Labour party believes in this measure, and I should like to see it in operation as early as possible. Its principle is sound, hut my colleagues who have had more experience of industrial matters than I have had, know just what Arbitration Court judges are likely to take into consideration in determining wages. As I have already said, there is a strong feeling amongst certain people that the national expenditure should not be increased. They believe that if child endowment is increased the basic wage should be decreased proportionally.

I resent very much the suggestion that the Australian Labour party is opposed to child endowment. All my life I have been associated with the Labour party, which has consistently advocated improved standards of living for the people, including payment of child endowment allowances. Of course, nearly all social reforms originated in the Labour party, and I can remember the opposition that was encountered from the anti-Labour party when such humane measures as age pensions and workers’ compensation were first proposed. However, with the passage of time the anti-Labour parties have learned a little, and I give all credit to them for having introduced this measure. At the same time, it is not right for them to suggest that Labour is opposed to the principle of this measure. We definitely desire that principle to be applied, but we say that because of the decreased value of money and the increased cost of living the proposed payment of 5s. a week is not sufficient. Furthermore, the expense entailed in rearing all children of a family is substantially the same, and there is no logical reason why an allowance of 10s. should be paid in respect of the second and subsequent children whilst only 5s. is paid in respect of the first child. Because of the buoyant revenue enjoyed by the Government we say that it would not be a very great concession on the part of the Government to increase the proposed payment to 10s. a week. In reply to those who are concerned about raising the finance involved, I point out that the necessary funds must already be available because otherwise the Government could not have introduced the measure. As I have already said, the Treasury has plenty of money at present and I am confident that the increase of the proposed payment from 5s. to 10s. a week would not shock the community or upset the national economy.

In regard to the second amendment foreshadowed by Senator McKenna - that an intimation should be given to .the Commonwealth Arbitration Court that the legislature does not desire the proposed child endowment payment to be taken into consideration in determining the basic wage - I say at once that whilst I have never believed that the Government should endeavour to exercise improper or irregular influence upon the courts, I believe that a public statement by the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), or by some other responsible spokesman for the Government, for the guidance of the court would be of the greatest assistance. However, members of the Government resolutely refuse to do so, and their attitude has given rise to doubt and anxiety in the minds of trade union ‘officials and members of the Labour party. The leaders of the trade unions have indicated again and again that they support and believe in child endowment. I commend to the serious consideration of the Government the utterances made by Opposition speakers who have taken part in this debate. Many of them have had long association with industry and their special knowledge enables them to explain matters very clearly. Senator O’flaherty, for instance, recalled very appropriately the occasion when the Commonwealth Arbitration Court found itself impelled to increase the basic wage, but refrained from doing so on the ground that the circumstances had been altered because child endowment payments had been increased. The Minister for Social Services knows that for many years the basic wage was computed on a family unit of five members, but that latterly the basic wage has usually been assessed on the needs of a family of three members. I repeat, therefore, that a public statement by the Minister for Social Services to the effect that the Government hoped that the passage of this measure would not adversely affect the court’s decision in the basic wage inquiry would give a great deal of satisfaction to me as well as to my colleagues.

Senator Annabelle Rankin, who spoke yesterday, made a most eloquent and sincere speech, but I thought that she spoiled the effect of it when she complained that unless honorable senators on this side of the chamber referred to the depression period they would have had nothing at all to say. I do not propose to traverse in any great detail the terrible conditions experienced by people during the depression. The point is that Senator Annabelle Rankin probably does not understand even now the suffering of the people at .that time and the anxiety of the Labour party to prevent a repetition of that suffering. The honorable senator, who comes of a family in comfortable circumstances, had a very sheltered position during the depression and was, in any event, probably much too young to remember a great deal about it.. I was a farmer at that time endeavouring to rear a young family. I know the hardships that we had to contend with. I also know that I had to surrender a substantial insurance policy in order to obtain the means to educate my children and provide food and clothing for my family. The hardships inflected on the community by the depression were man-made, and, unfortunately, they can recur. Senator Annabelle Rankin who, as I have already said probably does not appreciate even now the suffering caused by a major depression, does not want us to heed the lessons of the last depression. However, it would obviously be most unwise to adopt such an attitude. As I have already said, the significant thing is that the depression was man-made. In those days nature did not desert us; God was good to us. We had the most bountiful seasons. Our storehouses were full, and our silos bursting. We complained because mice ate our wheat. But all the time men went without jobs, and children starved. Men walked from town to town, not seeking a job because employment was virtually impossible to obtain, but in order to obtain food and relief payments. So bad was the situation that a member of the Queensland Government of that time who was responsible for providing food relief warned people of other States not to go to Queensland because there was no work for them and the State had no need of them. Now it is costing us £1000 a head to bring people to this country. During the depression countless babies were lost through malnutrition, whilst many parents refrained deliberately from having more children. Marriages that otherwise would have been solemnized did not take place. To-day, that deficiency is being felt in the Pubic Service and in executive and managerial spheres of industry generally. We shall not bridge the gap between the older and younger age groups in the community until 1957 at the earliest. Senator Annabelle Rankin sneered at members of the Opposition because they recalled conditions that existed during the period to which I have referred. She argued that this benefit would be available to families in good seasons or bad seasons and whether a good government or a bad government happened to be in office. I remind her that one government in the past was obliged to reduce old-age pensions to 12s. 6d. a week. That government did its utmost to avert that reduction. It claimed that such treatment of the pioneers of this country would not he fair, but those in control of the Commonwealth Bank and the private financial institutions made that government reduce old age pensions by over 25 per cent. That experience may be repeated. Honorable senators opposite have said that the Opposition is insincere in its approach to this measure. Such a charge will not go down with me. I am a family man and I have had experience of had conditions which may confront young families in the future.

I am particularly resentful when honorable senators opposite who have just been elected to the Parliament level the charge of insincerity against the Opposition in this matter. I know that many of my colleagues over a long period made real sacrifices in the interests of the people in this country, particularly the workers. When the history of the Curtin and Chifley Governments is written it will reveal that no other government has yet equalled their record in the sphere of social services legislation. Yet, supporters of the Government ask us why we did not provide endowment for the first child during the eight years that those Labour governments were in office. During that period, honorable senators opposite and their colleagues in the House of Representatives complained that those governments were providing social services benefits on far too generous a scale. Before the Chifley Government relinquished office, it was expending nearly £100,000,000 annually on social services benefits. In some respects we should be more concerned about the welfare of our young people than of the old people because the primary need of a young nation like Australia is a larger family unit. For that reason, Government supporters should be more charitable in their criticism of the Opposition in this debate. I do not say that because of any personal feeling I may entertain, but simply because the records of the Curtin and Chifley Governments in every sphere deserve just recognition. When I was Minister for Trade and Customs the number of persons employed in factories increased by over 200,000. What is the attitude of the present Government with respect to many of the projects that were initiated by its predecessors? What is the attitude of honorable senators opposite who come from Queensland concerning the Chifley Government’s policy in conjunction with the Queensland Government for the development of that State? The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Chifley), when he was Prime Minister, agreed to co-operate with the Premier of Queensland in the development of the Burdekin scheme which was estimated to cost £29,000,000. In addition the increase of the price of sugar arranged by the Chifley Government resulted in an additional aggregate income of £5,000,000 annually to that great industry which is doing so much to decentralize our population. Honorable senators opposite did not give the Chifley Government any credit in respect of those matters. The Minister for Repatriation and his colleagues from Queensland preserved a complete silence in that respect, whilst some of them deliberately misrepresented the Chifley Government’s endeavours to help the Queensland Government to undertake vital developmental schemes.

In this debate honorable senators opposite have assumed the role of both prosecutor and defendant. In addition, to saying what they stand for they have also dealt at length with what they claim the Labour party stands for. They have no justification whatever for misrepresenting the policy and achievement of the Labour party. I remind them, however, that they cannot fool all of the people all the time. The charges that honorable senators have made in this debate have impelled me to give some account of the stewardship of the Curtin and Chifley labour governments.

Senator Cooper:

– Will the honorable senator’s attitude facilitate the passage of the measure ?

Senator COURTICE:

– This proposal is designed to benefit the children of Australia; and the future of the nation lies in the hands of the country’s youth. I have spoken in this strain mainly for the benefit of new senators who are not aware of events that happened in the Parliament during the darkest hours of the war when the present Government parties although they had majorities in both chambers were unable to govern because they were constantly quarrelling. That was why the Curtin Labour Government assumed office. That government and the Chifley Government prosecuted the war to a successful conclusion, and their records earned the commendation of the leaders of our allies. The Chifley Government established the conditions which now enable the present Government to bring in this measure. Although the endowment of 5s. is not adequate it will be a welcome benefit to many families. I am genuinely sorry that the Government will not increase the endowment to 10s. I fail to understand why it refuses to do so. Owing to rising costs, many family men who are in receipt of wages considerably in excess of the basic wage have the greatest difficulty in balancing their family budget. I have a son-in-law who is an engineer and is in. receipt of £9 a week, and another son-in-law who is a mechanic, and receives considerably more than the basic wage. Yet, those two workers who have four and three children respectively find it most difficult to make ends meet. Both of them have been well educated and they naturally desire to give the best education they can afford to their children. The provision of endowment for the first child at the rate of 5s. a week will not induce people to have larger families. I believe that most normal people would desire to have at least three, or four, children. I am one of a family of 12 children. But the proposed endowment of 5s. will not really help families to meet living costs. Apples, for instance, now cost 5d. or 6d. each. Recently, my daughter paid 5d. for an orange for her child and she could hardly squeeze a drop of juice out of it. The Government is aware of the spiralling of living costs. The Chifley Government did its utmost to keep down costs but the people refused to give this Parliament the power to continue prices control on a nation-wide basis. When the Commonwealth controlled prices applications for permission to increase prices were received by the thousands. If the Government controlls a worker’s earning power, is it not only fair that it should control prices? When the Arbitration Court in Queensland was dealing with the basic wage on one occasion it announced that it could not make provision in its basic wage for the cost of boots and shoes for the workers’ children. In effect, the court said that the workers’ children did not need boots and shoes. Surely, at a time when we are expending approximately £1,000 to bring each migrant to this country we should realize that the best migrant is the Australianborn. We must encourage our people to have larger families because larger families mean a better and higher life. I have sufficient confidence in the young people of Australia to believe that they will accept that principle provided that the economic difficulties that confront larger families are removed. I can see no reason why the Government should refuse to increase the endowment for the first child from 5s, to 10s. a week. Why did the Government decide that the rate should be 5s.?

Senator Scott:

– That was our election promise.

Senator COURTICE:

– The Government can improve on its election promises. I was of the opinion that it was an election bribe because at the time I did not think that the proposal was economically possible.

Senator Scott:

– Yet, the honorable senator now says it is economically possible to increase the payment from 5s. to 10s. a week.

Senator COURTICE:

– Yes ; provided that this benefit will not be permitted to affect the fixation of the basic wage. Otherwise, many workers who have not a family will be penalized. The provision of 10s. a week i9 not extravagant. It would be acceptable to all parties in the Parliament and, consequently, the benefit could he made available to families as soon as the Government was able to implement the measure. I appeal to the Government to increase the payment to 10s. a week. I regret that honorable senators opposite, apparently, have accepted the idea that the Opposition is not sincere in this matter. I have had a lifetime’s association with the workers. At one time men in my electorate worked 64 hours a week for a wage of 22s. 6d. a week. I also recall when black labour was employed in Queensland because it was claimed that industry could not afford to pay a white man’s wage. At that time, it was not unusual to see a man on horse back with a great stock whip and a revolver supervising indentured labourers who, if they hesitated in their work for one moment, received severe corporal punishment. Governments in the past upheld those conditions, but thanks to the Labour party those conditions have been abolished. Honorable senators opposite say that they are not Tories, but Liberals. They could be a little more liberal in this matter. They should not agree with the attitude of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), who, apparently, regards the Senate merely as a rubber stamp to endorse decisions made in the Government party room. He said, in effect, that the endowment under this measure will be 5s. a week or nothing at all.

Senator Spicer:

– The people accepted the proposed payment of 5s. at the last general election.

Senator COURTICE:

– It can be said that the people accept many things having regard to the results of general elections. I believe that the promise made by the anti-Labour parties to provide endowment for the first child contributed more to their election than their promise to abolish petrol rationing did. Incidentally, the abolition of petrol rationing was the most dastardly and unBritish act ever perpetrated by any government in the history of this country. When I was Minister for Trade and Customs I had the opportunity to learn something of the discussions that took place between Australia and other members of the British Commonwealth, including the United Kingdom, India, South Africa and New Zealand. It was unanimously realized that the position of the British Commonwealth of Nations was desperate and that it was imperative that each of those countries should economize as much as possible in the consumption of petrol. But what did the present Government do immediately it assumed office? Did it worry about the welfare of the people of the United Kingdom, upon whom we still depend for dollars .for the purchase of petrol? In Great Britain many people have their cars jacked up because they cannot obtain sufficient petrol.

Senator Spicer:

– What has this to do with child endowment?

Senator COURTICE:

– It has a lot to do with child endowment. I appeal to- the Government not to be niggardly in this matter. I urge it to satisfy all sections of the community hy increasing the proposed payment from 5s. to 10s. a week. The cost can be met from the fund established by Labour governments from the proceeds of taxation that it was not very pleasant to impose. The money is available.

Senator -Spices. - During the last general election campaign the Labour party offered nothing in this field. That was niggardly.

Senator COURTICE:

– Prior to the election, Labour governments increased child endowment for the second and subsequent children by 100 per cent. We accepted the view of a Liberal government that it would not be wise to endow the first child.. If it is a good thing to endow the first child now and if the payment of the endowment will not cause industrial trouble, why was it not done in 1941 ? Have the Minister for National Development (Mr. Casey) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) become much more wise than they were in 1941?

I do not intend to reflect upon honorable senators opposite generally when I say that the promise to pay endowment in respect of the first child was a vote catching device, as was the promise to abolish petrol rationing. I do not think that honorable senators opposite had very much to do with the decision, although the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) may have had something to do with it. I believe that most honorable senators opposite desire that child endowment in respect of the first child should be paid quickly and on the most generous scale possible. Some honorable senators have argued that the endowment cannot be increased to 10s. a week because the promise was made during the general election campaign that it would be paid at the rate of os. a week. Is it contended that the persons who voted for the present Government parties will object if the endowment is increased to 10s.? If the Government indicates that it will accept our amendments, honorable senators on this side of the House will withdraw their opposition to the measure, which will be passed almost immediately.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I had not intended to intervene in this debate because I believe that the passage of this- measure has already been delayed far too long, but the speech of Senator Courtice was so amazing that I feel compelled to reply to some of the statements he made. The speech to which we have just listened was probably the longest one that the honorable senator has made since he has been a member of the Senate. Doubtless it was made at the request of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley). Like other honorable senators opposite, Senator Courtice’s intention was to speak for as long as he could and thus delay the passage of this measure as much as possible. My belief that that is the intention of honorable senators opposite is strengthened by the events that occurred last night. The Senate met at 3 o’clock yesterday afternoon, after an adjournment of approximately three weeks. The Opposition secured the adjournment of the debate at approximately 11 p.m., despite the fact that the Government desired the debate to continue. If honorable senators opposite were so tired after sitting from 3 p.m. to 11 pin. that they had to force the adjournment of the Senate because they wanted to go to bed, it is time that they applied for their age pensions. This morning, a somewhat similar process is in progress. Honorable senators opposite are speaking upon all sorts of subjects, many of which have nothing to do with the bill. Senator Courtice referred to petrol and said that in Great Britain cars are now jacked up owing to a lack of petrol. Does the honorable senator realize that during the last few days the petrol ration in the United Kingdom has been doubled ?

Senator Courtice:

– Yes, and I know what the United Kingdom Government did to bring that about.

Senator COOPER:

– Although the petrol ration in the United Kingdom was recently doubled, Senator Courtice had the effrontery to ask if we realize that cars in that country are jacked up because of a lack of petrol. That statement was made in an attempt to lead the people of Australia to believe that this Government did a great disservice to the people of Britain when it abolished petrol rationing in this country. I shall endeavour to confine my remarks to the bill, although honorable senators opposite, in an endeavour to waste the time of .the Senate, have drifted round the world.

Senator Courtice, who has been a Minister of the Crown, said that the Government had introduced a measure that was cut and dried. In what form does he expect the Government to introduce legislation into the Senate? Does the honorable senator believe that bills should be drafted loosely and that the Government should say, in effect : “ Here is a bill. The Senate can now discuss it and do the drafting”. The honorable senator knows that any Government must introduce bills that have been carefully drafted..

The honorable senator said that the Government should accept the amendment to increase the endowment from 5s. to 10s. a week that has been foreshadowed by the Opposition. As an exMinister, he knows that the Government is responsible for the expenditure of public money, and that it is the custodian of the public purse. He also knows that if this bill had been initiated in the House of Representatives and sent to the Senate as one that was concerned with a money grant, the Senate could not have amended it.

Senator Courtice:

– The Government should have thought of that when it drafted the bill.

Senator COOPER:

– The Government is treating the Opposition fairly. We believe that legislation for which a Minister who is a member of the Senate is responsible should be initiated in the Senate. We knew what we were doing, and we expected that the Opposition would adopt the attitude that it has in fact adopted.

The promise by the present Government parties to pay child endowment in respect of the first child in every family was made not only during the last general election campaign but also during the previous campaign, yet honorable senators opposite have said that it was included in the policy speech of the present Prime Minister on the last occasion only as a vote catching device. Although the Labour party agrees with the principle of child endowment, during the last three years it has said that it does not agree that child endowment should be paid in respect of the first child. During the same period the present Government parties repeatedly told the public that if they were returned to power child endowment for the first child would be paid at the rate of 5s. a week. We are now implementing the promise that we made. During the last eight years continual pressure was brought to bear upon Labour governments to pay child endowment for the first child, and they said that they did not agree with the principle of endowing the first child, but now that the Labour party hae been defeated and we are implementing our election promise, honorable senators opposite have adopted a different attitude and now say that they are entirely in agreement with the principle of endowing the first child and that the endowment should be paid at the rate of 10s. not 5s. a week. I do not desire to labour the point, but that change of front is an example of hyprocisy if ever there was one.

It is useless for honorable senators opposite to tell us what happened in the slave days and during the depression. Let us be realistic and consider what is happening to-day. Last night one honorable senator took us back as far as the days of Pope Leo XIII., but we have left that age behind us. By introducing this measure, the Government is legislating for the future. The attitude of the Opposition to this bill is an example of what we may expect from now on. I venture to suggest that the Opposition will treat other bills that are introduced by the Government in the same way as they have treated this one, and will endeavour to delay them by indulging in stone-walling tactics.

The principle of child endowment is not new. Approximately nine years ago the late Senator Leckie introduced into the Senate the measure under which child endowment was instituted. That measure was passed through all its stages in the Senate in two days. There was no great opposition to it. There was no suggestion by Labour senators that the proposed rate of endowment should be increased or that the bill should be amended in other ways. The whole Senate was in agreement with the principle of the measure, and it was passed quickly. On this occasion, however, the Labour party in the Senate is using every means at its disposal to delay the passage of this hill. Although I desire not to delay this matter, but to assist the passage of the bill, I could not refrain from refuting the accusations that the previous speaker made against the Government. It is most pleasing to me that, so early in the session, the Government has implemented some of its election promises. Of course they cannot all be implemented at once. This measure will become law if the Opposition does not “ kill “ it by opposing it in its present form. If the Opposition insists upon acceptance of the proposed amendments that will be a different matter. If this measure is passed it will be of great benefit to the people .that it has been introduced to assist - the family unit i Some honorable senators opposite have alluded to the proposed endowment of 5s. a week for the first child in every family as a paltry sum. However, I remind the Senate that that is equivalent to £13 a year. At present many mothers are banking the endowment moneys that they receive in order to accumulate an appreciable amount to give their children a start in life by providing for higher education. In many instances £200 can be accumulated in this manner by the time a child becomes ineligible for further endowment. I am very glad that this bill has been brought down, and I have no intention to do anything to prevent its speedy passage.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– Supporters of the Government are taking great credit for the fact that it has honoured one of its election promises by introducing the measure that is before the chamber, and they feel rather hurt because the Opposition has proposed that the measure should be amended. All sorts of explanations have been made about the sincerity of the Government in this matter. One could engage in a very academic discussion in regard to this subject. One of the most important features of our industrial life is associated with this measure. It goes to the very heart of the question which affects the welfare of Australia as a nation. I refer to the division of the pool of wealth that is created by the application of labour to raw materials and the earth, that is, how much should go to the worker, and how much should go to those who are in control of industry to-day. There has been a very long struggle over the years on the part of the workers to obtain as much as possible from the pool, in order to provide for themselves and their families. On the other hand, the captains of industry have striven to ensure that the workers would receive only the smallest amount possible. Down the years the great conflicts that have taken place between capital and labour have hinged upon the very important question that we are now discussing. After all, whilst the debate to-day concerns how much should be granted to a family for the maintenance of a child, the whole question of the rights of the worker to participate in the good things of life is involved in our discussion. Although the question is not whether the amount that was promised by the present Government parties on the eve of the general election is the amount that should be embodied in this bill, as that aspect has come under discussion I believe that the Parliament has a perfect right to consider it. The Government claims that this bill will be of advantage to the people. Government senators have affirmed their belief that the family unit is the cornerstone of the nation. Therefore, the Parliament is justified in examining the pros and cons of the matter to see whether the Opposition is justified in proposing that an amount greater than the amount mentioned in the bill should be provided by way of endowment. The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) in taking up the cudgels on behalf of the Government, accused Labour of hypocrisy. One could easily hurl that accusation back at the Minister and those associated with him, because honorable senators opposite are the ones who are practising hypocrisy about this matter. Through the years they have placed every obstacle that they could in the way of the workers obtaining a just reward for their labour. In 1941 the Government of the day decided to introduce child endowment, only because of the incessant clamour on behalf of the workers for a greater share of the wealth that they were creating. To-day, as a result of maladministration in the various States, particularly in Victoria, we see the result of the antagonism of the people who now comprise the Government of this country when an effort was made by the previous Government to bring in legislation to grant to the Parliament of the Commonwealth the power to preserve the purchasing value of the wages that were -being received by the workers. They opposed the granting of a power to the Commonwealth Parliament to regulate prices. Yet to-day, when the prices of commodities are rising steeply, they offer a paltry 5s. a week endowment for the first child in every family. They claim that this is going to bring peace and contentment to the families of the workers, and that this money is going to be paid into the savings banks accounts, the whole £13 a year that was mentioned by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), That is a wonderful amount, in view of the good conditions that exist at present ! Conditions are so “ good “ that the mothers will not need to use the endowment money, but will be able to hank it! Have honorable senators ever heard anything like that before? One could continue to speak of the actions of the Government in bringing this matter forward and the kind of argument that has been used in support of it. When introducing this bill the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) read a very effective document, couched in very nice language. It included all the sugar-coating that was utilized during the election campaign when honorable senators now sitting on the Government side of the chamber suggested to the people that this was something that could be done. I point out that this measure is not getting to the root of the question at all. It will not help the families that I have mentioned. This is only a little crumb that is being handed out. If the Government sincerely wants to give effect to its announced belief that the people should enjoy a higher standard of living the Government must do something more than it has done to date.

I shall refer to the first inquiry that was held for the purpose of endeavouring to ascertain the amount that was necessary to keep a worker, his wife and three children, that is a family unit of five persons, in a frugal standard of comfort. It was conducted by Mr. Justice Higgins, who recommended, in 1907, that £2 2s. a week would be sufficient to meet the requirements of a man, his wife and three children. Those who have studied the judgment will remember that provision was not made for a number of the items that go to make up the expenditure of a household. It was expected that 60 per cent of that wags would cover rent, food and groceries.

Sitting suspended from 1.2.45 to S p.m.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– When the first basic wage or the Harvester judgment, as it is now known, was under consideration and the award was made there were missing from the regimen certain important expenses which go to make up the expenditure of the average household. No provision was made for sickness, old age, invalidity, school requisites for the children, amusements and quite a number of other items. Even when the Piddington Commission was appointed and it made a very exhaustive investigation of the requirements of the typical family, it failed to make any provision for life insurance although that inquiry was held by industrial organizations as something far in advance of anything that they had previously enjoyed. The commission suggested that it was very necessary that a breadwinner should be covered by life insurance so that in the event of his death his dependants should not be left totally without funds, but no provision was made in the basic wage for that very necessary expenditure. No amount was set for a worker to earn during the time of his employment to give him a surplus to provide for himself and his wife and family during periods of unemployment. There was no provision for him to contribute to any church or charity. The commission very nicely pointed out to the humble worker for whom it was prescribing that it was not always necessary to make monetary gifts. It though he would not be called upon to make any large donations to his church or charity but that assistance could be provided to his fellow beings in other ways through kindly deeds. Among that section of the community at times of necessity more than kindly words are wanted, and there is nothing the worker would like better than to be able to render practical assistance to his fellow men in times of adversity. Honorable senators who have been associated with workers will know that the first thing that happens if one of their number should fall by the wayside is the appointment of a small committee and on pay day the hat goes round to provide something for the family that is experiencing times of stress. Much academic discussion has taken place as to whether this wonderful basic wage provides for man, wife and three children or two children or any children at all. It was also suggested by the Piddington Commission’s rinding that there was no reason why any amount should be provided in the basic wage so that a worker, his wife and family could go down the street and partake of any liquid refreshment, whether alcoholic or nonintoxicating.

I mention these facts to show that despite the protestations of democracy by honorable senators opposite who support the Government of this country, it was left to a Labour Government through social legislation to endeavour to repair the deficiencies that had existed over the years and that still exist in the measurement of wages. The Labour Government had to try to fill the gap by the institution of unemployment insurance, free medicine and pharmaceutical benefits. Those benefits were viciously opposed by honorable senators now on the Government benches who did everything possible during the course of the debate in this chamber to prevent the Labour Government from helping the people to repair the gap in the basic wage. Honorable senators opposite supported to the utmost the efforts of the medical profession of this country to deny to the people those social benefits that the Labour Government was so eager to give them. The Labour party can show that it has done everything possible to try to fill the gaps in the regimen. When the Labour Government’s unemployment insurance was discussed, it was suggested that men would stay away from work to receive unemployment insurance. In his secondreading speech the Minister for Social Services drew attention to the fact that about 450,000 new families would be brought under the child endowment benefits and he remarked what a wonderful help it would be to the mothers. Yesterday Senator Annabelle Rankin made an eloquent appeal on behalf of women. If she and Senator Wedgwood and Senator Robertson are interested in the welfare of their sex and the mothers of this country, J suggest that they might take their reading a little further and study the position that the wife of the worker occupies in regard to the basic wage that he receives. It has always been the contention of honorable senators on this side of the House and those associated with them in the industrial movement that the wife of the worker is entitled to something in her own right and that, in the wage that her husband receives, provision should be made for her to be compensated for the service she renders in the home. The Piddington Commission made an exhaustive inquiry into this important question. The right honorable W. M. Hughes, who was then the Prime Minister and instituted the inquiry, said that if there was to be industrial peace the price must be paid and that the price was justice to the worker. So the Piddington Commission went into the question and I quote from its report for the benefit of the ladies who have been elected to this chamber so that they may take notice of it. The report stated -

It was pressed upon the Commission that the practice is almost universal for wives in the typical family to do the whole of the work, year in and year out of the home, without any domestic assistance. It was pointed out that in the Tentative Budget Inquiry in the United States, alluded to on page 17 of this Report, there was included an item for domestic assistance on one day in each week at a cost of $2 (=8s. 4d.). It was therefore asked that an amount which would permit of the wife having assistance for a period of four weeks annually should be included in the cost of living. It cannot be disputed that housewives in a typical family are amongst the most strenuous toilers in the whole community. To cook, wash, sew, and keep the house clean and bright for such a family requires physical work, some of it arduous, during a long stretch of hours, and with rare intervals of relief, during the whole currency of the year.

In dealing with the cost of clothing, the Commission declined to adopt the argument that all clothing should be obtained upon a ready-made footing, as was agreed should be the case for female employees by the joint committee of employer and employee representatives in a recommendation to the New South Wales Board of Trade in 1919. It was thought by the Commission that savings by nutting-down, &c, are an admirable form of thrift, and that the work involved is not in itself the most laborious of a housewife’s duties. Indeed, it is far from distasteful, as appealing to the exercise of skill and an agelong feminine art.

It seems just, however, that in the course of a year the housewife should hare some reward for her skill in these and similar savings, and definite relief from incessant household work. Domestic assistance every week could not possibly be obtained - the necessary supply not being in the country - and therefore the only way in which relaxation can be provided is in the shape of an annual holiday, and for this there has been included the sum of £4 per annum.

Poor old mum! After all those wonderful sentiments expressed in the report about how she worked and the time occupied in her household duties all that she is entitled to is £4 a year so that she might have an annual holiday! I ask honorable senators what £4 would do even if it were brought up to date and increased to £8. The commission points out that the mother of a family who has laboured all the year is entitled to £4 and adds -

It is believed that this inclusion will benefit greatly the health of wives and mothers who carry daily and cheerfully a proportion seldom recognized of the nation’s burden of work.

There is something more to be done to bring to the wives and mothers of this nation a greater benefit than this paltry 5s. a week which the Government suggests is going to bring a ray of sunshine into the homes of the people. T suggest that the Government would be better employed in endeavouring to increase the proportion to which the worker is entitled from the pool of wealth than in monkeying about with this sort of thing. The Minister claimed that the payment of child endowment eased the burden upon the mother of a family. He added -

It relieves her at least to some extent of the fear that adversity may prevent her from giving to her children that adequate support which they deserve and which she desires to provide. Child endowment is not therefore a temporary measure. It is a social service which should have a permanent place in our economy.

Nobody quarrels with those sentiments. Nobody will deny that child endowment should occupy a permanent place in the economic life of the community, but wo on this side of the chamber question tha adequacy of the Government’s proposal. Is there a measuring stick by which any one can determine what is necessary to maintain a child? The Piddington Commission expressed the opinion that at least 12s. a week was necessary. That was in 1924; yet this munificent Government preens itsfeathers and takes great credit to itself for introducing, in 1950, legislation providing for the payment of 5s. a week for the first child of each family. The Minister conceded that as children grew their cost to the family increased. If the Minister believes that, why did he not introduce the system now operating in France, Belgium, and other parts of the world, under which endowment payments are increased according to the number of children in a family? The Minister also said -

Summarily, therefore, endowment of children provides practical encouragement and aid for those who have the responsibility and privilege of caring for families. It operates on the principle that, by relieving the economic pressure on parents, the children will have better opportunities. It is, in effect, a redistribution of the national income to achieve that end.

That too is a very nice sentiment - “ a redistribution of the national income to achieve that end “. This legislation in its present form will not make very heavy inroads on the incomes of the people who are represented in this chamber by honorable senators opposite. There will not be any substantial redistribution of the wealth that is being acquired by pastoralists and others who are reaping the rewards of the prosperity that this country is now enjoying; yet the Minister, when making his second-reading speech, obviously derived great satisfaction from the belief that, in introducing this measure providing for a child endowment payment of 5s. a week, this recently elected Government - elected with the assistance of huge expenditure by moneyed interests in this country - was ensuring a better distribution of the national income. The Minister went on to say -

If approved the measure will benefit two classes of families - those families in which there is at present more than one child under sixteen years of age and those families in which there is only one child under that age.

I have no doubt that the additional 5s. a week that this measure will provide will be a useful contribution to family income, but how it can be regarded as sufficient to have any worthwhile effect upon the welfare of the people I do not know. I am afraid that it will be far from sufficient to compensate for the inadequacy of income from which many families suffer to-day. For proof of that, one has only to consider for instance the increased cost of children’s school requisites. Just prior to the re-opening of the schools after the Christmas vacation, I happened to be looking in the window of a stationery shop. There I saw a slate,, which, in my day, would have cost about 3d., marked at 3s. Sd. The endowment payment of 5s. a week will not go very far towards buying articles such as that, particularly Lf the school-boy of to-day is as likely to put his foot through the slate after a few days of use as he was when I went to school. Clearly, no mother will be able to put any of this money into her bank account.

Senator Spicer:

– Is the honorable senator going to oppose the bill?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– No. I am merely arguing that the Government should accept the Opposition’s foreshadowed amendment so that the bill may be made worthwhile. Even the 10s. a week that is being paid by way of child endowment at present is far from adequate. This proposal is futile. It is merely an attempt by the Government to tickle the ears of the people. The Minister has said that the bill will effect a more equitable distribution of the national wealth. I remind honorable senators that wherever the adequacy of the remuneration of workers has been discussed - in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, before Mr. Justice Higgins, Chief Judge Dethridge, or Chief Judge Beeby, before the Piddington Commission or before the New South Wales Board of Trade - the argument has centred upon the lowest amount that should bp paid to workers. No provision has ever ben made for a better and fuller life for working class families, or for the children of such families to receive higher education. The latter subject was discussed before the Piddington Commission. The representatives of the workers claimed unsuccessfully that wage earners were entitled to an amount that would enable them to provide their children with adequate opportunities in life. It is true that, to-day, many children of workers are able to reach high attainments, but that is not made possible by the wages that are paid to the fathers. In comparatively recent years, the institution of the scholarship system has enabled boys and girls of working class families to earn distinction in life, but Labour has always claimed that in all sections of the community every opportunity should be given for the development of latent talent, not for personal aggrandizement but in the interests of the nation. That view unfortunately has never been accepted in determining wages.. It is true that, during the election campaign, attention was drawn by Labour party speakers to the possibility that the child endowment proposals of the present Government parties would interfere with the basic wage. . There was ample justification for the expression of that fear. When child endowment proposals were first made in the Commonwealth sphere by a government of the same politics] complexion as that now in office, a basic wage hearing was in progress, and there was a general feeling that the employing classes could no longer resist the demands of the workers for a greater share of the wealth that they were producing. So, the Government of the day came to the assistance of its supporters by announcing a child endowment scheme. Those who were advocating the workers’ case in the Arbitration Court knew that some influence had been brought to bear. Similarly at the end of last year, when a claim for a basic wage of £10 a week was in progress, the representatives of the employing classes again made child endowment a political issue, with the result that the court adjourned the basic wage hearing. In these circumstances, are we not justified in believing that the action of honorable senators opposite on this occasion is likely to have some effect upon the court’s decision? Since the Government has chosen to introduce this measure and has expressed its determination to press ahead with it, we of the Opposition had no alternative but to accept the challenge thrown at us the the Government. Instead of paying the miserable pittance of 5s. a week proposed, we say “ increase the payment to 10s. a week “. We go farther and say that the Parliament, should express the definite opinion that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court should not take into consideration child endowment in determining the basic wage. We believe that the Parliament has the constitutional right to express such an opinion to the court. In the past administrations have frequently intervened in basic wage inquiries and other proceedings of the Arbitration Court. Why have they intervened? Was it merely to justify the payment of fees to the barristers who appeared for them, or was it because they hoped to influence the judgment of the court? As a layman, I consider that the appearance of any barrister before a court is intended to influence the court’s judgment. So, if the Government is sincere in .its desire to provide child endowment without reducing the .basic wage there is no reason on earth why it should not request the court to disregard the proposed child endowment payment. Labour has been consistent at all times in this matter of the relationship between child endowment and the basic wage. We have not changed our views on the matter, but obviously the Government has. Since the Government states that it is really sincere in its desire that the payment of the proposed increase should not adversely affect the basic wage there would be nothing wrong in it accepting the amendment that will be moved by the Opposition at a later stage. However, I am not convinced of the Government’s sincerity in the matter of child endowment. I invite honorable senators to consider some of the language used by the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) when he introduced this measure. Take, for instance, the following passage: -

All these great national reforms need to be approached with courage.

With courage, indeed ! The Opposition now invites the Government to show a little courage by accepting the amendment that we shall move. We ask the Government at least to have the courage of the convictions that it has expressed and to do the right thing by the mothers and children of this country. In the course of his extraordinary remarks the Minister also said -

Each time that progress is suggested there are found some reactionaries who express the view that the nation cannot afford the expense involved.

Considering that the Minister is himself a member of one of the reactionary parties it is difficult to understand how he could make such a statement. Those honorable senators associated with him now who were members of this chamber some years ago during the depression, on the occasion when the Labour Opposition asked the representatives of the anti-Labour administration of that time to spend a few thousands of pounds in order to assist the unemployed during the Christmas season by supplementing the miserable pittance that was handed out as a special dole to the parents of young families by State governments, ought to appreciate the fine sentiments that the Minister is expressing now. Although we pressed at that time for the expenditure of a comparatively small sum to bring a ray of sunshine into the lives of the unemployed at Christmas time, we were informed by the present Minister for Fuel. Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) that we were simply wasting the time of the State because there was no money available, whereupon the honorable gentleman moved the gag. There was no money to help the people in those days. Now, when times are comparatively good, the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Social Services, solemnly informed us that -

There are always some who, perhaps timid, weak and apprehensive, fear that social reforms will weaken standards of living in some direction.

Those honorable senators opposite who were members of this chamber during the depression did not display any great anxiety to improve the living standards of the people, and, I remind honorable senators, that was only a few years ago. At that time the Labour Administration which was struggling gallantly against adversity and was trying to do something to bring a ray of sunshine into the lives of at least some of our people found itself frustrated by the anti-Labour Opposition in this chamber which, like the Labour members of the present Senate, had i> majority. What did the anti-Labour senators of that time do ? Did they help ?

Did they show any courage in going to the assistance of the people? They did not even have the courage to support the elected government of the day which was striving to do something for the people. Now, the Minister is able to refer to some sections of the community who are “ timid, weak and apprehensive, and fear that social reforms will weaken standards of living in some directions “. Do honorable senators remember the hostile reception given to the Fisher Government’s proposal to introduce the maternity allowance? The reactionaries of that time even referred to the proposed benefit as a “bonus on profligacy”, and suggested that payment of the allowance would bring about the moral degradation of the women of Australia. And yet the Minister for Social Services in an antiLabour government has the audacity to say this -

To those 1,000,000 families it is hoped this measure will be acclaimed as but one plain and simple illustration that this Government will, in a practical way, implement its policy, and provide ways and means under which parents of families of young, stalwart Australians will be assisted to cope with the increases which have occurred in the cost of living during recent years.

Five shillings a week is going to assist the families to meet the increasing spiral of living costs! The Minister went on to say -

Moreover it is hoped that these families too will accent this assistance as a forerunner of further practical proposals designed to reach the same end.

They are going to put value back into the £1, to increase industrial production, and so forth. It is interesting to note the similarity between the present catch cries and the old slogans used by the anti-Labour forces over the years to speed up the workers, to lower their wages and to worsen their conditions. It will be most interesting to receive the second instalment of the wonderful practical proposals that will be brought forward by this Government. If its future proposals are on a par with the measure that we are at present considering, I am afraid that the people of Australia are going to regret bitterly that they dismissed the Chifley Administration at the recent election. I propose to read another slab from the Minister’s effusion. Listen to this for a bit of sugar-coating, and remember that it went over the air when the Minister’s speech was broadcast. He said -

The additional endowment provided by the bill will not be subject to any means test and it will be free of income tax. It will be paid in addition to any other payments for children at present received by parents from governmental sources such as the .pension of 47s. 6d. a week paid to civilian widows with one or more children under sixteen years; the allowance of 9s. a week paid to the wives of invalid pensioners for one child under sixteen years; and the additional benefit of 5s. a week paid to persons receiving unemployment, sickness or special benefits for one child under sixteen years. The additional endowment will also be paid to war widows, wives of service pensioners who have one or more children under sixteen years, in addition to the pensions and other allowances paid to them by the Repatriation Department. It will also be paid, in addition to other Commonwealth payments, to qualified persons receiving allowances under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme, the war service land settlement scheme and business re-establishment scheme where such persons have one or more children under sixteen years.

The greater part of those benefits was the work of a previous Labour government. The people of Australia are told that the payment of 5s. a week, totalling £13 a year, will not interfere with the enjoyment of certain other minor amenities. Of course, those are simply platitudes, intended to tickle the ears of those who were listening when the Minister made his speech. And I remind honorable senators that the Minister was enabled to make his speech that evening because the Opposition very courteously allowed him to use the broadcasting facilities of this chamber to speak to the nation.

One could deal with this matter at great length. I have not attempted to deal with the academics of the problem. For instance, I could spend a great deal of time dealing exclusively with the fixation of an adequate basic wage. One wonders at the timidity of the workers who, over the years, have been content that their portion of the national wealth should be measured out to them with a spoon. I remember a cartoon which depicted the worker receiving his share of the community’s wealth on a little spoon, whilst the other fellow had to han a bucket to accommodate his portion. The cartoon carried a caption to the effect that it was time that the worker seized the bucket, and I think that it is time that that was done. In spite of all the grandiloquent phrases used by the Minister when he introduced the bill I am afraid that the ordinary worker will not be taking hold of the bucket to draw his share of comfort from the well of national prosperity. On the contrary, he will probably continue to receive a mere spoonful. However, as a result of the discussion that has taken place I hope that the Government will realize that the Opposition is not actuated by hypocrisy and has not manifested any change of front in pressing for an increase of the proposed benefit from 5s. to 10s. a week. We believe that when the Government attempts to do this job it should do it efficiently. Even should the Government agree to increase the proposed amount from 5s. to 10s., I, personally, believe that an even larger amount should be provided. Therefore, we shall put forward with every confidence the amendment that Senator McKenna has forecast. The Attorney-General in his churlish reply to Senator McKenna voiced the threat that if the Opposition did not agree to the proposed amount of 5s. the Government would drop the measure and the responsibility for the defeat of this legislation would rest upon the Opposition. I believe, however, that on second thoughts, supporters of the Government will appreciate the force of the Opposition’3 arguments and will accept the amendment that Senator McKenna has forecast.

Senator GUY:
Tasmania

.- I wholeheartedly support the bill. As the Government is eager to make available the first payment under this measure on the 20th June next, time is an important factor in the consideration of this legislation. In these circumstances, I shall not delay the debate unduly. Senator Sheehan has demonstrated very clearly how easy it is to be destructive ; but it is a different story when the Opposition is expected to be constructive. The honorable senator supported Labour governments which held office for a period of eight years but made no attempt to endow the first child in a family. I am of the opinion that the honorable senator ha9 delivered the speech that he has just made on dozens of occasions both in this chamber and outside. It is typical df the tarra-diddles we hear in so many places from members of the Labour party. Honorable senators opposite have indulged in a dissertation on the history of the basic wage, child endowment and social services generally. Those subjects, of course, are very interesting, hut a lengthy discussion of them is not relevant to this measure. Honorable senators opposite are merely seeking to delay the passage of the bill, and their attitude may prevent the Government from making the first payment under the measure on the date that it desires to do so. Listening to honorable senators opposite I am inclined to believe that they are merely stonewalling. I hope that that is not so because the Government desires that the mothers of Australia shall receive this practical assistance without the least delay.

This measure could appropriately be entitled, “Another promise fulfilled by the Menzies Government “. In introducing it the Government is simply giving effect to a definite mandate that it received from the people on the 10th December last. Indeed, the Government would betray its trust if it did not give effect to that definite instruction from the people at the earliest possible date. Whilst repetition of the history of the basic wage and social services by honorable senators opposite may be interesting, such discussion is not relevant to the measure because no member of the Parliament will deny that the principle of child endowment is now accepted as a feature of. our economic life. Honorable senators opposite have attacked the amount of the endowment to be provided under the bill and advanced the argument that the provision of this benefit will affect the computation of the basic wage. I propose to confine my remarks to those two aspects. When the Child Endowment Bill was introduced by the Menzies Government in 1941 the socialists in both chambers of the Parliament urged that the benefit should be provided in respect of the first child. They did not then contend that endowment of the first child would affect the computation of the basic wage. The Australian Council of Trades Unions does not fear that this benefit will affect the computation of the basic wage, because that powerful organization repeatedly urged the Curtin and Chifley Governments to endow the first child and those Governments refused to do so.

Senator LARGE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– That is not correct.

Senator GUY:

– It is correct. Do honorable senators opposite suggest that the Australian Council of Trades Unions is opposed to endowment of the first child ?

Senator Hendrickson:

– The honorable senator is speaking about what was done eight years ago.

Senator GUY:

– During the eight years that the Curtin and Chifley Governments were in office they did nothing to endow the first child. When endowment of the second and subsequent children under sixteen was provided by the Menzies Government in 1941 that action was regarded as a first step towards the endowment of all children under sixteen years in a family. I repeat that although the Curtin and Chifley Governments repeatedly proclaimed their concern for the welfare of the family, they did nothing to endow the first child. Admittedly, the Chifley Government increased the rate of endowment, but I point out that that increase merely .represented a costofliving adjustment which would have been effected by any government regardless of its party political colour. Every mother will agree that to-day the purchasing power of 10s. is no greater than the purchasing power of 5s. was some years ago. Now, the socialist Opposition is shedding crocodile tears because the Government, under this measure, is not providing endowment for the first child at the rate of 10s., a week.

Senator Ashley:

– I rise to order, Mr. President. I object to the honorable senator’s reference to members of the Opposition as “ socialists “, and I ask that the term be withdrawn.

The PEESIDENT . - The Leader of the Opposition has asked the honorable senator to withdraw the term “ socialist “ that he applied to members of the Opposition.

Senator GUY:

– If you, Mr. President, rule that the term is unparliamentary, I withdraw it. The members of the Opposition - I leave it to the people outside to determine whether they are socialists or not - now claim that the first child should be endowed at the rate of 10s. a week in spite of the fact that at the recent general election the Government received a definite mandate to provide 5s. a week. I repeat that governments which honorable senators opposite supported were in office for eight years, hut they did nothing to endow the first child in a family. They would not provide even lOd., yet honorable senators opposite now have the political impertinence to say that this Government should provide 10s. a week. Their argument does not ring true. It represents a complete somersault on the part of the Labour party, but honorable senators opposite will not deceive the people in that way.

The support which the Labour Opposition in 1941 accorded to the Child Endowment Bill that the Menzies Government introduced in that yea-r is in curious contrast to the envious and carping attitude that the Opposition now adopts towards this measure. The late Mr. John Curtin, when he was Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, paid a generous tribute to the Menzies Government and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt), who introduced that measure in 1941. On that occasion. Mr. Curtin said -

I am sure that the House would like some expression of appreciation and, indeed, of admiration of tha Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) for the labour that he has expended on this bill, and for the notable place which this monumental legislation will give bini in the annals of this federation.

Contrast that attitude with that of honorable senators opposite to-day. Several quotations have been made in this debate from speeches made by the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives when the basic wage was being discussed in the House of Representatives in 1941, but they will bear repetition. On the 25th March, 1941, the right honorable gentleman 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 worker and his family. The court said, “ There is only one way of looking at it and it is this: What is the national income? What cun industry afford?” What was done in 1931 was repeated in 1934, 1935 and 1938, and now in 1941. To-day judges disclaim any reference to the needs of the family of the basic wage worker. They say that they are irrelevant.

The late Mr. John Curtin concurred in that view when he said -

There is no relevant relationship between the wages fixed by arbitral authorities in Australia and a system of family allowances and gains.

Do honorable senators opposite quarrel with that declaration by Mr. John Curtin, or with that of their present Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives? Further proof that what the latter said in 1941 was correct is the plain fact that although during the last eight years child endowment has been increased from 5s. to 10s. for the second and subsequent children, the court has not reduced the basic wage which, in fact, has been increased during that period from £4 4s. a week to approximately £7 a week. How, therefore, can honorable senators opposite contend that the provision of this benefit will have the effect of reducing the basic wage? I point out that during the last eight years, whilst the basic wage has been increased by nearly 100 per cent., the working week has been reduced from 44 hours to 40 hours a week. Therefore, it is sheer political humbug and hypocrisy for honorable senators opposite to say that the provision of this benefit will have the effect of reducing the basic wage. There is no reason to suppose that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court will vary the practice that it has adopted for twenty years merely because this Government desires to extend the principle of child endowment payments.

Much has been said about the Commonwealth Arbitration Court having adjourned the basic wage case after the present Prime Minister (?.Ir. Menzies) announced that the present Government parties would, if they were returned to power, extend the payment of child endowment to the first child. I remind honorable senators that there was an adjournment of the basie wage case in 1941, but neither the late John Curtin nor the right honorable member for Barton was of the opinion then that the court would depart from its normal practice. It did not in fact /Senator Guy. do so, and the basic wage was not interfered with as a result of that adjournment. If the court adjourned the present basic wage case only because it wished the political issue of child endowment to be decided before it resumed the hearing, why is it proceeding with the case now? The issue has not yet been finalized. We do not know even now whether this measure will be passed by the Parliament. My guess as to whether honorable senators opposite will support or reject it is as good as any one else’s guess. It is ridiculous to suggest that the court adjourned the basic wage case merely because of a declaration of policy, by the present Prime Minister. That suggestion presupposes that if the case had not been adjourned then the court would have announced its decision before the result of the general election was known, but honorable senators opposite know as well as I do that an inquiry into the basic wage must occupy many months. The present Prime Minister made his declaration about child endowment approximately four weeks. prior to the polling date, and it would have been impossible to complete the basic wage case within four weeks from that date. Whatever may have been the reason for the adjournment, it was not that which has been suggested by honorable senators opposite. The advocates who are supporting an increase of the basic wage have occupied the time of the court for months in presenting their case to it. No one objects to that, because they have a perfect right to put their case fully before the court. When the case was adjourned, the advocates who are opposing an increase had not presented any evidence to the court.

It is farcical to argue that increased child endowment payments, which will increase family incomes, will be considered by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court in determining the basic wage. If the reasoning of honorable senators opposite is sound, it means that any increase of family incomes must be so considered. The receipt of maternity allowance increases a family income, but that allowance is not taken into consideration. A reduction of income tax increases the income of a family, but surely honorable senators opposite do not suggest that a factor such as that is taken into consideration in the determination of the basic wage. It is farcical to argue that the payment of child endowment in respect of the first child will affect the basic wage.

There is no concealed motive for the introduction of this measure. The Government is actuated by a genuine desire to give practical recognition of the needs of mothers of Australian families who are now hard-pressed, owing to their reduced purchasing power, to maintain their children. In the unlikely event of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court departing from its practice of the last twenty years in relation to the computation of the basic wage, the Government has pledged itself to increase the amount of the endowment and in that way to offset the adverse effect of the departure. It has been suggested that a clause should be inserted in the bill directing the court to do something. Quite apart from the question of the constitutionality of such a provision, it would be improper to do that. The Commonwealth Arbitration Court, having been established, should be free to determine what it considers is a fair and reasonable basic wage for the workers of this country.

The Minister, in his second-reading speech, urged the recipients of child endowment, whenever possible, to have the endowment credited to savings bank accounts. I agree that that would be very desirable. When child endowment payments are not required, to be expended immediately for the benefit of the children, it is well to put the money in a safe place such as a savings bank. I urge the Minister to consider allowing the recipients of child endowment to deposit the money with building societies as well as with savings banks. I know that money deposited in savings banks is available at call and that a building society requires one month’s notice to be given before a depositor can withdraw money, but I suggest that that may be of benefit because it tends to deter people from withdrawing their money unless it is absolutely necessary for them to do so. I believe that the interest paid by building societies on the share system is higher than that paid to savings bank depositors. That is another factor that should be taken into consideration. What objection could there be to allowing the recipients of child endowment to have the money credited to building societies, which are savings institutions?’ I heartily support the bill. The carping criticism of it in which some honorable senators have indulged was unjustified.

Senator LARGE:
New South Wales

– I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I feel that I must comment upon some of the mis-statements that have been made. Any one who listened to the speeches that have been delivered on this measure by honorable senators opposite could be pardoned for believing that the last general election v/as fought entirely on the issue of the payment of an endowment of 5s. a week to the first child of every family. In fact, numerous other issues were involved. As time goes on, we shall probably find that when bills are introduced to implement some of the numerous promises that were made during the general election campaign by the present Prime Minister, it will be claimed by the Government, as it has been claimed in this instance, that each of the promises was the issue upon which the Government received its mandate. The question whether an. endowment of 5s. a week should be paid in respect of the first child of a family is a very small issue for a government to receive a mandate to govern the country. As I have said, doubtless we shall find that when bills are introduced to implement the promises that have been made by the Government it will be argued that each of them relates to the issue upon which the Government secured its mandate.

Senator Spooner:

– Will the honorable senator urge that all the bills be rejected?

Senator LARGE:

– The Government has received an assurance that the Labour party will consider all measures on their merits. If we are satisfied that a measure is in the best interests of this country, it will receive our wholehearted support.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– Then why be so ironical about it?

Senator LARGE:

– I do not think I was being ironical. I heard Senator Wright say yesterday that honorable senators on this side of the chamber had been provocative. I say in all sincerity that during the whole of my public life I have never heard anybody who is as provocative as he is. He has the ponderous legal mind. I know that it is very difficult to find an honest lawyer. In the Old Country the hotels have peculiar names such as “ The Pig and “Whistle “ and “ The Elephant and Castle “. They have signs hanging over their doors. When I was twelve years of age, my father took me through north London and pointed out to me a hotel in Kilburn called “ The Honest Lawyer “. The sign depicted a gentleman clothed in black cloth, with his bewigged head under his arm. He had been beheaded. Apparently the idea was that that was the only state in which a lawyer could be honest. As to whether increasing the amount of endowment proposed to be paid in respect of the first child in every family from 5s. to 10s. a week would affect the basic wage has been the subject of much controversy in this chamber. I remind the Senate that all aspects have been considered by the court from time to time since the Harvester judgment in 1907. On that occasion Mr. Justice Higgins stated that he regarded an average family as comprising a man, his wife, and three children. There is no doubt that the Harvester judgment for a wage of 7s. a day was reached in the light of meeting the requirements of a family unit of five.

Several specious statements have been made in this chamber about the basic wage not interfering with child endowment. I point out that there is a vastdifference between the basic wage and arbitration awards. In the first place, awards are based on the basic wage. All sorts of outside influences are taken into consideration by the court when making an award. I have attended several arbitration court hearings and* have taken part in the proceedings to determine awards. I recollect that when I was actively connected with the problems of railway employees in New South Wales, merit money was paid. I am not referring to premiums, bonuses, or incentive payments. If a man was considered to be a little better than his fellows from the point of view of general conduct and output he was given a few shillings a week merit money, as well as holiday pay. Furthermore, he was granted five days’ sick leave a year. When awards were under consideration reference was made to the payment of merit money, holiday pay, sick leave, and other concessions. Does the Government sincerely believe that if the first child in every family were endowed 5s. a week that fact would not be taken into consideration by the court when an award was being decided? Apparently the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) does not share the optimism of some Government senators, because the right honorable gentleman said that if the basic wage were thereby affected he would raise the amount of such endowment to 10s. a week. Compared with their leader, honorable senators opposite could be likened to Alice in Wonderland. Although the family unit has never been definitely established as comprising a man, his wife, and one child, or a man, his wife, and two children, it has been tacitly understood that the family unit nowadays is a man, his wife, and one child. Taxation proposals are framed on that assumption. Everybody has that idea.

Some years ago a bachelor’s tax was mooted. The object of that tax would have been to compensate the family man, because single men were receiving an unfair advantage. There can be no question of Labour’s advocacy of child endowment. Reference has been made many times in this chamber to the fact that the former Menzies Government introduced child endowment in 1941. I point out, however, that child endowment was introduced in New South Wales thirteen years previously. It was subsequently introduced in the federal sphere under duress. Of course, I am not complaining. On the contrary, I am glad that it was introduced. Indeed, I am sorry that child endowment was not introduced on a more liberal scale at that time. Labour has always believed in child endowment, as well as other legislation beneficial to the workers. As I have already stated the New South Wales Parliament introduced child endowment in 1927. It also introduced the system of maternity allowances. Assurance for workers, and widows’ pensions, were also introduced in New South Wales. At this stage

I should like to make the sweeping statement that the only legislation on the statute-book benefiting the poorer sections of the community was enacted by Labour administrations.

Senator Robertson:

– All except endowment of the first child in every family.

Senator LARGE:

– It was put on the statute-book in the federal sphere in 1941, although, as I have already pointed out, the example was set by New South Wales thirteen years previously. It has been claimed that the system of age pensions was introduced by the Liberal party. That is not true. It was introduced many years ago by the Lyne Government, but only as a result of J. C. Watson - who led five other Labour men in the Federal Parliament in Melbourne - finding himself holding the balance of power and being able to approach two rival political parties and offer support for concessions. As a result he was able to wring two or three very beneficial measures from the government of the day. That is when the early closing measure was enacted.

By adoption I am a New South Welshman. I happen to be a “ Pommy “ although I do not apologize for that. I claim that New South Wales has always been the spearhead of democratic advance in the democratic world. It has always been regarded as the political laboratory of the world. There is an old saying that what New South Wales did the rest of Australia did a month afterwards, and the remainder of the world probably followed suit twelve months later.

Senator O’sullivan:

– The honorable senator is really very modest.

Senator LARGE:

– My trouble has always .been that I have never been able to speak up for myself sufficiently. I recall when invalid pensions and other social amenities were introduced in New South Wales. Subsequently other States considered that similar beneficial social legislation should be enacted in their respective parliaments. However, the Commonwealth dealt with phases of social services that had «not been previously considered by the States. When uniform taxation was introduced the sobbing of some members of the then Opposition in this chamber was heartbreaking. On that occasion the present Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) wailed and stated that the cost would be heavier in Victoria than in New South Wales. The honorable senator lost sight of the fact that Victoria had enjoyed an unfair trade advantage over New South Wales because the people of New South Wales were already providing social amenities whereas traders in Victoria could estimate the cost of a job without the necessity of taking into account the cost of child endowment and other social amenities.

I gave evidence on one occasion as an engineer in connexion with the determination of an award by the court. The application was for a modest ls. a day increase. The employers’ representative informed the court that the employers would not mind if the award were increased by £1 a week provided that their competitors in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland were forced to pay similar wages. Tasmania was excluded because it was not then a manufacturing State. Following the introduction of uniform taxation taxes were increased in some States. In Victoria tears of blood were shed because manufacturers in that State considered that they would lose prestige. The Minister in his secondreading speech made a very fine effort, but unfortunately for the Minister his speech included a threat. I think that by now the Minister has realized that his threat has not affected honorable senators on this side of the chamber very much. The Minister threatened honorable senators with the responsibility for another approach to the people by way of a double dissolution. Honorable senators on this side of the( chamber are not very much concerned. * He said that honorable senators must approach the bill with courage and I could not help thinking of the old fable of the mountain in travail which produced a mouse. I think the Minister for Social Services fits the part very well. I can imagine him, after all the ponderosity and flow of speech from his carefully prepared document, imagining everybody being quite ready to expect something better than 5s. a week.

Senator Spooner:

– It is not much on £1,500 a year ; but it is a lot for a widow on a pension.

Senator LARGE:

– I hope that the honorable gentleman will introduce legislation shortly to increase that pension too. The Labour party intended to do so early this year and would have increased pensions but for a national misfortune at the elections. The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), replying to Senator McKenna, said that the amendment foreshadowed by the Opposition would wreck the measure. The Government could not accept the amendment, he said, but I think that it will do so although the withdrawal of the bill was threatened. The Governmentindicated that it was a case of 5s. or nothing. Supporters of the Government have asked what the difference is between the two sides of the chamber. I shall tell honorable senators. On the Government side it is 5s. or nothing. On the Opposition side it is 10s. or more. The first child makes greater claims on the family purse than any subsequent children. In each of the States, child welfare is computed at 10s. or more for each child. How has the Government arrived at 5s.? When the State boards out unfortunate children, it pays at least 10s. a week and, in some cases, 12s. 6d.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– Is the honorable senator suffering under the delusion that this bill is intended to provide complete maintenance for the child ?

Senator LARGE:

– I do not know whether it is a delusion, but I am quite convinced that the Government has regarded it as a fine piece of window dressing and I give it full marks because it was a fine piece of window dressing. But since the elections, prices have risen so much that 5s. is already worth only 2s. 6d. and it would not have been the samo inducement had the value been the same before the election as it is now. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) talked about the depression. To me it seems strange that any man who behaved as Senator Cooper did during that period could speak about hard luck and adversity among the poorer people. Senator Cooper admitted that he was proud to have been in the Go vernment which turned down the fiduciary notes issue of £18,000,000. I charged the Minister then with being responsible for more injuries, death and suffering among the people of Australia than if he had been a regiment of alien soldiers. That depression took a heavier toll of human life and development than both the world wars combined. The one measure which would have enabled Australia to be shielded from the effect of that depression was the fiduciary notes issue, but some honorable senators, acting at the behest of their masters, sprang to the crack of the whip as usual and voted it out. Senator Cooper, allegedly representing the Australian Country party interests, turned down the fiduciary notes issue which would have saved suffering, turmoil, suicides and mental deficiency and he claims to be proud of having done so. Of that £18,000,000, £12,000,000 wa» to go to the country to relieve rural difficulties and £6,000,000 to industrial areas so that Senator Cooper’s crime is even worse as he is a country man.

Senator Wright:

– But the honorable senator is not claiming that the depression was the reason for all cases of mental deficiency?

Senator LARGE:

– No, it was not responsible for me, at any rate, or for Senator Wright either. It could not be charged with the responsibility for his troubles. Senator Sheehan, when developing his argument in relation to Mi. Justice Higgins’s award, dealt with the different phases of human life and the different requirements of the family unit and showed how careful they had to be in those times. I remember that at that time the worker was being told how he could conserve his funds and live more cheaply than he was doing and how he could live on a much smaller wage than the one he was seeking. A learned judge suggested that the wife should learn how to cut her husband’s hair and that if there were children they should he brought into the operation too. Clothes were cut down. In my mind’s eye I can see now a family of eight or nine children living close to my home. The youngest child gets what is passed on and when I saw him recently he was wearing a pair of cut-down pants that would suit somebody old enough to be his grandfather.

A payment of 5s. a ‘week will not help that family much. I am reminded of an old song called “ Living in Hopes “ or “Father’s trousers will soon fit Willie”. That is the attitude of the Government. The Opposition is not going to oppose this measure. Honorable senators on this side intend to improve it. They will be constructive not destructive. They are sure that the Government will realize that the Labour party is serious in supporting the principle of child endowment and is out to insist on being rather more liberal than the Government has planned. I am hoping, and, in fact, I am fairly confident, that the Government will accept the foreshadowed amendment, and why not ? The Government will get all the benefit. The joke will be on the Labour party, because it will go on record as 10s. endowment granted by the Menzies Government. The Labour party will not get any kudos. The fact that the Opposition boosted the payment from 5s. to 10s. will soon be forgotten. I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of the Opposition’s suggestion and will accept the foreshadowed amendment.

Senator HANNAFORD:
South Australia

– A great deal of discussion has been devoted to this measure and necessarily there has been much repetition. I hope that I shall not bore honorable senators by going over too much of the same ground, but I am glad to make my contribution to a measure which I believe is extremely important. I add my congratulations to those of Senator Annabelle Rankin to the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) on the very clear outline that he gave of the purpose and the meaning of the bill. It has been described by Senator Sheehan as full of platitudes and well covered with sugar coating. That is the honorable senator’s opinion. I cannot agree with it. I think that the bill was well thought out and that it is deserving of the support of honorable senators on both sides of the chamber. It reflects great credit on the Minister, who is new to parliamentary life and has assumed one of the most important portfolios any government can bestow. The social services portfolio has wide ramifications. I heartily congratulate the Minister upon the manner in which he presented the bill. The measure is designed to preserve the family institution in this country. As the Minister said in his second-reading speech, the family is the cornerstone of national progress. We all subscribe to that view, and there has been a steady recognition of it by an increasing number of nations. In the course of my research, I found that at least 25 countries had adopted child endowment schemes of some kind.

Senator Lamp:

Mr. Deputy President, I call your attention to the state of the Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - Order! There is a quorum present.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– Child endowment has become a major element in the social security structure of the most industrially advanced countries. Its principle is recognized as being economically sound. At least, it is fair and just to those who accept the responsibility of rearing children. So far as I am aware, no country that has adopted child endowment in any form has shown any disposition to abandon it. Child endowment is here to stay, and this measure is but a futher extension of the system, already existing in this country.

The various aspects of this measure, and the history of child endowment in this country, have been dealt with fully in the course of this debate. To me the bill is of very great importance, and, to gain a proper conception of what it means, I have studied the Minister’s secondreading speech closely. I have also listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches of other honorable senators, and I think that I can claim to have been present in this chamber for as long as most honorable senators while the debate has been in progress. Opposition senators generally have a much greater knowledge than I have of industrial matters but, having heard their arguments answered from this side of the chamber, I have come to the conclusion, after weighing the pros and cons of the bill, that it is sound and worthy of the support in its entirety of all members of this chamber. As the Minister has said, one effect of the bill will be to make a further redistribution of the wealth of this country. That is most important and desirable in our national life to-day. The bill is merely additional evidence of the trend that has been noticeable for a number of years towards a better distribution of wealth. Honorable senators opposite, almost without exception, have described the bill as a concealed attack on the basic wage. J have tried to be fair-minded. I have sought to analyse their arguments but I must confess that I have not found them very convincing. The Opposition’s assertion that the introduction of child endowment for the first child will mean a reduction of the basic wage does not appear to be logical.

Senator Critchley:

– I suggest that the honorable senator should substitute the word “ fear “ for the word “ assertion “.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I cannot understand the reasoning of honorable senators opposite. I have given the fullest consideration to what they have said, but I have yet to be convinced that their fear - if Senator Critchley prefers that word - is justified. Whilst I recognize that child endowment is closely associated with the amount and the structure of the basic wage, each remains a distinct problem. The Minister made that clear in h second-reading speech. One matter is for determination by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and the other by the Parliament. Can honorable senators opposite cite any instance in which the basic wage has been reduced as a result of the introduction or increase of child endowment payments? I am sure that no member of the Opposition can recall such an instance. For that reason I claim that the Opposition’s fears are not justified.

The methods used by the court in fixing the basic wage have been fully canvassed by Opposition speakers. Some honorable senators have claimed that the basic wage has been fixed in the past on the basis of the needs of a man, wife, and one child. I am willing to concede that there is some substance for that statement. I say that there is some substance in it because it is true that, in 1941, the then Chief Judge of the court Sir George Beeby, declared that, in his opinion, the basic wage at that time was sufficient for the needs of a family unit of three, but was inadequate for a family consisting of a greater number than three. However, it is not correct to assume that any hard and fast rule was ever laid down by the court. An equally important factor considered by the court in determining the basic wage is the capacity of industry to pay. There are also numerous other factors that the court takes into consideration. In short, all these things count, but it has been said that economic possibilities have always been an important determining factor. Be that as it may that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Minister for Social Services, in his second-reading speech, have guaranteed that should the Arbitration Court depart from its former method of fixing the basic wage, and make its determination on the basis of the needs of a man and wife, the Government would introduce legislation to increase the endowment payment in respect of the first child to 10s. a week. That should be all the protection that honorable senators opposite require.

I shall refer briefly to the amendments that the Opposition has foreshadowed. Both Senator Gorton and the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) have dealt adequately with the Opposition’s proposal that the endowment payment provided for in this legislation should be increased to 10s. a week. Surely it is the Government’s prerogative to determine the amount. Part of the election platform of the present Government parties was the payment of 5s. a week for the first child of each family. There is a responsibility on the Government to ensure that the national finances should be organized for the national welfare. This legislation, in its present form, will cost approximately £15,000,000 a year. In the immediate pre-war years Australia’s annual budget was only a little more than £100,000,000. Obviously there is a limit beyond which no government can commit itself. As the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) has said, if the Opposition persists in its demand for a payment of 10s. a week, it will have to accept full responsibility for killing the measure. There can be no other interpretation, and the Opposition must accept the responsibility for its actions. Such action would have the effect of depriving 450,000 new families of child endowment for the first child. In any event, as has already been pointed out by numerous speakers on this side of the chamber, the previous Labour Administration did absolutely nothing to provide child endowment for the first child, although it had eight years in which to do so. Now, members of the Opposition say, in effect, “ We are in full support of the bill, but we do not think that the allowance proposed is adequate”. Their argument falls to the ground, and I can only conclude that there is a certain amount of political hypocrisy in their contention.

Senator Critchley:

– Do you think that the political hypocrisy is confined to one side of the chamber?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I do not suggest for a moment that, in general, one side of the chamber has a monopoly of it. I am referring now specifically to the attitude displayed by the Opposition towards this bill.

Concerning the proposal that the legislature should direct the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to ignore child endowment in assessing the basic wage, I am glad that the Minister has made it clear that the Government will not take any step that is likely to exercise any improper influence upon the court in reaching ite conclusion. I believe that the court should remain absolutely untrammelled in its right to consider matters free of all improper influence. If the present Parliament, or any succeeding Parliament, sought to advise the court, or to direct it to do something, it would be committing a very wrong act. The present Government is quite right, therefore, in refusing to countenance giving any such direction to the court.

Apart from the two matters to which I have referred, there is no susbtantial conflict between honorable member on either side of the chamber. The bill undoubtedly confers great benefits on the recipients of child endowment, and it is a measure to which we can all heartily subscribe. It provides for the payment of an extra social benefit that is fully justified by present-day circumstances, and for that reason I consider that we can all support an extremely worthy bill. I trust that the Opposition will take these matters into consideration and will realize that if it persists in pressing the amendments that it has foreshadowed it will destroy the bill and will thereby deprive a large and very worthy section of the community of substantial benefits. I therefore ask members of the Opposition to give the matters that I have mentioned their sincere consideration. I have much pleasure in giving my hearty support to the bill.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– At the risk of . being regarded as .being a member of the mutual admiration society which sit3 opposite, I desire to convey my congratulations to the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) on the manner in which he has presented this bill and explained the Government’s proposals to honorable senators. At the risk pf repetition, I propose to deal with the two principal matters that are exercising the minds of members of the Opposition. The first matter is the fear that an increase of child endowment may adversely affect the basic wage. Members of the Government and their supporters have not convinced me that an increase of child endowment will not adversely affect the basic wage. The second matter in serious dispute is the amount of the proposed payment. In the course of my remarks I propose to show that even the Government has some serious doubts about whether the basic wage will be reduced in consequence of the increase of child endowment payments. I base that statement on a document that was issued by the political parties opposite during the recent election campaign, which sets out the joint policy of the two parties. Under the heading “ .Social Services “, the following passage appears: -

If the basic wage, whether increased in amount or not, remains on the same foundation as at present, we will give some extra help to families by providing an endowment of 5s. a week for the first child under 10 years, the second and subsequent children continuing to be endowed, as at present, at 10s. a week. If the foundation of the basic wage is altered and its amount is calculated by reference to the needs of a married couple without children (and we have noticed that such a basis has been suggested), then we shall of course provide endowment for the first child on the 10s. rate.

The mere fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), as he later became, found it necessary to qualify his party’s undertakings in this matter in a marked degree satisfies me that he was not himself convinced that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court would not take the payment of child endowment for j:he first child into consideration in determining the basic wage. Indeed, the history of basic wage fixations shows that the size of the family unit has been steadily reduced. In 1907, when the famous Harvester award was made by the late Mr. Justice Higgins,; the basic wage was defined as the lowest wage which can be paid to an unskilled labourer on the basis of “ the normal needs of an average employee regarded as a human being in a civilized community”. At that time the living wage was fixed at 7s. a day, or £2 2s. a week, which was considered reasonable for a family of five units. In those days I happened to be a government employee, working on the tramways, and my wage was 7s. a day. In 1913 a further inquiry was conducted into the basic wage, and that inquiry disclosed marked variations in the value of the basic wage in various centres because of the lack of uniformity in the purchasing power of money in various large towns. In 1922 the basis of assessing the living wage was again altered and the “ Powers loading “ of 3s. was added. In 1930 application was made by the employers for a reduction of the basic wage by 10 per cent., which was successful, and in 1934 the wage was restored. In 1937 the “needs inquiry” was conducted, and in 1940 the formula adopted for determining the basic wage was the requirements of a family of three units. Eight down the years from 1907, when Mr. Justice Higgins delivered his award fixing the first basic wage, the tendency to diminish the responsibility of industry for the maintenance of a proper family life in this country has been continuous. In 1907 the standard adopted was the needs of a family unit of five; but, as I have already pointed out to honorable senators, the standard has now been reduced to the needs of a family unit of three, and, as sure as the sun will rise to-morrow, when child endowment for the first child becomes a reality, the basic wage will be determined in accordance with the require- ments of a family unit of only two. That is the fear of the Opposition. If the Government can give some satisfactory assurance that our fear is groundless, or if it is prepared to give some official intimation to the court that it does not intend that child endowment for the first child shall be taken into consideration in fixing the basic wage, then that will go a long way towards banishing our fear.

Despite the contention of the Government that it would be ‘Unconstitutional and irregular for it to issue any direction to the court, the fact is that on occasions industrial tribunals and judicial authorities have sought directions from the government of the day when they have had to determine matters in which the living wage might be affected by the payment of social services benefits. In the course of his second-reading speech on this bill the Minister said -

The passage of this legislation will in no way interfere with the freedom of the Arbitration Court to determine the basic wage upon whatever standard it may think proper, having regard to the evidence submitted to it. This Parliament does not, and cannot, assume any power to deal with that problem. The existence of child endowment is as relevant, but no more relevant, to the court’s deliberations than are the level of taxation or of prices . . .

The inclusion of the word “prices” in that context is very significant. “ Prices “ refers to the cost and value of the commodities which the basic wage-earner can purchase in this country. Is not that very significant? The Government contends that child endowment has no more relation to the basic wage than have prices, but the inclusion of the term “ prices “ is very significant, because the amount of the basic wage fixed by the court enables the workers to buy the commodities that are referred to in the Minister’s speech. The Minister said that the fixation of the basic wage is a great national matter which affects every worker in Australia. He went on to say-

There are great problems involved in both the method of approach and the determination upon facts which is necessary after the method has been decided. There is in truth no short formula that can be employed to summarize the lengthy decisions of the Arbitration Court containing the grounds upon which particular judgments have been based.

The honorable senator continued -

I remind honorable senators that it was in 1934. after an emergency wage reduction in 1931, that the court adopted the procedure of computing the basic wage on the formula of determining the highest amount which industry could afford to pay. This procedure was again adopted in each subsequent determination of the basic wage, made, after inquiry, in the years 1937 and 1941. The basic wage has not been re-assessed since 1941.

The Chief Judge in his 1941 judgment said -

I was impressed by the new evidence and arguments as to the inadequacy of the earnings of the lower paid wage earner with a family on our accepted standards of living. Looking at it from the needs point of view only, I regard the present basic wage as adequate for a family unit of three persons.

Senator Hannaford said that endowment of the first child would not affect the composition of the basic wage. But the Chief Judge, in the passage that I have just quoted, said definitely that the court computes a wage adequate for a family unit of three persons. Therefore, the Opposition contends that immediately endowment is provided for the first child the court will reduce the family unit on which it bases its computation of the basic wage from three units to two units. That is the historical background of the fixation of the basic wage. Honorable senators opposite cannot deny the facts that I have given. The Minister, in his secondreading speech, said -

Some confusion of thought occurs because of a statement made by Sir George Beeby in 1941. He then said that, in his opinion, the amount of the basic wage then determined was sufficient for the needs of a family unit of three - a man and his wife and one child.

Thus, the Minister himself admitted the contention that I am making. However, he then quoted the opening lines of one paragraph and the closing lines of another paragraph from theChief Judge’s judgment on that point. He presented the quotation he gave to the Senate completely out of its context, because, no doubt, the intervening lines did not support his argument. Therefore, Ishall acquaint the Senate of the views expressed by the Chief Judge in their full context, by quoting what the Minister omitted to quote. I do not suggest that the Minister attempted to mislead the Senate in any way. The passage that the Minister failed to read is as follows: -

At times it has been assumed that the average family comprises a man, wife and two children. On one or two occasions judges have accepted a statement by the late Mr. Justice Higgins long after the “ Harvester “ standard was adopted by him, that the average was a man, wife and three children. But there is nothing on record to show that that learned Judge made any finding as to what was an average family, or attempted to fix a wage on that finding. He merely ascertained what was the lowest rate paid to male adults by reputable employers, and fixed that plus1s. per week as a minimum wage.

The only national investigation of cost of living undertaken was that of the Piddington Commission. But that Commission admitted that the adoption of its findings as to what was a fair minimum wage for a man, wife and three children was beyond the economic capacity of the Commonwealth as a basic wage.

State tribunals acting under differing statutory authority have differed as to the components of an average family unit, and except so far as they are bound in the two major States to adopt this Court’s declarations, have made differing declarations.

The Court’s attitude on this vexed question was clarified in the majority judgment of the Full Court in 1934 in the following words: -

But whatever family unit is adopted by a wage-fixing body, the power of that body to endow that unit with any desired standard of living depends on the productive capacity of the community as a whole. With few exceptions the determinations of industrial tribunals show that this limitation has been realized - though perhaps it has not been sufficiently acknowledged by them. Generally speaking, however, it may be said that the outcome of this realization is that the basic or living wage prescribed would have been about the same in amount, regardless of the size of the family unit ostensibly adopted. The larger the family assumed as the unit, the lower the possible standard of living prescribed, the smaller the family assumed, the higher the standard prescribed.

That quotation confirms the contention of the Opposition that endowment of the first child will affect the computation of the basic wage. Without placing the blame in any quarter I point out that down the years - whatever the reason may have been I do not know - there has been an evasion of responsibility to make adequate provision for the family unit. I have shown how the family unit used by the court in its computation of the wage has been reduced from five to three. I have no doubt that as soon as endowment is provided for the first child the basic wage will be determined on a unit of two. Indeed, I go further and say that that change probably will not satisfy those who control industry in this country. Perhaps, those interests will press for some form of wife endowment in order to bring about the fixation of the basic wage on a single unit, that is, a man or a woman. Evidence of that trend is apparent to-day.

Many persons who receive child endowment will not be in any danger of suffering a reduction of their incomes through the reduction of the basic wage. I refer to self-employed persons, farmers and employers in industry generally. Those classes of persons need have no fear of a reduction of their standard of living as the result of the endowment of the first child. In fact, the provision of this benefit will make their outlook brighter. The proposed payment of 5s. a week which will involve an aggregate distribution of £15,000,000 a year- the amount will be increased to £30,000,000 a year if the Government agrees to the Opposition’s proposal to increase the payment to 10s. a week - will be reflected in a corresponding increase of the purchasing power of the community. Therefore the provision of this benefit, so far from involving any risk of reduction of income of self-employed persons and employers, will increase their prosperity. On the other hand, however, the worker must continue to go to the court on his knees for a, basic wage, and any reduction of that wage will have a serious effect upon his resources. As the provision of endowment for the first child will have the effect of reducing the basic wage this proposal really represents an injustice to the workers of this country. Indeed, the risks for the worker are aggravated still further. At the last general election the present Government parties announced in their policy speech that if returned to office they would establish a contributory national insurance scheme. Under such a scheme everyworker will be obliged to contribute at the rate of1s. 6d. in the £1 of his income. That is one method by which the Government proposes to reduce taxes on the higher ranges of income. At present, social services contributions are paid by the workers on a graduated scale ranging from 3d. to1s. 6d. in the £1.

Under a national insurance scheme, the contribution will not be graduated. It will be a flat rate of1s. 6d. in the £1 and, consequently, the workers will be penalized. It is all very well for the supporters of the Government to say that the provision of endowment of the first child will not have the effect of reducing the basic wage. I take the following quotation from a report that was published in the Melbourne Herald of the 20th February last: -

Hospital Aid to be Bigger.

Expansion of the hospital benefit system by which the Government now contributes £2 2s. a week toward the cost of all hospital treatment, on a contributory basis, Sir Earle Page told the British Medical Association. . . .

Incidentally, the right honorable gentleman gave that information to the British Medical Association before he gave it to the Parliament - . . that the Government would give a subsidy of 4d. a week for people without dependants and 8d. a week for those with dependants, to increase the hospital benefit from £2 2s. a week to £2 16s. on the understanding . . . and I emphasize this passage -

  1. . that beneficiaries contributed to the cost of this scheme by a subscription of 3d. a week (without dependants) and 6d. (with dependants). This scheme would presumably be run through friendly societies or similar organizations. Members of the community who join either lodges, friendly societies, or hospital benefit societies to participate in. medical services benefits. These services to be arranged between the societies and doctors.

Despite the fact that a Labour government established the National Welfare Fund, to which every person earning more than £105 a year contributes at the rate of from 3d. to 18d. in the £1, and that that fund now exceeds £100,000,000, the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) has indicated that the national health services scheme is tobe on a contributary basis.

The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) said that it was important that we should endeavour to clarify the issues that are raised by this proposition. He said that he understood that child endowment was a system that was intended to give persons who had the responsibility of rearing families a relative advantage over those who did not have that responsibility. We all agree with that. The

Labour party does not object to child endowment. It lias always supported it. I think it was Senator Hannaford who asked why we did not take exception to child endowment in 1941. The answer to that question is a very simple one. Under the child endowment scheme that was introduced then, no provision was made for the first child. The Government that introduced the scheme did not consider that such provision should be made, and the Opposition agreed with it. The danger existed then, as it does now, that the endowment of the first child would affect the basic wage. The unit that was adopted for the determination of the wage in 1941 was a unit of three - a man, wife and child. Therefore, the provision of child endowment for the second and subsequent children did not endanger the basic wage. I expect that the Minister, when he replies, will say that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court will not take into consideration when determining the basic wage the endowment that is paid in respect of the first child, but I believe that if the Government indicated in the bill that it did not wish that endowment to be considered, that indication would have the effect that we desire. If that were done, there would be no need for the Opposition to press the amendment that has been foreshadowed.

The Opposition believes that the amount of the proposed endowment should be increased. Yesterday Senator Annabelle Rankin enumerated the articles that could be purchased with 5s. Of all the families in Australia, approximately 43 per cent, are one-child families, 32 per cent, are two-child families and 15 per cent, are three-child families. The remaining 10 per cent, are families in which there are more than three children. It is generally accepted that the average Australian family is a two-child family. If the first child of such a family is to receive an endowment of 5s. a week, that sum will be expended upon both children. That means that, under this measure, each of the children will receive approximately 4 1/2 d. a day. That sum is not sufficient to purchase a decent orange or apple. Senator Annabelle Rankin said, in effect, “. Look at the milk, eggs, fruit, vegetables or school books that a mother will be able to buy with the extra 5s.” All on 4Jd. a day!

Senator O’sullivan:

– Would the honorable senator deny the children even that sum?

Senator ASHLEY:

– We want the amount to be increased to 10s. a week. We desire that child endowment shall be paid at the highest possible rate and that the greatest possible consideration shall be given to Australian families. Honorable senators on this side of the cham’ber are unanimously of the opinion that the proposed payment of os. a week is inadequate, and we shall press our amendment to increase it to 10s. a week.

The Attorney-General, in his speech on this bill, said -

I suggest that the problems which arise in regard to the provision of a system of child endowment are quite distinct from the problems associated with the fixation of the basic wage.

Having regard to all that has been said by honorable senators on both sides of the chamber about the basic wage, I shall not traverse that ground again. I emphasize the point that any amendment of the bill that is designed to divorce child endowment from the basic wage will receive the wholehearted support of the Opposition. The Attorney-General also said -

What appears to have influenced the court was ti,at the whole subject of the basic wage has become a subject of election controversy, because the Labour party chose to drag it into the discussion on child’ endowment.

I should like the Minister, when he replies, to explain why, when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) announced his intentions regarding child endowment, the Commonwealth Arbitration Court immediately discontinued its hearing of the basic wage case. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber have asked that question repeatedly, but jio satisfactory answer has yet been given to it. It has been said that the court adjourned the hearing of the case because of the allegation by the Labour party that the basic wage would be affected if the first child of a family were to receive child endowment. If that be true, it is a good argument in favour of the proposition that the proposed endowment will have an effect upon the basic wage.

Senator O’flaherty:

– There is no doubt about it.

Senator ASHLEY:

– As the honorable senator says, there is no doubt that it will. He understands social services as well as does anybody else in this chamber, and he has had a long experience of the industrial courts of this country.

Senator Wright referred to the report of the Royal Commission on Child Endowment or Family Allowances. It is significant that the supporters of the Government are prepared to use any means to bolster up their case that the extension of child endowment to the first child will not affect the basic wage. Senator Wright said -

The essential points that I should expect honorable senators opposite would be the first to respect were that the late John Curtin and his colleague differed from both those points of view, and that that commission, whose report was against the introduction of a system against which no honorable senator has argued, urged as its reason for its view the relationship between the basic wage and child endowment.

It is correct that, in the minority report, Mr. Curtin and Mrs. Muscio said that child endowment should be independent of the basic wage. We do not dispute that at all. It is significant that the majority report was ignored in this instance and that Senator Wright used the views of an ex-Labour Prime Minister of Australia to bolster up his case. As a matter of fact, Mr. Curtin took the only realistic view. He argued that if child endowment were to be instituted, it should not be associated with the basic wage. That is what we are asking now. We want to be assured, that the provision of child endowment under this measure will not affect the basic wage. If that assurance is given, the foreshadowed amendment relating to that matter will be withdrawn. Senator Wright also said -

The argument of honorable senators opposite concerning the interrelation between the basic wage and child endowment proceeds from the outmoded motion that was expressed in the majority report of the Royal Commission on Child Endowment or Family Allowances in 1929.

When a report does not suit the Government, it is said that it is outmoded. Honorable senators opposite are prepared to use the arguments of any person, irrespective of whether he be a socialist, so long as they help them to establish their case. Senator Wright said later in his speech -

It is an outmoded notion to think that the endowment of the first child of a family at the rate of as. a week will have the effect of reducing the basic wage.

If that be so, let the Minister assure the Senate that it will not have that effect. Senator Wright continued -

Such endowment could have that effect only if the principles that were applied by the Arbitration Court prior to 1931 were resurrected.

A few moments ago I read a passage from a judgment delivered in 1941 which indicated that at that time the unit used in the determination of the basic wage was a unit of three. Senator Wright endeavoured to convince the Senate that the payment of endowment to the first child would affect the basic wage adversely only if the principles that were applied by the court prior to 1931 were resurrected. That is entirely wrong, although consistent with some of the other statements that have been made by Government senators. In their report of the 3rd September, 1928, Commissioners Mildred Muscio and John Curtin found -

  1. That for workers in industry some system of family allowances is the logical corollary of the living wage doctrine.
  2. That on the whole the basic wage as determined by the Commonwealth and State Tribunals has provided a frugal standard of comfort for a family of man, wife and two children.
  3. That for families of wage-earners where the children number more than two, the standard has been generally lower ‘ than is reasonable, having regard to the definitions implied in the awards of the courts, the disparity increasing with the size of the family.
  4. That it is undesirable to make allowances for the families of wage-earners part of the system of wage-fixing, and that although it may be desirable for all wages to be fixed for the same family unit, it is not essential that any scheme of family allowances should be delayed because the Commonwealth Government has not at present sole control of industrial matters.

I shall not delay the Senate. I know that the Minister wishes to gain the second-reading stage this evening.

Senator COOPER:

– What a joke!

Senator ASHLEY:

– It is all very well for the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) to sneer. I remind the Minister that earlier to-day he dealt with an incident that occurred last night. If he is looking for similar instances he may have them. In any case I do not regard him as the responsible Minister, and I suggest to him that he should show tolerance and permit the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), who has been very tolerant, to conduct the proceedings in connexion with this measure in his own way. If the Minister for Repatriation is anxious to assist the Minister for Social Services I suggest to him that he should keep quiet and not interrupt so much. Apart from being disorderly, his interjections have not been intelligent.

Senator Cooper:

– The honorable senator does not appreciate a joke.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I emphasize that if the Government would give an assurance that it would take steps to protect the basic wage if child endowment is extended, the opposition from this side of the chamber would be reduced considerably. Surely, in view of the high cost of living to-day, the Minister for Social Services does not consider that 5s. a week would be adequate to provide for the first or only child in every family. I suggest to him that serious consideration should be given to increasing the amount of such proposed endowment to 10s. a week. If that were done also, there would be no opposition from this side of the chamber.

During the committee stage of the bill I shall move another amendment. It may be convenient to delay that stage of the measure until next week. In conclusion I desire, on behalf of the Opposition, to express my appreciation of the tolerant manner in which the Minister has conducted the debate on this measure.

Senator TATE:
New South Wales

– At this late stage of the debate L shall not take up the time of the Senate unduly by traversing the arguments that have been advanced completely and adequately from this side of the chamber, or by canvassing the repeated viewpoints of honorable senators opposite. However, notwithstanding anything said by honorable senators opposite, I point out that I am at liberty to express myself as I choose, entirely free from any restriction. I have listened with great interest to the contributions to this debate, particularly those of some very experienced ex-Ministers. Considerable attention has been paid to the basic wage. While I am not an expert industrial advocate, as are many honorable senators opposite, and not a skilled legal man, as are some honorable senators on both sides of the chamber, nevertheless I have considerable practical experience and hence an understanding of the application, one to the other, of the basic wage and endowment. I have listened to the debate with great care and attention, and have expected that’ since the opposition to this proposal has been mainly in regard to the basic wage, a case would be made out that would satisfy my mind. I am quite sure that had the amendments that have been foreshadowed been properly authenticated, it would have been the Minister’s pleasure to give serious consideration to them. In the maze of discussion, very frequently away from what I consider to be the main issue, I have found nothing to convince me. I shall refer to several aspects that appeal to me personally, because at this stage it is more a matter of one’s personal reactions than a reply to the extensive debate that it seems proper to make. First, we are concerned with 450,000 families. I should have thought that the Opposition would have widened the consideration of endowment in all of its phases, because an opportunity presented itself to consider fully the matter of endowment of the first, second and other children. I thought that the whole ambit of endowment would have been examined. The extent of income is not the measuring stick that should determine what a family unit should get. That is an accepted proposition on both sides. I do not think that there is any doubt that a family’s needs vary with its growth and with the age of the children.

Senator Ashley cited some interesting figures in relation to the percentages of children in Australian families, and also traced briefly the history of the basic wage in this country. Senator Katz at one stage canvassed that aspect also at great length. We should realize that until not so long ago the family was not considered at all in the payment of wages, and the larger families had a hard time. I refer now to the next stage, the pioneering legislation. The endowment system was then introduced, and, gradually - putting it very briefly - the number of children that were allowed for in the computations of the basic wage was reduced steadily. The basic wage, according to honorable senators opposite, now relates to the needs of a man, his wife and only one child. There is a great deal of doubt and conflict of opinion about that contention. The submissions by honorable senators opposite in this connexion have left me unconvinced that a man, his wife and one child comprise the unit of determination, and that some entirely fresh mode of considering the basic wage has not come into force. It is proper that the court should vary its mode of attack on a problem which has only been recognized during the last 25 or 30 years. It is a comparatively new problem, and changes must continue to take place. There was no falsity, and no misunderstanding in the Government’s statement or the policy speech of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) that there was grave doubt about whether the court would accept any relationship of the proposed 5s. a week endowment with the basic wage. But, to make doubly sure, the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) stated in his second-reading speech that that matter would be cared for if necessary. We have to recognize that we are still in a transitional stage in relation to the application of child endowment to family incomes. We are moving forward, and I think that the Opposition has raised unnecessary bogies in this matter. I do not think that any one could disagree with the contention that the provision of 5s. a week endowment for the first child in every family would be a step in the right direction. It is essential to keep down the cost of living and this cannot be done if payment for the first child is in the basic wage and not in endowment. I see considerable merit in the suggestion that this measure will provide additional funds for those who need them, and I see no reason why the court should change its method of determination at this late stage. There is a great deal of merit in the extension of child endowment as proposed in this bill. If the court were to adopt the procedure, that the Opposition has suggested it would be a contradiction of its attitude for some time past. However, if a change should take place and it became necessary to increase this endowment to 10s. a week, the whole problem of the relationship of child endowment to the basic wage would have to be reconsidered on a. broad scale. If such a. condition arose I have no doubt that the Minister would further consider the matter.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Senator TATE:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I referred to the gradual change that had taken place in the process of considering the fair remuneration of workers in all phases of work, and the provision that should be made for their families. I referred particularly to the fact that the changing conditions which had been evident from the time that the Government first started to consider these problems until to-day would not end with this debate but would continue. Therefore honorable senators must face up to constant reviewing of the basic wage which is normally done through the courts and the reviewing of endowment which is now before this chamber. I was indebted to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Ashley) for his figures and was astounded when I had my mind refreshed to note that 43 per cent, of the community have one child, 32 per cent, have two, 15 per cent, have three and 10 per cent, more than three children. Reflecting on these figures, it must be realized that the percentages must be changed and I believe that the best thing we can do for Australia would be to endeavour, through endowment legislation, to reverse the percentage, so that wc would have 43 per cent, with more than three children and 10 per cent, with only one child. It is realized that the whole question of cost and the provision to be made for family endowment will vary from time to time and will have to be considered in all the budgets and financial arrangements that the Government has to make. All affirm the principle that endowment must be separated from the basic wage. The Government says in this legislation that it will ensure that separation. In answer to the doubts and fears that may be entertained by honorable senators on the opposite side, the Government, through the Minister for Social Services, has assured them that the recipients of this 5s. will be protected. I have listened to very abstruse, academic and legal industrial arguments on this question. I believe that if lawyers were to argue on each side of the chamber with industrial advocates on both sides, they could argue at considerable length without resolving the question. “What interests me is that the 5s. shall reach the mother and the child as soon as possible. If the Government has to reconsider the wage question it has undertaken to do so.

I am no stranger to the needs of the basic wage workers in the community and many honorable senators on this side of the chamber share with me in a knowledge of their difficulties. It has been my responsibility recently to become very closely associated with what I prefer to call the depressed areas of Sydney. I never use the word “ slums “ because I think that is a slight on many valiant mothers who live and work in them. They are there not by choice but frequently by compulsion, and I have been struck, even in the worst of those areas, with the excellence of the family life and the great endeavours that have been made to preserve it on the highest possible basis. There one sees the application of endowment at its best and under the worst conditions, where its benefits can be most readily seen. I have no doubt that this measure is a step in the right direction. The present position of a family of two children is that the average endowment is 5s. for each child. Under the legislation now proposed, that rises to 7s. 6d., a 50 per cent, increase. “With three children the average for each child is 6s. 8d. at present, and it rises to 8s. 4d. under the new legislation. So it goes on - for two children a 50 per cent, increase, for three children 25 per cent, and for four children 1.7 per cent, increase. They are very important points to consider. I believe that the family unit, quite apart from the first child, makes an important gain under this legislation. It might be argued that the payment for the first child should be a lot more but I differ there. I believe that this bill brings forward the principle of a graduated endowment contribution. With child endowment, as with the basic wage, there are no constant ingredients. They are changing all the time. The elements that make up the wage and the need for endowment at a certain level vary from day to day and must be under continuous review. I commend to the Minister that at a later date he should again review this position and I am sure that he will. That is implicit in the suggestion that if any basic wage legislation affects this 5s. it will be reviewed again. I should like to see the matter kept under constant review.

I believe that we have to consider children in a different light from that of a family. Throughout this debate honorable senators on both sides have referred to the family and the mother. I prefer to talk about the child. The child in its own right as a future citizen of this country is entitled to specific consideration, i should like to see the graduation of endowment worked on a basis of 5s. for the first child, 10s. for the second and an examination made of the whole question whether there should be 15s. for the third and £1 for the four and so on. I think that the basis of the present bill is sound. The Minister has put forward a case. I have a family of three children and I know something about the cost of maintaining them. I have seen just what the position is as the children come along and my view is that the first child is a much less burden to the family than is the second. The burden becomes heavier with the second child and with the third more heavy still. The second use of clothing may have some value to a point, but the stress on the mother, particularly, and also on the father with the growth of the family becomes greater and greater. A woman with three or four children has such difficulty in getting any recreation at all that anything that would help her in the way of graduated endowment to help her get aid in the home and so some recreation would be to the good of the family. In regard to this graduated scale which the Minister puts rightly as 5s. and 10s., I think of the migrants coming from overseas. I have not yet been able to get an authentic figure showing what the ultimate gross cost of a migrant will be. Australia needs migrants -and I have recently referred to the subject in this chamber. It is no new expression to say that the best migrants are Australian children. The only way to get them is to encourage the family. The community has accepted this flat rate of 10s. for a number of years and it would be interesting if the Minister would have this question of cost of Australian-born children as migrants examined. I say that with the greatest freedom because honorable senators on this side of the chamber are free to express anything by way of suggestion for examination by the Minister, and if honorable senators on the other side did the’ same their suggestions would be readily considered.

Senator Ward:

– Honorable senators on the Opposition side of the chamber have more freedom than the Government supporters. The honorable senator will learn as he gets older.

Senator TATE:

– I am perfectly free to speak of anything I choose. I am not that old that I cannot think without some clarity and I am not so young that I do not know my rights in this chamber. I will certainly express my views in the interests of the country and it is on that basis that every honorable senator on this side of the chamber has been placed here. The community accepts the flat rate of 10s. for the first child. On the question of the child being the best migrant, 1 point out that if the rate for the third child were increased by 5s. for the sixteen years’ period of endowment, the cost would be £208. If the endowment for the fourth went up another 10s. the cost would be £416. These are all problems that need consideration and in my opinion the 5s. and 10s. basis in this bill is on very sound lines. Whether it should be extended by a graduation through the third child upwards is something that I mention seriously for the Minister’s consideration. I support this bill because I believe it is moving in the right direction. It recognizes the essentiality of separating the basic wage from endowment; it recognizes that the mothers of the community and their children need the extra 5s.; and further, it recognizes that the children have separate rights quite apart from the rights of their parents and that the community must provide for the welfare of all children. That is a national as well as a parental responsibility.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

in reply - I would be a strange person indeed if I did not, at the outset of the concluding speech on the second reading of this measure, express my appreciation of the courtesies that I have received. I thank you, Mr. President, and your Deputy for the impartial manner in which you have presided. I might fairly say, Mr. President, that you have been so upright in your endeavour to help a new Minister that you have leant over backwards. I expected support and assistance from my leader and from my colleagues on this side of the chamber and I was not disappointed. I should like particularly to express my thanks for the kindliness and courtesy that I have received from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) and his colleagues in the course of this debate. I expected no mercy in politics, but I was pleased, indeed, to receive in this chamber the courtesies that are usually extended by Australians to each other, in business and in the professions. I hope that, as time goes on, I shall prove myself worthy of the consideration that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have shown to me.

This debate on this bill has been lengthy, and I do not think that any honorable senator would expect me at this stage to develop any new line of thought. Every possible approach has been debated and canvassed, and I am sure that honorable senators on both sides of the chamber will pardon me if, in the course of my reply, I reiterate some of the things that have already been said. The pith of this legislation is, of course, its possible effect on the basic wage. The Opposition has argued that the payment provided for in the bill should be increased to 10s. a week, but I am sure that all honorable senators will agree that all other issues fade into insignificance when compared with the major problem of the relationship of child endowment to the fixing of the basic wage. I trust that the Senate will agree that if I stick very close to that theme, I shall be giving an effective reply to the debate. The Opposition’s suggested cure for the ills that it believes to be inherent in this measure is an increase of the proposed payment to 10s., and the inclusion in the bill of a direction to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court that it shall not take endowment for the first child into consideration in fixing the basic wage. Those are the two matters to which I propose to address myself in my reply. However, before dealing with them in detail I confirm and emphasize the statement made by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) earlier in the debate that the objections of the Opposition to this measure are so illogical that they can only be regarded as part of a plan to destroy the bill. I say that at the outset of my reply because, in the course of the debate, I have sensed some personal criticism of the AttorneyGeneral for having made the statement to which I have referred. The truth is he made the statement on behalf of the Government. Even before the secondreading debate on the bill started, the Government discussed the tactics that the Opposition might adopt, and decided what course of action should be taken in any eventuality. It is appropriate, therefore, that I should emphasize that I stand shoulder to shoulder with the Attorney-General in the opinion that he expressed. The claim that the Opposition’s objection to this measure i9 a plan to destroy the bill, is most amply supported by a statement made by Senator Cameron, a senior member of the Opposition. Senator Cameron said -

Government senators have claimed that the carrying of the amendment would kill the bill. I hope it does. This bill should never have been born. The best thing that could have happened would have been for it to die at birth.

Senator Cameron:

– Hear, hear!

Senator SPOONER:

– In the face of such a forthright utterance, I can fairly say that no Opposition member has any right to complain if we on this side of the chamber believe that the proposed amendments are designed to destroy the bill, the object of which is to implement one of the major planks of the election platform of the Government parties.

The approach of the Opposition to this measure has been inconsistent. S3nator Wright placed the Opposition’s arguments in proper perspective when he stressed the fact that at no time during the election campaign did the Labour party suggest that the proposed child endowment payment should be 10s. instead of 5s. a week. The proposal was discussed on every election platform throughout Australia in the course of one of the fiercest political campaigns in Australia’s history. It is strange indeed, therefore, that the Opposition should now bring forward a proposal of which no mention was made at election time. On the contrary, when the tumult and the shouting had died away, and the result of the election had been determined, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Chifley) said that the Opposition would not oppose legislation to endow the first child of each family with a payment of 5s. a week. I shall cite another inconsistency. I do not wish to be ungallant, but I believe it to be material that I should quote a statement that was made by the only woman senator on the Opposition side. Senator Tangney said -

  1. congratulate the Government-
Senator Fraser:

– I rise to order. Is the Minister in order in quoting from Ilansard ?

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:
QUEENSLAND

– Yes.

Senator SPOONER:

Senator

Tangney said -

I congratulate the Government upon the introduction of this measure to endow all children in a family, and I trust that it will earn the gratitude of the mothers of Australia still further by accepting the amendment that the Opposition has foreshadowed to increase the endowment to 10s. I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will not find that the Arbitration Court will take this matter into consideration when it considers the basic wage.

I believe that we are now facing one of the most extraordinary sets of circumstances imaginable. The Liberal party and the Australian Country party espoused endowment of the first child at the 1946 election campaign, and maintained their support of that principle at the 1949 election. Therefore, this issue has been fiercely contested in two election campaigns. My colleagues and I have argued that the first child in each family should be endowed; the Opposition has argued that endowment of the first child would affect the basic wage. In addition, as I have said, after the 1949 election, the Loader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives stated that the Government’s child endowment legislation would not be opposed, but now that the bill has been introduced, honorable senators opposite have shifted their ground. They are seeking, not to deny the benefits of this legislation to the people of Australia, but to increase the proposed payment from 5s. a week to 10s. a week. That is not the end of their inconsistency. They have foreshadowed an amendment to include in this measure a direction to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court that endowment of the first child not be taken into consideration in fixing the basic wage. Acceptance of that amendment, I contend, would render the whole scheme invalid.

Senator Sheehan:

– Why?

Senator SPOONER:

– I shall come to that later in my speech. The Opposition, of course, has a majority in this chamber and can force the inclusion of its amendments in the bill, but I say with all the authority vested in me that the proposed amendments will not be accepted by the Government in the House of Representatives. I confirm the statement of the Attorney-General that insistence by the Opposition upon its amendments will have the effect of destroying the bill and I make it quite clear to all concerned that if the bill is destroyed in this way, full responsibility will have to he accepted by the Labour party. That is my summing up of the position. This is a major piece of legislation. Despite what has been said to the contrary during the course of the debate, very substantial sums of money are involved. The Government has a sense of responsibility. It has decided what is right and proper. In the policy speech which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) submitted to the people the proposal that the first child in each family should be endowed at a total cost to the nation of approximately £15,000,000 per annum was clearly set out, and the right honorable gentleman also undertook that in a particular contingency his Government was prepared to accept the responsibility of incurring an additional expenditure of £15,000,000, making a total of £30,000,000. That is the proposal that was submitted to the people, and that proposal forms the substance of the legislation that is now before the Senate. The Government claims that it has a mandate for this legislation and it desires to have this legislation enacted. The Government is not prepared to go beyond the limit of its proposal to the people, particularly when it is suggested that that proposal should be amended in such a way that the whole measure might be rendered unconstitutional, which would, of course, stultify the Government’s intentions.

The approach of the Opposition to this legislation is unreal and represents a desperate attempt on the part of its members to gain some kind of political prestige. That attempt is being made at the expense of the families of Australia that would be entitled to receive the proposed endowment. By contrast, the position oi the Government is sound and logical. We advocated this proposal in 1946; it was not something that was evolved for the 1949 campaign. Furthermore, we believe the proposal to be sound financially, economically and legally in its present form. If the proposal is amended we believe that its stability will be destroyed. Because this legislation proposes to make such a substantial contribution to a higher standard of living in this country, the Opposition will be assuming a great and, indeed, a dreadful responsibility if it refuses capriciously to permit the people of Australia to enjoy the proposed benefits.

I want to approach the matter now from another angle. I think that all honorable senators realize that considerable administrative problems are associated with the implementation of a scheme such as this, which will involve payment of endowment in respect of more than 2,000,000 children and will benefit more than 1,000,000 families. The

Department of Social Services has made all the arrangements necessary to enable the scheme to be implemented as from the 20th June next. Those arrangements cover a large volume of transactions and therefore we must he practical in this matter. The mere fact that the Opposition may move amendments to the bill which will create doubt and anxiety about whether the legislation can be implemented by the 20th June will of itself make it most difficult for us to complete our administrative arrangements. In other words, if the amendments foreshadowed by the Opposition are adopted by the Senate next week it may be impossible for the scheme to be brought into operation on the 20th June, because by that date we must have ready and available all the machinery to enable the payment of child endowment to operate, either on the basis proposed in this legislation or on the existing basis.

Having regard to the courtesies extended to me by the Senate I do not want to be provocative in what I have to say, but it is an important occasion and I can do no less than explain and stress the views that I hold. Having carefully considered all the matters mentioned in the course of the debate, I can only conclude that the arguments advanced by the Opposition are so unreal that they amount to no more than delaying tactics intended to prevent the implementation of this measure. I trust that I shall be able to explain satisfactorily the reasons for my conclusion later in my speech. I particularly direct the attention of honorable senators now to the result of the Gallup poll, which I understand was quoted by an honorable senator who took part in the debate this afternoon. 1 have no doubt at all that in its approach to this matter the Opposition is completely out of step with the great majority of the Australian people who have confidence in the Government and believe that the Government’s approach to this matter is sound. The people will not appreciate the attempts of the Opposition to amend the Government’s proposal, and that being so, I repeat that the Opposition must bear the consequences of its proposed action.

Proceeding now to a detailed consideration of the matters raised by the Opposi tion in the course of the debate, perhaps i can put its case very simply, but, I trust, with sufficient accuracy, by saying that its case is that the payment of the proposed child endowment may have the effect of reducing the basic wage, and particularly that it may affect basic wage earners who are unmarried, or are married but have no children, or have children who are all over the age of sixteen years. I think that it is only fair to say that the Opposition agrees that even if its contention is correct, married couples’ with children under the age of sixteen years may not lose so much as those in other categories. I think that that is the Opposition’s case in substance. May I explain now that I regarded the making of my second-reading speech as a most important occasion, and I gave a lot of care and attention to the preparation of the speech. Having done that, I obtained the highest and most competent legal advice available to me because I felt that it was my duty to place this matter before the Senate as fairly as possible. After I had opened the debate I listened closely to it, and honorable senators may be surprised to know that I also took the trouble to read the Hansard report of most of the speeches delivered by Opposition members. In consequence I am in the position that I should be in as a responsible Minister, and, having carefully considered the criticisms advanced during the debate, I can honestly say that the second-reading speech that I made fairly and squarely set out the issues and fairly and honestly came to correct conclusions. I do not want to alter in any major respect anything that I said in. my second-reading speech, although I would not go so far as to say that some parts of it could not have been better expressed. The searching debate that has taken place has thrown into relief some deficiencies in that speech. However, I repeat that in the main I have no reason to believe that the second-reading speech that I made does not fully and correctly set out the position, find nothing has been said in the course of the debate that does not relate to some part of that speech. The pith of the matter is the formula which the Commonwealth Arbitration Court uses in its determination of the basic wage. Here, I may interrupt myself to say that I adopt the remark made by one honorable senator, “ I come in by the same door as I went out”. Honorable senators opposite have overstressed the importance that the court attaches to the “ means “ or “ needs “ test in assessing the minimum living wage. The truth is - if one can use that phrase in considering the complexities of this matter - that the task of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court is to determine the highest wage that industry can pay. The methods that it adopts are its own concern. In the course of a long series of judgments the court has stated from time to time its views and the methods of calculating the wage that it has adopted, and those who say that the court is still adopting the basis of the needs of an average family are, in my judgment, sixteen years out of date because that principle has not been adopted since 1934. However, there never has been on our side a denial of the close relationship that exists between the determination of the basic wage and certain other matters.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The Minister’s time has expired.

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) put -

That so much of Standing Order No. 407a be suspended as would prevent Senator Spooner speaking in reply for more than thirty minutes.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being an absolute majority of the whole number of senators present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator SPOONER:

– I thank you, Mr. President, and members of the Senate for granting me that indulgence. “When my time expired I was pointing out that the task of the Commonwealth yrbitration Court is to determine the highest wage that industry can pay. The methods that it adopts to determine that wage are its own concern. The court has stated its views and in the course of various judgments that it has delivered from time to time it has revealed the methods that it follows. The old principle of determining the basic wage on the needs of the average family has been discontinued since 1934. I went on to say that the Government has never denied that a close relationship exists between family allowances and the basic wage. In my secondreading speech I quoted from the joint policy speech of the Government parties or. that point as follows : -

The problems of child endowment are closely associated with the amount and structure of the basic wage. “We have never tried to burke that issue. In my second-reading speech I also said that a good deal of confusion exists - and this is also apparent from statements ‘ made in this debate - with respect to the statement that at one stage the basic wage approximated the needs of a man, wife and one child. However, no judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has ever stated that the basic wage was assessed on that basis. That being the position, I put it to honorable senators that in the second part of the joint policy speech of the Government parties on this matter we have advanced the only practical solution and that is that if the basic wage is fixed by reference to the needs of a married man and his wife, without children, endowment for the first child will be increased from 5s. to 10s. a week. That, I suggest, is as fair a proposal as it is possible to devise. What we say, in effect, is that we believe in child endowment to the limit and that we cover every contingency that we can in order to ensure that those who are entitled to it will receive the full benefit from our proposal. In response to the invitation made by the Leader of the Opposition, I repeat the following statement that I made in my second-reading speech -

This Government stands for the highest standards of living in Australia and will do everything in its power to reach that objective.

It holds the view that it is essential that those parents with young families should receive some amount over and above the bread-winner’s earnings if they are to share justly in rising standards of living.

It contemplates that, in addition to wages earned, or other income enjoyed, a family which has one child under sixteen years should receive 5a. a week; that a family with two children under sixteen years of age should receive, in addition to wages earned, &c, child endowment benefits totalling 15s. a week; that a family with three children under sixteen years of age should receive in addition to wages earned and other income, child endowment of 25s. a week - and so on, endowment oi an additional 10s. a week being paid for all subsequent children under sixteen years of age. It holds that view, irrespective of the amount of the basic wage determined, and the methods by which the court may reach its determination.

Senator Grant:

– -But the court will not inform the Government how it reaches its determination.

Senator SPOONER:

– I shall deal with that point later. The statement I was quoting continued -

This Government does not suggest that parents can maintain one child for 5s. a week. The amount of 5s. a week is but a contribution to the cost of maintaining that child.. The Government believes, however, that it is a very valuable contribution which will be greatlyappreciated by parents, particularly mothers - not only mothers of one child families, hut of those with more than one child; . . .

Then I stated the alternative proposal relating to the circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to increase the endowment from 5s. to 10s. a week. I have deliberately repeated that statement because it is inconceivable that during the hearing of the basic wage case now before the court, the court will not have before it from some quarter the views held by the Government when introducing this measure in this chamber. I propose later to develop the view that that is the only practical way in which the court can become cognizant of the views of the Government. Only by giving consideration to a statement such as this can the court weld together the two great problems of the basic wage and family allowances. When the Opposition refuses to accept that statement and challenges the Government’s bona fides it has abandoned all logic. All that it can say is that the Government is advancing this legislation in some dishonest fashion in an attempt to lower the standard of living in Australia. That is a fair comment when honorable senators opposite challenge not only our bona fides in this respect but also the practicability of our approach to this problem. That is an ignoble attitude for the Opposition to adopt. It knows full well that the Government is not dishonest in its approach to this matter ; it realizes that the Government is as keen, and keener, than the Opposition itself is to improve standards of living in Australia and that endowment of the first child is a valuable contribution towards the attainment of higher standards of living. When honorable senators opposite adopt their present attitude they are merely playing at politics in a nasty way. Such an attitude will bring its own retribution, because the Opposition in adopting it is getting itself into an impossible situation which it cannot justify even in the eyes of the most loyal of its supporters.

The Government will not accept either of the amendments that the Opposition has forecast. I made that clear earlier, and I repeat it. The Opposition must be clear upon the point that each of the amendments that it has forecast must stand on its own. We cannot approach them on the basis that the two amendments represent one plan of campaign. Each of them must stand on its own. The amendment which contemplates the giving of a direction to the Arbitration Court is unconstitutional, and would wreck this whole proposal. So, the Opposition’s approach in fact is that endowment of the first child should be increased from the proposed amount of 5s. to 10s. a week. Before reiterating the reasons why the Government will not accept that amendment

Senator Sheehan:

– Why does the Minister suggest that 10s. will be ample if the court does take child endowment into consideration in computing the basic wage?

Senator SPOONER:

– I have never made a statement to that effect. The Opposition’s proposal must be examined fairly in this way : What it says, in effect, is that endowment at the rate of 5s. a week will have the effect of reducing the basic wage. Having said that, I cannot see how it can say that endowment at the rate of 10s. a week will not prejudice the basic wage twice as much. That is the irresistible conclusion to be drawn from the arguments of honorable senators opposite. What strange folly! Honorable senators opposite in their own words from time to time divide the people of Australia into two categories: first, those with children under sixteen years of age ; and, secondly, those who have no children under sixteen years of age. And to those who have no children under sixteen years of age they say : “ We are going to protect your interests so far as the basic wage is concerned. We are going to ensure that the basic wage is not prejudiced. We are going to make sure that your interests are not sold down the river for os.”. But in the same breath, honorable senators opposite say to those people, “ We will not sell your interests down the river for os. a week but we will sell them down the river for 10s. a week “. That is precisely the position that the Opposition has taken up. Its argument is crazy. No honorable senator, regardless of party, would contemplate any proposal to reduce the standard of living of any category of our people by 10s. a week. Whether honorable senators opposite accept it or not, the net result of their attitude is that when they persist in their approach to this measure they reach a stage at which they advocate a course that will result in the destruction of this legislation. That has not always been the view of the Labour party. It has never advanced that argument on any of the many occasions on which this matter has been the subject of public discussion outside the Parliament. I repeat that Senator Wright pricked the bubble when he said that during the recent general election campaign no socialist suggested that it was part of the Labour party’s policy to endow the first child at the rate of 10s. a. week. And the bubble was also pricked by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Chifley), when he said -

When 1 refer to child endowment I realize that I may easily trespass on sacred ground.

That is a simple but significant statement. The right honorable gentleman continued -

The Labour party will not oppose the Government’s legislation to provide endowment of 5s. a week “for the first or only child under sixteen years of age in every family.

I drive home the point that at that stage the Labour party never contemplated either to move for an increase of the endowment from 5s. to 10s. or to attach to such a move the absurd proposal that the Parliament should give a direction to the Arbitration Court as it now suggest. As I said earlier, the Government is not prepared to accept the amend- ment that the Opposition has forecast to increase the proposed endowment of 5s We have a sense of responsibility. It is all very well for honorable senators opposite to say that there is a substantial balance in the National Welfare Fund, or to suggest that it is neither here nor there whether the total amount at stake is £15,000,000 or £30,000,000 a year. I remind the Opposition that there are other sections of the community whose interests must be considered. No government can approach any proposal of this kind by isolating it from all other governmental activities. We believe that in the existing circumstances this proposal to endow the first child at the rate of 5s. a week is fair, and can be carried through. It will enable us to do justice to age and invalid pensioners, expedite the implementation of a national health scheme and the reconstruction of war service pensions, and, at the same time, as I am sure all honorable senators agree is necessary, carry forward in the National Welfare Fund a balance that will provide against any contingency should conditions become less bountiful than they are to-day when, consequently, a greater demand and need for social services benefits would be created. It is impossible to consider this proposal on. its own. When the Opposition says that the proposed expenditure must be increased by £15,000,000 a year in order to meet its wishes, it is in effect asking the Government to allow it to take the control of the financial affairs of the country from the hands of the Government. No worthwhile government would accept that situation.

The Attorney-General pointed out that it is not competent for this Parliament to direct the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. That is entirely a legal question, and. if the amendment is moved I shall leave it to be dealt with by the AttorneyGeneral. I speak as an ordinary businessman when I say that no honorable senator will suggest that I am not acting properly if I take every precaution to ensure that legislation for which I am responsible is legally and constitutionally sound. Senator McKenna, in referring to this matter, said -

I am prepared to concede that there may be constitutional difficulties in the way of doing what I have suggested, but at least let us explore the possibility of doing it.

The honorable senator also said -

The Opposition believes that it would be possible to direct the court in the manner that I have suggested. If this be not the appropriate measure to achieve that objective, I invite the Attorney-General and the Government to consider the possibility of amending the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

That wa9 a fair and reasonable statement of the opinion of Senator McKenna. It was made with the sense of responsibility that we expect from him on an important occasion. The Attorney-General also referred to this question. He said -

Senator McKenna envisaged another very strange amendment of this bill, and I give him credit for knowing that such an amendment would be unconstitutional in this measure. As I understand it, he proposed that there should be included in the bill a direction to the court as to how it should fix the basic wage. This Parliament has no control whatever over the basic wage. It has not created * the basic wage. It cannot amend that wage. 1 would be prepared to say without further consideration that it could not lawfully give directions to the Arbitration Court as to what it should do with the basic wage. . . . What the Opposition is asking the Government to do is to go through the farce of including in a bill that, at present, is perfectly valid in nature, a clause that may have the effect of rendering the entire act and the whole scheme invalid.

No one would say that the two honorable senators whose remarks I have read are not reputable men who are of good standing in the legal profession. No one would treat their opinion lightly. Let us assume for the moment that the opinion that they have expressed is a tentative and not a final one. Let us assume that they have only sounded a warning note. I do not think that any one has the right to expect the Government to be so foolish as to insert such a provision in the measure when it has been given that warning. Is it proposed that we should agree to the insertion of a clause in this bill when we have been warned that it may be unconstitutional and may involve us in litigation? I ask honorable senators to consider what may be the result of litigation upon this measure, In my experience, litigation is always conducted with bitter feelings, in no spirit of friendliness and in the harshest possible circumstances. Once litigation starts, there is no knowing where it will end. The Government has been warned that this measure may he spoiled if it is unwise enough to include in it a provision directing the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. 19 it suggested that if the measure is attacked, the attack will be restricted to a challenge of the validity of providing endowment for the first child? Does it not follow almost automatically that those who would be prepared to attack this measure would be prepared also to attack all child endowment?

Senator Lamp:

– They would not be Labour men.

Senator SPOONER:

– I would not know who they would be. There is certainly no guarantee that they would not be Communists. We might expect Communists to attempt to destroy a scheme such as this. We must ensure that they cannot destroy it. If this measure were attacked, if the attack went deeper than a challenge to the validity of providing endowment for the first child and extended to a challenge of the validity of providing endowment for all children, and if the attack occurred in the middle of the basic wage inquiry, is it fanciful to suggest that the basic wage inquiry itself would be involved and that the decision of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court on the basic wage might be deferred for months? I put that to the Senate as being within the realms of practical politics.

Senator Sheehan:

– The Minister is frightening us.

Senator SPOONER:

– I do not think I am frightening honorable senators opposite. I do not hold so low an opinion of them. I give them credit for being sufficiently far-sighted to appreciate what the results of an attack on this measure may be. I believe that legal advice should be used to avoid litigation as medical advice is used to avoid sickness. I can conceive no greater frustration than, having devoted much time and work to this measure, which I believe to be a great one, to see it brought before a court to be the subject of litigation and argument, the result being the destruction not only of the scheme for the endowment of the first child but also of other social service benefits.

I conclude on this note. For the reasons that I have given, the Government will not accept amendments to the bill. There is no shadow of doubt about that. If the amendments are pressed, the payment of endowment to the first child will be at least deferred. Hope springs eternal in the human breast. I believe in this legislation. I do not agree that the results that will flow from it will be the dreadful results to which honorable senators opposite have referred. I believe that the judges of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, having read what I have said in my second-reading speech, will realize that this problem is one for them to solve and that the Government, in stating its view of the matter, has taken the only practical course open to it. I am confident that if we pass the measure the court will find an equitable solution of the problem. There is no other way in which it can be approached. We cannot bring in a measure that will provide an answer to the problem in definite and concrete terms. I hope that when honorable senators opposite are considering the amendment that they have foreshadowed they will consider also the views of the Government upon this matter. I ask the Opposition to give us credit for sincerity and for a determination to complete the job that we want to do, that is, to pay child endowment to first children at the rate of 5s. a week and at the same time to increase the standard of living of the people of this country. I believe most honestly in this legislation. I believe that it will achieve what, despite the protestations to the contrary of honorable senators opposite, all honorable senators desire.I ask the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider this matter and to allow the bill to pass without amendment. If that is done, we shall take full responsibility for it and do the job as it should be done.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and committed pro forma ; progress reported.

page 1680

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to Wednesday next, at 3 p.m.

page 1680

ADJOURNMENT

Health and Medical Services

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) proposed -

That the Senate do not adjourn.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– I draw the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) to the grounds on which I asked a question yesterday. The matter raised has been the subject of comment over a number of years. I, myself, have brought it before this chamber on other occasions. It relates to patent medicines that are being sold throughout Australia. Recently I noticed in the press a comment by an analytical chemist of Sydney, who pointed out that a widely advertised medicine, priced at more than £3, was manufactured for less than 6d. Its medicinal value was nil, unless people believe in faith healing. I also referred to a number of items in connexion with which the public are not only being robbed, but are also suffering great harm to their health because of the misleading information that is conveyed to them by broadcast advertisements and in other ways. People are lulled into a false sense of security. Many millions of pounds are being taken out of the pockets of the people of this country through the operation of this disgraceful racket. About two or three years ago I brought to the notice of the Senate that a patent medicine that was then being sold at £11s. a bottle cost only8d. to manufacture and place on the shelves in the chemists’ shops. It had no medicinal value at all. People are told that even diseases such as cancer can be treated successfully by these particular drugs, and they tend to postpone receiving professional medical attention because of the false evidence that is placed before them. I trust that the Minister will bring this matter to the notice of his colleague, the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page), because it is one that ought to be cleaned up, in the interest of the people of Australia. On several occasions royal commissions have been sought for this purpose. Following the only occasion on which such a royal commission was appointed great benefit resulted to the people of this country. That was many years ago. Since then no Minister for

Health has considered that it was prudent to adopt the course that was taken early in the history of the’ Australian Parliament.

I suggest that the Minister for Health should seek expert advice on this matter and investigate personally the incalcuable harm that is being done to the people of Australia by this racket. I am concerned not so much, about the money that is being extracted from the people as with the great harm that is ‘being done to their health. If, after seeking such advice in connexion with my allegations, the Minister for Health considers that a royal commission should be appointed to inquire into this racket, I am sure that the interests of the people of Australia would he served.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

. - in reply - I would not for a moment attempt to assess the subject that has been raised by the honorable senator. I doubt very much, however, the ability of the Commonwealth, constitutionally speaking,’ to do much about it. I shall obtain from my colleague, the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), an opinion on the ability of the Commonwealth to take the action suggested by the honorable senator. Offhand it occurs to me that this is essentially a matter coming within State jurisdiction.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1681

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for-

Defence purposes -

Archerfield, Queensland.

Cairns, Queensland.

Department of Civil Aviation purposes -

Blackall, Queensland.

Coonamble, New South Wales.

Postal purposes -

Goulburn, New South Wales.

Taree, New SouthWales.

Telephonic purposes - Bega, New South Wales.

Seamen’s Compensation Act- Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 18.

Wool Use Promotion Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 8.

Senate adjourned at 9.20 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 April 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19500420_senate_19_207/>.