19th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. ‘ Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 1921
Acknowledgment bt His Majesty The King.
– I have received from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral the following communication in connexion with the Address-in-Reply : -
Mr. President,
I desire to acquaint you that the AddressinReply at the opening of the Nineteenth Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia has been laid before His Majesty The King, and I am commanded to convey to you and to honorable senators His Majesty’s sincere thanks for the loyal message which your address contained. (Signed) W. J. McKell,.
Governor-General.
page 1922
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. Is the Government aware that the Right Honorable Winston Churchill’s Government of England, in February, 1945, extended the principle of adult suffrage to all electors over 21 years in Great Britain ? Will the Government cake similar action in Australia to force the States to implement true democracy of one person one vote one value!
– The answer is “No”.
page 1922
– Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware that discussions are about to take place in London between the Commonwealth High Commissioners and the “Big Three “ foreign Ministers . on the draft proposals for an early Japanese peace treaty? In view of this, and ‘ the fact that Japan, with large-scale American aid, has now moved’ from eighth to fourth position in world shipping construction, will the Government make every effort to have whale Factory ships, whale chasers and tankers built in Japan for Australia as .part of war reparations?
– I am not aware of the circumstances to which the honorable senator has referred, - but I shall look into them and take them up with the appropriate Minister.
page 1922
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Supply if he has seen a statement appearing in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of the 19th April, 1950, referring to the appointment of a committee to investigate departmental road transport under the Minister for Supply. The press statement quoted’ the Minister as saying -
The Government also wanted to learn whether the fleet was managed economically as one aspect of the general investigation into government administration. The investigating committee comprised Messrs. L. Schumer, general manager ‘ and director o! Yellow Express Limited, Melbourne (chairman), F. Moat, of Mason and Moat, cartage contractors, Sydney, and W. J. Dyer, general manager of City Motor Service Limited, Melbourne.
– Order 1 What is the honorable senator’s question?
– I should like to know whether the Minister has read the newspaper report. If so, is it true that a committee, consisting of the gentlemen whose names I have mentioned, has been appointed to inquire into the cost of the Government’s road transport fleet? As the committee is representative of private carrying companies, does the Government expect a fair and unbiased report to be made? Has there been any indication of undue competition between the Government fleet and motor cars operated by private companies? As -the Government pool is limited to carrying Commonwealth property except when requested by private carriers to undertake other jobs that they themselves are unable to perform, where does the Government believe the interests of private enterprise lie? Is it the Government’s intention to allocate its’ work to private enterprise should .the report of the committee be adverse to the Government’s own fleet, and if so, will the companies represented on the committee be permitted to compete for Government work?
– I saw the statement to which the honorable senator has referred, but I am not in a position to say whether the gentlemen whose names the honorable senator has mentioned, are members of .the committee. No doubt, the Minister for Supply will publish the names of members of the committee at the -appropriate time. I shall endeavour to provide the honorable senator with a copy of the report of the committee when it is available. Whether or not private companies will be- permitted to compete for Government work is a matter of Government policy, but I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Supply, and obtain an answer as soon as possible.
page 1922
– Has the attention of the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport been drawn to a statement by a Queensland Minister that ample supplies of Queensland coal are available for Victoria and South Australia ? I think that the figure mentioned was 100,000 tons. Are there any substantial quantities of coal available at ports such as Mackay? If so, are the wharf labourers prepared to load the coal, and is shipping available to carry it to the southern States?
– Queensland tendered for .the supply of coal to Victoria, but as the quality and the price of the coal as -well as the delivery dates were unsatisfactory, the tender was not accepted. There is a reasonable quantity of coal available for normal requirements, and representatives of the Joint Coal Board are making a test of the best quality Queensland coal. If that is found to be up to standard, I am quite certain that ships can be made available to transport it. I can assure the honorable senator that any coal produced in Australia will have preference over imported coal.
page 1923
– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General by pointing out that although the Australian Broadcasting Commission was established to supply a radio service to broadcast musical, cultural and sporting activities, at the present time because of some disagreement over finance Hobart is being deprived of a broadcast on Saturdays of Australian Rules football, which has a wide audience throughout Tasmania. Will the Minister make representations to his colleague to have the broadcast of Australian Rules football restored so that the people of Tasmania may be able to enjoy the service to which they have been accustomed during the last few years?
– I shall ‘be only too pleased to bring the matter to the notice of the Postmaster-General.
page 1923
– Consequent upon certain inadequate information supplied by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration yesterday in reply to a question by me, I desire to ask the following questions. In the event of a person who holds a passport that is valid for five years desiring again to leave Australia, is it a fact that he has to comply with the following requirements : (1) to make application to the Immigration Department for vise3 to the countries that he intends to visit; (2) if married, to obtain a declaration by his wife or by any person dependent upon him.; (3) to obtain a clearance from the Taxation Branch? “Will the Minister also say whether it is not a fact that in 1987 Mr. E. Thornton was granted a passport by the Lyons Government to proceed overseas in order to attend a Communist conference? In view of the general statements made by the Minister for Immigration and other members of the Government, will the Minister also say whether it is not a fact that the Government has the power to prohibit any undesirables from landing in Australia? Is it not correct that such power was exercised by a former United Australia party administration against Mrs. Freer who, although she was a British subject with a British passport, was refused admission to Australia and was subjected to a dictation test under the Immigration Act?
– She had a stinking record.
– Has not the Government still the power to exclude any one from landing if he fails to pass a dictation test?
– The matters to which the honorable senator has referred are peculiarly within the knowledge of the Minister for Immigration, and I hesitate to answer all the questions offhand. The reference made by the honorable senator to the exclusion of undesirable persons is, according to my recollection, correct. But it must be borne in mind that the power of exclusion is exercised under the Immigration Act and can be applied only to persons who are immigrants. That power cannot be applied to Australian-born citizens returning to Australia. The proper interpretation of the word “ immigrant “ raises a number of legal problems; for instance, whether a person who has become an Australian citizen as the result of residence falls within the ambit of the immigration laws. However, I shall direct the attention of. the
Minister to the matter that the honorable senator has mentioned and obtain the information that he requires.
page 1924
– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture aware that because of the closing down of flour mills in South Australia approximately 33 per cent, of employees in the industry have been retrenched? In view of the importance of th« flour milling industry and the hardship occasioned to the dairying, poultry and pig industries, by the closing of the mills, will the Minister inform the Senate of the results of his efforts to remedy the position and to have all mills working for at least one shift each day?
– Representations were made to me some time ago by the Honorable Frank Condon, of South Australia, and those representations were brought to the notice of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, who promised to use every endeavour to obtain contracts for flour. I regard the matter as of such importance that if the honorable senator will place the question on the notice-paper T will get the latest information for him.
page 1924
– Yesterday, it was stated in this chamber that the Tasmanian hop-growing industry was threatened with extinction because of price control. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture whether it is not true that price fixation in Tasmania is the sole responsibility of the State Labour Government? As this industry is of concern to the whole of Australia, has the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture inquired into the present relation between the fixed price for hops and the cost of production?
– Yes, the Prices Commissioner in Tasmania is responsible for fixing the price of hops. I shall refer to my colleague, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, that part of the honorable senator’s question which relates to the cost of production.
page 1924
– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs say whether it is a fact that, within recent weeks, Senator Morrow attended a peace conference in Melbourne? In view of theCommunist auspices under which the conference was held, will he inquirewhether Senator Morrow has any Communist affiliations?
– I saw a reference to this matter in a newspaper, but newspaper reports are not alwaysaccurate. I do not enjoy the confidence of Senator Morrow to the extent that he has told me whether or not the report is correct. In the circumstances, I do not propose to make any inquiries. If Senator Morrow cares to make information about this matter available, he may do so, hut he need not do so if he does not wish to.
– It is my business.
– I ask you, Mr. President, whether it is in order for an honorable senator to raise the question of the private affairs of another honorable senator?
– I consider that the question was in order.
– It was in very bad taste.
– Taste is a matter for individual senators. It is in order for an honorable senator to ask whether another honorable senator is a member, of a certain party. During my long connexion with the Senate, I have heard questions of that kind asked from both sides of the chamber. Whether or not a question is in good taste is a matter for individual senators to decide.
– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether he endorses the conduct that we have ju9t witnessed ? An honorable senator, in the guise of a question, made a serious charge against another member of the Senate that may or may not have any foundation in fact. I should certainly resist with all the power at my command if Senator McCallum, in the cowardly manner that he has exhibited this afternoon, attempted to do to me what he has done to Senator Morrow.
– Order ! The ^question asked by Senator McCallum contained no charge. An honorable ^senator who, in the course of a question, reflected upon the character of another honorable senator would certainly be called to order, because that would be disorderly conduct. If my memory serves me correctly, the effect of Senator McCallum’s question was to ask whether -Senator Morrow attended a certain conference. He did not make a direct charge.
– May I answer the question?
– Yes.
- Senator Collings has asked me to state my opinion of another honorable senator. I understand that the gravamen of his complaint is that, in his view, Senator McCallum expressed an opinion of another member of the Senate. I did not understand Senator McCallum to express an opinion of Senator Morrow. As far as my opinion of what Senator McCallum did is concerned, I agree entirely with_ the ruling that you have just given, Mr. President, fie asked ra reasonable question. After all, honorable senators are not entirely private -citizens. We are public men, and, as public men, our public activities and functions are the business of the public and also of the Senate. I have no comment to make. I do not know whether Senator Morrow did or did not attend the conference. If he did so, and if it is something of which he is ashamed, he has an opportunity to say so. If it is not true he has the opportunity to say -so. I, personally, have no comment to make on it.
– A similar question was asked in another place. It is very strange that this question should have been asked here in parrot fashion. That was probably done with the object of injuring Senator Morrow. I suggest that in future honorable senators should not be permitted to ask in this chamber, in parrot fashion. questions similar to questions that have been asked in the House of Representatives.
– I have no knowledge of what was asked in another place.
As President of the Senate, I have to interpret the Standing Orders as fairly as possible. Senator McCallum asked whether certain meetings had been attended by Senator Morrow. That question was in order, although in bad taste. I repeat that I have no knowledge of what was asked in another place. Therefore, my ruling stands. Each honorable senator has a perfect right to ask questions, which, if in order, shall be permitted.
– In view of your ruling, Mr. President, that the question asked by Senator McCallum was in order, I point out that the honorable senator made a definite charge which I know to be untrue. I did not ask my question in an attempt to defend Senator Morrow, who is quite capable of defending himself-
– I rise to order. I do not wish to stifle the honorable senator but I submit that if Senator Collings wishes to make a statement the correct procedure is for him to ask leave of the Senate to do so.
– I agree with the Minister for Trade and Customs that if the honorable senator wishes to make a statement he must ask the indulgence of the Senate to do so. I was listening carefully in order to determine whether Senator Collings was asking a question. The honorable senator is entitled to reasonable .time in which to frame hi.’ question. My impression was that Sena tor Collings was about to ask a question. If he wants to raise a point of order he can do so. Likewise, he may ask a question if he wishes to do so.
– I wanted to raise a question. You, Mr. President, have ruled that Senator McCallum’s question was in order. I am under the impression that you misunderstood my attitude in this matter. As I said before, I was not attempting to defend Senator Morrow. He can do so himself. Senator McCallum made a definite statement that I know to be untrue. It reflected upon me. He said that the peace organization was a known Communist organisation. That I know to be untrue. It reflects upon me in a very personal way. That is why I entered my protest about it. Apparently you overlooked the fact that the honorable senator made a definite charge that it was discreditable to an honorable senator to be a member of a trade organization.
– Does the honorable senator wish Senator McCallum to withdraw his statement?
– Senator McCallum made a statement which was a personal reflection on me, and I ask that it be withdrawn.
– As Senator McCallum made a statement to which Senator Collings objects, and wishes it to be withdrawn, I ask Senator McCallum to withdraw the statement.
– On a point of order. I understand that the practice is that if words used are offensive to an honorable senator, they must be withdrawn if he objects to them. However, the words must be specific, and they must be offensive to the honorable senator personally. Senator Collings has not indicated to what words he objects.
- Senator Collings mid .that Senator McCallum had made certain references to a peace organization to which he objected because they were personally offensive to him. I do not know whether Senator McCallum said that Senator Collings was a member of the organization, but the words used were offensive to the honorable senator, and he asked that they should be withdrawn. In such circumstances, the practice is for the President to ask the honorable senator who made the statement to withdraw it.
– Insofar as anything in my question may be held to refer to Senator Collings I withdraw it, although I did not have the honorable senator in mind when I asked the question.
– The honorable senator must withdraw the words.
– What words?
– You made certain references to a peace organization, t ask you to withdraw the words relating to the peace organization.
– Will you supply me with a Hansard report of the words complained of?
– I ask you to withdraw the words relating to the peace organization, and objected to by Senator Collings.
– I am anxious to obey your ruling, but I cannot remember the exact words complained of. So far as I can remember, I asked whether it was a fact that Senator Morrow - not Senator Collings - had attended a peace conference held under Communist auspices. If that is offensive to Senator Collings, I withdraw it.
– Senator McCallum, in asking a question about a peace organization, said that it was held under Communist auspices. I take it that Senator Collings objects to those words, and objects to the peace organization being related to the Communists. I shall not ask Senator McCallum again to withdraw his statement. If he refuses, I shall name him.
– I rise to order. It is incumbent on the senator taking a point of order and asking for objectionable words to be withdrawn to quote the words to which he objects. Senator Collings has not done so.
- Senator Collings said .that he objected to the words used by Senator McCallum when that honorable senator related two organizations in his question regarding Senator Morrow. I will say no more about it. I ask Senator McCallum to withdraw.
– I withdraw the words, “ Communist auspices “.
– Order ! There will be no further discussion.
Later:
– I ask leave to make a statement in response to the invitation of the Minister for Trade and Customs.
Leave granted.
- Senator McCallum asked a question in this chamber to-day for political purposes and in an attempt to discredit certain people. That question has no foundation whatever. The honorable senator is trying to institute a smear campaign like his comrade did in another place.
– Was the honorable senator not at the meeting?
– I was at the meeting and I was very proud to be there. Those at the meeting comprised 14,000 Australians who met to discuss peace. There was no association with any political party or any political propaganda. It was the most enthusiastic-
– I rise to order. If the honorable senator wishes to make & statement there can be no objection. The point is that the honorable senator is not making a statement. He is addressing the Senate in an harangue.
– Order ! Senator Morrow asked leave to make a statement. Leave was granted by the Senate unanimously, as it must be. Once having received the unanimous consent of the Sena.te, Senator Morrow may make his statement in his own way.
– It was the most enthusiastic and responsive meeting that I have- ever attended. People came there with the full desire to fight for peace. They came with one objective.
– What did the honorable senator think of the “Red Dean”?
– The “ Red Dean “ is a gentleman, which is more than I can say of the honorable senator who interjected. The audience was so responsive and -enthusiastic that within fifteen minutes it contributed £2,222 to the cause of peace. The money was mostly in £1 and 10s. notes. That showed that it came from the workers. Any man or woman who attempts to smear this peace organization which has for its objective the security of this country, is a traitor to the people. In the last war, 40,000,000 persons were killed and countless numbers- were left homeless. It was the greatest tragedy that the world has known. If the hydrogen bomb and the atomic bomb ar<» let loose, there is no telling what will happen. The people who were at that meeting know the danger of what can happen and they attended the meeting for the purpose of discussing the dangers and trying to prevent them. I know that certain members in another place, and in this chamber, represent people who make profits out of war. There is no profit in peace. If there were profit in peace, all the newspapers would support these people in striving for peace. But as there is no profit in peace, they are trying to work up a psychology to assist those people who make profits out of war and the sufferings of the working people of this country. I am proud to say that I was at that conference which was attended by delegates from all parts of Australia.
– There are a number of wreckers in this country.
– They are not wreckers. The people at the meeting were of all nationalities and colours, and they are affiliated with different political parties. I saw Country party people and Liberal party members there. The people who went to that meeting were honest in their desire to fight for peace. Any attempt to start a smear campaign will not cut any ice, because if one knows one is fighting for a just cause, one will stick to it regardless of what the warmongers say.
page 1927
– Will the Minister representing the Prime Minister inform the Senate whether Senator Collings is the individual known as “ Silver Collings “, who, in Queensland, referred to the First Australian Imperial Force as “ Six bob a day murderers “ ?
– Order !
Question not answered.
– Senator George Rankin under cover of a question-
– Order ! Is the honorable senator asking a question?
– I am referring to a question asked by Senator George Rankin in which he made a statement which was distinctly untrue. I demand that it be withdrawn because it is distasteful to me. Senator George Rankin said that I made a statement regarding men serving this country in war which I did not make. The honorable senator said it in no gentlemanly way, and I demand that he withdraw it.
– I rise to order. The first question was not allowed by you, Mr. President. The time has passed for the honorable senator to demand a withdrawal. He has lost it by effluxion of time, but, if you remember, sir, you disallowed the question.
The PEESIDENT.- When a question is disallowed, it is not then incumbent on me to call on the senator concerned to withdraw. In this case the question was disallowed. I called SenatorGeorge Rankin to order.
– I feel that I am suffering under a considerable injustice. Senator GeorgeRankin said that Joseph Silver Collings - that is myself - at some time not specified–
SenatorO’Sullivan. - I rise to order.
– I consider that the statement was most unjust to me.
– Order ! The business of the Senate must be conducted properly. There are Standing Orders, and those Standing Orders must be interpreted correctly as far as possible. Senator GeorgeRankin asked a question. That question was disallowed, and as it was disallowed that ends the matter. Senator Collings has made it plain that he objects to what was said, but I would point out to him that the question was disallowed. He will remember that I called Senator GeorgeRankin to order. If Senator Collings wishes to be in order, it is preferable that he should ask leave of the Senate to make a statement. It would be better for him to put it that way.
– I ask for leave to make a statement.
The PEESIDENT.- Is leave granted?
– No.
Leave not granted.
– The honorable senator may make a personal explanation.
– Order ! I do not know whether the Minister for Trade and Customs in addition to being the Leader of the Government in this chamber also wishes to be President of the Senate. I shall conduct this Senate to the best of my ability. Leave is not granted.
Motion (by Senator Ashley) proposed -
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Collings from making a statement.
– I shall be quite frank about this matter so that honorable senators may know where they stand. I have discussed the position which has arisen with certain persons and I understand that many years ago President Baker ruled that once leave to make a. statement is refused to an honorable senator, it is not proper that any one should move for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable him to do so. I have considered the matter, and in. spite of that ruling, I believe it to be grossly unfair that any honorable senator who has been maligned, or believes he hasbeen maligned, and wishes to make an explanation, should be denied an opportunity to do so although a majority of honorable senators may wish to hear what he has to say. I therefore, rule now that the motion for the suspension of Standing: Orders is in order.
– I rise to order.I submit that there is a difference between a statement and a personal explanation. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has indicated that if Senator Collings asks for leave to make a personal explanation, no objection will be raised.
– Senator Collings asked for leave to make a statement and; his request was put to the Senate. Many honorable senators said “ Aye “ ; some honorable senators on my right said’ “ No “. Therefore Senator Collings was not permitted to make a statement. The Leader of the Opposition has moved that Standing Orders be suspended. I now put that question to the Senate.
The question having teen put,
– There being an absolute majority of the whole number of senators present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative. The Standing Orders are suspended to permit Senator Collings to make a statement.
– I rise to order. I understand that an absolute majority of the Senate is necessary for the suspension of Standing Orders, and I submit that there is not an absolute majority on the Government side.
– When I put the question, I did not hear any “Noes”. Therefore there must be an absolute majority of the Senate in favour of the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator Collings may now make his statement.
– I regret exceedingly the incident that has occurred. [ have been a member of this chamber continuously for a longer period than any other sitting senator, except yourself, Mr. President. You and I were elected to this chamber together in 1932. I shall stand on my record. I decided some time ago that I would not seek re-election to this chamber because, having reached the age of 85 years, I believe that I have done my job, and that there is no necessity for me to continue my membership. Therefore I did not nominate at the last general election and I shall not have many more opportunities to speak in this chamber. I objected strongly to the statement made by Senator McCallum, and I thank him for his withdrawal of it. That ended that matter; but to allow proceedings to flow in the direction that they have taken this afternoon was unwise, as has been shown by subsequent events. Some unkind, undignified, and unstatesmanlike interjections have been hurled across the chamber. I heard one honorable senator - I am not sure who it was - refer to somebody’s “ stinking record “. Such conduct is not only unbecoming, but also it does a great disservice to the democratic institutions of this country including the National Parliament. Senator George Rankin might almost be excused, except that to allow his challenge to go unheeded might provide somebody with an opportunity to turn up the records of this Parliament at a future date, and hold the incident against me as evidence of my guilt. In very ungentlemanly language Senator George Rankin disclosed a measure of unkindliness of which I should otherwise have thought him incapable. He said that I, at some date unspecified, and at some place unspecified, had reflected on our men who were at that time fighting in defence of this country. That statement is not true, and there is no justification for it. Not only the remark itself, but also the manner in which it was made, were offensive to me, and for that reason I sought this opportunity to make a statement. I am sorry that the Senate had to go through the performance that it has seen this afternoon to provide me with that opportunity but I still demand that Senator George Rankin’s offensive statement to me be withdrawn unreservedly.
– Order ! We have dealt with this matter in accordance with Standing Orders, and we now pass to the next business of the day.
page 1929
Senator- O’BYRNE. - I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories by pointing out that tremendous goodwill can be engendered between Australian people and the citizens of Papua by the visit of the Papuan Constabulary Band, whose members gave such a fine display of their many good qualities in Canberra to-day. Will the Minister consider arranging for these Papuan ambassadors to visit Tasmania, as well as all Australian capital cities?
– I am unable to say whether the honorable senator’s suggestion could be implemented. However, I shall bring it to the notice of the Minister for External Territories.
page 1929
– I wish to ask the Minister for Trade and Customs a question with reference to a matter previously raised in this chamber. It relates to prefabricated houses offered to migrants in London by Mr. Russ Ley. The Minister said then that he would have full inquiries made and would report to the Senate. Has the Minister anything to report in relation to those inquiries ?
– I have initiated inquiries in regard to that matter. I ha.ve not received a full report yet, but as soon as I do I’ shall make it available to the honorable senator and to this chamber.
page 1930
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -
What provision is being made to provide increased office accommodation for the overcrowded staff in the Taxation Office in Hobart, Tasmania?
– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answer : -
Additional accommodation will be provided for Taxation Office staff in Hobart in premises it is proposed to erect in the near future.
page 1930
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice - ‘
– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has furnished the following answers: -
page 1930
asked the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport, upon notice -
Is the Government likely to pay subsidies to Ampol or any other company for petrol bought in sterling countries for distribution in Australia?
– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -
No application for subsidy in respect of any such petrol has been received or considered by the Government and in normal circumstance? the importation of petrol will not be subsidized.
page 1930
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -
In view of the high depreciation of pasturescaused by rabbits throughout Australia, will the Minister consider allowing a limited number of landholders in each State to carry out experiments with the virus disease as used by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in conjunction with and the supervision of that organization?
– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has furnished the following reply: -
There is nothing to prevent any landholder from conducting experiments for rabbit eradication on his own property unless, of course, he should be infringing some State legislative requirement. I suggest that landholders desirous of co-operating with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in the matter of such experiments should communicate directly with that organization
page 1930
In committee: Consideration resumed from the 26th April (vide page 1842).
New clause 2a.
– Pursuant to the intimation that I gave yesterday, I now move -
That after sub-section (1.) of section 94a the following new sub-sections be added : - “ (2.) An authority to which this subsection applies shall not, in determining the basic wage or any other wage or salary, determine a wage or salary at a rate less than the rate which it would determine if no endowment under this Part were payable. “ (3.) The authorities to which the last preceding sub-section applies are -
In support of the amendment, I acknowledge at once that the terms of the direction are wide. The direction is sufficiently wide to embrace not only endowment for the first child but also for the second and subsequent children, and it is wide enough in its application to apply to both Commonwealth and State authorities. It is also wide enough to apply to the basic wage, a term which lacks definition except in the popular mind. We had some discussion on the import of the term yesterday. The definition proposed is also wide enough to cover all wage and salary fixations by any of the authorities mentioned. Again I point out that the present basic wage inquiry is the first opportunity since child endowment became a legislative fact that the court has received a direction to assist it in considering the relationship of child endowment to the basic wage. The amendment, which is, in fact, consequential to the amendment which the committee wrote into the bill yesterday in the earlier part of the proposed new section 94a. is designed not only to inform the mind of the court of the intention of the legislature but also to go farther by directing the court and the various bodies mentioned in sub-section (3.) not to take child endowment into consideration in determining the wage or salary levels, or, in the appropriate case, thebasic wage.
In the course of the debate yesterday on the earlier part of proposed new section 94a I gave reasons to show that the Opposition believed that the section in its present form is a valid and con stitutional provision. I also referred to proposed new sub-sections (2.) and (3.).
– I do not think that the honorable senator was permitted to refer to them yesterday.
-I am dealing with them now, but by reason of developments in this chamber yesterday I expressed certain opinions on the power of the legislature to direct the court. 1 quite appreciate the desire of the honorable senator to hear me again on that subject, but I do not intend to weary the committee by repeating what I said yesterday. These two sub-sections translate into effect the declaration of intention that has already been written into the bill by the committee.I think that it will be agreed that that supplies practical evidence of the desire of Parliament to carry out what has been expressed to be the intention of the Government, namely, to ensure that child endowment shall be regarded as something altogether separate and apart from the basic wage and its fixations. The collating of the particular set of provisions in proposed new sub-sections (2.) and (3.) which are now under consideration will direct the bodies mentioned therein as to what they shall do. Such collation will do no more than give practical legislative effect to what the Government seeks to achieve and the Opposition is glad to assist it to achieve. Having regard to the fact that the Government yesterday opposed the inclusion in the measure of a declaration of intention, I do not entertain any hope that it will support the translation of that intention into practical legislative effect. I was disappointed yesterday that the Government would not carry its own expressed intention into legislative effect, and therefore I shall not be astonished to-day if it does not support the substantive operative clauses which we propose to include in the measure in order to translate that intention into operative effect. I commend the proposed new subsections to the committee.
– The two sub-sections now under discussion differ from subsection (1.) which was dealt with yesterday only because they go much farther than it does. The argument that
I presented to the committee in relation to .sub-section (1,) of the new section apply with greater force to the proposed sub-sections that are now under discussion. Yesterday Senator McKenna endeavoured to represent sub-section (1.) of the new section as a provision that merely expressed a legislative intent and could have no operative effect upon a wage-fixing tribunal. I suggested then that it would be difficult to limit its operation in the way that he suggested. There is no doubt that in being asked to agree to the proposed new sub-sections (2.) and (3.) the Parliament is being asked to give a definite direction, not only to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, but also to all other wage-fixing authorities in Australia regarding the manner in which they shall fix wages and salaries. That is without precedent. Ail that I said about the constitutional validity of the new sub-section (1.), the delays to which it may give rise as a result of constitutional arguments and the possibility of the award of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court being upset because the court acted in terms of that provision, applies equally to the proposed sub-sections that are now under discussion.
– What about the merits of the provisions?
– I can see no merit in provisions that are designed to direct the independent arbitration tribunals of this country how they shall do their work.
I have great difficulty in seeing how the proposed new sub-section (2.) could operate at all. It proceeds upon the entirely false basis that when the wagefixing authorities of this country fix a wage payable to employees we can find in that wage a sum that is attributable to a man and his wife and another sum that is attributable to their children. Unless a wage-fixing authority dealt with the matter upon that basis, it is extremely difficult to see how effect could ever be given to the proposed new sub-section (2.). Many wage-fixing authorities, including the Victorian wages boards, do not give reasons for their decisions; they merely make awards. All that is stated in the awards is that the wage that shall he paid to specified employees is so many pounds. In those circumstances, how could we determine whether an authority had given effect to these proposed subsections? All that it would have said is that employees in class A, for instance, must be paid £10 a week.
– In that event, how will the Government determine that the time has come when the payments under this bill should be increased to 10s. a week?
– All that we have to . do is to pay 5s. or 10s. a week, as the case may be.
– How will the Government ascertain whether a wage-fixing tribunal has complied with the terms of this proposed new section?
– That will not be my problem. It will he a problem created by this proposed new section, sub-section (2.) of which reads -
An authority to which this sub-section applies shall not, in deterunning the basic wage or any other wage or salary, determine a wage or salary at a rate less than the rate which it would determine if no endowment under this Part were payable.
– The Attorney.General is side-tracking the issue.
– I am facing the issue. Let us assume that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court fixed the basic wage at, say, £10 a week, that it gave the reasons for its decision and that it said, “ We have assessed this wage upon the basis of the ability of industry to pay. Whether child endowment were payable or not, we would have assessed the wage upon that basis “. If the matter stopped there, this proposed new section could have no operation. In those circumstances, the court would not have fixed the wage at a lower rate if it had taken child endowment into account. In that event, the proposed new section would have no operation because, unless the court cared to give the information itself, we should be unable to determine whether it had obeyed the section. It may he said that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court does give reasons for its decisions and that it may be expected to continue to do so. But wages boards do not do so. All that we have from a wages board is a statement that the wage to be paid to specified employees shall be so much, and it is impossible to determine whether the board would have awarded a higher wage if child endowment had not been payable.
– The Government has said that if the payments made under this measure are taken into consideration in the computation of the basic wage, the amount of the endowment will be increased from 5s. to 10s. a week. In view of the Minister’s statement that there is no way of finding out whether the payments have been taken into consideration, how will the Government acquaint itself of the position?
– It has been the practice of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to state the basis of its assessment. We have said that if the basis remains as it is at present, the proposed payments will be made at the rate of 5s. a week, and that if the basis is altered and the unit of a husband and wife is adopted, the endowment will be increased to 10s. a week. What I have said about this proposed new section is perfectly true. It proceeds upon the false basis that the wages fixed by wage-fixing tribunals in this country are determined upon a particular basis that has regard to a family unit consisting of a husband, wife and children, and that it is possible to ascertain what part of a wage is attributable to husband and wife and what part is attributable to children. In my view, the proposed new sub-sections are illadvised. The proposal is unprecedented. It calls upon this Parliament to interfere with the wage-fixing authorities in this country. We believe that it is open at least to the gravest constitutional doubts, and we are not disposed to introduce into this legislation elements in connexion with the fixation of the basic wage which might well invalidate the legislation and serve to delay the settlement of the case that is now before the court.
– The observations of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) have been interesting. However, I point out for his information that the most important tribunal in the industrial field to-day n3 the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. It is important not only by reason of the fact that the great federal organizations are registered with it and its awards cover a vast number of the workers of Australia, but also for the reason that quite a number of the State industrial tribunals either follow or are bound to follow what- the Commonwealth court does in the matter of the basic wage. The Wages Board of Victoria is obliged under law to follow the basic wage determinations of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration
– Under State law.
– I acknowledge that. I merely stress that the Commonwealth court is the more important court. The Minister himself concedes that the Commonwealth court gives reasons.
In the course of the last basic wage case in 1941, dealing with the subject of child endowment under that specific heading, each of the judges devoted a considerable portion of his judgment to the relationship between child endowment and the basic wage. The court was plainly embarrassed at that time by reason of the fact that there was merely an announcement, to which the court could give no great weight until it had been translated into statutory form. If I recall aright, one of the judges remarked that the task of the court would be greatly simplified if child endowment were introduced. It is completely clear in my mind that the Commonwealth court will, in the course of the current case, take up the question of child endowment and deal specifically and clearly with its relationship to the basic wage. It will be a source of great disappointment to the numerous great trade unions if the court does not do so. Even if I were to concede some virtue in connexion with what the AttorneyGeneral put to the Senate, I could not go all the way with his contention that this clause would have no effect. In the first place I point out that it would at least prevent employers and employers’ organizations from addressing arguments to the court and pressing the court to take child endowment into account. That is one big element that would be eliminated from the ambit of industrial disputes. I also put to the Attorney-General that one might very properly and reasonably assume that the various courts and ancillary bodies which operate in the industrial field will do what the law requires them to do. I acknowledge that in a comparatively unimportant field there may be a determination where the basic wage is fixed without any reasons being1 assigned for the determination and the principles upon which it is computed.
There is an extraordinary lack of precision in the approach even of the Commonwealth court to the fixation of the basic wage. Plainly its guiding principle is the capacity of industry to pay the greatest possible wage, having regard to the needs of the average family. At that point the court ceases to be precise. It affirms the proposition that it has never yet laid down what does exactly constitute the average family in Australia. I am putting to the Attorney-General that he cannot say with any precision whether the court regards an average family as a man and wife only, or as a man, wife, and one child, or as a man, wife, and two children. Neither the Attorney-General nor any other member of the Government can say that the basic wage to-day is fixed on any particular number of persons. It may even be fixed on the needs of a man and wife only.
– In 1941 the court said that the wage fixed was sufficient for a man, his wife and one child.
– I regret to disagree with the Minister. That was said by Chief Judge Beeby in the course of his judgment. It was provoked by Judge Piper and Judge O’Mara. In the course of my speech during the second-reading debate on this measure I devoted a considerable portion of my time to showing exactly what each of the judges, including the Chief Judge, said.
– None of them said that the basis was the needs of a man and his wife alone.
– I agree. Nor did they say that it was the needs of a man, his wife and one child, or a man, his wife and two children. The AttorneyGeneral has said that if in fact the court fixes the basic wage on the needs of a man and his wife, the Government will increase the proposed endowment under this measure from 5s. to 10s. I pose to him that this is his difficulty: Unless the court defines what constitutes the average family unit, how will he know whether he is obliged to increase the endowment to 10s. or leave it at 5s. 1 Is it not quite certain that in the past the court has deliberately avoided stating what constitutes the average family? Quite likely it will leave the Government and the Attorney-General in exactly the same position as they are in to-day. If it did, the Government would never be called upon to redeem its undertaking to increase the endowment to 10s. The position may be as vague, perhaps, in twelve months’ time as it has been since 1931 or thereabouts. If I am right in what I pose, the Government’s undertaking would be quite worthless and Government supporters could never be kept up to it. I repeat that the mere presence of this clause will act on the mind of the court. We must expect the court and responsible bodies to obey the law. Prima facie, we may take that to be the position. The more important tribunals lay their reasons on the table for everybody to see. There is no virtue in the argument of the Attorney-General that the proposed section, as drawn, will not have practical effect. I think that, on further consideration, he will concede the force of my argument, that counsel and advocates in the different authorities in industrial disputes will, in the light of the new section, no longer be able to argue, as .they are doing to-day in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, that the court should have referred to the spread of social services, and that, in particular, consideration should he given to the amount appropriated for child endowment from the national income*. If the honorable senator is keen to support this proposal, I would be prepared to consider any amendment he cares to suggest to remove possible weaknesses. If, for instance, he were prepared to make an addendum requiring the various industrial tribunals to state whether they did or did not take child endowment into account, I assure him in advance that T should be prepared to adopt his suggestion, although there might be more difficulty about the constitutionality of such a provision than about the one presented in the amendment. I submit that there is no substantial virtue in the argument which the Attorney-General addressed to the committee.
– I am prepared to accept the decision of the committee yesterday regarding subsection (1) of the proposed new section as indicating the conclusion that the committee has reached about the whole section. I take the view that the three sub-sections that make up the proposed new section are really inseparable, and should never have been moved separately. To do so was a time-wasting procedure, which prevented adequate consideration of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.), the effect of which could be properly understood only by reference to the other parts of the .proposed section. I was intrigued by the smooth invitation of Senator McKenna to the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) that he might patch up Humpty Dumpty, and supply an amendment that would serve to improve the Opposition’s awkward and ill-framed amendment in that legislation. Senator McKenna, if he had paid any attention at all to the judgment of the High Court from which I quoted last night-
– I dealt with it last night.
– I do not remember any reference to it, let alone any dealing with it. It has been laid down by the unanimous judgment of five High Court judges that, under the industrial power of the Constitution, it is incompetent for the Parliament to state principles for the computation of the basic wage - and that is what the Opposition’s present abortive attempt amounts to. I take Senator McKenna at his word, and say that we certainly expect that the courts, as responsible institutions, will conform to the law, just as they and the community generally expect the Senate, as a responsible organ of government, to conform to the law that binds it, namely, the Constitution. The High Court described the Banking Act as an attempt to exploit the constitutional powers conferred on the Parliament. The Senate, far from attempting to do anything like that, should recognize its proper limitations, and be careful to confine legislation to what it is constitutionally entitled to enact.
Sub-section (2.) of the proposed new section is a clear direction to authorities whose jurisdiction it is to determine wages, and in this instance the proposed legislation cannot possibly be divorced from the industrial power. It would be quite impossible - I am not dealing in shadowy doubts - to maintain a sensible contention in any court of law basing this provision upon the child endowment power introduced into the Constitution by the referendum of 1946.
The last point I wish to make refers to paragraph (e) of sub-section (3.) of the proposed new section. I shall be interested to hear any explanation of how we can possibly justify a direction to an authority whose power to fix wages or salaries derives from a State parliament.
– The honorable senator knows that endowment for the first child will be taken off the basic wage by the State authorities. The honorable senator has admitted his guilt.
– Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings comes truth! The honorable member who has just interjected is usurping the functions of his leaders. He heard the advice of Senator McKenna that honorable senators, including those on his own side, might be silent on these matters. I have some regard, on political grounds, for the rights of the States, and one of the rights the States are supposed to have is the right to deal with internal industrial affairs. The power of the Commonwealth in regard to industrial matters is limited to legislation for the conciliation and arbitration of industrial disputes of an interstate character. We know that some of the States have set up their own arbitration courts, and that others have set up wages boards. The amendment of the Opposition presumes to direct those State authorities regarding the considerations which they shall take into account when exercising their purely State jurisdictions. State jurisdiction can apply in two ways: one, as to State government matters, was referred to in the Melbourne City Council’s famous banking case and the other related to industrial matters that affect the citizens of the States generally. As to the first, certainly and as to the second almost certainly, I would suggest that a great disservice is being done to the people, who are entitled to child endowment law and to clarified industrial law, by encumbering the bill with these invalid provisions. I urge those whose purpose it is to legislate so that the basic wage will not be reduced or prejudiced, to submit legislation which at least has some semblance of validity.
– Having listened to the arguments of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) and Senator Wright, it appears to me that there has been a very earnest and well ordered endeavour by the Government to have this matter positively related to the fixation of wages and industrial conditions. With their tongues in their cheeks, they have quoted frequently from Mr. John Curtin’s statement that there is no relation between the basic wage and child endowment, yet throughout this debate they have tried to make their statements in such a manner as to say, in effect, that there will be relation between child endowment and other social services and the basic wage or the wage structure of this country. It is their desire not to say so, hut to go just so far as to say that there should be no indication to the court and that there will not be any appearance in the court to express the intention of the Government. Nor will they put any provision in the bill that will make the intention of the Parliament quite clear. The argument of the Opposition is that this new section clearly shows the intention of this Parliament that child endowment is a social service not, in any way, related to industrial matters. If it had contained a positive direction that the court shall take into consideration certain factors or that it shall increase the basic wage, such a direction might interfere with section 25b of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but it is negative to the extent that it says that this is a social service measure. It is not related to any industrial conditions as honorable senators on both sides have declared.
As a representative of the workers and one who has been in charge of the State disputes committee of Western Australia, I know that disputes continually arise causing expense to the workers’ organizations in finding out the intention of the legislature. The expense to which the workers have been put in settling matters under workers’ compensation legislation where the intention is not clear is shameful. In this case the intention has been made clear in a negative sense and without offence to any court. Tho Attorney-General says that it is possible for the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to make an award and for that award to be set aside as invalid as a result of this legislation. I think that he is wrong. If the decision of a .judge sitting alone is disagreed with an appeal is made to the full court, and if the full court upholds him, there is no fear of an arbitration award being set aside. It is different from any other section of law. It cannot be invalidated by any court if it has been accepted by the full bench of the Arbitration Court. The AttorneyGeneral says that there may be a chance that somebody will take action but honorable senators on this side of - the chamber do not know who it may be. I do not think that it will be the court, because this clause is negative. The amendment before the chamber merely says that those authorities mentioned in sub-section 3 shall not confuse this as a matter to be married to industrial conditions, but that endowment is a social service quite distinct and apart. If it came to an argument as to whether the court operated outside its jurisdiction and exceeded its powers, which are very wide under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the legal complications may be different but T cannot see that this amendment would be invalid. I think that it is an essential provision.
Honorable senators on this side were determined to make a clear distinction between social services and payment for work performed. Before the Government became aware of that, its supporters argued along the line that child endowment was not related to industrial conditions. The court was not affected. Nobody would know whether the court included three, four or two units in a family, and therefore those concerned were able to say to the court, “ Do as you like “. But they hoped that it might take child endowment into consideration. The Attorney-General suggests that the court will make a statement which will show the basis on which it assesses the wage, and will say, which it has not done up till now, that child endowment will not be taken into account. If the court does that - and on all precedents it is unlikely that it will do so - then, says the Attorney-General, the Government’s pledge will be kept and child endowment will be increased to 10s. for the first child. The Attorney-General also indicated that if the court does not do so, the Government will have no further worries. Therefore, it appears clear that the Government’s only fear of this amendment is that it will make the intention of this Parliament too clear, that it will stop argument in regard to the intention of this Parliament, and that it will spare expense by the workers and others who seek to know whether social services and industrial conditions are married. Quite apart from his satire, Senator Wright correctly described it as an awkward clause. It is awkward to a government which does not want to carry out the promise that it made to the electors. It is a very essential provision, if the intention of the Parliament, which has been stated repeatedly, is to be made clear, and I support it.
– It was quite interesting and amusing to hear the cynical remarks of Senator Wright, but I do not think that he is the fount of all wisdom, although he would have honorable senators believe that he is so. It appears to me that this amendment is necessary as a corollary to the amendment agreed to by this committee last night. It simply indicates that an industrial authority shall not make or determine a basic wage which takes into consideration any payment made under this legislation. I can see nothing wrong with that. It is an indication to the nation of the mind of this Parliament. The opinion of the Parliament should be predominant in every instance and any subsidiary bodies, whether they be State arbitration courts or other wage- fixing boards, should have to take cognizance of the opinion of this Parliament and give effect to it. The AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) said that the passing of this amendment would create a precedent. What is wrong with precedents ?
– They are all right if they are good ones.
– This is a particularly good one. It is, in fact, very essential. I believe that in the Anglo-Saxon community we are too prone to live on precedents. Because some of our forefathers made a decision we seem to have the idea that we have to be bound by those decisions. That does not suggest progress. It indicates to me a state of stagnation. While the Attorney-General referred to this aspect of creating a precedent, the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), who introduced the bill, told honorable senators to be courageous. Honorable senators on this side are trying to be courageous. They are trying to do something in the interests of those people of this country who have their standard of living determined by arbitration; they want to ensure that child endowment shall not be taken into consideration when the wage-fixing tribunals determine the wage that workers shall receive.
I believe that this amendment is in full accord with a decision of the majority of the people in 1946. In that year a referendum was taken in respect of social services. The question of child endowment was of particular importance. That referendum was necessary because a doubt had been raised as to the constitutionality of certain social services legislation which had been enacted by this Parliament previously. It was argued that the legislation was outside the scope of the written Constitution of Australia. In consequence, there was only one place to go for an opinion and that was to the electors. They were told that the Parliament had enacted certain legislation of a social character and that there was a danger that it would be declared unconstitutional, particularly if an approach were made by somebody to the
High Court. In consequence, the people were asked to give their opinion whether this Parliament should have the power in the future to make laws for the good government of this country with respect to other social services including child endowment. I believe that this amendment is quite in accord with the written Constitution of this country because when that referendum was decided the majority of the people agreed with the request of the Government of that time. A new power has been written into the Constitution and we must consider this legislation in the light of that power. There is no ambiguity about the power; it is clear and complete. It provides that this Parliament may make laws providing social services, including child endowment, for the people of this country. So far, the first child of each family has not been endowed. That endowment is provided for in this legislation. There is nothing wrong with this proposal, but there is a real danger that endowment of the first child will be taken into consideration by wage-fixing tribunals in making their determinations. I remind the Senate that even now certain State governments - they are not Labour governments, of course - are intervening in the basic wage case now before the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and urging the court to take social services into consideration in reaching its decision. I suggest in all sincerity, therefore, that it is competent for this Parliament to insert in legislation a provision such as that now under discussion. Whether that provision can be construed as a direction to the Arbitration Court or not, the fact remains that this Parliament has full authority to legislate for the payment of child endowment. It can determine who shall be the recipients of child endowment payments, and it can stipulate that such payments shall not be regarded by wagefixing authorities as sufficient reason for fixing lower wages than they would otherwise determine. That is the real fear of the Opposition. We have been asked why Labour governments did not endow the first child of each family. The answer is clear. To the best of my knowledge, arbitration courts at present fix the basic wage on the basis of the needs of a family unit of three. That matter has been the subject of considerable argument in this chamber, and I shall not canvass it further at this stage. The States have their own statutory wage-fixing authorities. Western Australia, for instance, has its own arbitration court, which is obliged to declare a basic wage once each year. That wage is determined under four main headings - food, clothing, rent and miscellaneous. It is not uncommon for litigants before arbitration courts - I refer particularly to employers’ representatives - to argue that because certain social services are available or certain amenities are enjoyed by employees in industry, the basic wage should be reduced accordingly. That principle has been accepted on occasions. Therefore, what is there to prevent an employers’ representative from arguing on some future occasion that in reaching a decision in a wage case the Arbitration Court should take into consideration the contribution to family income proposed in this measure. That could be regarded as a sound argument, and I have no doubt that it will be used. As I have said, it is now being used in the present basic wage hearing by certain State governments. In these circumstances, the fear that Opposition senators have expressed in this chamber is reasonable, and is not merely a nightmare resulting from their efforts to delay the passage of this measure. When this Parliament legislates for social services, it should not be possible for some other authority to regard those social services as justification for fixing a lower wage than it would otherwise have determined. As the basic wage has been determined on the needs of a man, wife, and one child, there has been no danger that endowment of the second and subsequent children would result in a reduction of that wage.
We are not dealing with powers under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. We are dealing with a new constitutional authority empowering the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate in respect of social services, one of which is child endowment. As the Commonwealth is to provide the money required to implement this legislation. is it not right that the Commonwealth Parliament should he able to ensure that the child endowment payments shall confer upon the people of this country the benefit for which they are designed? Whether the provision is constitutional or not from the point of view of our arbitration law, it is constitutional under this legislation. Is there anything to prevent this Parliament from declaring to wagefixing authorities that child endowmentis an ex gratia payment and must continue to be so regarded?
– Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.
– I have been very interested in the approach that representatives of the legal profession have made to the Opposition’s proposal. I am reminded of an experience that I once had. In the course of a lengthy Arbitration Court discussion, the judge informed me rather sternly that I was under an obligation to respect the majesty of the law. I replied that it was not a question of respect or disrespect, but whether I agreed with the law or His Honour’s interpretation of it. If I agreed, I should accept what His Honour said, and I should accept the law, but if I disagreed I should challenge His Honour and the law. That is the common sense approach to questions such as this. I remind the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), Senator Wright, and other honorable senators who have expressed similar opinions, that a certain element of risk cannot be eliminated from any proposition. There is always a risk of an adverse ruling by a judge. No matter how carefully a direction may be given, there will be some risk. The Attorney-General knows that as well as I do. He expressed some concern because he considered that the Opposition was taking a risk. I am prepared to take that risk and to argue the issue on its merits. Those of us who have had many years of experience in negotiating industrial agreements or fighting for increased wages and improved conditions of employment, know that if we want to succeed in any proposition, we must state our case as plainly as possible in the form of a direction to the authorities concerned. The proposal now under con sideration is, as the Attorney-General has correctly pointed out, to give a direction to wage-fixing authorities. That is our right, and we are expected to exercise it. The courts are not superior parliaments. The Parliament is expected to give directions to subordinate governing bodies, and that is what the Opposition now proposes. That is my approach to Senator McKenna’s amendment. I have asked myself “ Is this amendment necessary ? “ and my answer, born of my experience, is that it is necessary. After listening to the arguments of the Attorney-General and Senator Wright, E felt that I should like to have an opportunity to reconsider the whole position so that 1 could suggest that the amendment could be made even more watertight than it is at present. Experienced industrial advocates know that unless a provision is expressed clearly and convincingly, the other fellow will generally get the benefit of the doubt. The object of this amendment is to make the intention of the Parliament clear. The Attorney-General objects to a direction being given to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. As I said by interjection, every act that the courts are called upon to administer constitutes a definite direction to the courts to do this or that. Certain latitude is necessarily allowed because all legal provisions are to some degree elliptical, leaving something to be understood, and that of course opens the way for prolonged and unnecessary discussions in the Arbitration Courts. The Attorney-General said that delay would occur in dealing with this measure, but I cannot imagine any greater delay than we have experienced over the years in the interpretation of statutes by the industrial courts. In my judgment, the time has arrived when statutes should be made much clearer in form and expression. Judges who are called upon to exercise discretion, to apply the law, and to give judgment in accordance with the evidence submitted to them are entitled to receive the greatest assistance that the Parliament can give them in interpreting its wishes. For those reasons, I have no hesitation whatever in supporting the proposal to issue a specific direction to the Commonwealth Arbitration
Court. Senator Wright argued that the proposed amendment is invalid, but I point out to him that that is only his opinion, and that it does not follow at all that judges will necessarily accept his opinion as being the law. Indeed, the honorable senator has placed himself in the impossible position of having attempted to forecast the view that the court will form on a particular matter; and we all know that in legal matters no one can dogmatize. Those who have had substantial experience of parliamentary procedure and the operation of the industrial courts must realize that statutes must be more definite in their language and contain more precise directions than they have hitherto. If the Government wishes to minimize industrial troubles it must assist the Commonwealth Arbitration Court by making the intention of the legislature as clear as possible. Unless that is done there is no possibility of avoiding industrial unrest and strikes, to which honorable senators opposite take so much objection. Of course, I admit that I am a mere neophyte in legal matters, although, over the years, I have had quite a lot to do with industrial courts. Because of that experience, I say now that statutes which affect industrial matters must be made much clearer than has been the case in the past, and that is why we should give a definite direction to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to assist it to fix the new basic wage on proper grounds. In reply to the objections raised by the Attorney-General, that in giving such a direction we might be establishing a precedent, I say that we should not hesitate to establish precedents, because we should look forward rather than backward. This is an opportunity to break new ground legally and constitutionally. Therefore, I am happy to support the amendment. I repeat that if the Government really wants the measure to work effectively the Parliament must make its intention much clearer than it has done formerly. I also believe that Parliament should not delegate so much power of interpretation to the judges as it has done formerly. It has been truly said that power delegated is power wasted, and we should not delegate more power to the judges than is absolutely necessary. The judges should be given directions, just as any other authority charged with carrying out administrative duties is subject to direction. The whole Public Service is based on the principle of the Parliament and the Government directing it about what should be done. In conclusion, I repeat that neither the Attorney-General nor Senator Wright has put forward any logical ground why the amendment should not be accepted.
– I did not intend to speak to this amendment. I approached these proceedings with the thought at the back of my mind that the issues involved were of such a completely legal nature that debate upon them should be confined to members of the committee on both sides of the chamber who possess legal qualifications. I thought that if other honorable senators, including myself, listened to them they would obtain a clearer picture of the realities of the situation than would be gained otherwise. I feel now that my judgment was correct. I think that the debate that took place in this chamber yesterday afternoon, which really resolved itself into a duel between the legally qualified members on each side of the chamber, was a most interesting interlude, and without any disrespect to honorable senators generally, I feel that because lay members of the committee have taken part in the debate this afternoon the debate has suffered in consequence.
Only two issues are involved in the proposed amendment. The first point is whether Parliament should give such a direction as that proposed to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, and the second is whether the legislature is constitutionally capable of giving any such direction. Concerning the first point, I have stated my view, and that of the Government, which is, that it would be unwise to issue any such direction, because the Commonwealth Arbitration Court should be allowed to approach its responsibility in its own way. I believe that the court will do a better job in this complicated matter if it is left to its own volition than it will if it is compelled to construe and disentangle a direction of the legislature as expressed in a statute. First. the Government will not, as a matter of principle and policy, give a direction to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court; and, secondly, and on a lower level-
– We are the Parliament, of course. .
– We are the Parliament, as the honorable senator has pointed out, but, although it is a sad fact to have to admit, I believe that the people would feel more confidence in the court determining these matters than it would in the Parliament doing so.
– That is a vote of no confidence in yourself.
– It is ridiculous to suggest that my remarks constitute a vote of no confidence in myself. I think that it is quite impossible for a constituent assembly such as this to lay down the manner in which a special tribunal should determine a highly complex and contentious matter. The other point is the legality of the proposal, and that, of course, goes to the root of the whole matter. I may be bold enough to tell a story which I remember from my early days of a king who proposed to appoint one of his subjects a cardinal. His advisers said that they had 100 different reasons why the king should not appoint the man he had chosen. The king said, “ Give me the reasons “. One of the advisers said, “ Well, the man is dead, sir “, and the king said, “ Then, spare me the other 99 reasons”. That is my answer to the contentions raised by the Opposition in this matter. All other arguments become meaningless when there is the slightest suggestion that what is proposed is not practical from the legal viewpoint.
I propose now to take the war right into the enemy camp by asking this question of honorable senators opposite: if they were a jury empanelled in this particular matter and they had heard the arguments that have been advanced in the course of this debate, would they fairly come to the conclusion that the amendment proposed is legally foolproof?
– Yes, of course.
– I suggest that it would not be a fair answer for them to say that they could go into the matter with so much confidence as that.
– Does a jury deal with law or fact?
– That is not appropriate to this particular point. This is where we stand at present: the Government has the responsibility of introducing legislation that is valid and will work. There is the gravest doubt whether this proposal is constitutional.
– The question is whether it is right, irrespective of the legal position.
– It is useless to consider whether a provision is right or wrong if it cannot be phrased in such a way as to make it legally valid.
The Government does not agree with the principle of directing the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, but that is now a matter only of theoretical interest, because the proposed new sub-sections that provide for a direction being given to the court are, in the view of the Government’s legal advisers, not constitutional. Having said that, I do not think I can be accused of being dogmatic or over-emphatic if I say that in no circumstances can the Government agree to the insertion of the proposed new sub-sections.
– Senator Wright was critical of the fact that the Opposition has presented the proposed new section 94a in two parts. I should have thought that we would win the approval of the Government by giving it an opportunity to write into this measure an expression of the intention that it has put before the Senate. We realized that the Government might hesitate to direct the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, and we gave it an opportunity to say whether it was prepared to write into the measure a declaration of the intention that its spokesmen have repeatedly announced in this chamber. We tested the Government on that, but it was not prepared to do so. In those circumstances, it must accept responsibility for the suspicions that may lurk in our minds regarding the bona fides of the avowals that it has made from time to time. The criticisms voiced by Senator Wright of the action of the Opposition in breaking up the proposed new section into as many parts as it thought fit wore, apart altogether from what I have just said, not justified.
Yesterday Senator Wright referred to the High Court’s reference to the scope of the industrial power, but he was absent from the chamber when I dealt with that matter. He raised it this afternoon, and again he is absent from the chamber. I place on record the fact that in the case cited by Senator Wright the High Court was considering only the scope of the industrial power, which I have already conceded is of a very limited nature. But, a3 I pointed out yesterday, we on this side of the chamber are not relying upon the industrial power but upon the great, new and later power to provide child endowment. We wish to ensure that expenditure upon child endowment shall achieve the objective for which it is designed and that the intention of the Parliament is not defeated or frustrated. Yesterday I mentioned enough law to show that it is not merely an article of faith with us that the proposed new section is valid but also that there is sound legal ground for the stand that we are taking.
Senator Wright and the Minister for Social Services (‘Senator Spooner) urged us to observe, the limitations of the Constitution. The Minister, very naively, said that if there is any doubt of the validity of what we are proposing to do, it is better left alone. I can conclude only that the Minister is young in the processes of Commonwealth legislation. If his proposition were sound, there would never have been a Federal Constitution. Consider the simple power that is relevant to these proposed sub-sections, that is, the industrial power which provides for the making of laws with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention or settlement of industrial disputes. I have expressed it briefly, but that is substantially the effect, of the words used in the Constitution. I do not suppose that any words in the English language have ever been subjected to so much legal interpretation as have those words. Scores of volumes of law reports are devoted to arguments and findings by the High Court on the meaning of every one of the words. What is conciliation? What is arbitration? Do both those words apply to prevention and settlement, or does conciliation apply to prevention and arbitration to settlement? What is a dispute?
When is a dispute an interstate dispute ? All those questions have been the subject of disputation, arid that disputation will continue almost to the end of time.. When the Minister said that if there is an element of doubt about the legality of the proposed sub-sections we should drop them, he was really enunciating .the proposition that the Parliament should not legislate at all, because in any field that matters in the Commonwealth sphere, where we operate under a written Constitution, every move that is made must be made having regard to the meanings of particular words. If the Parliament had never acted until there was complete certainty, the number of statutes on the Commonwealth statute-book would bc insignificant.
The Opposition has frankly conceded that there may be constitutional difficulties in the way of doing what has been suggested. I said yesterday that I thought that the difficulties would flow, not from any lack of content in the power in relation to child endowment, but from the view that the High Court might take of the inter-action of that power and the limited industrial power. No authority other than the High Court can resolve that question. The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) and I could dispute about it all day long, and neither he nor I would be embarrassed by the fact that we held entirely differing opinions. As one honorable senator said yesterday, the judges of the High Court differ quite violently on occasions.
– Strongly, not violently.
– I was not using the word “ violently “ in the physical sense. As the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) knows, there were violent conflicts of opinion between the judges of the High Court in the last pharmaceutical benefits case. In that case, five judges held that the words relating to the prohibition of civil conscription applied only to medical and dental services, and the Chief Justice held that they applied to age and invalid pensions and all kinds of other heads of power.
One would think from remarks of honorable senators opposite that we were seeking to tear down the whole of the wage structure, which is based upon, the experience of many decades. The Opposition is, in effect, asking the Government, by writing this proposed new section into the bill, to say to the industrial tribunals of Australia, “ The National Parliament has provided child endowment to help the people of this country. Please do not take that one element into account in your wage fixations”. That is all that the proposed new section will do. There is no attack upon the courts. After all, courts are the creatures of parliaments. The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration is the creation of this Parliament. It has not been given a jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the Constitution; the parliament has imposed restrictions upon it. An examination of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act will reveal that as recently as 1947 ,the Parliament said that the judges of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court should cease to perform some of the functions that they had previously performed because those functions were being relegated to conciliation commissioners. The court was left with approximately four main matters to deal with. I suppose that the Minister for Social Services would claim that when the Parliament passed that act it interfered with the Commonwealth Arbitration Court.
– The constitutionality of it is not beyond question.
– In view of the atmosphere of the Senate during the last few days, I am not surprised that the Attorney-General has made that remark. I point out that the act has not yet been challenged. The fact that it has survived for three years during a period of great industrial disputation is a strong argument in support of its constitutionality. No side of industry has been prepared to risk its time and money in contesting it before the High Court. That is a tribute to the validity of the measure from those engaged in the industrial field. If we examine the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, we shall find in it many provisions that are in the nature of directions to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. There is a section of the act that directs the court regarding preference to unionists, and confers certain powers upon it subject to certain limitations. It is not a new thing for the National Parliament to grant a court jurisdiction and then to contract, expand or take away that jurisdiction, even to the point of abolishing the court. Although the Parliament cannot dismiss the judges, it can abolish courts. It is obvious that the Parliament has exercised a vast power over the legal structure of this country. Honorable senators opposite have held up their hands in horror at the thought that we may direct a court, but it is of the very essence of the nature of parliamentary activity that we should do so, within, I concede, the limits of the Constitution.
What we are asking the Government to do is something that is entirely in line with its own avowals, that is, to help us to take the only effective step that will ensure that child endowment shall not be whittled away and the intention of the Parliament frustrated by industrial tribunals. We are asking the Government to say to the tribunals that they shall not take child endowment into account in determining the basic wage. That would leave them with all their other functions. It would leave them with authority to consider amenities, the national income, superannuation, long service leave, sick leave and a thousand and one other factors concerning the relations between employers and employees.. Why should the Government hesitate to say to the industrial tribunals of this country, “ Leave that one matter alone “?
– In view of the remarks of the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), I propose, in all humility and with a good deal of trepidation, to say a few words about the proposed new sub-sections that are under consideration. The Minister suggested that this matter might well be left to the legal members of the Senate. As I am not a member of the legal profession I feel somewhat timid about expressing my views on this matter. However, it is apparent that the discussion on the amendment has done two things. It has been most interesting not only from the legal aspect but also from the point of view of the general intention of the
Government in relation to child endowment. Legal senators opposite have expressed doubts about whether the proposed new section is constitutional. As a layman I should like to put before the committee my idea of what is covered by the amendment. I suggest to the Government, and particularly to legal senators opposite, that there is no relationship between child endowment and the basic wage. I have formed that opinion after studying the source from which the money to provide child endowment is derived. The court fixes the basic wage and adds specified amounts for skill and responsibility. What remains from the pool of wealth that is established as a result of the application of labour power to raw materials is that a certain portion of the proceeds remains with the employers. Taxation laws are then introduced to authorize the extraction of certain amounts of money from both the employers and employees. The proceeds are credited to the National Welfare Fund, from which child endowment is paid. Obviously, therefore, child endowment is quite distinct from the basic wage. All wage-earners and employers are taxed, and, in fairness, the court should recognize that the income remaining with them is not static. From time to time the Parliament authorizes the extraction from them of a greater proportion of their income, and directs that the proceeds shall be paid into the National Welfare Fund. Therefore, we should depart entirely from a consideration of whether the proposed new section is constitutional or otherwise. Child endowment is in the same category as sick pay, long service leave, and annual leave benefits that have been awarded to the workers from time to time. It stands quite apart from the basic wage. The fears of Government supporters are not well founded. Frequently, after counsel for both sides have placed argument before the court, the judges have had to interpret the acts of this Parliament.
Apart from the fears that have been expressed by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) and his junior counsel - I refer to Senator Wright - another very significant feature has developed during this debate. In the light of the Government’s reluctance to accept our proposals we are justified in viewing the Government’s introduction of this measure with very grave suspicion. As has been said before, the question of child endowment is in doubt for the first time. In his reply to Senator McKenna this afternoon, the AttorneyGeneral exposed the whole hypocrisy of the argument that was advanced by the Minister for Social Services in his second -reading speech. I am not implying that the Minister willingly misled the Senate. The AttorneyGeneral asked how it could be determined whether the court had taken child endowment into consideration in determining the basic wage. In his policy speech the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) stated that if he were returned to power he would introduce a measure to provide for the payment of 5s. a week endowment in respect of the first child in every family under the age of sixteen years, and that if the court should depart from the existing practice, the amount would be increased to 10s. a week. The Opposition is perfectly justified in asking the Government how it will discover whether the court took into consideration the fact that the first child in every family had been endowed. If the Senate does not accept the amendment that has been proposed by the Opposition, at what stage will the Government honour its promise to the people by introducing amending legislation to increase the endowment payable to 10s. a week? The whole subject is shrouded in suspicion. The fact that supporters of the Government have made so much of this matter indicates that they desire the court not to pursue a free and untrammelled course in determining the amount that industry can afford to pay to the workers. It is obvious that the Government desires that influence shall be brought to bear so that the court will be apprised of the Government’s view that endowment of the first child in every family should have an effect on the court’s judgment. The workers of this country well remember that when child endowment was first introduced by an antiLabour government in the federal sphere conditions similar to those at present operating existed, inasmuch as the court was adjudicating on the basic wage. The Opposition is perfectly justified in proposing the amendments to ensure that the legislation will express as clearly as possible, in unmistakable language, the intention of the Parliament in regard to this matter. I suggest that, in the course of their legal careers, the AttorneyGeneral, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan), Senator Wright, and Senator McKenna, in their many appearances before the courts of this country, have presented argument to the bench, following which the judges have expressed doubt about what was the intention of the legislature when it enacted certain legislation. They may have presented to the judges some of the secondreading speeches of Ministers when introducing bills-
– No.
– No doubt they will recall many instances in which judges have said, in effect, “ It is not so much what was said as what is stated in the printed word that we have to interpret. Although Parliament may have meant something different, we must be guided by the words of the act “. I suggest that in arguing cases before a court it would be most valuable to even the most eminent lawyers if they were able to quote a provision as specific as the new subsection that was passed by the committee last evening. That states distinctly and specifically that whatever the court may be doing, whatever thought may be running in the minds of the eminent gentlemen who comprise the bench of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, there is at least one phase that they must dismiss entirely from their minds, having in view the fact that child endowment is as applicable to the millionaire as to the basic wage earner.
– Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.
– In my opinion, the Minister in charge of the bill is very obstinate, although his supporters may say that he is merely determined. He is like a sprite that flits from flower to flower, changing his colour to suit the flower he visits. In his second-reading speech, he said that he believed that child endowment should be something separate and apart from the basic wage, but in the statement he made a little while ago he said that, in no circumstances, would he agree to any proposal that wage-fixing tribunals should be directed to disregard child endowment when fixing wages. That statement represents a change of front. I have listened to honorable senators, who are lawyers, arguing this matter in the committee, and I say as one who has been a member of an arbitration tribunal that I can well understand why the trade unions, and even some of the employers’ associations, objected to the presence of lawyers in arbitration courts.
– With what result?
– The absence of lawyers has resulted in more peace in industry, and in the quicker hearing of applications.
– The union advocates took six months to present their case in the basic wage hearing.
– That is by the way. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) compared this committee of 60 honorable senators with a jury, and asked how it could be expected to give a decision on a legal point.
– That is not fair. My point was that the committee could not be expected to decide whether a legal point was involved.
– When legal points arise, they can be decided by the appropriate authority, namely, the court. Here, we are dealing with matters of fact.
– I thought we were making laws.
– I do not know what the honorable senator is mumbling about, but I am trying to answer the statement of the Minister for Social Services. Some time ago, the Parliament passed legislation providing for the payment of hospital allowances, but it did not provide that the benefits of the payments should go to the patients themselves. The result. was that hospital charges immediately wentup sufficiently to swallow the allowances. Some years ago, when pensioners were given an increase of 2s. 6d. a week, which was all that the economy of the country could stand at that time, there was a howl all over Australia from pensioners that their rents had been increased by an amount corresponding to the increase of their pensions. The Opposition is now trying to ensure that those to whom child endowment is paid shall, in fact, receive the benefit of the payment. There is nothing ambiguous about that; it is a simple matter of fact. We propose to introduce into the bill, first a declaration of intention, and then a direction as to how that intention is to be implemented. There is no reason why that should not be done. The High Court has held that where a power exists, incidental power also exists. I do not think that our power to legislate in respect of child endowment has been challenged. We know that so long as a system is working effectively, no one thinks of challenging it. The challenge comes when the operation of a system hurts some one. Incidental to the power to legislate in respect to endowment is the power to legislate in order to ensure that the intention of the legislature is not thwarted or defeated. Thus, we have the right to direct wage-fixing authorities not to take child endowment into consideration when fixing wages.
Those of us who have had dealings with the Commonwealth Arbitration Court know that the Labour movement has never denied the limited jurisdiction of that court. We always knew that an award of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court could apply only to those who came under the jurisdiction of that court, but some of the State wage-fixing authorities, including those in Victoria and South Australia, now act upon whatever basic wage is declared by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court under the “C “ series index. Therefore, the basic wage fixed by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court can automatically affect workers under the jurisdiction of other tribunals. The Opposition is now asking that a direction be given to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to ignore child endowment when fixing the basic wage, and this is important because it can affect persons under other jurisdictions, as well as those under its own.
There is nothing wrong with the Opposition’s amendment, and I make a last appeal to the Minister in charge of the bill not , to be pig-headed. He has admitted that those to whom endowment is paid are entitled to receive the full benefit of it. Therefore, he should not oppose our amendment.
Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.
Proposed sub-sections agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 -
– (1.) Section ninety-five of the principal act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “ (2.) In the case of an endowee other than an institution, the rate of an endowment shall be
SenatorMcKENNA (Tasmania) [8.1]. - I move -
That sub-sections (2.) and (3.) of proposed new section 95 be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following subsection : - “ (2.) The rate of an endowment shall be Ten shillings per week.”.
In my second-reading speech on behalf of the Opposition, I foreshadowed that this amendment would be moved. In support of the amendment I point out first that the money is obviously available. Honorable senators know that from the state of the National Welfare Fund. We know secondly that the Government in its proposals to the electors and in the second-reading speech of the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) that was made in this chamber, intimated that in a certain contingency it would be prepared to pay 10s. instead of 5s. Accordingly, the Government acknowledges itself that sufficient funds are available and that in a certain event it would be prepared to pay the 10s., so I suggest that the Government and the Opposition reach common ground at once that there is no question about the availability of the money. The second point is as to the hopeless inadequacy of the sum of 5s. to make a substantial contribution towards the welfare and health of the children of this country.
– It is more than nothing.
– It is definitely more than nothing, as ls. would be more than nothing. The committee is considering the proposals of the Government, and I have no hesitation in stating that the quantum of the endowment proposed for the first child is hopelessly inadequate. The Government has already conceded that even 10s. is not adequate to maintain a child. It acknowledges quite properly that the 10s. for each child is only a contribution towards its maintenance. If that is its view of a payment of 10s. a week, the position is stronger when it comes to a contribution of only 5s. a week. If the Government will pause to consider for a moment the effect on a family where there are four children, I am sure that it will concede that 5s. will not be earmarked for the first child and expended on him or her alone, but that it will go into the mother’s budget and will be spread over all four children. I doubt that there can be any contest on that point.
Let me analyse the 5s. payment from the point of view of four children. That means exactly ls. 3d. a week or a little over 2d. a day for each child. I am sure that the Government, when it looks at the payment in that light, will recognize that the contribution is infinitesimal. What justification is there for making a contribution of 10s. to the second, third and each subsequent child and determining that 5s. is adequate for the first? Why should there be any distinction between the contribution from the National Welfare Fund towards the maintenance of the first child and other children in a family? I see no reason in principle why there should be. There is certainly no financial or administrative obstacle and I urge the Government to consider the case that the Opposition is putting forward. I refer now to a very undesirable feature of apportioning 5s. a week to the first child and 10s. a week to the subsequent children. Take the case of a family where the eldest child is just under sixteen years. That child, whom I shall call “A”, will be receiving 5s. a week. The second child, whom I shall call “ B “, will be attracting 10s. a week. The moment that child “ A “ reaches sixteen years, the endowment for child “ B “ will be reduced. Not only does the 5s. payments for “ A “ cease because he is sixteen, but, under this proposal, child “ B “ comes off the 10s. basis and drops hack to 5s. That is a glaring anomaly and a blot on this legislation.
– It dropped to nothing under the honorable senator’s administration.
– I am pointing out the position under the Government’s proposal.
– Not yours.
– If the honorable senator keeps on interrupting, I shall have to draw attention to the fact that he argued in this chamber that the basic wage covered a man, wife and one child. I remind him that there was a very strong reason in the Labour Government’s mind for not endowing that child and disturbing the structure of the basic wage. Even when conceding additional endowment the Opposition does not propose to permit the government of the day to disturb that structure and take action that will result in lowering the standards of living and the emoluments received by the workers of this country. That i3 an entirely different position. I put the position that a further anomaly will be projected into the child endowment structure. When child “ A “ reaches sixteen years, child “ B “ will drop from 10s. to 5s. It is not necessary for the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) or the Minister for Social Services to say that some time ago when there was another government, the second child received nothing. Honorable senators are not living in the past. This chamber is dealing with a proposal that is before it now. It is examining the implications of the proposal and its imperfections, and the Opposition urges upon the Government to be generous in this matter. Again I cannot resist quoting from the Minister’s second-reading speech to show his approach to additional endowment. I invite the committee to remember that the Minister had in mind the sum of 5s. a week when he said -
All these great national reforms need to he approached with courage. Each time that progress is suggested- and on this occasion it is the Opposition that has suggested progress - there are to be found some reactionaries-
I leave it to the Minister to identify them - who express the view that the nation cannot afford the expense involved.
– The reactionaries are the people who want to kill the bill.
– At some time when his utterances will not be disorderly, the Attorney-General might undertake to inform the committee who are the reactionaries that his colleague had in mind. Let me continue with what the Minister for Social Services had to say-
There are always some who, perhaps timid; weak and apprehensive, fear that social reforms will weaken standards of living in some direction. I emphasize that this Government holds firmly to the view that the peace, contentment and happiness of the Australian nation depends upon all sections of the community making their just contribution to higher standards of living. I say, therefore, to those reactionaries, or those who are timid and fearful, to accept the proposal with courage. I have no doubt at all that if they do this they will in the future look back with satisfaction to the fact that they made their contribution to the joy and happiness that this measure will bring to over 1,000,000 families in Australia who will benefit from it.
– The honorable senator should have said, “Who would have benefited from it “.
– Tie AttorneyGeneral is raising another issue. His remark leads me to observe that the Government of this country from which one would expect a very high degree of responsibility, and which is bound to do its best to honour a pledge that it gave to the people of Australia, the moment that it meets with proposals from the Opposition that are designed to achieve two purposes - to protect the wage structure of the workers of this country which is completely in line with the expression of thought by the Government, and secondly to give a greater financial benefit to the people - with the utmost petulance, lack of responsibility, and disregard for the pledge that it gave to the people of Australia declares, “If you persist with your amendment, the Government will give the people nothing. If the Opposition majority in the Senate, is not- prepared blindly to accept os. a week endowment for the first child and no protection to the workers of this country as to their standard of wages, the Government will give the people of Australia nothing.” That is the attitude that Senator Spicer is taking by his interjection. It is a petulant, most irresponsible attitude, and if the Government persists, it will have to accept full responsibility before the people. It is quite futile for the Government to try to pretend, as undoubtedly it is doing, that the Opposition wants to wreck this bill. Here is a bill that the Opposition seeks to improve. The Opposition has already done so by writing into the bill a safeguard for the basic wage and the wage structure of this country and for the people who are in the employee class. I leave this amendment with the Government on behalf of the Opposition. I ask the Minister whether there is any financial difficulty. I ask him to have in mind the fact that his Government contemplated the payment of 10s. a week in certain circumstances. I ask the Minister if there is any administrative difficulty and why a Government of the Commonwealth of Australia should adopt such a petulant attitude as to say that it will give nothing if it cannot give the people 5s. endowment. I have referred to administrative difficulties or rather to their absence. I have already indicated to the committee that I appreciate the fact that there is a lot of printing to be done, and that the note printer who prints the orders which are issued under child endowment is particularly busy. In short, it takes months to make administrative arrangements of this kind. I concede all that. I do not doubt that the scheme will not be ready for operation before the 20th June. I assume, from my knowledge of the working of the department, that the order forms providing for a payment of 5s. have already been printed, but if the Opposition’s amendment were accepted, there would be no difficulty from an administrative point of view, in circulating to all paying officers an instruction that on the forms specifying a payment of 5s., the sum should be read as 10s. Then, when the stock of existing forms was exhausted, new forms providing for a payment of 10s. could be printed. The forms are all identified by numbers, and there could be complete control of them and of their value.
– Why not print them in Chinese and have complete confusion?
– The honorable senator should be serious in his approach to this very important problem. Clearly the honorable senator has no knowledge of the administrative work involved in implementing a scheme of this kind, otherwise he would realize the practicability of the proposal I am making. In any case, this is a matter for the Minister. I have put my case to him, and it is up to him, with his greater knowledge of the matter, to controvert my proposition if he can. I urge the Government not to be petty, timid or apprehensive. It should be courageous. Honorable senators opposite have acknowledged the Government’s ability to pay 10s. a week, and have admitted that even that sum would only partly cover the cost of maintaining a child. I urge therefore acceptance of the amendment that the Opposition has submitted.
Senator SPOONER (New South Wales
The amendment must stand on its own feet. It is not now associated with the amendment that was moved earlier. This is a separate proposal that child endowment in respect of the first child should be increased from 5s. a week to. 10s. a week. The proposal calls for comment in plain and simple terms. I should be lacking in my responsibility if I failed to say that, in the Government’s opinion, the Opposition is insincere in submitting the amendment. This is merely a plan to destroy the legislation. The Labour party held office for many years in this Parliament, and during that time it contested two elections. On each occasion it repudiated our proposal that this legislation should be introduced; yet honorable senators opposite now have the effrontery to argue in this chamber that, in drafting this measure, the Government has been too mean. They claim that the payment proposed by the Government should be doubled.
– They were not game to say that on the hustings.
– That matter wa9 never raised by them on the hustings. Nobody will give the Labour party any credit at all for adopting such a miserable method of destroying this legislation, which clearly is the purpose of this amendment. That is my case, in brief and in full. Whatever I may say in elaboration of it, my theme must be the insincerity of the Opposition. The Labour party did not have the courage to advocate on the election platform the payment of 10s. a week in respect of the first child of each family.
Senator McKenna said that no financial problem was involved. Such a statement bespeaks complete irresponsibility. This legislation in its present form will involve an annual expenditure of £15,000,000. Child endowment is merely one of many social services that place heavy demands upon governmental funds.
– The Government’s alternative proposal for the payment of 10s. a week must also be irresponsible.
– The Government promised that the payment under this legislation would be increased to 10s. a week in certain circumstances, and, should those certain circumstances arise, that promise would be honoured. Whether or not the finances of the country could stand certain demands, is not a matter for the Opposition to determine. The issue is rather how the available funds can best be- used. I am sure that if honorable senators opposite were returned to the treasury bench - heaven forbid that should ever happen - they, too, would take all steps necessary to ensure that the national finances were kept in a sound state to meet any contingencies that might arise in the future. This legislation must be considered in relation to the whole social services field. It is the responsibility of the Government and not of the Opposition to determine the financial policy of this country. The Opposition is seeking, in effect, to take the business of governing this country out of the hands of the Government, and no responsible government worth its salt could allow that to happen.
Senator McKenna also claims that no administrative problems of any consequence would be involved if the Opposition’s proposal were adopted. I only wish that that was true. This very matter was given long consideration by my department in an endeavour to ease some of the difficulties. It was discussed by officers of my department with representatives of the Treasurer, the AuditorGeneral, and the Postmaster-General. The eventual decision was that in no circumstances could the Government permit orders involving such substantial sums of money to be cashed over the counter at other than their face value. That administrative difficulty, I confess openly, is one of the matters that is causing me the greatest concern. I am sure that Senator McKenna realizes more than he would care to admit in this debate, just what is involved. The Department of Social Services has to be ready on the 20th June to pay endowment under the old system or to implement the new scheme provided for in this measure. It has taken some months to gear the administrative machinery for the payment of the additional 5s. for the first child of each family. Acceptance of this amendment would mean that the department would have to revert to the old system. I may, perhaps, be some- what bitter or upset because of the opposition that ha9 been raised to this legislation - the first that I have handled in this Parliament - but I have no hesitation in placing the entire responsibility for the present situation on the Opposition. If, because of this amendment, the Government is unable to embark upon its new scheme on the 20th June, the sole responsibility will lie with the Australian Labour party to its eternal shame and discredit.
– I regret to hear such strong terms as those used by the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner). We in this chamber should be able to discuss important matters objectively and without resorting to abuse. I ask the Minister whether, in the course of tha administrative arrangements that he is now making, he has already had the necessary order forms printed for the payment of 5s. a week?
– No. They are not ready yet. The machines are geared up to run them through.
– Apparently, then, we are in a rather happy position. As the forms have not yet been printed, it would be a simple matter to substitute “ 10s.” for “ 5s.”. Not one day need be lost through this alteration. I say accordingly that the Minister’s admission contradicts his own statement in reply to our request that the proposed child endowment be increased from 5s. to 10s. a week for the first child.
– But I have made it perfectly plain that the Government will not increase the amount from 5s. to 10s.
– Although entitlement to the proposed increased endowment would commence on the 20th June, the payments would not be made until the 18th July, which is the end of the four-weekly period. It is clear, therefore, that under the Government’s proposal there will be no payment this financial year. On the Minister’s own admission it would be perfectly easy to increase the proposed payment from 5s. to 10s. a week without disturbing the machinery that has been established to make the payment.
– The Government will not accept the proposal to increase the payment to 10s. a week.
– I am hopeful that the Government may yet see the wisdom of our proposal. However, I was making the point that although the Minister said earlier that an alteration of the proposed payment from 5s. to 10s. a week was impracticable because the first payment could not he made on the due date-
– It will be 5s. or nothing.
– I regret to hear that from the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer). However, in making that utterance he probably feels somewhat petulant that this chamber has not agreed to the Government’s proposal.
– Paney the honorable senator talking about Ministers being petulant! Honorable senators opposite are constantly hurling abuse at members and supporters of the Government, and then they have the audacity to complain when we correct them.
– I am getting weary of listening to the pontifical pronouncements of the left-wing opposite. During the course of the second-reading speech that I made on this measure over a month ago I drew attention to what happened in 1941 when child endowment was introduced by the Menzies Administration. The present Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt), who introduced the bill on that occasion, pointed out that the tax concessions that previously applied in respect of the second, third, and subsequent children of a family would be discontinued, and in consequence the taxpayers lost approximately £2,000,000. If a similar provision were introduced now the loss to the taxpayers would be considerably higher. Whilst I am not informed on the point, I should estimate the amount involved at from £5,000,000 to £7,000,000. If the Minister can furnish exact information on the point I should be glad if he would do so. The request that I made to him when I raised this matter on the 22nd March, was that the Government should indicate before the bill was passed through the Parliament whether it intended to withdraw the tax concessions in respect of the first, second, or subsequent children. When the concession was withdrawn in 1941 the sum of £2,000,000 saved by the Government undoubtedly went some distance towards financing child endowment. I acknowledge now, as I did in my second-reading speech, that it was a Labour administration that actually restored the tax concession. The present Minister for Labour and National Service made the pronouncement when the bill was introduced, but it was the Curtin Administration which succeeded it that actually implemented the proposal. An income tax assessment bill had been introduced by the Menzies Administration and passed through the Parliament just a few days before Labour took office. At the time we were in the midst of war, revenue was important, and the right honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Chifley), who was then Treasurer, announced that the withdrawal of the tax concession would be adhered to, in view of the undertaking given by the previous administration. However, within six months Labour restored the taxation concession in the form of concessional rebates.
– That has a lot to do with the amendment under discussion !
– It has indeed. I should be happy to connect my remarks directly with this amendment, because the proposal of the Opposition is that endowment should be paid at the rate of 10s. a week for the first child, and the Opposition is concerned that the payment should be in full and not be whittled down by the withdrawal of some tax concession.
– That has nothing to do with the amendment.
– It has a great deal to do with it.
– There is no suggestion of withdrawing any tax concession.
– If the Government is going to pay 5s. in respect of the first child out of one hand, but is going to put out its other hand to withdraw the tax concession in respect of the endowment paid for the second and subsequent children, it will not be making a net payment of 5s. a week in respect of the first child.
– No one has suggested that the Government will do any such thing.
– I am not suggesting that. On behalf pf the mothers and children of this country, I am merely asking the Government for an assurance that history will not be repeated. The Government has had ample notice of my request for assurance on this point. On the 22nd March last I asked the Minister to let the Senate know what the Government had in mind on this matter, but, in the course of his reply to the secondreading debate, the Minister made no reference at all to the matter. I again ask him now whether he or his colleagues have given consideration to the request that I made on the 22nd March, and, if so, with what result.
– [ think that I should reply to Senator McKenna, even if my reply will not be entirely satisfactory to him. My reply is that there never has been any suggestion that the Income Tax Assessment Act should be amended, nor have I ever heard any one connected with the Government discuss the matter. The Government does not propose to add to the tax hurden of the people, because one of the chief criticisms that we made of the last Administration was that it unwarrantably increased the tax burdens of the people.
– I appreciate the point that the Government has not suggested that the tax concessions should be abolished. I was well aware of that fact when I made my request to the Minister, but what I asked the Minister is whether any consideration has been given to the request that I made to him on the 22nd March. If the matter has been considered by the Government, can he say whether the Government has made up its mind that the concession will not be altered ?
– I thought that 1 said that the matter had not been considered.
– I requested the Minister to consider the matter on the 22nd March last, and I have again to ask the Minister this evening whether any consideration has been given to the request that I made formally on behalf of the Opposition. It would not be courteous cf the Minister to ignore our request. The Minister has had ample opportunity to canvass this matter with his colleagues. 1 am perfectly aware that at present the Government is engaged in an overhaul of the taxation machinery, but I am also aware that it is most unusual to ignore a request made by the Opposition in either House of the Parliament, and I feel that the Minister has treated the Opposition in this chamber with some discourtesy in not having replied to my submission. If the Government proposes with one hand to distribute £15,000,000 to the people, but with the other to withdraw £5,000,000, £S,000,000 or perhaps more that would be an act of hypocrisy.
– That could not be done without the consent of the Parliament.
– That is so, but I intimated a month ago that the Opposition is most concerned to know whether that will be done.
– It seems utterly strange that the amendment under discussion should have been proposed by the Opposition at the present stage. We know that it is an established fact that Labour has turned its back on endowment for the first child of a family.
– No; we are supporting the bill.
– The Opposition is apparently endeavouring to steal the Government’s thunder. However, we are responsible for the introduction of this social legislation, and it is of no use for the Opposition to try to claim this legislation as its own. The provision of funds for our proposal involves a financial problem of great magnitude, and I think that the Opposition has tended to ignore that angle. Members of the Opposition talk about the large balance in the National Welfare Fund. I do not deny that there is a substantial balance in that fund, but a full programme of social services will make considerable demands on that fund. For one thing, the expenditure of £15,000,000 for which this Hil provides will be a major item. If the Government’s proposal to pay 5s. a week were increased to 10s. a week that would double the Government’s commitment, or, in other words, £30,000,000 would have to be provided from the National Welfare Fund for endowment for the first child. I emphasize that the fund, in addition to providing the money for endowment for the first child, must also provide for a variety of other social services.
– The National Welfare Fund is growing year by year.
– But if the Opposition persists in endeavouring to increase the commitments of that fund it will not be long before all its money is disbursed. As the supporters of the Government we are responsible for the preservation of that fund in the interests of the social welfare of the people generally. If this amendment is carried and, as a result, the payment of an endowment to the first child of every family is delayed, over 1,000,000 Australian families will hold the Labour party responsible for that delay. Let there be no mistake about that. If the implementation of the measure is delayed by the actions of the Labour party, the people will bear that fact in mind at the next general election.
The Opposition is attempting to usurp the functions of the Government. Having regard to the fact that it has bludgeoned two amendments through the committee, it could easily exhibit a little generosity by allowing the Government to implement its proposal to pay this endowment at the rate of 5s. a week.
– Is the comment by Senator Hannaford that the Opposition, having secured the acceptance of some amendments, should be content to relax in regard to this one, to be regarded as an intimation that the Government is prepared to accept the earlier amendments and not treat the bill as having been killed if we meet it on this amendment? Has the honorable senator made an official pronouncement, and, if so, have I interpreted it correctly? Is the Minister for SociaL Services (Senator Spooner) prepared to say, on behalf of the Government, that if the Opposition meets him on this amendment, he will accept the previous amendments and that the Government will secure their acceptance in another place?
– I did not say that.
– I am asking whether that is a proper inference from Senator Hannaford’s statement.
– Senator Hannaford has said that he did not say that.
– I have not suggested that he did. I am asking whether that is a proper inference to draw from his statement and, if it is, whether it will be confirmed by the Minister.
– In opposing this amendment, which is designed to increase the proposed payment from 5s. to 10s. a week, honorable senators opposite have relied upon the fact that during the general election campaign the present Government parties promised the people that if they were returned to power child endowment in respect of the first child in every family would be paid at the rate of 5s. a week and that, if the basic wage were adversely affected by that payment, the endowment would be increased to 10s. a week. They have now placed before the committee a proposition that they did not place before the people during the election campaign. It is, in effect, “ If you are prepared to sell or jeopardize your right to an arbitration court award providing for a basic wage which includes an element of from 17s. 6d. to 25s. a week for your first child, we are prepared to pay you child endowment in respect of that child at the rate of 10s. a week “.
The Labour party did much to improve social services, but it did not make those improvements the subject of specific preelection promises. It doubled the rate of child endowment for second and subsequent children, and substantially increased the rate of age and invalid pensions, without having promised specifically to do so. Senator Hannaford has claimed child endowment for the first child as the baby of the present Government parties, but when we on this side of the chamber try to make that baby a well-fed one, honorable senators opposite suggest that we are trying to kill it.
Since the present Government parties made their promise to pay child endowment in respect of the first child at the rate of 5s. a week, the value of the £1, on the Government’s own admission, has depreciated. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest, on that ground alone, that the proposed rate of payment should be increased. There was no suggestion by the present Government parties during the general election campaign that this scheme might be financed from a source other than the National “Welfare Fund, and I hope the Minister will assure us that there will not be an increase of taxes to finance it. The Labour party has always made it clear to the people that while it is in office social services will be increased and extended only when the financial position of the country will permit of that being done.
– I rise to order. The only question at issue now is whether the endowment should be paid at the rate of 5s. or 10s. a week. I suggest that Senator Cooke’s remarks are irrelevant to the clause.
– The honorable senator is in order provided he connects his remarks with the clause.
– I am addressing my remarks to the statement by Senator Hannaford that the present Government parties made a promise in connexion” with child endowment and that the Labour party did not do so. It is not the policy of the Labour party to attempt to gain political advantage by making promises. We believe that social services should be provided on the most generous scale possible. I do not say that if the Labour party had been successful at the last general election our first step in regard to social services would have been to provide endowment for the first child. It is probable that we should first have granted increased benefits to totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen or increased the rates of age and invalid pensions. It has always been the policy of the Labour party that child endowment should be separate from the basic wage and that it should be paid to each child, and immediately we found that it was possible to pay child endowment to each child without affecting the industrial wage structure of this country we should, had we been in power, have paid it. Some honorable senators opposite have quoted the statement of the late John Curtin that there is no relationship between child endowment and the basic wage, but we have always been afraid that the payment of child endowment to the first child might affect the basic wage, and that is the reason why the previous amendments were moved.
The present Government parties experienced no difficulty in promising the people during the election campaign that, in certain circumstances, child endowment in respect of the first child would be paid at the rate of 10s. a week. In fact, on political platforms in Western Australia the sum of 10s. was mentioned more often than was the sum of 5s., and with no qualification. The canvassers for the present Government parties told many women that the endowment would he 10s. a week. They did not suggest that it would be difficult to provide the money to finance payments of 10s. a week. They said that the National Welfare Fund was in a strong position. That is the manner in which this scheme was canvassed throughout the country. I remind the Government that although it is taking the credit for this bill it cannot detract from the achievement of the Curtin Government in establishing the National Welfare Fund and putting it upon a sound financial basis. If the National Welfare Fund had been in existence on a solid basis during the period of office of some antiLabour administrations, those administrations would not have been forced to reduce age pensions and to take liens upon the property of age pensioners. The National Welfare Fund was established and made strong by a Labour government. It is now sufficiently strong to enable this endowment to be paid at the rate of 10s. a week. The Government told the people that, in certain circumstances, it could be paid at that rate without embarrassment. Now that increased prices have increased the cost of living, the Government should agree to the amendment.
– For two days the committee has listened to legal arguments and, as a layman, I have become quite confused. I believe that the amendments to the bill that have been carried will jeopardize the whole of our social services. That fear has been freely expressed on the Opposition benches.
– Who has expressed it?
– I believe that every honorable senator is anxious to preserve the independence of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. We all support the arbitration system. I do not believe that we have given the judges of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court full credit for their ability. Honorable senators opposite did not dream that the Labour party would be defeated at the last general election. They told us that they were in office for twenty years. We have been told that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court adjourned the hearing of the basic wage case because the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) promised the people that if the present Government parties were returned to power child endowment in respect of the first child would be paid at the rate of 5s. a week. The Labour party made no promise in relation to the endowment of the first child. The judges of the Arbitration Court saw further than did honorable senators opposite. It saw that they were for the “ high jump “. The judges of the court possess much more ability than do the members of the Opposition.
It will be refreshing for the people to know that this Government has sufficient backbone to adhere to its proposal to pay this endowment at the rate of 5s. a week. After eight years of spineless administration, the people will be pleased to know that it has a Government that does not propose to climb on to the band wagon and abandon its promises. It would be very easy for the Government to say that the endowment will be paid a t the rate of 10s. a week, but it is charged with the administration of the country, and the essence of good administration : sound finance. This Government will administer the finances of this country properly.
– I rise to order. 1 submit that Senator Mattner is not dealing with the clause.
– The honorable senator is in order if he connects his remarks with the clause.
– I shall vote against the amendment. I want everybody to know that I support the payment of 5s. endowment for the first child in every family under the age of sixteen years.
– The newspapers will publicize your view.
– I am concerned not so much with that aspect of the matter as with the underlying principle.
– Which is not to give the mothers of this country too much.
– The Government intends to adhere to its intention that the amount of this endowment shall be 5s. a week. The security of Australia is of the utmost importance. That is one of the reasons why I consider that the endowment should remain 5s. a week in order to assist to preserve the security of the finances of this country.
– I was interested to hear Senator Mattner admit that he has a very great fear, because for a lengthy period of time he has not had any sort of feeling at all. Unfortunately he did not tell us of what he is afraid. However, he admitted that he was afraid of something. Usually the honorable senator wanders along in day dreams and regales honorable senators with fairy tales, such as the one that he told about me on one occasion.
– I rise to order. T lake exception to the honorable senator. remark.
– No point of order is involved.
– Senator Hannaford implied that if the Opposition would signify that it was content with the amendments to this measure that have so far been agreed to, the Government might consider those amendments to be in the best interests of the people, on the understanding that the Opposition would agree to the amount of endowment to be paid under this measure remaining at 5s. a week. I should be pleased if the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) would inform me whether I have placed the correct interpretation on Senator Hannaford’s- remarks. The Minister was at pains to stress the physical difficulties that would follow acceptance by the Government of the proposal by the Opposition that the amount of endowment payable under this measure should be increased to 10s. a week. The Minister stated that it would be impracticable for suitable administrative arrangements to be made so that the first payment could be made on time. I should like the Minis,ter to explain whether he stressed the physical difficulties involved because he does not favour an increase of the amount payable to 10s. a week. Would it be possible to overcome those difficulties if the commencement of the operation of this measure were deferred for a specified period? The Minister emphasized that acceptance of the amendment to increase the amount payable to 10s a week would involve delay in the printing of warrants. Could that difficulty be overcome by the Opposition agreeing to the passage of this measure to provide for payment of 5s. a week, with the proviso that the amount payable would be increased to 10s. a week in, say, three months time? If so, I repeat my previous suggestion, that progress should be reported to enable representatives of the Government and the Opposition to confer to decide what length of time should elapse before the payment would be increased to 10s. a week.
It has been my practice never to doubt the sincerity of any man. In my opinion the Minister’s abuse of the Opposition does not prove his sincerity. Why should he doubt the sincerity of an honorable senator on this side of the chamber who moves an amendment which is supported by his colleagues? No credit is reflected upon the Minister by his abuse of the Opposition in this matter. As I have pointed out previously, honorable senators now sitting in opposition may have had different beliefs in years gone by. However, new times demand new measures, and new measures demand new men. Every honorable senator is entitled to change his ideas in accordance with a changing economy in order to support the provision of the greatest benefit for the majority of the people. Although statements have appeared in the press to the effect that this measure will benefit only 400 families, I point out that it will benefit every mother in this country with a child under the age of sixteen years. About 1,000,000 people will be benefited. It is highly desirable that press statements about these matters should be accurate. Many honorable senators have devoted a lifetime of service assisting to uplift the great human factor in this country. I therefore trust that the Minister will refrain from abusing honorable senators on this side of the chamber in future.
– Clearly, the issue before the Senate is whether endowment for the first child in each family under the age of sixteen years should be at the rate of 5s. a week, as provided in this measure, or at the rate of 10s. a week, as proposed in the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition. Although honorable senators on the Government side of the chamber have complained that the Opposition has employed delaying tactics, I consider that the delay in the passage of this measure has been caused by the Government’s attitude.
– What else is the Opposition doing?
– Senator Mattner has stated that the Government that was supported by honorable senators now sitting in Opposition was spineless. I recollect that that Government was without a majority in the Senate. Despite the fact that the war was in progress, it enacted legislation to provide sickness benefits for the people of this country. At that time the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who was then sitting in opposition, opposed the bill.
Let us consider of what value 5s. a week endowment in respect of the first child in each family under the age of sixteen years would be to the mothers of this country. The purchasing power of that amount is now only about 2s. When I asked Senator Robertson recently what the Child Welfare Department of Western Australia pays to foster-mothers, she informed me that the weekly allowance varied from 10s.- to 15s. If that amount is paid to foster-mothers, surely the natural mothers are at least entitled to similar consideration. The National Welfare Fund, which was established by the government that I supported, now has a substantial credit. Although Senator Mattner has asked why Labour did not enact legislation to provide endowment for first children, I remind him that during the administration of the Curtin and Chifley Governments endowment for children other than the first was increased bv 100 per cent. Labour also introduced measures to provide for the treatment of tuberculosis, hospitalization benefits, and other social services. I also remind the honorable senator that the Government that he supported previously would not even carry on the war effort of this country.
– That is entirely untrue.
– In view of the decrease of the purchasing power of money, 5s. a week will not enable mothers to purchase very much.
– About two potatoes.
– As honorable senators know, the price of milk has again been increased, and the price of eggs is 4d. each. Senator Robertson has been in public life in Western Australia for a considerable period. In view of the fact that the Child Welfare Department of that State pays foster-mothers an allowance greatly in excess of 5s. a week, I do not think that she is sincere in her support of the payment of only 5s. a week endowment for the first child in each family under the age of sixteen years. The Labour party does not want any kudos for attempting to have endowment for the first child raised to 10s. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) said that, if his party were returned to power, he would restore value to the £1. Well, the £1 is not worth much more than 9s. at the present time, and inflation is becoming worse. Of what use would 5s. a week endowment be to any one? Only last week, the basic wage was raised by 3s. Despite all the oratory before the election, the Government has made no attempt to stop inflation, and recently the Prime
Minister stated that it was the responsibility of the people themselves to stop it. Like Senator O’flaherty, I take a serious view of statements which tend to belittle the remarks of honorable senators on this side of the House.
– I rise to correct a statement made by Senator Fraser. I came into this chamber in 1944, and the anti-Labour parties did not have a majority in the Senate then.
– There were too many of them, anyway.
– Unfortunately, we did not have a majority. I am not in the habit of telling fairy tales, and if I told one on this occasion, I was merely repeating what the honorable senator himself had said.
– I should like the Minister to give some definite information regarding tax concessions. Will the Government guarantee that the concessions will continue so far as child endowment is concerned?
– I thought I had answered that point. No consideration at all has been given to the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act in relation to child endowment, or to any other matter. I did not refer to the Government the matter raised by Senator McKenna because, with all respect, I did not regard it as being of sufficient importance. As I have said, there has never been any suggestion that a compensating alteration should be made to the Income Tax Assessment Act to cover child endowment, but it is the policy of the Government to reduce the tax burden rather than to increase it.
– The Minister referred to certain physical difficulties associated with the payment of endowment for the first child. Has- the Government been deterred by difficulties of that kind from paying the 10s. a week endowment for the first child? If so, how long will it be before the Government will be able to pay 10s.?
– I did not reply to Senator O’Flaherty’s observations, because I did not wish to prolong the debate. Senator Mattner made it clear that a wrong inference had been drawn from what he said. I do not favour paying 10s. endowment for the first child except in the circumstances outlined in the present Prime Minister’s policy speech. The Government’s proposal is to pay 5s. endowment for the first child, and 5s. only. I do not know how honorable senators associated the payment of 10s. with the date upon which the scheme is to commence. What I said was that by the 20th June the department would be ready to pay endowment for the first child. I am concerned over the statement that I displayed more heat in the debate than was justified. However, all the heat was not on my side. Many accusations of a lack of bona fides were made by honorable senators on the other side, and there is a responsibility on a Minister to reply to such accusations, more particularly when the bona fides of the Government is less open to question than is that of the Opposition.
Question put -
That the words proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.
The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. M. Nicholls.)
AYES: 28
NOES: 17
Majority…. 11
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator McKenna) agreed to -
That proposed sub-section (5.) be left out.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Endowment periods).
.- This clause reads-
Section 101 of the principal act is amended by omitting the words “ as prescribed “ and inserting in their stead “ as determined by the Director-General “.
Section 101 of the principal act, to which reference has been made, provides -
Subject to this Part, endowments shall be payable in respect of endowment periods, as prescribed.
That means that under the present law, endowment periods are fixed by legislation ; they are four-weekly periods. This clause proposes that instead of the periods of payment of endowment being determined by the Governor-General in Council, they will be in future determined by the Director-General. I ask the Minister the consequence of the proposed change. Is it intended to alter the four-weekly periods? If not, it might be desirable to provide for two-weekly payments.
SenatorSPOONER (New South Wales - Minister for Social Services) [8.34]. - There is no intention to alter the fourweekly periods. The existing four-weekly endowment periods were originally prescribed by regulation under the Child Endowment Act which was repealed by the Social Services Consolidation Act 1947. No regulations have been made under that act except those to give effect to the reciprocal agreement with New Zealand. Endowment periods have been continued from those prescribed by child endowment regulations. This clause will obviate the need to prescribe the periods by regulation.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and7 negatived.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1959
Motion (hy Senator O’Sullivan agreed to -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to Wednesday, the 10th May next, at 3 p.m.
Senate adjourned at 9.38 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 April 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19500427_senate_19_207/>.